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: A code indicating whether the prison 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: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
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 prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time 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
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: A code indicating whether the prison 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: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
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 prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time 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
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: A code indicating whether the prison 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: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
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 prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time 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
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: A code indicating whether the prison 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: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
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 prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time 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
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
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
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
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
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: A code indicating whether the prison 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: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
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 prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time 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
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: A code indicating whether the prison 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: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
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 prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time 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
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: A code indicating whether the prison 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: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
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 prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time 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
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: A code indicating whether the prison 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: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
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 prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time 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
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: A code indicating whether the prison 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: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
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 prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time 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
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: A code indicating whether the prison 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: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
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 prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time 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
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico Fred J. Federici has announced that Albuquerque Health Services (AHS) has agreed to a $240,000 settlement relating to civil claims brought by the Department of Justice on behalf of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
AHS operates medication assisted treatment facilities that dispense controlled substances to consumers. Each AHS clinic is separately registered with the DEA and authorized to dispense controlled substances pursuant to the provisions of the Controlled Substances
Act (CSA).
At issue in the civil claim was the registration of one of AHS’s clinics in Albuquerque, which expired June 30, 2019, and was not reinstated until August 12, 2019. The government contended that the clinic nonetheless continued to dispense methadone, a schedule II controlled substance, to patients during the period the DEA registration had lapsed.
By the terms of the settlement, AHS agrees to pay $240,000 and the government releases AHS from any civil or administrative monetary claim the United States has for the covered conduct under the CSA. AHS admits no liability or wrongdoing.
“We are pleased to reach agreement that reinforces the need for compliance with the terms of the Controlled Substances Act,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Federici. “When the United States grants any entity authorization by law we have an obligation to ensure that the responsibilities and requirements on which that authority is contingent are fulfilled and that the limits of that authority are not exceeded.”
“The rules and regulations set forth in the Controlled Substance Act are in place for a reason,” said Kyle W. Williamson, Special Agent in Charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s El Paso Division. “The latest CDC overdose death statistics are a grim reminder that registrants must do their part to keep our communities safe and healthy. Through our oversight responsibilities, DEA will ensure that registrants comply with the law.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ruth F. Keegan represented the United States in the settlement agreement.
The Justice Department announced today that it has reached an agreement with Low Taek Jho, also known as Jho Low, members of his family, and trust entities Low established (collectively, the “Low Parties”) that resolves two civil forfeiture cases.
The department previously brought the cases against assets that it alleges were acquired by Low and his family using funds allegedly embezzled from 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), Malaysia’s sovereign investment development fund. The Low Parties have also agreed to cooperate in the transfer to Malaysia of certain other assets located in Hong Kong, Switzerland, and Singapore that are linked to 1MDB funds. Under the agreement, the department will coordinate with foreign partners to facilitate the liquidation and return of these assets to Malaysia.
According to the civil forfeiture complaints, from 2009 through 2015, more than $4.5 billion in funds belonging to 1MDB were allegedly misappropriated by high-level officials of 1MDB and their associates, including Low, through a criminal conspiracy involving international money laundering and bribery. 1MDB was created by the government of Malaysia to promote economic development in Malaysia through global partnerships and foreign direct investment. Its funds were intended to be used to improve the well-being of the Malaysian people.
The agreement resolves the civil forfeiture action against a luxury apartment in Paris and artwork located in Switzerland by artists Andy Warhol and Claude Monet, which Low purchased for approximately $35 million in total. In addition, parties agreed to return to Malaysia real property and cash in bank accounts valued at approximately $67 million located in Hong Kong, Switzerland, and Singapore. The United States will release a total of $3.5 million to the trust entities to pay for legal fees and costs associated with the properties. Under the agreement, none of these fees may be returned to Low or his family members.
Prior to this settlement, in total, the United States has returned or assisted in the return to Malaysia of over $1.4 billion in assets associated with the international money laundering, embezzlement, and bribery scheme.
Low separately faces charges in the Eastern District of New York for allegedly conspiring to launder billions of dollars embezzled from 1MDB and for conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by allegedly paying bribes to various Malaysian and Emirati officials, and in the District of Columbia for allegedly conspiring to make and conceal foreign and conduit campaign contributions during the United States presidential election in 2012. This agreement does not release any entity or individual from filed or potential criminal charges.
The FBI’s International Corruption Squads in New York City and Los Angeles and IRS Criminal Investigation are investigating the case.
Trial Attorneys Barbara Levy, Sean Fern, Jonathan Baum, and Joshua Sohn of the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (MLARS) and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Galatzan for the Central District of California are prosecuting the case, with significant assistance from the Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs and MLARS’ Program Management Staff.
The Justice Department also appreciates the significant assistance provided over the course of this investigation by the Attorney General’s Chambers of Malaysia, the Royal Malaysia Police, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, the Attorney-General’s Chambers of Singapore, the Singapore Police Force-Commercial Affairs Department, the Office of the Attorney General and the Federal Office of Justice of Switzerland, and French authorities.
The Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative is led by a team of dedicated prosecutors in MLARS, in partnership with federal law enforcement agencies, and often with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, to forfeit the proceeds of foreign official corruption. Individuals with information about possible proceeds of foreign corruption located in or laundered through the United States should contact federal law enforcement or send an email to kleptocracy@usdoj.gov or https://tips.fbi.gov/.
ALBUQUERQUE – A Mexican national was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his role as a foot guide in a deadly alien smuggling conspiracy where he threatened witnesses to cover up his involvement after one migrant died from heat exposure in the New Mexico desert.
There is no parole in the federal system.
According to court documents, on July 18, 2023, Texas Department of Public Safety officers pulled over a vehicle driven by Jorge Luis Estrada-Velasquez with four undocumented aliens. The aliens informed agents that other members of their group were still in the desert a few miles away and one was very ill.
Border Patrol agents and emergency medical technicians located Rafael Radillo-Bernal, 40, and three others in the desert near Strauss Road in Doña Ana County and began rendering aid to the sick individual. Tragically, the victim succumbed to the heat and passed away.
Border Patrol took the surviving seven aliens, including Radillo-Bernal, and Estrada-Velasquez, into custody. Estrada-Velasquez was charged with Conspiracy to Transport Illegal Aliens and the seven aliens, including Radillo-Bernal, were designated as material witnesses.
Initially, none of the witnesses admitted to being the foot guide, and one claimed the guide had returned to Mexico. After their initial appearances, the witnesses were released to a halfway house in Las Cruces.
Subsequent interviews with the witnesses revealed consistent accounts of crossing late at night, walking for 8-9 hours with limited water, and the victim showing signs of illness early on due to diabetes. Radillo-Bernal initially claimed to have joined the group halfway through their journey after crossing the border alone. Radillo-Bernal stated that he walked with the victim, getting to know him, and encouraging him to continue when he started falling behind. Radillo-Bernal claimed he stayed with the victim while he called his family to say he was not going to make it before leaving him in the shade of a mesquite bush to find water and help.
On September 8, 2023, two witnesses came forward alleging that Radillo-Bernal was the foot guide and had threatened them to remain silent about his role in the conspiracy.
On January 23, 2024, Radillo-Bernal pled guilty to transporting an illegal alien resulting in the death of any person. After completing his term of imprisonment, Radillo-Bernal will be subject to deportation proceedings.
Estrada-Velasquez pled guilty to conspiracy to transport illegal aliens on October 19, 2023, and was sentenced to 36 months in federal prison. After completing his term of imprisonment, Estrada-Velasquez will be subject to deportation proceedings.
U.S. Attorney Alexander M.M. Uballez and Jason T. Stevens, Acting Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations - El Paso, made the announcement today.
Homeland Security Investigations investigated this case with the assistance of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Assistant United States Attorney Alyson R. Hehr prosecuted the case.
Migrants attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border face grave dangers and risks. The harsh desert terrain, with scorching temperatures, rugged mountains, and vast stretches without water, poses immense physical challenges that have led to thousands of deaths from dehydration, heat stroke, and exposure. Migrants are also preyed upon by criminal organizations and human traffickers who exploit, extort, and abandon them in remote areas, leaving them vulnerable to violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking.
Those involved in human smuggling operations, including foot guides, drivers, and coordinators, face severe legal consequences if caught and prosecuted. Human smuggling is a federal crime under U.S. law, with penalties that can include hefty fines and lengthy prison sentences, especially in cases involving death, serious injury, or other aggravating factors.
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – Rick Benavidez, 47, of Albuquerque, pleaded guilty on April 29 in federal court to two counts of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and one count of submitting fraudulent returns, statements or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Benavidez will remain on release pending sentencing, which has not been scheduled.
A federal grand jury indicted Benavidez on Feb. 27, 2019. According to the plea agreement and other court records, from April 18, 2013, to May 31, 2013, Benavidez conspired with Damian Maron, and another man to submit fraudulent documentation, including altered pay stubs, to two credit unions to receive automobile loans. The altered pay stubs, which were provided to the applicant by Benavidez, supported a false claim that the applicant’s annual income was $85,000, when in fact it was only approximately $8,000 for 2013. The loan applications at both credit unions used the title for the same car, a 2007 Mercedes S Class, which was not for sale and which none of the men had any intention of purchasing. The funds were disbursed to “Automotive Express, Inc.,” a fictitious car dealership. The conspirators split the money, and the loan went into default.
Benavidez admitted in his plea that the fraudulently obtained loans in the guise of purchasing the Mercedes were part of a larger scheme using multiple straw applicants to obtain similar loans. As a result, defrauded financial institutions disbursed a total of $359,662.97.
Benavidez also acknowledged an additional loan scheme involving another alleged conspirator, Willie Lee Edwards, who is currently wanted by the FBI. The conspirators in this second scheme applied for a total of $1,154,493.42, of which $999,993.42 was disbursed by financial institutions.
After being charged with conspiracy and bank fraud, Benavidez submitted a false document to the IRS purporting to designate the assigned U.S. District Court judge as his fiduciary, knowing that the designation was false because the judge had not agreed to it and was not, nor had he ever been, Benavidez's legal fiduciary.
Maron pleaded guilty on March 10, 2020, to one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and one count of bank fraud, and is currently awaiting sentencing. Maron faces up to 30 years in prison.
By the terms of the plea agreement, Benavidez faces between 51 and 63 months in prison.
The FBI Albuquerque Field Office investigated this case with assistance from Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, and the New Mexico Office of the Attorney General. Assistant United States Attorneys Sean J. Sullivan and Taylor F. Hartstein are prosecuting the case.
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – United States Attorney John C. Anderson, 45, of Santa Fe, New Mexico, has announced his resignation effective 11:59 pm on Jan. 2, 2021. After his resignation, he plans to join a private law firm in the Santa Fe area.
Mr. Anderson was nominated to serve as U.S. Attorney in November of 2017 and was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Feb. 15, 2018.
“John Anderson has performed his duties as U.S. Attorney in a manner that has brought great credit upon the Department and himself,” said Attorney General William P. Barr. “John’s leadership has been defined by his commitment to the rule of law and his unwavering dedication to the Department’s principal mission of securing the safety and welfare of the people of the United States. In the District of New Mexico, this has included promoting state and local partnerships, while spearheading the cause of building long-term, sustained efforts to take violent criminals off the streets of Albuquerque. John has been resolute in his commitment to fighting for justice on behalf of victims of crime throughout New Mexico, including in our Indian communities. I am deeply appreciative of the many different facets of John’s service.”
Prior to his appointment as U.S. Attorney, Mr. Anderson had been with the law firm of Holland & Hart in Santa Fe since 2013, where his legal practice focused on complex litigation and government investigations. Mr. Anderson previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of New Mexico from 2008 to 2013, primarily focusing on the investigation and prosecution of white-collar crime. Before serving as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mr. Anderson was a litigation associate at the New York City law firm of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP from 2004 to 2008, where his practice focused on antitrust, securities and general commercial litigation.
Mr. Anderson received his A.B. from Bowdoin College and his J.D. cum laude from Fordham University School of Law in New York City. Mr. Anderson clerked for Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Santa Fe, N.M., from 2003 to 2004.
Mr. Anderson has provided the following statement:
Serving as United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico has been the highest honor of my career. I am deeply grateful to the President, to Attorneys General Sessions and Barr, and to Senators Udall and Heinrich, for their support and confidence in entrusting me with the solemn responsibility of serving as United States Attorney. I am also exceptionally thankful for my family, without whose constant love and support I would never have been able fulfill the obligations of this office. Perhaps most of all, I am indebted to the career men and women of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico who work tirelessly to promote public safety and ensure that justice is done. It has been a privilege to call them my colleagues.
I am undeniably proud of what this Office has accomplished over the last three years. Through increasing federal involvement and the deployment of federal resources, we have made significant strides toward reducing violent and dangerous crime in Albuquerque. In doing so we have forged ever stronger partnerships between federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement. I am hopeful that these partnerships will endure and flourish long after I am gone.
We have redoubled our commitment to the cause of justice in New Mexico’s tribal communities, where violence remains an unacceptably common reality of life for too many Native Americans. I am grateful to have been able to increase the number of prosecutors dedicated to pursuing justice for victims of crimes in Indian Country and continually amazed at the selflessness and dedication of our victim-witness advocates. I am similarly proud that New Mexico has taken a leading role in addressing the crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons, including through the addition of a contractor dedicated to developing and implementing national and local protocols to address this issue.
At the same time, we have significantly increased our efforts to combat transnational organized crime, especially on our southern border with Mexico. The flow of illegal drugs into the United States, and the illegal export of firearms from the United States into Mexico, make for a deadly combination on both sides of the border, and the callous business of cross-border human trafficking similarly endangers innocent lives. I am honored to have been a part of a sustained effort to combat these pernicious and illegal endeavors.
In each these areas, our efforts would be for naught without the selfless dedication of our federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement partners. To all of them, I offer my deepest admiration and gratitude.
Within our Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has acted with diligence and commitment to ensure the integrity of federal programs and the just resolution of civil claims.
Finally, during my tenure I have been privileged to hire 34 Assistant United States Attorneys. More than any other achievement or accomplishment, they will inform my legacy. I have the utmost confidence in every one of them. From my new vantage as a private citizen, and with a quiet pride, I will watch their careers progress, cheer their successes, and celebrate their achievements.
Much work, of course, will remain for my successors. Violent crime continues to represent a stubborn impediment to New Mexico’s ability to realize its full potential, and the increasing flow of mass-produced methamphetamine across our southern border promises only to exacerbate that challenge. At the same time, too many in our Native American communities live in fear of violence, and without adequate law enforcement resources.
Nonetheless, I leave the U.S. Attorney’s Office optimistic for its future and confident that it will continue to pursue justice with vigor, while remaining faithful to its enduring principles and those of the Department of Justice.
ALBUQUERQUE – Duane Aaron Skeet, 49, an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation who resides in Chichiltah, NM, was sentenced yesterday in federal court in Albuquerque, NM for his conviction on a felony child abuse charge. Skeet was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison followed by a year of supervised release for endangering the lives and health of 25 Navajo children who were under his care while he was operating a school bus under the influence of alcohol.
Skeet previously pleaded guilty to this child abuse offense on March 26, 2019. In his plea agreement, Skeet admitted that on the afternoon of Sept. 24, 2018, while he was employed as a school bus driver by the Bureau of Indian Education, he consumed alcohol before arriving for work at the Chi Chi Tah Jones Ranch School, which is located on the Navajo Indian Reservation. Skeet acknowledged that he was intoxicated as he drove away from the school in a school bus with 25 Navajo children, ranging from five to 12 years in age, on board.
According to court records, due to Skeet’s intoxicated state, the school bus swerved from side to side on the roadway. Skeet continued driving the school bus in a damaged condition after hitting an embankment; almost flipped the bus while taking a sharp turn at a high rate of speed; and almost drove off a bridge near a canyon. At times, children were thrown back and forth inside of the bus, although none suffered bodily harm. Skeet’s bus route lasted almost 1 hour and covered approximately twenty-five miles with eight stops along at which children were dropped off, fortunately without injury.
The Window Rock office of the Navajo Nation Division of Public Safety investigated this case with the assistance of the McKinley County Sheriff’s Office and the New Mexico State Police. Assistant U.S. Attorney David P. Cowen prosecuted the case.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: 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: A code indicating whether the prison 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: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
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 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 prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time 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
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: A code indicating whether the prison 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: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
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 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 prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time 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
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – Alexander M.M. Uballez, United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, announced that Tanya Puccini was sentenced on Aug. 30 to three years of probation for introduction and delivery of misbranded drugs. Puccini, 47, of Albuquerque, pleaded guilty on Jan. 7.
Puccini was the owner and operator of Allstar Nutrition, a health supplement store in Albuquerque. In December 2017, Puccini began selling Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARMs), a type of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) that stimulate the growth of certain muscle and bone. These products are prohibited by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and the World Anti-Doping Agency and are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
These drugs were sold in bottles labeled “not for human consumption” and “for research purposes only.” Puccini nonetheless provided verbal, printed and occasionally written instructions to purchasers for personal use of the drugs for fitness gains, such as muscle growth. For example, Puccini provided a written note to a customer in which she represented that the drugs were not “technically” SARMs, but included instructions for using the drugs to promote muscle growth.
Altogether, from December 2017 through June 2021, Puccini made retail sales of at least $107,486 of unapproved PEDs.
“Misbranded drugs that are disguised as dietary supplements and contain potentially harmful hidden ingredients place American consumers at risk,” said Special Agent in Charge Charles L. Grinstead, FDA Office of Criminal Investigations Kansas City Field Office. “We will continue to investigate and bring to justice those who endanger the U.S. public health by distributing fraudulent and potentially dangerous products.”
Consistent with a stipulation in the plea agreement, Puccini forfeits her interest in any drug she received or transferred that is or was adulterated or misbranded. The Court will issue a money judgement within 30 days.
The FDA investigated this case. Assistant United States Attorney Jeremy Peña is prosecuting the case.
A medical doctor and entrepreneur was sentenced to 119 months and 29 days in prison today for defrauding his former company’s shareholders and for failing to account for and failing to pay employment taxes, announced Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg of the Justice Department’s Tax Division, U.S. Attorney Dana J. Boente for the Eastern District of Virginia, Chief Don Fort of the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) and Assistant Director in Charge Andrew W. Vale of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.
According to documents filed with the court, in or about September 2000, Sreedhar Potarazu, 51, of Potomac, Maryland, an ophthalmic surgeon licensed in Maryland and Virginia, founded VitalSpring Technologies Inc. (VitalSpring), a Delaware corporation. VitalSpring operated in McLean, Virginia and provided data analysis and services relating to health care expenditures. In or around the end of 2015, VitalSpring started doing business as Enziime LLC, a Delaware corporation. From its inception, Potarazu was VitalSpring’s Chief Executive Officer and President, and served on its Board of Directors.
From at least 2008, Potarazu provided materially false and misleading information to VitalSpring’s shareholders to induce more than $49 million in capital investments in the company. Potarazu represented on numerous occasions that VitalSpring was a financially successful company and that the sale of VitalSpring was imminent, which would have resulted in profits for shareholders. Potarazu also admitted that he concealed from shareholders that VitalSpring failed to account for and pay over more than $7.5 million in employment taxes to the IRS. For example, in 2014, Potarazu provided shareholders with a written summary of operating results that reflected VitalSpring’s 2013 revenues to be approximately $12.9 million when, in fact, the 2013 revenue was less than $1 million.
“Like a director employing actors and props on a stage, Sreedhar Potarazu arranged for an imposter to pose as a buyer, provided a link to a bogus website and supplied fraudulent balance sheets, phony bank statements and false tax returns to convince VitalSpring investors and potential buyers that the company was financially healthy and up-to-date on its taxes,” said Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Goldberg. “As a result of his actions, shareholders are out more than $49.5 million and over $7.5 million in employment taxes due to the U.S. Treasury were diverted and never paid. With Potarazu’s conviction and the sentencing hearings in this case, his fraud has been revealed, and today’s imposition of a 119 month sentence holds him fully accountable for his actions.”
“For years Potarazu enriched himself by abusing the trust of his company’s many investors and stealing millions of dollars from them through a complex scheme of fraud and deceit,” said U.S. Attorney Dana J. Boente for the Eastern District of Virginia. “This case is a prime example of this office’s ongoing commitment to bringing white-collar criminals to justice.”
“For almost a decade, Potarazu put greed ahead of his shareholders and employees by building a complex web of deceit and fraud while at the same time evading paying his employment tax liability,” said Chief Don Fort, IRS Criminal Investigation. “Today’s sentencing serves as a reminder that these types of criminal actions will be punished and IRS-CI is committed to bringing culpable individuals to justice.”
“Potarazu ran a multi-million dollar scheme that caused significant financial losses to VitalSpring shareholders for almost a decade,” said Assistant Director in Charge Andrew W. Vale of the FBI’s Washington Field Office. “The FBI is committed to bringing white-collar criminals to justice and we will continue to work closely with our law enforcement partners, to investigate, charge and prosecute those who engage in criminally deceitful business practices.”
Scheme to Defraud
From VitalSpring’s inception, but specifically from 2008 until his arrest in October 2016, Potarazu solicited investments through in-person meetings, emails, telephone conference calls, webinars, and phone calls. From in or about 2008 through in or about 2016, Potarazu raised approximately $49 million from more than 174 victim investors.
Potarazu induced investments from shareholders by making false representations, concealing material facts, and telling deceptive half-truths about VitalSpring’s financial condition, tax compliance, and alleged imminent sale. Potarazu also caused someone to pose as a representative of a prospective buyer on shareholder conference calls to add legitimacy to his claims regarding VitalSpring’s imminent sale.
VitalSpring never generated a profit. Nonetheless, Potarazu falsely represented to shareholders that VitalSpring’s financial position and profitability was improving from 2008 to 2016, and that VitalSpring had millions of dollars in cash reserves. To support his scheme, Potarazu presented fake bank statements to some shareholders that showed inflated balances.
Potarazu also concealed from shareholders that VitalSpring owed substantial employment tax to the IRS. Potarazu provided or caused to be provided false corporate income tax returns to some shareholders that overstated VitalSpring’s income and omitted the accruing employment tax liability.
In November 2014, Potarazu created a Special Review Committee (SRC) in response to a lawsuit filed in Delaware by shareholders that claimed Potarazu misled the victim investors about VitalSpring’s finances, the status of the impending sale, and Potarazu’s compensation. Potarazu provided the SRC with false financial records, fake tax returns, and fake bank statements to induce the SRC to believe that VitalSpring was financially healthy and to cause the SRC to make materially false representations to the Delaware court and victim investors. He also falsely represented that the alleged imminent sale would yield substantial returns to the shareholders, and used this to induce additional investments. Members of the SRC traveled interstate to the Eastern District of Virginia to attend meetings in which Potarazu presented false information for their review.
In truth, there was no imminent sale pending. Potarazu provided false financial records, including fake balance sheets, fabricated bank statements, and false tax returns, to several prospective buyers, financial advisors and investment banks. In December 2014, when he was questioned by Prospective Buyer 1 as to the accuracy and authenticity of bank records provided, Potarazu presented false or misleading emails purporting to be from a bank employee to bolster the legitimacy of the false bank records. Potarazu also presented Prospective Buyer 1 with a link to a fake website that was made to look like a website for a major national bank, and which referred Prospective Buyer 1 to VitalSpring’s false bank statements, and used a shadow, secondary email account assigned to a VitalSpring employee to provide false information to Prospective Buyer 1, thereby creating the appearance that Potarazu had not provided the information.
In October 2014, Prospective Buyer 2 informed Potarazu that it was no longer interested in VitalSpring. Nevertheless, Potarazu continued to represent to shareholders for months thereafter that there was a deal pending with Prospective Buyer 2. In March 2015 and February 2016, Potarazu organized, or caused to be organized, conference calls with shareholders to discuss the alleged sale. In advance of the calls, Potarazu obtained questions from the shareholders and used them to prepare the individual who posed as a representative of Prospective Buyer 2 for each call.
From 2011 to 2015, in addition to his salary paid by VitalSpring, Potarazu diverted at least $5 million from the victim investors and VitalSpring for his own personal use.
Employment Tax Fraud
Potarazu admitted that from 2007 to 2016, VitalSpring accrued employment tax liabilities of more than $7.5 million. Potarazu withheld taxes from VitalSpring employees’ wages, but failed to fully pay over the amounts withheld to the IRS. As CEO and President of VitalSpring, Potarazu was a “responsible person” obligated to collect, truthfully account for, and pay over VitalSpring’s employment taxes. Ultimate and final decision-making authority regarding VitalSpring’s business activities rested with Potarazu.
Potarazu was aware of the employment tax liability as early as 2007 and between 2007 and 2016, was frequently apprised of VitalSpring’s employment tax responsibilities by his employees. In addition, IRS special agents interviewed Potarazu in 2011 and informed him of the employment tax liability. In all but one quarter between the first quarter of 2007 and the last quarter of 2011, as well as the second and third quarters of 2015, Potarazu failed to file VitalSpring’s Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return (Forms 941) with the IRS. Potarazu also failed to pay over any of the employment tax withheld from VitalSpring’s employees’ wages in all but one quarter between the second quarter of 2007 and the third quarter of 2011, as well as the third and fourth quarters of 2015.
Between 2008 and 2015, instead of paying over employment tax, Potarazu caused VitalSpring to make millions of dollars of expenditures, including thousands of dollars in transfers to himself and others, the publication of his book, “Get Off the Dime,” a sedan car service and travel.
In addition to the term of prison imposed, U.S. District Court Judge Gerald Bruce Lee ordered Potarazu to serve three years of supervised release, and to pay $49,511,169 in restitution to the shareholders and $7,691,071 to the IRS, and forfeiture of several homes, vehicles, and bank accounts. He was remanded into custody.
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Goldberg and U.S. Attorney Boente commended special agents of IRS CI and the FBI, who conducted the investigation, and Assistant Chief Caryn Finley and Trial Attorney Jack Morgan of the Tax Division, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jack Hanly, who prosecuted the case.
Additional information about the Tax Division’s enforcement efforts can be found on the division’s website.
On Dec. 2, a federal jury in Greeneville, Tennessee, convicted Peter Bolos, 44, of Tampa, Florida, of 22 counts of mail fraud, conspiracy to commit health care fraud and introduction of a misbranded drug into interstate commerce, following a month-long trial.
According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Bolos and his co-conspirators, Andrew Assad, Michael Palso, Maikel Bolos, Larry Smith, Scott Roix, HealthRight LLC, Mihir Taneja, Arun Kapoor, and Sterling Knight Pharmaceuticals, as well as various other companies owned by them, deceived pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), such as Express Scripts and CVS Caremark, regarding tens of thousands of prescriptions. The PBMs processed and approved claims for prescription drugs on behalf of insurance companies. Bolos and his co-conspirators defrauded the PBMs into authorizing claims worth more than $174 million that private insurers such as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, and public insurers such as Medicaid and TRICARE, paid to pharmacies controlled by the co-conspirators.
Court documents and evidence at trial established that Bolos, Assad and Palso owned and operated Synergy Pharmacy in Palm Harbor, Florida. Under their direction, Synergy agreed with Scott Roix, a Florida telemarketer operating under the name HealthRight, to generate prescriptions for Synergy and the other pharmacies involved in the scheme. The prescriptions were typically for drugs such as pain creams, scar creams and vitamins. To obtain the prescriptions, evidence showed Roix used HealthRight’s telemarketing platform as a telemedicine service, calling consumers and deceiving them into agreeing to accept the drugs and to provide their personal insurance information. HealthRight then paid doctors to authorize the prescriptions through its telemedicine platform, even though the doctors never communicated directly with the patients and relied solely on the telemarketers’ screening process as the basis for their authorizations. Because this faulty and fraudulent process made the prescriptions invalid, the drugs were misbranded under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Synergy and the other pharmacies nonetheless dispensed the drugs to consumers as part of the scheme, so that Bolos could submit fraudulent reimbursement claims.
Court documents and evidence at trial established that during the conspiracy, which lasted from May 2015 through April 2018, Bolos paid Roix more than $30 million to buy at least 60,000 invalid prescriptions generated by HealthRight. Evidence showed Bolos selected specific medications for the prescriptions that he could submit for highly profitable reimbursements. In addition, Bolos used illegal means to hide his activity from the PBMs so that he could remain undetected. Evidence showed that Bolos was responsible for at least $89 million out of the total $174 million in fraudulently paid billings.
“The defendants deceived consumers in order to facilitate the distribution of drugs without proper medical oversight, and overbilled insurers for illegal prescriptions,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Arun G. Rao of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “The Department will continue to investigate and prosecute individuals who use telemedicine to advance fraudulent schemes that violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”
“The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee applauds the unwavering efforts of the multiple agencies involved in this collaborative investigation to bring this extensive healthcare fraud and misbranding scheme to justice,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Francis M. Hamilton III for the Eastern District of Tennessee. “The scope and nature of this fraud and misbranding scheme shock the conscience. Patients were given medications that they neither requested nor wanted, and the trial proof demonstrated that the prescriptions were specifically chosen by Bolos to maximize the fraudulent scheme’s profits, rather than for the patients’ healthcare needs. The guilty verdict against Bolos and the guilty pleas obtained from his co-defendants should send a strong message that the Department of Justice will aggressively prosecute fraud against health insurance providers.”
“Healthcare fraud is an egregious crime problem that impacts every American,” said Special Agent in Charge Joseph E. Carrico of the FBI’s Knoxville Field Office. “The guilty verdict was a result of a multi-agency investigation into a complex health care fraud scheme that required substantial investigative resources. Along with its law enforcement partners, the FBI remains committed to investigate these crimes and prosecute all those that are intent in defrauding the American public."
“Distributing misbranded prescription drugs in the U.S. marketplace places patients’ health at risk,” said Special Agent in Charge Justin C. Fielder of the FDA Office of Criminal Investigations Miami Field Office. “We will continue to pursue and bring to justice those who put profits ahead of public health.”
“Bolos and his co-conspirators used their pharmacies to fraudulently bill insurance companies hundreds of millions of dollars, and that type of health care fraud impacts everyone,” said Special Agent in Charge John Condon of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Tampa. “HSI will continue to work with our law enforcement partners at the federal, state and local level to investigate all fraud and bring those responsible to justice.”
“Bolos and his co-conspirators sought to increase their profits by executing a comprehensive health care fraud scheme involving innocent patients,” said Special Agent in Charge Derrick L. Jackson of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. “This conviction should serve as a warning to individuals who wish to deceive the government and steal from taxpayers. Alongside our law enforcement partners, we will continue to pursue medical professionals who engage in fraudulent activity.”
“The verdict in this case sends a clear message that these types of schemes will not be tolerated,” said Special Agent in Charge Matthew Modafferi of the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General in the Northeast Area Field Office. “The Special Agents of the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General will continue to work closely with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and our law enforcement partners to bring to justice those who commit these kinds of offenses.”
Roix, Assad, Palso, Smith, Maikel Bolos and various associated business entities previously pleaded guilty to their roles in the conspiracy. Taneja, Kapoor, and Sterling Knight pleaded guilty to felony misbranding in a conspiracy with Bolos. U.S. District Judge J. Ronnie Greer set sentencing for Bolos for May 19, 2022, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville. Sentencings for the other defendants will be set for dates in 2022.
The trial and plea agreements resulted from a multi-year investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (Nashville); Food and Drug Administration Office of Criminal Investigations (Nashville); U.S. Postal Service, Office of Inspector General (Buffalo); Federal Bureau of Investigation (Knoxville and Johnson City, Tennessee); Office of Personnel Management Office of Inspector General (Atlanta); and the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations (Tampa). The U.S. Marshals Service also assisted in the investigation and the forfeiture of assets.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys TJ Harker and Mac Heavener for the Eastern District of Tennessee and Trial Attorney David Gunn of the Department of Justice Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch in Washington, and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in Knoxville, prosecuted and tried the case. They were assisted by Barbra Pemberton, Bryan Brandenburg and April Denard from the U.S. Attorney’s office.
The Justice Department, along with federal partners, announced today a $7.2 billion settlement with Deutsche Bank resolving federal civil claims that Deutsche Bank misled investors in the packaging, securitization, marketing, sale and issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) between 2006 and 2007. This $7.2 billion agreement represents the single largest RMBS resolution for the conduct of a single entity. The settlement requires Deutsche Bank to pay a $3.1 billion civil penalty under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA). Under the settlement, Deutsche Bank will also provide $4.1 billion in relief to underwater homeowners, distressed borrowers and affected communities.
“This resolution holds Deutsche Bank accountable for its illegal conduct and irresponsible lending practices, which caused serious and lasting damage to investors and the American public,” said Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch. “Deutsche Bank did not merely mislead investors: it contributed directly to an international financial crisis. The cost of this misconduct is significant: Deutsche Bank will pay a $3.1 billion civil penalty, and provide an additional $4.1 billion in relief to homeowners, borrowers, and communities harmed by its practices. Our settlement today makes clear that institutions like Deutsche Bank cannot evade responsibility for the great cost exacted by their conduct.”
“This $7.2 billion resolution – the largest of its kind – recognizes the immense breadth of Deutsche Bank’s unlawful scheme by demanding a painful penalty from the bank, along with billions of dollars of relief to the communities and homeowners that continue to struggle because of Wall Street’s greed,” said Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Bill Baer. “The Department will remain relentless in holding financial institutions accountable for the harm their misconduct inflicted on investors, our economy and American consumers.”
“In the Statement of Facts accompanying this settlement, Deutsche Bank admits making false representations and omitting material information from disclosures to investors about the loans included in RMBS securities sold by the Bank. This misconduct, combined with that of the other banks we have already settled with, hurt our economy and threatened the banking system,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “To make matters worse, the Bank’s conduct encouraged shoddy mortgage underwriting and improvident lending that caused borrowers to lose their homes because they couldn’t pay their loans. Today’s settlement shows once again that the Department will aggressively pursue misconduct that hurts the American public.”
“Investors who bought RMBS from Deutsche Bank, and who suffered catastrophic losses as a result, included individuals and institutions that form the backbone of our community,” said U.S. Attorney Robert L. Capers for the Eastern District of New York. “Deutsche Bank repeatedly assured investors that its RMBS were safe investments. Instead of ensuring that its representations to investors were accurate and transparent, so that investors could make properly informed investment decisions, Deutsche Bank repeatedly misled investors and withheld critical information about the loans it securitized. Time and again, the bank put investors at risk in pursuit of profit. Deutsche Bank has now been held accountable.”
“Deutsche Bank knowingly securitized billions of dollars of defective mortgages and subsequently made false representations to investors about the quality of the underlying loans,” said Special Agent In Charge Steven Perez of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of the Inspector General. “Its actions resulted in enormous losses to investors to whom Deutsche Bank sold these defective Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities. Today’s announcement reaffirms our commitment to working with our law enforcement partners to hold accountable those who deceived investors in pursuit of profits, and contributed to our nation’s financial crisis. We are proud to have worked with the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.”
As part of the settlement, Deutsche Bank agreed to a detailed Statement of Facts. That statement describes how Deutsche Bank knowingly made false and misleading representations to investors about the characteristics of the mortgage loans it securitized in RMBS worth billions of dollars issued by the bank between 2006 and 2007. For example:
Deutsche Bank represented to investors that loans securitized in its RMBS were originated generally in accordance with mortgage loan originators’ underwriting guidelines. But as Deutsche Bank now acknowledges, the bank’s own reviews confirmed that “aggressive” revisions to the loan originators’ underwriting guidelines allowed for loans to be underwritten to anyone with “half a pulse.” More generally, Deutsche Bank knew, based on the results of due diligence, that for some securitized loan pools, more than 50 percent of the loans subjected to due diligence did not meet loan originators’ guidelines.
Deutsche Bank also knowingly misrepresented that loans had been reviewed to ensure the ability of borrowers to repay their loans. As Deutsche Bank acknowledges, the bank’s own employees recognized that Deutsche Bank would “tolerate misrepresentation” with “misdirected lending practices” as to borrower ability to pay, accepting even blocked-out borrower pay stubs that concealed borrowers’ actual incomes. As a Deutsche Bank employee stated, “What goes around will eventually come around; when performance (default) begins affecting profits and/or the investors who purchase the securities, only then will Wall St. take notice. For now, the buying continues.”
Deutsche Bank concealed from investors that significant numbers of borrowers had second liens on their properties. In one instance, a supervisory Deutsche Bank trader specifically instructed his team that if investors asked about second liens, “‘[t]ell them verbally . . . [b]ut don’t put in the prospectus.’” Deutsche Bank knew that these second liens increased the likelihood that a borrower would default on his or her loan.
Deutsche Bank purchased and securitized loans with substantial defects to provide “flexibility” to the mortgage originators on whom Deutsche Bank’s RMBS program depended for a continued supply of loans. Indeed, after the president of a large mortgage originator told Deutsche Bank he was “very upset with the rejection percentage,” Deutsche Bank’s diligence team was instructed, on three separate occasions, to clear loans it previously determined should be rejected.
While Deutsche Bank conducted due diligence on samples of loans it securitized in RMBS, Deutsche Bank knew that the size and composition of these loan samples frequently failed to capture loans that did not meet its representations to investors. In fact, Deutsche Bank knew “the more you sample, the more you reject.”
Deutsche Bank knowingly and intentionally securitized loans originated based on unsupported and fraudulent appraisals. Deutsche Bank knew that mortgage originators were “‘giving’ appraisers the value they want[ed]” and expecting the resulting appraisals to meet the originators’ desired value, regardless of the actual value of the property. Deutsche Bank concealed its knowledge of pervasive and consistent appraisal fraud, instead representing to investors home valuation metrics based on appraisals it knew to be fraudulent. Deutsche Bank misrepresented to investors the value of the properties securing the loans securitized in its RMBS and concealed from investors that it knew that the value of the properties securing the loans was far below the value reflected by the originator’s appraisal.
By May 2007, Deutsche Bank knew that there was an increasing trend of overvalued properties being sold to Deutsche Bank for securitization. As one employee noted, “We are finding ourselves going back quite often and clearing large numbers of loans [with inflated appraisals] to bring down the deletion percentages.” Deutsche Bank nonetheless purchased and securitized such loans because it received favorable prices on the fraudulent loans. Ultimately, Deutsche Bank enriched itself by paying reduced prices for risky loans while representing to investors valuation metrics based on appraisals the Bank knew to be inflated.
Deutsche Bank represented to investors that disclosed borrower FICO scores were accurate as of the “cut-off date” of the RMBS issuance. However, Deutsche Bank knowingly represented borrowers’ FICO scores as of the time of the origination of their loans despite the bank’s knowledge that these scores had often declined materially by the cut-off date.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Edward K. Newman, Matthew R. Belz, Jeremy Turk, and Ryan M. Wilson of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York investigated Deutsche Bank’s conduct in connection with the issuance and sale of RMBS between 2006 and 2007. The investigation was conducted with the Office of the Inspector General for the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
The $3.1 billion civil monetary penalty resolves claims under FIRREA, which authorizes the federal government to impose civil penalties against financial institutions that violate various predicate offenses, including wire and mail fraud. It is one of the largest FIRREA penalties ever paid. The settlement does not release any individuals from potential criminal or civil liability. As part of the settlement, Deutsche Bank has agreed to fully cooperate with investigations related to the conduct covered by the agreement.
Deutsche Bank will also provide $4.1 billion in the form of relief to aid consumers harmed by its unlawful conduct. Specifically, Deutsche Bank will provide loan modifications, including loan forgiveness and forbearance, to distressed and underwater homeowners throughout the country. It will also provide financing for affordable rental and for-sale housing throughout the country. Deutsche Bank’s provision of consumer relief will be overseen by an independent monitor who will have authority to approve the selection of any third party used by Deutsche Bank to provide consumer relief.
To report RMBS fraud, go to: http://www.stopfraud.gov/rmbs.html.
About the RMBS Working Group:
The RMBS Working Group, part of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, was established by the Attorney General in late January 2012. The Working Group has been dedicated to initiating, organizing, and advancing new and existing investigations by federal and state authorities into fraud and abuse in the RMBS market that helped precipitate the 2008 Financial Crisis. The Working Group’s efforts to date have resulted in settlements providing for tens of billions of dollars in civil penalties and consumer relief from banks and other entities that are alleged to have committed fraud in connection with the issuance of RMBS.
CLEVELAND – Federal, county, and local law enforcement officials today announced that 59 individuals were charged and arrested in connection with firearms-trafficking, narcotics, conspiracy, or other firearms offenses after a three month, violent-crime-reduction initiative in Cleveland this summer. The vast majority were charged in United States District Court, while the remaining individuals were charged in state court. These individuals were apprehended in a series of coordinated arrests made during the last two weeks.
United States Attorney Rebecca C. Lutzko made the announcement earlier today. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) Director Steven M. Dettelbach, United States Marshal Peter J. Elliott, and Cleveland Mayor Justin M. Bibb provided additional details relating to the initiative, as well as regarding larger firearms enforcement and violence-prevention efforts.
"The Justice Department's work to disrupt and dismantle the criminal gun trafficking pipelines that flood our communities with illegal guns had never been more urgent than it is now," said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. "That is why our prosecutors and agents are working more closely than ever before with our local law enforcement partners to get illegal guns off of our streets and hold accountable those who put illegal guns in the hands of violent criminals."
Indictments and complaints were recently unsealed in federal court. They detail a lengthy investigation, led by ATF, that focused on reducing firearms-related crime in several areas of Cleveland by studying data about areas with gun-crime violence, then identifying illegal firearms sellers to disrupt their trafficking. The investigation resulted in the seizure of over 240 firearms, 203 of which law enforcement purchased from illegal sellers and permanently removed from Cleveland’s streets. NIBIN data shows that a significant number of those firearms are connected to violent criminal activity, including homicides and felonious assaults, that took place in Cleveland and surrounding Northeast Ohio suburbs in 2022 and 2023. Of the purchased firearms, 17 are “ghost guns”—meaning, unserialized and untraceable firearms, typically assembled at home—and 28 are machinegun conversion devices or “switches”—a device that enables a firearm to fire in fully automatic mode.
In one case, law enforcement purchased more than 50 firearms from a group of 7 people working together to sell firearms on Cleveland’s streets, even though none of the involved individuals holds a federal firearms license. Those firearms included stolen firearms, firearms with obliterated serial numbers, “switches,” already-loaded firearms, assault rifles, and firearms that had been previously used to commit violent crimes. Sometimes, these individuals also sold controlled substances to law enforcement officers at the same time. In two additional cases, law enforcement purchased, respectively, 33 firearms (including “switches”) and 23 firearms (including “switches”) from two other individuals who do not hold a federal firearms license. Many of these sales took place in public parking lots of business establishments during business hours or in recreational areas while nearby uninvolved, law-abiding citizens were engaged in their day-to-day errands or engaged in recreational activities.
Also during this investigation, the ATF identified 5 individuals who were actively engaged in a conspiracy to conduct a home invasion and rob, at gunpoint, what they believed to be a “stash house” containing several kilograms of cocaine. Law enforcement intervened before these individuals could carry out their plan. Additionally, during this investigation, law enforcement purchased or seized almost 1.5 kilograms of cocaine, 215 grams of cocaine base, almost 3 kilograms of methamphetamine, 686 fentanyl pills, almost 1.5 kilograms of heroin/fentanyl mix, and 1,144 MDMA pills (otherwise known as Molly or Ecstasy).
Some defendants were charged together, but several others were charged individually. In all cases, however, the charges stemmed from the extensive, targeted, and sustained effort this past summer, led by ATF and assisted by other federal, state, and local law enforcement partners, to clamp down on the illegal firearms trafficking, use, and possession, as well as the associated distribution of drugs, in Cleveland.
The following is a breakdown of the charges in United States District Court, according to court documents:
MALACHI BERRY, 21, Cleveland, DARVELL JACKSON, 20, Cleveland, and STEVEN ARMSTRONG, 19, Cleveland, were charged together in a Conspiracy to Possess a Machinegun. JACKSON and ARMSTRONG were further charged with Illegal Possession of a Machinegun.
In the same indictment, these individuals, along with NIMAR LINDER, 21, Cleveland, were also charged with Conspiracy to Engage in the Business of Dealing Firearms without a Federal Firearms License.
ARMSTRONG and LINDER were charged as Felons in Possession of a Firearm.
According to court documents, the following individuals have been indicted on Distribution of Drugs charges:
CARLOS DUPREE, 43, Cleveland, DOMINIQUE GOLDSBY, 32, Cleveland, JESSE MCDADE, 41, Cleveland, NORMAN YOUNG, 37, Cleveland, MARTIN
GOODSON, 41, Cleveland, LAJUAN ERWIN, 25, Mayfield Heights, CHEVEZ MOORER, 23, Cleveland, AARON WIMBLEY, 22, Garfield Heights, ALEXANDER
DUNCAN, 19, Cleveland, DAMIEN BODY, 39, Cleveland, DERRICK DONALD, 41, Cleveland, NAHUM HOLMES, 31, Brook Park, AKIL EDMONDS, 39, Cleveland, WILLIE C. JACKSON, 36, Cleveland, and DEANDRE SMITH, 36, Cleveland.
Indicted together were JOSEAN ORTIZ-STUART, 34, Cleveland, JESUS VEGA, 29, Cleveland, who were both charged with Distribution of Drugs. Also named in that indictment was GERALD MATOS, 38, Cleveland, who was charged with being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm.
Indicted together were ELIAS PAGAN 32, Cleveland, IVAN SANTANA, 26, Cleveland, ANGEL SANTIAGO, 46, also of Cleveland. PAGAN also faces numerous charges for Distribution of Drugs, as well being a Felon in Possession of Firearms, and both PAGAN and SANTANA were also charged with Engaging in the Business of Importing, Manufacturing, or Dealing in Firearms Without a Federal Firearms License.
SANTIAGO is also charged with Distribution of Drugs.
AMBRAY UNDERWOOD, 25, Euclid, was charged in an indictment for Conspiracy to Distribute Drugs, and Drug Distribution.
WILLIE EARL JACKSON, 26, Cleveland, and SHANE PLATS, 31, Ashtabula, were charged in the same indictment with Engaging in the Business of Dealing Firearms without a Federal Firearms License. WIILIE EARL JACKSON was also charged in that indictment with Trafficking in Firearms.
DESHONN BROWN age, 19, Cleveland; DEMARIUS JEFFERSON, 18, Cleveland, were both charged with Illegal Possession of Machineguns.
JACOB PLUMB, 40, Parma, was charged with Distribution of Drugs and Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime.
ISAIAH OVERTON, 23, Cleveland, and CHARLES MORRIS, 33, East Cleveland, were charged in a single indictment with Distribution of Drugs. Additionally, OVERTON was charged with Using and Carrying a Firearm During and in Relation to a Drug Trafficking Crime.
CORTE’Z BUGGS, 29, Cleveland was charged in an indictment with Distribution of Drugs and Receipt of Firearm while Under Felony Indictment.
MICHAEL MCPHERRAN, 38, Parma, Ohio, was charged with Conspiracy to Distribute Drugs, and Distribution of Drugs.
HAROLD PEARL, 39, Cleveland, was charged with Distribution of Drugs and being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm.
Charged by complaint with Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Drugs and Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime were ALANTE HEARD, 33, Cleveland, ANTONIO SWEENEY, 24, Cleveland, MAURICE COMMONS, 22, North Randall, and MARKUS WILLIAMS, 33, Cleveland.
Charged with being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm were MARQUIS HENSON, 38, Cleveland, DEON BROWN, 19, Cleveland, and CLARENCE PAYNE, 38, Cleveland.
KENNETH SMITH, 23, East Cleveland, was charged with Engaging in the Business of Dealing Firearms without a Federal Firearms License, Illegal Possession of a Machinegun, and being a Felon in Possession of Firearms.
ANDRE LEWIS, 35, Cleveland, was charged with Distribution of Drugs and Using and Carrying a Firearm During and in Relation to a Drug Trafficking Crime.
DEVAUNTY LEWIS, 31, Cleveland, NICHOLAS JOHNSON, 33, Cleveland, were charged jointly in an indictment with Conspiracy to Engage in the Business of Importing, Manufacturing, or Dealing in Firearms without a Federal Firearms License, and Conspiracy to Engage in Firearms Trafficking. Both were individually charged with Engaging Business in Dealing with Firearms Without a License and Trafficking in Firearms.
LEWIS was also charged with being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm.
JOHNSON was also charged with Engaging in the Business of Importing, Manufacturing, or Dealing in Firearms without a Federal Firearms License.
The following were charged in an indictment with Conspiracy to Engage in the Business of Importing, Manufacturing, or Dealing in Firearms Without a Federal Firearms License: MAURICE STERETT, 39, Cleveland, ANTONIO CROSS, 22, Cleveland, MARVELL ROACH, 43, Willoughby, KENNETH TIMBERLAKE, 30, Cleveland, and TRAVIS WILLIAMS, 46, Cleveland.
STERETT, CROSS, TIMBERLAKE, and WILLIAMS were further charged, individually, with Engaging in the Business of Importing, Manufacturing, or Dealing in Firearms Without a Federal Firearms License.
STERETT, CROSS, ROACH, TIMBERLAKE, and WILLIAMS were also charged with Conspiracy to Engage in Firearms Trafficking and individual counts of Firearms Trafficking.
STERETT, TIMBERLAKE, TRAVIS WILLIAMS, and ROACH were also charged with being a Felon in Possession of Firearms.
STERETT was further charged with Distribution of Drugs.
Finally, CROSS was also charged with Illegal Transfer of a Machinegun.
DARION SHELTON, 20, Cleveland, was charged with Engaging in the Business of Dealing Firearms without a Federal Firearms License, and Trafficking in Firearms in connection with machinegun conversation devices or “switches.” He has also been charged with Illegal Possession of a Machinegun.
The following is a breakdown of the charges in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, according to court documents:
MARCEL BATTLE, 30, Canton, Drug Trafficking.
AVANT WILSON, 22, Cleveland, Receiving Stolen Property (Motor Vehicle).
NATHAN ROBY, 44, Cleveland, Drug Trafficking.
RAYMOND CALLAHAN, 34, Cleveland, Drug Trafficking.
RAPHAEL DEEN, 30, Cleveland, Drug Trafficking.
TERRY LYONS, 33, Cleveland, Drug Trafficking.
An indictment or complaint is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. A defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
If convicted, each defendant’s sentence will be determined by the Court after review of factors unique to this case, including the defendant’s prior criminal records, if any, the defendant’s role in the offense and the characteristics of the violation. In all cases, the sentence will not exceed the statutory maximum, and, in most cases, it will be less than the maximum.
The investigation preceding the indictments was led by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”), with assistance from the Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP”), the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”), the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), the Department of Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (“BCI”), the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (“APA”), the Ohio Investigative Unit (“OIU”), Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”), Air and Marine Division, the Ohio State Highway Patrol (“OSP”), and the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Office. This Operation was also part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) initiative. The cases stemming from this investigation are being prosecuted by a team of AUSAs in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, led by AUSA Kelly Galvin, and by the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office.
Today, Mohamad Jamal Khweis, 27, of Alexandria, Virginia, was convicted by a federal jury for providing material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a designated foreign terrorist organization.
Dana J. Boente, Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security, and U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; and Andrew W. Vale, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, made the announcement after U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady accepted the verdict.
“Khweis is not a naïve kid who didn’t know what he was doing,” said Dana J. Boente, Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security, and U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. “He is a 27-year-old man who studied criminal justice in college. He strategically planned his travel to avoid law enforcement suspicion, encrypted his communications, and planned for possible alibis. Khweis knew exactly what he was doing, knew exactly who ISIS was, and was well aware of their thirst for extreme violence. Nonetheless, this did not deter him. Instead, Khweis voluntarily chose to join the ranks of a designated foreign terrorist organization, and that is a federal crime, even if you get scared and decide to leave. This office, along with the National Security Division and our investigative partners, are committed to tracking down anyone who provides or attempts to provide material support to a terrorist organization.”
“Mohamad Khweis purposefully traveled overseas with the intent to join ISIL in support of the terrorist group’s efforts to conduct operations and execute attacks to further their radical ideology,” said Andrew W. Vale, Assistant Director in Charge in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office. “Furthermore, when ISIL leaders questioned Khweis' commitment to serving as a suicide bomber to carry out acts of terrorism, Khweis stated that he agreed and recognized that ISIL uses violence in its expansion of its caliphate. Today’s verdict underscores the dedication of the FBI and our partners within the Joint Terrorism Task Force in pursuing and disrupting anyone who poses a risk of harm to U.S. persons or interests or by providing material support to a terrorist group.”
According to court records and evidence presented at trial, Khweis left the U.S. in mid-December 2015, and ultimately crossed into Syria through the Republic of Turkey in late December 2015. Before leaving, Khweis quit his job, sold his car, closed online accounts, and did not tell his family he was leaving to join ISIS. During his travel to the Islamic State, he used numerous encrypted devices to conceal his activity, and downloaded several applications on his phone that featured secure messaging or anonymous web browsing. Khweis used these applications to communicate with ISIS facilitators to coordinate and secure his passage to the Islamic State.
After arriving in Syria, Khweis stayed at a safe house with other ISIS recruits in Raqqa and filled out ISIS intake forms, which included his name, age, skills, specialty before jihad, and status as a fighter. When Khweis joined ISIS, he agreed to be a suicide bomber. In February 2017, the U.S. military recovered his intake form, along with an ISIS camp roster that included Khweis’ name with 19 other ISIS fighters.
During the trial, Khweis admitted to spending approximately 2.5 months as an ISIS member, traveling with ISIS fighters to multiple safe houses and participating in ISIS-directed religious training. Kurdish Peshmerga military forces detained Khweis in March 2016. A Kurdish Peshmerga official testified at trial that he captured Khweis on the battlefield after Khweis left an ISIS-controlled neighborhood in Tal Afar, Iraq.
On a cross examination, Khweis admitted he consistently lied to U.S. and Kurdish officials about his involvement with ISIS, and that he omitted telling U.S. officials about another American who had trained with ISIS to conduct an attack in the U.S.
The jury convicted Khweis, a U.S. citizen, on all three charged counts, including providing and conspiring to provide material support or resources to ISIS, and a related firearms count. Khweis faces a mandatory minimum of 5 years and a maximum penalty of life in prison when sentenced on October 13. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Trial Attorney Raj Parekh of the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Dennis Fitzpatrick for the Eastern District of Virginia are prosecuting the case. The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force provided assistance in this case.
Federal, county, and local law enforcement officials today announced that 59 individuals were charged and arrested in connection with firearms-trafficking, narcotics, conspiracy, or other firearms offenses after a three month, violent-crime-reduction initiative in Cleveland this summer. The vast majority were charged in U.S. District Court, while the remaining individuals were charged in state court. These individuals were apprehended in a series of coordinated arrests made during the last two weeks.
“The Justice Department’s work to disrupt and dismantle the criminal gun trafficking pipelines that flood our communities with illegal guns has never been more urgent than it is now,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “That is why our prosecutors and agents are working more closely than ever before with our local law enforcement partners to get illegal guns off of our streets and hold accountable those who put illegal guns in the hands of violent criminals.”
Indictments and complaints were recently unsealed in federal court. They detail a lengthy investigation, led by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), that focused on reducing firearms-related crime in several areas of Cleveland by studying data about areas with gun-crime violence, then identifying illegal firearms sellers to disrupt their trafficking. The investigation resulted in the seizure of over 240 firearms, 203 of which law enforcement purchased from illegal sellers and permanently removed from Cleveland’s streets. National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) data shows that a significant number of those firearms are connected to violent criminal activity, including homicides and felonious assaults, that took place in Cleveland and surrounding Northeast Ohio suburbs in 2022 and 2023. Of the purchased firearms, 17 are “ghost guns” – meaning, unserialized and untraceable firearms, typically assembled at home – and 28 are machinegun conversion devices or “switches” – a device that enables a firearm to fire in fully automatic mode.
In one case, law enforcement purchased more than 50 firearms from a group of seven people working together to sell firearms on Cleveland’s streets, even though none of the involved individuals hold a federal firearms license. Those firearms included stolen firearms, firearms with obliterated serial numbers, “switches,” already-loaded firearms, assault rifles, and firearms that had been previously used to commit violent crimes. Sometimes, these individuals also sold controlled substances to law enforcement officers at the same time. In two additional cases, law enforcement purchased, respectively, 33 firearms (including “switches”) and 23 firearms (including “switches”) from two other individuals who do not hold a federal firearms license. Many of these sales took place in public parking lots of business establishments during business hours or in recreational areas while nearby uninvolved, law-abiding citizens were engaged in their day-to-day errands or engaged in recreational activities.
Also, during this investigation, the ATF identified five individuals who were actively engaged in a conspiracy to conduct a home invasion and rob, at gunpoint, what they believed to be a “stash house” containing several kilograms of cocaine. Law enforcement intervened before these individuals could carry out their plan. Additionally, during this investigation, law enforcement purchased or seized almost 1.5 kilograms of cocaine, 215 grams of cocaine base, almost three kilograms of methamphetamine, 686 fentanyl pills, almost 1.5 kilograms of heroin/fentanyl mix, and 1,144 MDMA pills (otherwise known as Molly or Ecstasy).
Some defendants were charged together, but several others were charged individually. In all cases, however, the charges stemmed from the extensive, targeted, and sustained effort this past summer, led by the ATF and assisted by other federal, state, and local law enforcement partners, to clamp down on the illegal firearms trafficking, use, and possession, as well as the associated distribution of drugs, in Cleveland.
The following is a breakdown of the charges in U.S. District Court, according to court documents:
Malachi Berry, 21; Darvell Jackson, 20; and Steven Armstrong, 19, all of Cleveland, were charged together with conspiracy to possess a machinegun. Jackson and Armstrong were further charged with illegal possession of a machinegun. In the same indictment, these individuals, along with Nimar Linder, 21, of Cleveland, were also charged with conspiracy to engage in the business of dealing firearms without a federal firearms license. Armstrong and Linder were charged as felons in possession of a firearm.
Carlos Dupree, 43, of Cleveland; Dominique Goldsby, 32, of Cleveland; Jesse Mcdade, 41, of Cleveland; Norman Young, 37, of Cleveland; Martin Goodson, 41, of Cleveland; Lajuan Erwin, 25, of Mayfield Heights; Chevez Moorer, 23, of Cleveland; Aaron Wimbley, 22, of Garfield Heights; Alexander Duncan, 19, of Cleveland; Damien Body, 39, of Cleveland; Derrick Donald, 41, of Cleveland; Nahum Holmes, 31, of Brook Park; Akil Edmonds, 39, of Cleveland; Willie C. Jackson, 36, of Cleveland; and Deandre Smith, 36, of Cleveland, were indicted on distribution of drugs charges.
Josean Ortiz-Stuart, 34, and Jesus Vega, 29, both of Cleveland, were indicted together and both charged with distribution of drugs. Also named in that indictment was Gerald Matos, 38, of Cleveland, who was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Elias Pagan, 32, Ivan Santana, 26, and Angel Santiago, 46, all of Cleveland, were indicted together. Pagan faces numerous charges for distribution of drugs, as well being a felon in possession of firearms, and both Pagan and Santana were also charged with engaging in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms without a federal firearms license. Santiago is also charged with distribution of drugs.
Ambray Underwood, 25, of Euclid, was charged in an indictment for conspiracy to distribute drugs, and drug distribution.
Willie Earl Jackson, 26, of Cleveland, and Shane Plats, 31, of Ashtabula, were charged in the same indictment with engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a federal firearms license. Wiilie Earl Jackson was also charged in that indictment with trafficking in firearms.
Deshonn Brown, 19, and Demarius Jefferson, 18, both of Cleveland, were both charged with illegal possession of machineguns.
Jacob Plumb, 40, of Parma, was charged with distribution of drugs and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
Isaiah Overton, 23, of Cleveland, and Charles Morris, 33, of East Cleveland, were charged in a single indictment with distribution of drugs. Additionally, Overton was charged with using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking Crime.
Corte’z Buggs, 29, of Cleveland, was charged in an indictment with distribution of Drugs and receipt of firearm while under felony indictment.
Michael Mcpherran, 38, of Parma, was charged with conspiracy to distribute drugs and distribution of drugs.
Harold Pearl, 39, of Cleveland, was charged with distribution of drugs and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Alante Heard, 33, of Cleveland; Antonio Sweeney, 24, of Cleveland; Maurice Commons, 22, of North Randall; and Markus Williams, 33, of Cleveland, were charged by complaint with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute drugs and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
Marquis Henson, 38; Deon Brown, 19; and Clarence Payne, 38, all of Cleveland, were charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Kenneth Smith, 23, of East Cleveland, was charged with engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a federal firearms license, illegal possession of a machinegun, and being a felon in possession of firearms.
Andre Lewis, 35, of Cleveland, was charged with distribution of drugs and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.
Devaunty Lewis, 31, and Nicholas Johnson, 33, both of Cleveland, were charged jointly in an indictment with conspiracy to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms without a federal firearms license, and conspiracy to engage in firearms trafficking. Both were individually charged with engaging business in dealing with firearms without a license and trafficking in firearms. Lewis was also charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Johnson was also charged with engaging in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms without a federal firearms license.
Maurice Sterett, 39, of Cleveland; Antonio Cross, 22, of Cleveland; Marvell Roach, 43, of Willoughby; Kenneth Timberlake, 30, of Cleveland; and Travis Williams, 46, of Cleveland, were charged in an indictment with conspiracy to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms without a federal firearms license. Sterett, Cross, Timberlake, and Williams were further charged, individually, with engaging in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms without a federal firearms license. Sterett, Cross, Roach, Timberlake, and Williams were also charged with conspiracy to engage in firearms trafficking and individual counts of firearms trafficking. Sterett, Timberlake, Travis Williams, and Roach were also charged with being a felon in possession of firearms. Sterett was further charged with distribution of drugs. Cross was also charged with illegal transfer of a machinegun.
Darion Shelton, 20, of Cleveland, was charged with engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a federal firearms license, and trafficking in firearms in connection with machinegun conversation devices or “switches.” He has also been charged with illegal possession of a machinegun.
The following is a breakdown of the charges in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, according to court documents:
Marcel Battle, 30, of Canton: drug trafficking;
Avant Wilson, 22, of Cleveland: receiving stolen property (motor vehicle);
Nathan Roby, 44, of Cleveland: drug trafficking;
Raymond Callahan, 34, of Cleveland: drug trafficking;
Raphael Deen, 30, of Cleveland: drug trafficking;
Terry Lyons, 33, of Cleveland: drug trafficking;
If convicted, a federal district court judge will determine any penalty after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Attorney General Garland and U.S. Attorney Rebecca C. Lutzko for the Northern District of Ohio made the announcement. ATF Director Steven M. Dettelbach, U.S. Marshal Peter J. Elliott, and Cleveland Mayor Justin M. Bibb provided additional details relating to the initiative, as well as regarding larger firearms enforcement and violence-prevention efforts.
ATF investigated these cases, with assistance from the Cleveland Division of Police, U.S. Marshals Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, FBI, Homeland Security Investigations, Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Ohio Investigative Unit, Customs and Border Patrol, Air and Marine Division, Ohio State Highway Patrol, and the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Office.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelly Galvin and other Assistant U.S. Attorneys for the Northern District of Ohio and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office are prosecuting the cases.
An indictment or complaint is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
A federal jury today convicted two Bucharest, Romania, residents of 21 counts related to their scheme to infect victim computers with malware in order to steal credit card and other information to sell on dark market websites, mine cryptocurrency and engage in online auction fraud, announced Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Justin E. Herdman of the Northern District of Ohio.
Bogdan Nicolescu, 36, and Radu Miclaus, 37, were convicted after a 12-day trial of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit service marks, aggravated identity theft, conspiracy to commit money laundering and 12 counts each of wire fraud. Sentencing has been set for Aug. 14, 2019 before Chief Judge Patricia A. Gaughan of the Northern District of Ohio.
According to testimony at trial and court documents, Nicolescu, Miclaus, and a co-conspirator who pleaded guilty, collectively operated a criminal conspiracy from Bucharest, Romania. It began in 2007 with the development of proprietary malware, which they disseminated through malicious emails purporting to be legitimate from such entities as Western Union, Norton AntiVirus and the IRS. When recipients clicked on an attached file, the malware was surreptitiously installed onto their computer.
This malware harvested email addresses from the infected computer, such as from contact lists or email accounts, and then sent malicious emails to these harvested email addresses. The defendants infected and controlled more than 400,000 individual computers, primarily in the United States.
Controlling these computers allowed the defendants to harvest personal information, such as credit card information, user names and passwords. They disabled victims’ malware protection and blocked the victims’ access to websites associated with law enforcement.
Controlling the computers also allowed the defendants to use the processing power of the computer to solve complex algorithms for the financial benefit of the group, a process known as cryptocurrency mining.
The defendants used stolen email credentials to copy a victim’s email contacts. They also activated files that forced infected computers to register email accounts with AOL. The defendants registered more than 100,000 email accounts using this method. They then sent malicious emails from these addresses to the compromised contact lists. Through this method, they sent tens of millions of malicious emails.
When victims with infected computers visited websites such as Facebook, PayPal, eBay or others, the defendants would intercept the request and redirect the computer to a nearly identical website they had created. The defendants would then steal account credentials. They used the stolen credit card information to fund their criminal infrastructure, including renting server space, registering domain names using fictitious identities and paying for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) which further concealed their identities.
The defendants were also able to inject fake pages into legitimate websites, such as eBay, to make victims believe they were receiving and following instructions from legitimate websites, when they were actually following the instructions of the defendants.
They placed more than 1,000 fraudulent listings for automobiles, motorcycles and other high-priced goods on eBay and similar auction sites. Photos of the items were infected with malware, which redirected computers that clicked on the image to fictitious webpages designed by the defendants to resemble legitimate eBay pages.
These fictitious webpages prompted users to pay for their goods through a nonexistent “eBay Escrow Agent” who was simply a person hired by the defendants. Users paid for the goods to the fraudulent escrow agents, who in turn wired the money to others in Eastern Europe, who in turn gave it to the defendants. The payers/victims never received the items and never got their money back.
This resulted in a loss of millions of dollars.
The Bayrob group laundered this money by hiring “money transfer agents” and created fictitious companies with fraudulent websites designed to give the impression they were actual businesses engaged in legitimate financial transactions. Money stolen from victims was wired to these fraudulent companies and then in turn wired to Western Union or Money Gram offices in Romania. European “money mules” used fake identity documents to collect the money and deliver it to the defendants.
The FBI investigated the case, with assistance from the Romanian National Police. Senior Counsel Brian Levine of the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Duncan T. Brown and Brian McDonough of the Northern District of Ohio prosecuted the case. The Office of International Affairs also provided assistance in this case.
A federal jury in Little Rock, Arkansas, found Eric Scott Kindley, 52, a private prisoner transport officer, guilty of sexually assaulting two different women in his custody during two different transports in 2014 and 2017, and for knowingly possessing a firearm in furtherance of the 2017 sexual assault.
“The defendant was a prison transport officer who abused his law enforcement authority by sexually assaulting prisoners entrusted to his custody. That is a federal crime, and the Department of Justice will vigorously investigate and prosecute law enforcement officers who unlawfully use their position to abuse those in their custody,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division. “Today’s conviction was made possible by the brave women who testified about their abuse, and the tireless work of federal investigators and prosecutors over the last three years.”
"Kindley took advantage of his authority to exploit the very people he was entrusted with transporting across the country,” said Sean Kaul, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Phoenix Field Office. “We commend the many victims, across the nation, who came forward to report this despicable crime. This conviction should serve as notice that anyone who uses their authority to exploit individuals in their custody, will be held accountable and the FBI will continue to aggressively pursue these types of cases. We would like to thank the FBI agents across the country whose tireless efforts helped bring Kindley to justice and the Department of Justice for their tremendous work on this case.”
Evidence at trial showed that Kindley operated a private prisoner transport company that contracted with local jails throughout the country to transport individuals who were arrested on out-of-state warrants. Kindley transported individuals alone, without any oversight, in his unmarked white minivan, often for hundreds of miles. The jury heard from six women whom he transported between 2013 and 2017, all of whom described Kindley’s pattern of conduct. Kindley transported them alone over long distances, handcuffed and shackled in the backseat of the van. Kindley forced them to listen to sexually explicit comments that escalated in intensity and depravity. Some women dealt with the comments by trying to make a joke of it; others attempted to talk back and end the comments, while others sat silently. In each instance, Kindley drove to desolate locations, putting the women in fear of being sexually assaulted, severely hurt, or worse.
One of those women testified at trial that when Kindley transported her Alabama to Arizona in 2017, he stopped his van in a deserted area near Little Rock and sexually assaulted her while she was handcuffed, reminding her, as he did with other victims that she was “an inmate in transport” and that no one would believe her if she reported her. A second woman testified that when Kindley transported her in 2014, he stopped his van in a deserted area, also in Arkansas, and forced her to perform a sex act on him. A third woman testified that during her transport by Kindley in 2013 from Florida to Texas, he pulled his van over on the side of a dark road and sexually assaulted her. A fourth woman also testified that during her 2012 transport by from Nevada to California, Kindley stopped his van in a deserted park. He forced her to perform a sex act on him in a park bathroom. A fifth woman testified that during her 2013 transport from California to Montana, Kindley attempted to sexually assault her after he pulled over on the side of the road during a snowstorm. The jury heard testimony that none of the women who testified knew one another.
Kindley is also under indictment in the Central District of California for committing similar offenses related to his sexual assault of two other women in his custody in 2012 and 2017, and for brandishing a firearm during one of the sexual assaults. One of those women testified at this trial.
Kindley faces a maximum of life in prison. A sentencing date has not yet been set.
This case is being investigated by the Phoenix Division of the FBI with assistance from FBI field offices throughout the United States. It is being prosecuted by Special Litigation Counsel Fara Gold and Trial Attorney Maura White of the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, with assistance from the United States Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the District of Arizona.
A Beverly Hills, California, resident pleaded guilty today to filing false tax returns which did not report his offshore accounts in Germany and Israel and did not report the income earned on those accounts, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman and U.S. Attorney Nicola T. Hanna of the Central District of California.
According to the plea agreement and related court documents, Teymour Khoubian pleaded guilty to filing false tax returns for tax years 2009 and 2010 that failed to report foreign financial accounts in Germany and Israel, and failed to report income earned on those accounts. Between 2005 and 2012, Khoubian jointly owned multiple accounts at Bank Leumi in Israel with his mother that held between $15 million and $20 million. Additionally, since at least 2005, Khoubian also owned a foreign account at Commerzbank AG in Germany. Despite his ownership interest in these accounts and a legal requirement to declare all offshore accounts containing $10,000 or more, Khoubian prepared false tax returns for tax years 2005 through 2011 that did not fully disclose his foreign accounts, nor report all the interest income earned on those accounts. For instance, Khoubian’s Bank Leumi accounts generated interest income in excess of $4 million between 2005 and 2010, none of which was reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The total tax loss associated with the Bank Leumi accounts is approximately $ 1.2 million.
At least since 2009, Khoubian was aware of the IRS’s Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (the OVDP). The OVDP allowed U.S. taxpayers to voluntarily disclose their previously unreported foreign accounts and pay a reduced penalty to resolve their civil liability for not declaring foreign accounts to U.S. authorities. During 2011 and 2012, Bank Leumi requested that Khoubian sign a Form W-9 for U.S. tax reporting purposes. In an August 13, 2012, recorded telephone conversation with a banker at Bank Leumi, Khoubian stated that the reason he did not want to sign a Form W-9, was "because you have to pay half of it."
In 2012 and 2014, Khoubian knowingly made multiple false statements to IRS special agents investigating his foreign accounts, including falsely stating that the Bank Leumi accounts were not in his name, that he did not own a bank account in Germany from 2005 to 2010, that he closed his German bank account and moved all of that money to the United States, and that none of the money in his German bank account was moved to Israel.
As part of the plea agreement, Khoubian agreed to the entry of a civil judgment against him for an FBAR penalty in the amount of $7,686,004. Khoubian further agreed to pay an additional $612,310 in restitution to the IRS.
Khoubian faces a maximum of three years in prison for each of the tax counts to which he pleaded guilty, as well as monetary penalties and a period of supervised release.
This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Christopher S. Strauss and Ellen M. Quattrucci of the Justice Department’s Tax Division, with the assistance of Assistant United States Attorney Robert Conte of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, and was investigated by the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation.
JOON LLC, d/b/a AJIN USA (Ajin), an auto-parts manufacturing company, was sentenced in federal court today in Montgomery, Alabama, after pleading guilty to a charge related to the death of a machinery operator.
Regina Elsea, who was 20 years old, worked at Ajin’s Cusseta, Alabama, facility. On June 18, 2016, she entered an enclosure — called a “cell” — containing several robots and other pieces of machinery. While she was inside the cell, troubleshooting a sensor fault, one of the machines started up and Elsea was struck by a robotic arm. She died of her injuries.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) requires employers to develop and utilize procedures to de-energize machinery during maintenance and servicing activities to prevent the kind of unplanned startup that killed Elsea. These procedures are often referred to as “lockout/tagout.” Ajin knew these procedures were required and had developed them, but Ajin also knew that — over a period of at least two years — supervisors did not effectively enforce them.
In the 15 minutes prior to Elsea’s fatal injury — in the presence of their supervisors — workers entered cells to troubleshoot machinery without following lockout/tagout no less than five times, and the supervisors did not take any action to stop or reprimand them. In two other instances, the supervisors themselves entered a cell without following lockout/tagout. At the time of Elsea’s fatal injury, several individuals were inside the cell, none of whom had followed lockout/tagout procedures to de-energize the machinery within the cell.
Ajin pleaded guilty to a willful violation of the OSH Act standard requiring the use of lockout/tagout procedures. U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Michael Doyle sentenced Ajin to pay a $500,000 fine — the statutory maximum — $1,000,000 in restitution to Elsea’s estate, and a three-year term of probation, during which Ajin must comply with a safety compliance plan, overseen by a third-party auditor. Among other things, the safety compliance plan requires a full review of Ajin’s lockout/tagout procedures, weekly inspections to ensure compliance, and creation of a mechanism for employees to report any safety concerns about the facility anonymously.
“Regina’s tragic death was preventable,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan D. Brightbill of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “OSH Act standards exist to protect American workers, but employers must actually implement them. When safety policies exist only on paper, tragedies like this occur. Ajin knew its supervisors and managers were turning a blind eye to the company’s safety procedures. Now, Ajin must take responsibility for its conduct. It will implement the safety compliance plan, and work to make its facility safer for its employees. Employers should be aware that they must follow workplace safety laws.”
“Every worker expects to return home safely at the end of his or her shift,” said U.S. Attorney Louis V. Franklin Sr. of the Middle District of Alabama. “The OSH Act was passed to ensure that workers could trust that their employers create and maintain a safe work environment. While most companies abide by the OSH Act, the unfortunate reality is that some of them do not. Ajin failed to comply with the OSH Act and, as a direct result of their failure, Regina Elsea did not return home safely at the end of her shift. Her death was preventable and Ajin’s failure to keep her out of harm’s way is inexcusable. I hope this prosecution sends a message to companies that people are their most valuable resource and complying with the OSH Act is a must in protecting its employees.”
“Employers are responsible for worker safety and health, and the failure in this situation was tragic,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Loren Sweatt. “Well-known safety procedures were repeatedly ignored that could have prevented this tragedy. While nothing can ever replace the loss of life, the court has sent a clear message that such disregard for worker safety is unacceptable.”
The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephanie Billingslea and former Assistant U.S. Attorney Ben M. Baxley of the Middle District of Alabama and Trial Attorney Erica H. Pencak of the Environment and Natural Resources Division’s Environmental Crimes Section. The case was investigated by the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Investigations.
The year 2020 marks the 150th anniversary of the Department of Justice. Learn more about the history of our agency at www.Justice.gov/Celebrating150Years.
Three people are now in custody in relation to the fatal raid that occurred in January 2019 on Harding Street in Houston, Texas, announced Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick for the Southern District of Texas and Special Agent in Charge Perrye K. Turner of the FBI.
A federal grand jury returned the nine count indictment Nov. 14 against Gerald M. Goines, 55, and Steven M. Bryant, 46, both former Houston Police Department (HPD) officers. Also charged is Patricia Ann Garcia, 53. All are residents of Houston. The indictment was unsealed this morning as authorities took all three into custody. They are expected to make their initial appearances before U.S. Magistrate Judge Dena H. Palermo at 2 p.m. central time.
The federal indictment stems from the Jan. 28 narcotics raid HPD conducted on the 7800 block of Harding Street in Houston. The enforcement action resulted in the deaths of two residents at that location.
Goines is charged with two counts of depriving the victims’ constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches. The indictment alleges Goines made numerous materially false statements in the state search warrant he obtained for their residence. The execution of that warrant containing these false statements resulted in the death of the two individuals as well as injuries to four other persons, according to the indictment.
Goines and Bryant are charged with obstructing justice by falsifying records. Goines allegedly made several false statements in his tactical plan and offense report prepared in connection with that search warrant. The indictment alleges Bryant falsely claimed in a supplemental case report he had previously assisted Goines in the Harding Street investigation. Bryant allegedly identified a brown powdery substance (heroin) he retrieved from Goines’ vehicle as narcotics purchased from the Harding Street residence Jan. 27.
Goines is further charged with three separate counts of obstructing an official proceeding. The federal grand jury alleges Goines falsely stated Jan. 30 that a particular confidential informant had purchased narcotics at the Harding Street location three days prior. He also falsely stated Jan. 31 that a different confidential informant purchased narcotics at that residence that day, according to the charges. On Feb. 13, he also falsely claimed he had purchased narcotics at that residence on that day. The indictment alleges none of these statements were true.
The charges against Garcia allege she conveyed false information by making several fake 911 calls. Specifically, on Jan. 8, she allegedly made several calls claiming her daughter was inside the Harding Street location. According to the indictment, Garcia added that the residents of the home were addicts and drug dealers and that they had guns – including machine guns – inside the home. The charges allege none of Garcia’s claims were true.
If convicted of the civil rights charges, Goines faces up to life in prison. Each obstruction count carries a potential 20-year sentence, while Garcia faces a five-year term of imprisonment for conveying false information.
The FBI is conducting the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alamdar S. Hamdani, Arthur R. Jones and Sharad S. Khandelwal, and Special Litigation Counsel Jared Fishman of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, are prosecuting the case.
An indictment is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence. A defendant is presumed innocent unless convicted through due process of law.
A Massachusetts man was sentenced yesterday to 33 months in prison followed by two years of supervised release for a scheme to illegally export defense technical data to foreign nationals in Turkey in connection with the fraudulent manufacturing of parts and components used by the U.S. military, in violation of the Arms Export Control Act. The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) later determined that some of the parts were substandard and unsuitable for use by the military.
On Aug. 10, 2022, Arif Ugur, 53, of Cambridge, pleaded guilty to two counts of wire fraud, two counts of violating the Arms Export Control Act and one count of conspiring to violate the Arms Export Control Act.
“The defendant willfully defrauded the Department of Defense and gave access to controlled defense information to individuals in a foreign country for personal gain,” said Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “This type of brazen disregard for our export control laws threatens our military readiness and technological advantage and will not be tolerated by this department.”
According to court documents, in 2015, Ugur, founded and was the sole managing partner of the Anatolia Group Limited Partnership (Anatolia), a domestic limited partnership registered in Massachusetts. Beginning in approximately July 2015, Ugur bid on and acquired numerous contracts to supply the DOD with various parts and components intended for use by the U.S. military. Many of these contracts required that the parts be manufactured in the United States. Both in bids submitted to DOD and in subsequent email communications with DOD representatives, Ugur falsely claimed that Anatolia was manufacturing the parts in the United States. In fact, Anatolia was a front company with no manufacturing facilities whatsoever. Unbeknownst to DOD, Ugur contracted with a company in Turkey to make the parts and then passed them off to DOD as if they had been manufactured by Anatolia in the United States. Because they had not been manufactured in the United States in accordance with the contacts, Ugur failed to allow DOD to inspect the parts prior to delivery to the U.S. military. Many of the parts were substandard and some could not be used at all.
To enable the Turkish company to manufacture the parts, Ugur shared technical specifications and drawings of the parts with his co-conspirators overseas, some of whom were employees of the Turkish company. Ugur also provided his overseas co-conspirators with access to DOD’s online library of technical specifications and drawings. Because of their military applications, many of these parts were designated as Defense Articles under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the United States Munitions List (USML). Thus, an export license was required to export the parts and related technical data (blueprints, specifications, etc.) from the United States to Turkey. Ugur knew of these restrictions, but nonetheless exported technical data controlled under the ITAR and USML to employees of the Turkish manufacturer without an export license.
Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen of the Justice Department’s National Security Division; U.S. Attorney Rachael S. Rollins for the District of Massachusetts; Special Agent in Charge Patrick J. Hegarty of the Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Northeast Field Office; Special Agent in Charge Matthew B. Millhollin of Homeland Security Investigations in Boston; and Acting Special Agent in Charge Rashel Assouri of the U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Export Enforcement, Boston Field Office made the announcement.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jason A. Casey and Timothy H. Kistner for the District of Massachusetts prosecuted the case.
Four Peruvian residents have been extradited to the United States, where they stand accused of operating a large-scale extortion scheme from 2012 through 2015, the Justice Department and U.S. Postal Inspection Service today announced.
Jesus Gerardo Gutierrez Rojas, 37, Maria de Guadalupe Alexandra Podesta Bengoa, 38, Virgilio Ignacio Polo Davila, 43, and Omar Alfredo Portocarrero Caceres, 39, face federal charges in Miami. Peruvian authorities arrested the four in late 2017, based upon a U.S. indictment. All four remained incarcerated in Peru since the time of their arrest. Peru approved their extradition to the U.S. on Jan. 18, 2019.
“The Department of Justice will pursue criminals who target and extort U.S. consumers, wherever they are,” said Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt for the Department of Justice’s Civil Division. “Those who extort U.S. consumers by phone cannot escape justice by placing their calls from abroad. I thank the Republic of Peru for extraditing these individuals to face charges in U.S. courts.”
“Individuals who defraud American consumers will be brought to justice, no matter where they are located,” said U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan for the Southern District of Florida. “Protecting the elderly and vulnerable members of our community from extortion schemes, such as this one, is a top priority of this Office and the Department of Justice, and I thank the U.S. Postal Inspection Service for their unwavering commitment to rid the U.S. mail system of these schemes. This is a reminder to our community to be wary of those individuals who threaten imprisonment, a negative credit score or a change in immigration status; please report those threats immediately.”
“The U.S. Postal Inspection Service will continue to aggressively investigate and pursue those who threaten U.S. consumers and extort them of their hard earned money, regardless of what country they operate from,” said U.S. Postal Inspector in Charge Antonio J. Gomez. “The U.S. Postal Inspection Service appreciates the continued partnership with the Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch in pursuing South American call center operators who victimize consumers through the U.S. mail.”
Podesta, Polo, and Portocarrero allegedly managed and operated Peruvian call centers that placed calls to Spanish-speaking consumers across the United States while lying and threatening them into paying fraudulent settlements for nonexistent debts. Many of the consumer victims were elderly. Gutierrez was allegedly the general manager of a larger company where he worked in partnership with Podesta, Polo, and Portocarrero to facilitate their extortion scheme. The defendants’ associates in Miami collected the payments and sometimes shipped packages to victims in the U.S.
According to the allegations in the indictment, Podesta, Polo, Portocarrero, and their employees in Peru used Internet-based telephone calls and claimed to be attorneys and government representatives to threaten victims in the United States. The callers falsely claimed that victims failed to pay for or receive a delivery of products. The callers also falsely claimed that victims would be sued and that the companies would obtain large monetary judgements against them. Some victims were also threatened with negative marks on their credit reports, imprisonment, or immigration status. The callers said these threatened consequences could be avoided if the victims immediately paid “settlement fees.” Many victims made monetary payments based on these baseless threats.
A 34-count federal indictment was filed against the defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Dec. 6, 2016, and was unsealed upon the defendants’ extradition to the U.S. The defendants are approved to face 12 extortion counts pending against them. An indictment merely alleges that crimes have been committed. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Phil Toomajian of the Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch. The Postal Inspection Service investigated the case. The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs, the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of Florida, the Diplomatic Security Service, and the Peruvian National Police provided critical assistance.
A federal judge in Greeneville, Tennessee, sentenced two Florida men for their roles in a multimillion-dollar health care fraud scheme.
Peter Bolos, 44, of Tampa, was convicted by a federal jury in December 2021 of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, 22 counts of mail fraud and introduction of a misbranded drug into interstate commerce. U.S. District Judge J. Ronnie Greer sentenced Bolos to 14 years in prison and ordered him to pay more than $24.6 million in restitution and $2.5 million in forfeiture. The court also sentenced Bolos’s co-defendant, Michael Palso, 48, of Tampa, to 33 months in prison and ordered him to pay more than $24.6 million in restitution. Palso previously pleaded guilty to his role in the conspiracy, as did 14 other defendants in related cases. The remaining defendants are scheduled to be sentenced later this week.
According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Bolos, Palso and their co-conspirators, Andrew Assad, Scott Roix, Larry Smith, Mihir Taneja, Arun Kapoor and Maikel Bolos, as well as various other companies owned or controlled by some of these individuals, deceived pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), such as Express Scripts and CVS Caremark, regarding tens of thousands of prescriptions. The PBMs processed and approved claims for prescription drugs on behalf of insurance companies. Bolos and his co-conspirators defrauded the PBMs into authorizing millions of dollars’ worth of claims that private insurers such as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, and public insurers such as Medicaid and TRICARE, paid to pharmacies controlled by the co-conspirators.
“The significant sentences imposed by the court are a reflection of the gravity of the crimes that the defendants in this case committed,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Arun G. Rao, head of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch. “The department will continue to work with law enforcement partners to prosecute those who take advantage of telemedicine to perpetrate fraud schemes.”
“The scale of the prescription-drug fraud scheme orchestrated by these defendants and their conspirators was astonishing, and the Court’s prison sentences reflect the seriousness of their crimes,” said U.S. Attorney Francis M. Hamilton III for the Eastern District of Tennessee. “The financial harm caused by health care fraud hurts all Americans, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee will continue to support the cooperation among its federal law enforcement partners that is necessary to bring criminal swindlers like these defendants to justice.”
“This sentencing is the result of a multi-agency investigation into a complex telemedicine pharmacy fraud scheme, requiring substantial investigative resources,” said Special Agent in Charge Joseph E. Carrico of the FBI’s Knoxville Field Office. “The FBI, with its law enforcement partners, will remain vigilant to assure that unscrupulous individuals who exploit our health care system are brought to justice.”
“Distributing misbranded prescription drugs in the U.S. marketplace places patients’ health at risk,” said Special Agent in Charge Justin C. Fielder of the FDA Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI) Miami Field Office. “We will continue to pursue and bring to justice those who put profits ahead of public health.”
“Bolos and his co-conspirators abandoned their responsibilities in the health care industry through an elaborate fraud scheme and manipulated the system without regard for patient need or medical necessity to line their pockets,” said Special Agent in Charge John Condon of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Tampa. “This significant sentence should serve as a warning to anyone who attempts to deceive the government and steal from taxpayers.”
“Providers who solicit beneficiaries’ personal information and use it to defraud federal health care programs not only undermine the integrity of those programs; they also divert valuable taxpayer dollars for self-serving purposes,” said Special Agent in Charge Tamala E. Miles of the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). “HHS-OIG is proud to work alongside our law enforcement partners to investigate and hold accountable perpetrators of federal health care fraud.”
“The U.S. Postal Service, Office of Inspector General, will continue to vigorously investigate those who commit frauds against federal benefit programs and the U.S. Postal Service,” said Special Agent in Charge Matthew Modafferi of the U.S. Postal Service, Office of Inspector General Northeast Area Field Office. “The sentencing in this case sends a clear message to pharmaceutical companies that tactics like these will not be tolerated. The U.S. Postal Service, Office of Inspector General would like to thank our law enforcement partners and the Department of Justice for their dedication and efforts in this investigation.”
Court documents and evidence at trial established that Bolos, Assad and Palso owned and operated Synergy Pharmacy in Palm Harbor, Florida. Under their direction, Synergy employed Scott Roix, a Florida telemarketer operating under the name HealthRight, to generate prescriptions for Synergy and the other pharmacies involved in the scheme. The prescriptions were typically for drugs such as pain creams, scar creams and vitamins. To obtain the prescriptions, Roix used HealthRight’s telemarketing platform as a telemedicine service, cold-calling consumers and deceiving them into agreeing to accept the drugs and to provide their personal insurance information. HealthRight then paid doctors to authorize the prescriptions through its telemedicine platform, even though the doctors never communicated directly with the patients and relied solely on the telemarketers’ screening process as the basis for their authorizations. Because this faulty and fraudulent process made the prescriptions invalid, the drugs were misbranded under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Synergy and the other pharmacies nonetheless dispensed the drugs to consumers as part of the scheme, so that Bolos could submit fraudulent reimbursement claims.
Court documents and evidence at trial established that during the conspiracy, which lasted from May 2015 through April 2018, Bolos and Palso, along with co-defendant Andrew Assad, paid Roix millions of dollars to buy at least 60,000 invalid prescriptions generated by HealthRight. Bolos selected specific medications for the prescriptions that he could submit for profitable reimbursements at inflated prices. In addition, Bolos, Palso, and Assad used illegal means to hide his activity from the PBMs so that they could remain undetected.
The sentencings for the remaining defendants — all of whom pleaded guilty prior to trial — are scheduled to occur later this week. Larry Smith, Alpha-Omega Pharmacy, Germaine Pharmacy, Zoetic Pharmacy, Tanith Enterprises LLC, ULD Wholesale Group and Taneja will be sentenced on May 17. Kapoor, Sterling Knight Pharmaceuticals and Maikel Bolos will be sentenced on May 18. Assad, Roix and HealthRight LLC will be sentenced on May 19. All of the sentencings will occur before Judge Greer in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville.
The trial verdict and plea agreements resulted from a multi-year investigation conducted by the HHS-OIG (Nashville); FDA-OCI (Nashville); U.S. Postal Service, Office of Inspector General (Buffalo); FBI (Knoxville and Johnson City, Tennessee); OPM-OIG (Atlanta); and HSI (Tampa). The U.S. Marshals Service also assisted in the investigation and the forfeiture of assets.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Mac Heavener of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee and Senior Trial Attorney David Gunn of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch in Washington are prosecuting the case. They were assisted by Barbra Pemberton, Bryan Brandenburg and April Denard from the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Attorney General William P. Barr announced today the appointment of Timothy Shea as Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546, effective February 3. The Office is the largest U.S. Attorney’s Office in the country, serving as both the local and the federal prosecutor for the nation’s capital, with over 300 attorneys responsible for litigation before over 100 judges in federal and local courts.
“I am pleased to appoint Tim Shea as Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Tim brings to this role extensive knowledge and expertise in law enforcement matters as well as an unwavering dedication to public service, reflected in his long and distinguished career in state and federal government,” said Attorney General William P. Barr. “His reputation as a fair prosecutor, skillful litigator, and excellent manager is second-to-none, and his commitment to fighting violent crime and the drug epidemic will greatly benefit the city of Washington. I would also like to express my gratitude to Jessie Liu, who has served with distinction as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia since 2017, and has been nominated to a new role at the Department of the Treasury.”
Shea served as Associate Deputy Attorney General from 1990-1992 and as Counselor to the Attorney General since 2019. In both roles, he advised the Attorney General on law enforcement operations, criminal justice policy, and management issues affecting the Department. He recently spearheaded the Department’s Operation Relentless Pursuit, a crackdown targeting violent crime in seven U.S. cities.
From 1992-1997, Shea served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia where he prosecuted federal criminal cases, including violent crimes, drug trafficking, fraud cases, perjury and obstruction of justice investigations, federal tax fraud and evasion cases, civil rights matters, and public corruption cases. He headed the Task Force responsible for investigating and prosecuting crimes at the District of Columbia correctional facilities at Lorton, supervising AUSAs and D.C. government attorneys. He was also the coordinator for matters related to the Criminal Enforcement Child Support.
In state government, Shea served as the Chief of Public Protection Bureau in the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office where he managed several divisions staffed by attorneys and investigators. In that position, he was responsible for the enforcement of state law related to consumer protection, civil rights, antitrust, regulated industries, insurance rate setting, telecommunications, energy, environment, public charities, and elder protection. Shea also served in Congressional roles, including as Chief Counsel and Staff Director of the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations under the chairmanship of Senator Susan Collins and on the U.S. House Appropriations Committee professional staff under Ranking Republican Member Silvio O. Conte. During his 20 years of private practice, Shea served as Of Counsel for Bingham McCutchen and Morgan Lewis, handling complex civil litigation.
Shea earned his J.D. degree magna cum laude in 1991 from the Georgetown University Law Center where he was elected to the Order of the Coif. He was also a senior staff member of the America Criminal Law Review. He received his B.A. degree magna cum laude from Boston College in 1982 where he received the Kenealy Award for Academic Excellence.
SHERMAN, Texas – An Oklahoma City, OK woman has been convicted of various federal crimes related to an international drug trafficking conspiracy in the Eastern District of Texas, announced U.S. Attorney Brit Featherston today.
Debra Lynn Mercer-Erwin, 60, was found guilty by a jury following a two-week trial before U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant. Mercer-Erwin was convicted of money laundering; wire fraud; conspiracy to manufacture and distribute cocaine; and conspiracy to manufacture and distribute cocaine knowing it would be imported into the United States.
“In the aircraft world, planes registered in the United States and displaying a ‘N’ tail-number, are coveted as being properly vetted and trusted to legally operate around the world. Mercer-Erwin found ways to exploit the registration process in order to profit from illegally obtained money being paid for her services,” said U. S. Attorney Featherston. “Mercer-Erwin became a drug dealer when she became aware of planes she had registered were being used to transport large quantities of cocaine. Mercer-Erwin knew that many of her clients were in the illegal drug business and she hid their identities and the sources of their money in order to reap a large profit. She became a money launderer when she created fake sales of planes that were not actually for sale in order to hide and move drug money. Transnational criminal organizations require assistance to operate in the U.S. and Mercer-Erwin facilitated the drug dealing by exploiting the plane registration process.”
“This investigation required cooperation between our international partners, investigating agents and our prosecutors,” added U.S. Attorney Featherston. “They did an amazing job putting the case together, and they are to be commended for their work.”
“This guilty verdict stems from the collaborative efforts of our trusted international, federal, state and local law enforcement partners,” said Lester R. Hayes Jr., Special Agent in Charge HSI Dallas. “Disrupting the illegal activities of transnational criminal organizations is one of HSI ‘s highest priorities and is enhanced by our partnerships at all levels. After listening to testimony of high-ranking leaders of the Columbian and Nicaraguan governments, I am convinced this investigation has significantly decreased the flow of narcotics smuggled into the U.S.”
“This investigation and successful prosecution serves as an example of how federal, state, and international law enforcement agencies work together to take down those involved in large scale money laundering in support of international drug trafficking organizations,” said Special Agent in Charge Trey McClish of the Dallas Field Office of the Department of Commerce’s Office of Export Enforcement (OEE). “OEE and our law enforcement partners will continue to identify, investigate, and dismantle transnational criminal organizations who pose a threat to our national security.”
According to information presented in court, between 2010 and 2020, Mercer-Erwin conspired with others to enable the distribution of cocaine in the United States by purchasing and illegally registering aircraft under foreign corporations and other individuals for export to other countries. Non-US citizens are allowed to register an aircraft with the FAA if the aircraft is placed in a trust that is managed by a U.S. trustee. Mercer-Erwin was the owner of Wright Brothers Aircraft Title (WBAT) and Aircraft Guaranty Corporation (AGC). WBAT often served as an escrow agent for transactions involving AGC and was the designated party responsible for FAA filings related to AGC aircraft. AGC, a corporation at that time operating out of Onalaska, Texas, an east Texas town in the Eastern District of Texas, without an airport. AGC acted as trustee to over 1,000 aircrafts with foreign owners. This allowed the foreign nationals to receive an “N” tail number for their aircrafts. The “N” tail number is valuable because foreign countries are less likely to inspect a U.S.-registered aircraft for airworthiness or force down an American aircraft.
According to prosecutors, several of the illegally registered and exported aircraft were used by transnational criminal organizations in Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Belize, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico to smuggle large quantities of cocaine destined for the United States. The illicit proceeds from the subsequent drug sales were then transported as bulk cash from the United States to Mexico and used to buy more aircraft and cocaine. Aircraft purchases were typically completed by foreign nationals working for transnational criminal organizations who came to the United States with drug proceeds and purchased aircraft valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Mercer-Erwin exploited her position as trustee to circumvent U.S. laws by disguising the true identity of the foreign owners, failing to conduct due diligence as to the identity of the foreign owners, providing false aircraft locations, and falsifying and forging documents. Trial testimony revealed the investigation was initiated after aircraft filing irregularities were discovered in tandem with numerous AGC aircraft found carrying substantial amounts of cocaine. The testimony further revealed additional aircraft in AGC’s trust were not seized but found by foreign officials destroyed or abandoned near clandestine landing strips in several South American countries. Some of these wrecked or abandoned aircraft still contained muti-ton kilos of cocaine onboard, and few, if any, of the seized or destroyed aircraft were in the location they were reported to be located. When authorities confronted Mercer-Erwin as the representative of AGC, she refused to comply and each time law enforcement would seize an AGC registered aircraft laden with drugs, Mercer-Erwin attempted to distance herself from the narcotic’s trafficking by transferring ownership of the aircraft using fictitious information to conceal the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the aircraft.
Additionally, Mercer-Erwin and co-defendants participated in a series of bogus aircraft sales transactions in order to conceal the movement of illegally obtained funds. The co-defendants would provide buyers and investors with fabricated documents and supply false representations regarding the bogus sale of an unsellable aircraft. The aircraft was unsellable because, unbeknownst to the buyers, the true owners of the aircraft had no knowledge or intention of selling the aircraft. Other bogus sales presented to buyers consisted of aircraft that was owned by a commercial airline and previously decommissioned and inoperable. None of the aircraft presented to the buyers were for sale.
The defendants would convince the buyer to place a deposit into an escrow account with WBAT, the title company owned by Mercer-Erwin, pending the completion of the sale. Once the money was placed in WBAT’s escrow account, the buyers were responsible for the interest accrued, and an escrow fee would be charged. In a typical sale, the deposit would remain in the escrow account. However, Mercer-Erwin would transfer the money from the escrow account to bank accounts controlled by the co-conspirators.
Since the aircraft was not truly for sale, the purchase of the aircraft would inevitably fall through, and the deposit would have to be returned. The co-conspirators would repeat the process by luring another buyer for the purchase of another unsellable aircraft. Each transaction would pay for the previous one, and Mercer-Erwin would receive an escrow fee ranging from $25,000 to $150,000 for her participation in the scheme.
Mercer-Erwin was the only defendant to proceed to trial. Co-defendants Kayleigh Moffett and Carlos Rocha Villaurrutia pleaded guilty on April 10, 2023. Moffett pleaded guilty to wire fraud and conspiracy to commit export violations, and Villaurrutia pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute cocaine knowing it would be unlawfully imported into the United States; conspiracy to commit money laundering; and conspiracy to commit export violations. Four other defendants have active arrest warrants but are not in custody and are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Mercer-Erwin was indicted by a federal grand jury in February 2021. She faces up to life in federal prison. The maximum statutory sentence prescribed by Congress is provided here for information purposes, as the sentencing will be determined by the court based on the advisory sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors. A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a presentence investigation by the U.S. Probation Office.
This is an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) case and is being investigated by Homeland Security Investigations (Dallas, Brownsville, Laredo, Guatemala, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico, and Transnational Criminal Investigative Units); Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (Dallas and Houston offices); Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General (DOT-OIG); Office of Export Enforcement; Polk County Constable Precinct 1; Southeast Texas Export Investigations Group; Internal Revenue Service; Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); Estado Mayor De La Defensa Nacional Guatemala; Fuerza Aerea Guatemalteca; and Fuerza Aerea Colombiana. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.
This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Ernest Gonzalez, Heather Rattan, and Lesley Brooks.
Two biofuel company owners were sentenced to prison for conspiracy and making false statements to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and conspiracy to defraud the IRS and preparing a false tax claim.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III sentenced Ben Wootton, 55 of Savannah, Georgia, to 70 months and Race Miner, 51, of Marco Island, Florida, to 66 months, after a jury convicted both defendants and their company, Keystone Biofuels Inc. (Keystone), in April 2019. The company was originally located in Shiremanstown, Pennsylvania, and later in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. Miner was the founder and chief executive officer of Keystone. Wootton was president of Keystone, and a former member of the National Biodiesel Board. The court ordered both men to pay restitution of $4,149,383.41 to the IRS and restitution of $5,076,376.07 to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Wootton and Miner will also have to serve a three-year term of supervised release after their term of imprisonment. Keystone was sentenced to five years’ probation and ordered to pay restitution of $4,149,383.41 to the IRS and restitution of $5,076,376.07 to the Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection criminal fine.
“The EPA and IRS renewable fuels incentive programs are important components of the Congressional program to increase the use of biofuels to benefit the environment,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan D. Brightbill of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “Today’s sentences are a strong reminder that the federal government will not allow supposed “green” conmen to illegally take advantage of federal and state programs that are meant to offer financial incentives to enhance the environment and energy sustainability.”
“The complex fraud perpetrated by the defendants in this case struck directly at the heart of a government program that was specifically created to benefit the environment, business owners and the community at large,” said U.S. Attorney David J. Freed of the Middle District of Pennsylvania. “Encouraging companies to develop and provide for sale clean renewable fuels is truly a win-win proposition for everyone. Unfortunately, the defendants used this program to benefit only themselves. Today’s sentences send a clear message that my office, our federal partners and the United States Department of Justice will not tolerate renewable fuels fraud and related offenses.”
“The defendants defrauded the IRS and sought to profit from a system intended to protect the environment,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division. “The Tax Division will continue to aggressively investigate and prosecute with our partners such tax crimes.”
“Today’s sentencing demonstrates there are real penalties for those defrauding the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program,” said Jessica Taylor, Director of the EPA’s criminal enforcement program. “With this action EPA and its enforcement partners are continuing to protect both the integrity of the RINs program and the American taxpayer.”
“Wootton and Miner actively engaged in a multimillion-dollar scheme designed to rob the government and line their own pockets. Today, they learned there is a steep price to be paid for such greed,” said Jim Lee, Chief, IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI). “It is the partnerships between IRS-CI and other federal agencies like the EPA that allow cases like this to come to fruition, holding accountable those who seek to enrich themselves through fraudulent means.”
“The only green resource these two cared about was money, and they told lie after lie to perpetuate their fraud,” said Special Agent in Charge Michael J. Driscoll of the FBI's Philadelphia Field Office. “Fair warning to anyone else seeking to scam the U.S. government and taxpayers like this: the FBI and our partners stand ready to investigate and hold you accountable as well.”
Wootton, Miner, and Keystone falsely represented that they were able to produce a fuel meeting the requirements set by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) for biodiesel (a renewable fuel) and adopted by the EPA, and as such were entitled to create renewable fuel credits, known as RINs, based on each gallon of renewable fuel produced. The fuel and the RINs have financial value and could be sold and purchased by participants within the federal renewable fuels commercial system.
Wootton and Miner were also convicted of fraudulently claiming federal tax refunds based on IRS’s Biofuel Mixture Credit. The Biodiesel Mixture Credit is a type of “blender’s credit” for persons or businesses who mix biodiesel with diesel fuel and use or sell the mixture as a fuel. Wootton and Miner caused Keystone to fraudulently claim tax refunds based on non-qualifying fuel and, in at least some instances, non-existent or non-mixed fuel. In an attempt to hide their fraud scheme, the men created false corporate books and records and sham financial transactions to account for the nonexistent and non-qualifying fuel, and to create the appearance of legitimacy.
The prosecution of Wootton, Miner and Keystone is the first prosecution of a case under the federal renewable fuels program based on fuel that did not meet the program renewable fuel quality standards.
The case was prosecuted by Senior Litigation Counsel Howard P. Stewart of the Environment and Natural Resources Division’s Environmental Crimes Section, Assistant U.S. Attorney Geoffrey MacArthur, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney David Lastra, and Trial Attorneys Mark Kotila and Michael C. Vasiliadis of the Tax Division. EPA Region III Criminal Investigation Division, IRS Criminal Investigation and the FBI Philadelphia’s Harrisburg Resident Agency investigated the matter.
The year 2020 marks the 150th anniversary of the Department of Justice. Learn more about the history of our agency at www.Justice.gov/Celebrating150Years.
A Texas man was taken into custody on allegations he fraudulently obtained more than $1.1 million in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans, announced Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian C. Rabbitt of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick for the Southern District of Texas.
Joshua Thomas Argires, 29, of Houston, Texas, is charged in a criminal complaint, unsealed Monday upon his arrest, with making false statements to a financial institution, wire fraud, bank fraud and engaging in unlawful monetary transactions. He made his initial appearance Monday before U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter Bray.
Argires allegedly perpetrated a scheme to file two fraudulent loan applications seeking more than $1.1 million in forgivable loans. The Small Business Administration (SBA) guarantees the loans for COVID-19 relief through the PPP under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
The complaint alleges Argires submitted two fraudulent PPP loan applications to federally insured banks. One of these applications was submitted on behalf of an entity called Texas Barbecue; the other was filed on behalf of a company called Houston Landscaping. Argires allegedly claimed these two companies had numerous employees and hundreds of thousands of dollars in payroll expenses.
According to the complaint, neither Texas Barbecue nor Houston Landscaping has employees or pays wages consistent with the amounts claimed in the PPP loan applications. The complaint further asserts that both of these loans were funded, but that none of the funds were used for payroll or other expenses authorized under the PPP. Rather, the funds received on behalf of Texas Barbecue were invested in a cryptocurrency account, while the funds obtained for Houston Landscaping were held in a bank account and slowly depleted via ATM withdrawals, according to the charges.
The CARES Act is a federal law enacted March 29. It is designed to provide emergency financial assistance to millions of Americans who are suffering the economic effects resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief the CARES Act provides is 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 one percent. Businesses must use PPP loan proceeds for payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent and utilities. The PPP allows the interest and principal to be forgiven if businesses spend the proceeds on these expenses within a set time period and use at least a certain percentage of the loan towards payroll expenses.
A federal criminal complaint is merely an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency Office of the Inspector General (OIG), SBA OIG and U.S. Postal Inspection Service’s Houston Division conducted the investigation. Trial Attorney Timothy A. Duree of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney James McAlister for the Southern District of Texas are prosecuting the case.
The year 2020 marks the 150th anniversary of the Department of Justice. Learn more about the history of our agency at www.Justice.gov/Celebrating150Years.
A long-time Philadelphia-area political consultant and attorney was sentenced today for his role in two criminal schemes to violate federal campaign finance laws announced Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Kenneth Smukler, 57, of Villanova, Pennsylvania, was sentenced to 18 months in prison followed by one year of supervised release by the Honorable Jan E. DuBois. In the 2012 Democratic primary election for Pennsylvania’s First Congressional District, Jimmie Moore, a former Philadelphia Municipal Court Judge, ran against the incumbent Congressman Bob Brady. Assisted and directed by Smukler, Moore executed a corrupt deal in which he agreed to withdraw from the race in exchange for funds from the Bob Brady for Congress campaign (the Brady campaign) to be used to pay off Moore’s campaign debts. Those debts included money that Jimmie Moore for Congress (the Moore campaign) owed to several vendors, to Moore himself and to Moore’s campaign manager, Carolyn Cavaness. On Feb. 29, 2012, Moore withdrew from the race and Cavaness had prepared a list of debts owed by the Moore campaign, which they provided to Smukler, a campaign consultant for the Brady campaign. Smukler arranged for the Moore campaign to receive $90,000 from the Brady campaign through false documents and a series of concealing pass-throughs, including the consulting firm of another Brady associate and co-conspirator, D.A. Jones. Smukler ensured that the Brady campaign reported none of the concealed payments, which exceeded the federal contribution limits, to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Rather, he executed the scheme by ensuring that the three installments were falsely and illegally disguised from the FEC and the public as payments for poll and consulting services.
Later, during the 2014 Democratic primary election for Pennsylvania’s Thirteenth Congressional District, Smukler again committed federal campaign finance offenses, this time for the benefit of another client, Marjorie Margolies, a former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Smukler, a veteran of prior Margolies political campaigns, ran the Margolies campaign in 2014.
In April 2014, during a close primary race, the Margolies campaign was running out of money that it could legally spend in the primary. Smukler then caused the Margolies campaign to illegally spend general election funds in his attempt to win the primary election for his client. He further lied about his illegal spending to the campaign’s lawyer. That lawyer, in turn, unwittingly reported Smukler’s lies to the FEC in response to a complaint filed by another candidate. Additionally, Smukler caused excessive campaign contributions and illegal conduit contributions to the Margolies campaign, all of which were hidden or disguised from the campaign’s FEC filings.
“When political operatives like Kenneth Smukler engage in hidden illegal campaign finance schemes, they undermine the integrity of the electoral process,” said Assistant Attorney General Benczkowski. “This is a just sentence that reflects the seriousness of these crimes.”
“In order to win at all costs, Smukler knowingly and purposefully undermined our democratic process by misusing campaign funds and lying about it,” said U.S. Attorney McSwain. “My Office will continue to prosecute public corruption wherever and whenever we uncover it. Now Smukler is headed to jail, and I am grateful that the Court imposed a just sentence reinforcing the fact that this kind of corruption will never be tolerated.”
On Dec. 3, 2018, a jury found Smukler guilty of one count of conspiracy, two counts of excessive campaign contributions, two counts of false statements, two counts of conduit contributions, one count of willfully causing a false statement to the FEC and one count of obstruction of justice.
Former Public Integrity Section Trial Attorney Jonathan I. Kravis and the FBI investigated the case. Richard C. Pilger, Director of the Election Crimes Branch of the Public Integrity Section, Trial Attorney Rebecca Moses of the Public Integrity Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric L. Gibson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania prosecuted the case.
Massachusetts-based medical device manufacturer Alere Inc. and its subsidiary Alere San Diego (Alere) have agreed to pay the United States $33.2 million to resolve allegations that Alere caused hospitals to submit false claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal healthcare programs by knowingly selling materially unreliable point-of-care diagnostic testing devices, the Justice Department announced today.
“The United States is fortunate that innovative healthcare companies regularly develop medical devices that improve patients’ lives, often in remarkable ways,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Chad A. Readler for the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “But the Department will hold medical device manufacturers accountable if they knowingly sell defective products that waste taxpayer dollars and adversely impact patient care.”
The United States alleged that between January 2006 and March 2012, Alere knowingly sold materially unreliable rapid point-of-care testing devices marketed under the trade name Triage®. The Triage® devices aided in the diagnosis of acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, drug overdose, and other serious conditions, and the devices were frequently used in emergency departments where timely decisions are critical to ensuring proper patient care. According to the government’s allegations, Alere received customer complaints that put it on notice that certain devices it sold produced erroneous results that had the potential to create false positives and false negatives that adversely affected clinical decision-making. Nonetheless, the company failed to take appropriate corrective actions until FDA inspections prompted a nationwide product recall in 2012. Of the $33.2 million to be paid by Alere, $28,378,893 will be returned to the federal government and a total of $4,860,779 will be returned to individual states, which jointly funded claims for Triage devices submitted to state Medicaid programs.
“Physicians who work to treat patients with suspected myocardial infarctions rely upon devices such as Alere’s Triage Cardiac products for quick and accurate readings," said Stephen M. Schenning, Acting United States Attorney for the District of Maryland. "When manufacturers such as Alere make changes to the specifications that affect the product’s reliability without informing physicians or the FDA, patient care is put at substantial risk.”
“Congress passed the False Claims Act on March 2, 1863 to protect taxpayer dollars from fraud and abuse and to allow private citizens to join the effort,” said Maureen R. Dixon, Special Agent in Charge for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General in Philadelphia. “We will continue to work with concerned citizens, the Department of Justice and our investigative partners to ensure the federal government only pays for honest, high quality, health care products and services.”
The settlement with Alere resolves a lawsuit filed under the whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act, which permits private parties to file suit on behalf of the United States for false claims and share in a portion of the government’s recovery. The civil lawsuit was filed by Amanda Wu, who formerly worked for Alere as a senior quality control analyst. As part of today’s resolution, Ms. Wu will receive approximately $5.6 million.
The settlement with Alere was the result of a coordinated effort among the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland, the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, and the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units, with assistance from the FDA’s Office of Chief Counsel, and HHS’ Office of Counsel to the Inspector General. The investigation was conducted by HHS-OIG, FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations, and the Department of Defense Criminal Investigative Services.
The claims resolved by this settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability. The lawsuit is captioned United States ex rel. Amanda Wu v. Alere San Diego, et al., No. GLR-11-CV-1808.
A complaint was unsealed today, charging two U.S. citizens with federal crimes related to Iran. Muzzamil Zaidi, 36, a U.S. citizen who resides in Qom, Iran, was charged with acting in the United States as an agent of the government of Iran without first notifying the Attorney General. Zaidi, Asim Naqvi, 36, a U.S. citizen who lives in Houston, Texas, and Ali Chawla, 36, a Pakistani national who lives in Qom, Iran, were all charged with violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The complaint alleges that both charges stem from the defendants’ campaign to transport U.S. currency from the United States to Iran on behalf of the Supreme Leader of Iran in 2018 and 2019. Both Zaidi and Naqvi were arrested in Houston yesterday, Aug. 18, 2020.
“Disrupting Iran’s ability to raise U.S. dollars is key to combating its ability to sponsor international terrorism and destabilize the Middle East, including through its military presence in Yemen,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers. “Zaidi, Naqvi, and Chawla allegedly raised money in the United States on behalf of Iran’s Supreme Leader, and illegally channeled these dollars to the government of Iran. As a result of today’s charges, their unlawful scheme has been exposed and brought to an end. The U.S. Department of Justice and its National Security Division are committed to holding accountable individuals who operate covert networks within the United States in order to provide support and funds to hostile foreign governments like Iran in violation of U.S. law.”
“This case is significant on many levels,” said Michael R. Sherwin, Acting United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. “To begin, as alleged in the criminal complaint, the defendants have considerable operational links to the IRGC, which has conducted multiple terrorist operations throughout the world over the past several years. The life-blood of these terrorist operations is cash – and the defendants played a key role in facilitating that critical component.”
“Today’s charges demonstrate our commitment to preventing agents of hostile foreign governments from having access and freedom to operate within the borders of the United States,” said James A. Dawson, acting Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office. “In addition to being charged with acting as an illegal agent of Iran, Zaidi allegedly operated with his co-conspirators at the behest of the Iranian government — a known sponsor of terrorism — to overtly solicit U.S. money to further Iranian causes, in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This is why IEEPA was established: to prevent hostile foreign governments from leveraging the U.S. financial system in furtherance of their global destabilizing endeavors.”
“The arrests today are the direct result of the undeterred efforts of the FBI Houston Counterterrorism investigative team,” said FBI Houston Field Office Special Agent in Charge, Perrye K. Turner. “By engaging in around the clock collaboration with multiple Field Offices and Intelligence Community partners, our agents ensure that those who send money to terrorist regimes will ultimately be held accountable and lose their freedom.”
As alleged in the affidavit in support of a criminal complaint, Zaidi offered his services to the Supreme Leader of Iran in or around July 2015 and said that he could serve the “Islamic Republic in the socio-political or another field.” The complaint alleges that Zaidi traveled to Syria in or around June 2018 and that, while there, flew to an active war zone in an armed Iranian military or intelligence aircraft. The complaint alleges that Zaidi had access to bases under the command of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) while in that war zone, including a “Sepah Qods” (IRGC Qods Force) base. The IRGC was designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S on April 4, 2019. Qassem Soleimani, a major general in the IRGC, was commander of the Qods Force until he was killed in a U.S. airstrike on Jan. 3, 2020.
According to the complaint, in December 2018, Zaidi and other members of an organization known as “Islamic Pulse,” including Chawla, received the permission of the Supreme Leader of Iran to collect khums, a religious tax, on the Supreme Leader’s behalf, and to send half of that money to Yemen. The complaint alleges that permission was formalized on or about Feb. 28, 2019, in a letter confirming the permission of the Supreme Leader of Iran and another Ayatollah to spend khums money in Yemen.
Based on the complaint, in or around July 2019, Islamic Pulse released a video soliciting donations for its purported Yemen campaign that showed money moving from the United States and other Western countries to Yemen through Iran. The complaint alleges that Chawla replied to donors’ concerns about how the campaign was able to get money into Yemen by stating that the matter could not be discussed over email. The complaint further alleges that Chawla sought U.S. dollars specifically, stated that Islamic Pulse could not accept electronic transfers, and admitted that Islamic Pulse was not a registered charity.
The complaint alleges that after the United States placed sanctions on the Supreme Leader of Iran in June 2019, Zaidi told Naqvi that the action was a “straight hit on khums.” The complaint alleges that in summer and fall 2019 Zaidi and Naqvi continued to collect U.S. currency in the United States and have it transported it to Iran, sometimes via Iraq, structured in such a way as to avoid reporting requirements. After a group of 25 travelers carried money destined for Iran on behalf of Zaidi and Naqvi in October 2019, Zaidi and Naqvi discussed the screening the travelers underwent at the airport and Naqvi’s hope that none of the travelers would confess to authorities upon their return.
The complaint alleges that, during his current stay in the United States, which began in June 2020, Zaidi has exhibited behavior that is consistent with having received training from a foreign government or foreign intelligence service, such as the government of Iran or IRGC. According to the complaint, that behavior includes a reluctance to discuss matters over the phone, or even over encrypted applications, because Zaidi claims that doing so could be dangerous.
The charges in criminal complaints are merely allegations, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The maximum penalty for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 951 is 10 years, and the maximum penalty for a violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is 20 years. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes.
The investigation into this matter was conducted by the FBI’s Washington Field Office and Houston Field Office. The case is being prosecuted by the National Security Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, along with the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section and Counterterrorism Section of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice.
The co-owners of a Boston-area home healthcare company pleaded guilty in federal court yesterday for tax crimes resulting in over $1 million in losses, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Andrew E. Lelling for the District of Massachusetts.
Hannah Holland, 51, of Quincy, Massachusetts, and Sheila O’Connell, 51, of North Weymouth, Massachusetts, each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and three counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns.
According to court documents, Holland and O’Connell co-owned and operated Erin’s Own Home Healthcare Inc. (Erin’s Own), a home healthcare business. Between 2010 and 2014, Holland and O’Connell directed another individual to cash over $3.5 million of Erin’s Own business checks through nominee bank accounts. During this time, Holland also personally deposited or cashed over $77,000 of Erin’s Own business checks. None of these funds were reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or accounted for in the company’s tax filings. Instead, Holland and O’Connell provided their tax preparer with a limited set of financial records that did not cover the substantial amounts of business funds Holland and O’Connell diverted. As a result of the underreporting, Erin’s Own caused a loss of $1,126,112 to the United States.
Sentencing is scheduled for February 13, 2019. Holland and O’Connell each face a maximum sentence of five years in prison on the conspiracy count and three years in prison on each count of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, as well as a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties.
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Zuckerman and U.S. Attorney Lelling commended special agents from IRS-Criminal Investigation, who are investigating the case, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jordi de Llano, Deputy Chief of the United States Attorney’s Securities and Financial Fraud Unit, and Tax Division Trial Attorney Brittney Campbell, who are prosecuting the case. Additional information about the Tax Division and its enforcement efforts may be found on the division’s website.
A Beverly Hills, California, businessman was sentenced yesterday to 21 months in prison for filing false tax returns, which failed to report his offshore accounts in Germany and Israel and the income earned on those accounts, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Nicola T. Hanna for the Central District of California.
“Today’s prison sentence reinforces the message that the Tax Division alongside its strong partners in U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and the IRS is committed to prosecuting U.S. taxpayers, who willfully hide offshore accounts, and that the penalty for such criminal conduct is not just a financial penalty, but prison,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Zuckerman.
According to court documents, Teymour Khoubian filed false tax returns for tax years 2009 and 2010, which failed to report foreign financial accounts in Germany and Israel and failed to report income earned on those accounts. Between 2005 and 2012, Khoubian jointly owned multiple accounts at Bank Leumi in Israel with his mother that held between $15 million and $20 million. Additionally, since at least 2005, Khoubian also owned a foreign account at Commerzbank AG in Germany. Despite his ownership interest in these accounts and a legal requirement to declare all offshore accounts containing $10,000 or more, Khoubian prepared false tax returns for tax years 2005 through 2011 that did not fully disclose his foreign accounts, nor report all the interest income earned on those accounts. Khoubian’s Bank Leumi accounts generated interest income in excess of $4 million between 2005 and 2010, none of which was reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The total tax loss associated with the Bank Leumi accounts is approximately $1.2 million.
Since at least 2009, Khoubian was aware of the IRS’s Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP). The OVDP allowed U.S. taxpayers to voluntarily disclose unreported foreign accounts and pay a reduced penalty to resolve their civil liability for not declaring foreign accounts to U.S. authorities. During 2011 and 2012, Bank Leumi requested that Khoubian sign a Form W-9 for U.S. tax reporting purposes. In an August 13, 2012, recorded telephone conversation with a banker at Bank Leumi, Khoubian stated that the reason he did not want to sign a Form W-9, was "because you have to pay half of it."
In 2012 and 2014, Khoubian knowingly made multiple false statements to IRS special agents investigating his foreign accounts, including falsely stating that the Bank Leumi accounts were not in his name, that he did not own a bank account in Germany from 2005 to 2010, that he closed his German bank account and moved all of that money to the United States, and that none of the money in his German bank account was moved to Israel.
As part of his sentence, Khoubian was ordered to pay $612,310 in restitution to the IRS. Additionally, as part of his guilty plea, Khoubian paid a Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) penalty in the amount of $7,686,004 plus interest and penalties.
This case was prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Christopher S. Strauss and Ellen M. Quattrucci of the Justice Department’s Tax Division, with the assistance of Assistant United States Attorney Robert Conte of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, and was investigated by the IRS-Criminal Investigation.
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney James P. Kennedy, Jr. announced today that Dorian Wills, 52, of Buffalo, NY, pleaded guilty to tax evasion before U.S. District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford. The charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
According to documents and information provided to the court, between April 2010 and October 2013, the defendant operated a debt collection business under various names, including Heritage Capital Services LLC; Performance Payment Processing LLC; Performance Payment Service LLC; Pinnacle Payment Service LLC; and Velocity Payment Solutions LLC. Wills resided in the Western District of New York but spent significant time in Cleveland, Ohio, and Atlanta, Georgia, where the debt collection companies were located. From approximately November 2010 through approximately October 2013, the defendant operated a business called Freestar World LLC, through which he did work for the debt collection companies.
The debt collection companies engaged in illegal debt collection practices such as making threatening and harassing phone calls, and collecting on debt that did not exist or debt to which the debt collection companies did not have title. To avoid detection by state and federal law enforcement authorities, Wills solicited two individuals to assist him with his businesses.
The defendant had these individuals incorporate several debt collection companies in Georgia and Ohio, open dozens of bank accounts in the names of the debt collection companies, and submit applications for merchant accounts in the names of the debt collection companies.
Between 2010 and 2013, none of the debt collection companies filed a tax return. In addition, Wills failed to file his 2011 and 2013 personal income tax returns, despite some of the debt collection companies earning approximately $4,000,000 in gross receipts.
For the tax year 2012, the defendant filed a personal income tax return but the return did not include income information from any businesses, some of which earned nearly $5,000,000 in gross receipts in 2012, except for Freestar.
As a result of unreported income and the unpaid 2012 taxes, the defendant owes $1,209,537.88 in federal income taxes for tax years 2011 through 2013.
Previously, Wills and the debt collection companies were the subject of a civil investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, with the defendant and the FTC stipulating to a final order for permanent injunction on August 8, 2014.
U.S. District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford scheduled sentencing for Aug. 23, 2018. Wills faces a statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison. He also faces a period of supervised release, restitution and monetary penalties.
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Zuckerman and U.S. Attorney Kennedy thanked special agents of IRS Criminal Investigation, who conducted the investigation, AUSA Marie P. Grisanti, and Tax Division Trial Attorneys Jason M. Scheff and Thomas F. Koelbl, who are prosecuting the case.
Additional information about the Tax Division and its enforcement efforts may be found on the division’s website.
On March 23, 2018, the United States filed a civil forfeiture complaint seeking the possession of 63 pit bull-type dogs that were allegedly involved in a dog fighting venture in violation of the federal Animal Welfare Act. Pursuant to a federal warrant, the animals were seized on March 19, 2018, in Eastman, Georgia, by United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General (USDA-OIG) special agents working with the United States Marshals Service, Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Georgia State Patrol (GSP), Oconee Drug Task Force, Dodge County Sheriff’s Office, and Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
According to the complaint filed last week in federal court, the animals were seized after GSP troopers conducted a traffic stop involving a vehicle inside of which an injured dog was found. The operator of the vehicle admitted to having been present at a dog fight in Eastman, Georgia, and provided law enforcement with the location of the fight. At the reported location, agents discovered a disassembled dog fighting “pit” and more than 60 pit bull-type dogs staked to the ground by heavy chains. The condition of a majority of the dogs, including scarring and aggression towards other dogs, was consistent with dog fighting and related training.
After obtaining a search warrant, agents found numerous indications of dog fighting at the Eastman property, including a treadmill with a rope attached to the front part of the machine, antibiotics and other injectable veterinary medications, and a jenny mill, which is used to develop a dog’s endurance and musculature by enticing the animal to run on a circular track. From four grave areas, agents unearthed the remains of seven dogs, five of which had scarring consistent with dog fighting and one of which had a broken leg. During the search, agents noted that none of the live animals had access to food, and most did not have access to water.
Following the seizure, the United States Marshals Service took custody of the animals. K2 Solutions, Inc. and the Humane Society of the United States are assisting with the care of the dogs, at least some of which are pregnant.
“The Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division is pleased to have partnered with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the U.S. Marshals Service, and federal and state law enforcement in this joint effort to remove these animals from harm’s way, pursuant to federal law, as quickly as possible,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey H. Wood for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “We applaud the agents and attorneys who worked tirelessly and acted on very little notice to achieve this successful outcome.”
“Dog fighting is a barbaric spectacle that has no place in any civilized society, and it will enjoy no quarter in the Southern District of Georgia,” said United States Attorney Bobby L. Christine. “We know that animal fighting ventures often entail other forms of illegal activity involving drugs, firearms, and gambling, and this Office will continue to work with its law enforcement partners at all levels to investigate and successfully prosecute those who contribute to the proliferation of crime and seek to profit off the abuse and suffering of helpless animals.”
“The United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General-Investigations, actively investigates allegations of animal abuse,” said Special Agent in Charge Karen Citizen-Wilcox for USDA-OIG. “This agency has made animal fighting a high priority in order to demonstrate that these blatant acts of cruelty to animals will no longer be tolerated. We would like to thank United States Attorney’s Office for aggressively prosecuting perpetrators of animal fighting.”
Dog fighting is a violent contest in which two dogs that are bred and conditioned for fighting are released by their owners or handlers in a controlled environment to attack each other and fight for purposes of entertainment or gambling. Fights usually end when one dog withdraws, when a handler “picks up” his dog and forfeits the match, or when one or both dogs die. Persons engaged in dog fighting typically use “pit bull”-type dogs, which dog fighters prefer for their compact muscular build, short coat, and the aggression that some display toward other dogs.
The federal Animal Welfare Act makes it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison to fight dogs or to possess, train, sell, buy, deliver, receive, or transport them for that purpose. The statute further authorizes the seizure and forfeiture of animals involved in dog fighting. Once the dogs are forfeited or surrendered to federal authorities, they can be evaluated and placed for adoption. Although federal funds will be used to pay for the care of the dogs while they remain in law enforcement custody, the Animal Welfare Act empowers the government to recover those costs from the dogs’ owners.
Assistant United States Attorneys Theodore S. Hertzberg and Xavier A. Cunningham are pursuing the forfeiture of the dogs on behalf of the United States. USDA-OIG is leading the related federal investigation. For any questions, please contact the United States Attorney’s Office at (912) 652-4422.
Yousif Al Mashhandani (“Yousif”), 35, of Vienna, Virginia, and Adil Hasan, 38, of Burke, Virginia, who are full biological brothers, were arrested this morning. The third individual charged is Enas Ibrahim, 32, also of Burke, who is the wife of Hasan. Each are charged with attempting to obtain naturalization contrary to law. The defendants will have their initial appearance today in front of Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis at 2 p.m. at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia.
Acting Deputy Attorney General and U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Dana J. Boente, Assistant Director in Charge Andrew W. Vale of the FBI’s Washington Field and Special Agent in Charge Patrick J. Lechleitner of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Washington, D.C., made the announcement.
According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, on Nov. 1, 2004, a U.S. citizen, identified as R.H., was kidnapped and held with other hostages for months in horrible conditions in an underground bunker. After a raid in 2005 freed the hostages, Majid Al Mashhadani (“Majid”), who is a full biological brother of Yousif and Hasan, was detained and admitted his complicity in the kidnapping of R.H.
According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, Yousif was admitted into the U.S. as a refugee in 2008. In May 2013, Yousif resided in Vienna and applied for naturalization as a U.S. citizen. In connection with Yousif’s applications for citizenship, his fingerprints were taken. According to an FBI fingerprint specialist, analysis conducted in November 2013 determined that Yousif’s fingerprints match those found on a document at the underground bunker where forces rescued R.H. and others in Iraq in 2005.
According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, Yousif, Hasan and Ibrahim are lawful permanent residents and have applied to naturalize and become U.S. citizens. On various applications and forms throughout their respective immigration processes, each has provided an extensive list of family members and information of their respective family trees; however, none listed any reference to Majid.
According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, on March 4, 2016, FBI agents interviewed Yousif, Hasan and Ibrahim. When FBI agents asked Yousif why he failed to include reference to Majid on the family tree form, Yousif said he omitted reference to Majid because, when he was a refugee, he was told by others applying for refugee status that he would not be allowed into the U.S. if any immediate family members had a criminal background. Hasan admitted to FBI agents that Majid was his brother. Hasan and Ibrahim each admitted they discussed not including Majid’s name on their applications for refugee status because their connection to Majid might delay their ability to gain such status.
According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, to justify his application for refugee status, Yousif reported that in 2006, while working as an anti-corruption investigator for the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity in Iraq, he started receiving threats from a Shiite militia known as the "Al Mahdi Militia," in order to coerce Yousif to drop a particular corruption investigation. Yousif said that in May 2006, Hasan was kidnapped by the Al Mahdi Militia, and was released only after Yousif arranged to drop the investigation in question and helped pay a large ransom. Yousif said that after Hasan was released, he reopened the corruption investigation, only to flee to Jordon in October 2006 after his parents’ house was burned down.
According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, to justify his application for refugee status, Hasan provided sworn testimony that, in 2006, he had been kidnapped and tortured by members of the Al Mahdi Army and held for nearly a month. Hasan said he was released upon the payment of a ransom of $20,000. In an interview by FBI agents in April 2016, Hasan said he was threatened in Iraq on two occasions, but made no mention of being kidnapped, held hostage and tortured for nearly a month. In a subsequent interview in October 2016, FBI agents confronted Hasan about the discrepancy in his stories and Hasan admitted to making false statements and creating his persecution story.
A criminal complaint contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court. Each defendant faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison if convicted. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. If convicted of any offense, the sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the court based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, which includes ICE/HSI and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Gordon Kromberg and Collen Garcia for the Eastern District of Virginia are prosecuting the case.
An MS-13 gang member was sentenced Tuesday to more than 17 years in federal prison for his role in a brutal machete attack at an apartment complex in Dallas, Texas.
Arnold Stephen Miralda-Cruz, age 23, pleaded guilty in February to RICO conspiracy, and was sentenced Tuesday to 210 months in federal prison by U.S. District Judge Jane J. Boyle. Miralda-Cruz is the last of seven defendants sentenced in the case.
“With this sentencing, seven MS-13 gang members responsible for multiple brutal attacks in the Dallas area have now been brought to justice,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian C. Rabbitt of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “The Department of Justice will not waver in its commitment to dismantle and destroy the scourge of MS-13.”
“MS-13 is one of the most vicious gangs operating in America today,” said U.S. Attorney Erin Nealy Cox of the Northern District of Texas. “When machete-wielding gang members terrorize our streets, they will be met with certain justice. The Northern District of Texas thanks our law enforcement partners, led by Homeland Security Investigations, who worked tirelessly to take seven brutal men out of our community.”
“This sentencing brings an end to the violence posed by these criminal gang members who have inflicted mayhem in our communities without any remorse or empathy for anyone,” said Deputy Agent in Charge Christopher M. Miller of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Dallas. “The violent crimes this thug and his cohorts committed for the sake of street credibility and their gang’s reputation has ended with this illegal perpetrator behind bars.”
According to court documents, the defendants – mostly El Salvadorian nationals in the United States illegally – admitted they belonged to MS-13, a notoriously violent transnational street gang with the creed, “kill, rob, rape, control.” As members, the defendants were required to commit acts of violence to protect the gang’s reputation, and were urged to attack and kill rivals whenever possible.
To that end, on July 14, 2017, Miralda-Cruz and several other gang members, including codefendants Rolan Ivan Hernandez Fuentes and Jerson Gutierrez-Ramos, ambushed a rival gang member and his roommate inside an apartment complex in Dallas. Armed with machetes, knives, box cutters, and a metal bar, they struck, stabbed, and cut the victims with intent to kill. The attack left one man with his chest and neck sliced open, necessitating emergency cardiac surgery, and the other with lacerations to his face, requiring hospitalization. Following the attack, Hernandez-Fuentes licked the victims’ blood from the machete and stated that he liked the “taste of victory.”
The following day, on July 15, 2017, Miralda-Cruz, Hernandez-Fuentes, Gutierrez-Ramos, and another gang member attacked and extorted a third man outside his home in Irving. Armed with a machete from the night before, Hernandez-Fuentes forced the victim to kneel, then kicked him and stuck him with the machete. The group demanded the victim, a heroin dealer, pay their MS-13 clique an extortion fee, a “tax,” to deal drugs in their territory.
On Aug. 9, 2017, several gang members attacked another rival gang member at an apartment complex in Dallas, intending to kill the victim. Armed with a sledgehammer, an icepick, a metal bar, a stick, and a knife, they chased the victim, caught him when he tripped, and then attacked him. The victim, who managed to escape, suffered stab wounds to his back and lacerations on several parts of his body, requiring hospitalization.
On Aug. 19, 2017, several gang members attacked and robbed another rival gang member at an apartment complex in Irving. Hernandez-Fuentes approached the victim near a Shell gas station and lured him to a nearby apartment complex where his fellow gang members were waiting. After robbing the victim, they savagely beat, kicked, and hit him with a metal bat until they thought that he was dead. The victim suffered a fractured skull and bleeding from his brain, requiring hospitalization.
In late August, several gang members plotted twice to kill a man believed to be a member of a rival gang. They first lured the victim to a park in Dallas, where they lay in wait with machetes and a shotgun. The victim ultimately refused to get out of his car, and they aborted the plan to kill him. A few days later, they renewed the plot. At an apartment complex in Dallas, they confronted the victim with a shotgun. Gutierrez-Ramos pointed the shotgun at the victim’s chest to shoot him, but the weapon jammed and did not fire. The victim managed to drive away.
On Sept. 25, 2017, Hernandez-Fuentes, Gutierrez-Ramos, and other MS-13 gang members went to Running Bear Park in Irving to ambush and kill a victim whom they believed to be a rival gang member. Armed with machetes, sticks, and a shotgun, they lured the victim to the park under the guise that they were going to buy a tattoo machine from him. The victim, however, unexpectedly arrived at the park with three friends. Nonetheless, the victims were lured to the back of the park where the armed gang was hiding in the woods and waiting to spring. When the victims arrived near the wooded area, the armed gang confronted them and forced them to kneel.
A brutal attack ensued as the assailants hacked at the four victims with their machetes. One male victim escaped unscathed. During the attack, Hernandez-Fuentes hit one male victim with the shotgun and told him not to “mess with the mara (gang).” At some point, Hernandez-Fuentes got distracted, and the victim ran away. Hernandez-Fuentes fired at the victim but missed, and the victim escaped by swimming across a pond. Another male victim also escaped after he sustained a serious cut to his arm, which required hospitalization. The female victim, however, was not so fortunate. She was savagely maimed, sustaining multiple deep lacerations to her arms, hands, and leg from the machete attack. The female victim, who was left for dead badly bleeding in the park, sustained permanent and life-threatening injuries, which required extensive medical care and hospitalization. After the attack, the attackers drove away with their weapons and property stolen from the victims. The police arrested the attackers in the days following the savage assault.
Other sentences in the case are as follows:
Rolan Ivan Hernandez-Fuentes, aka “Tasmania,” sentenced to life in federal prison for RICO conspiracy
Jerson Gutierrez-Ramos, aka “Sparky,” sentenced to 475 months in federal prison for RICO conspiracy
Arnold Steven Miralda-Cruz, aka “Sico,” sentenced to 210 months in federal prison for RICO conspiracy
Kevin Cruz, aka “Street Danger,” sentenced to 250 months in federal prison for RICO conspiracy
Manuel Amaya-Alvarez, aka “Chocolate,” sentenced to 240 months for two counts of attempted murder in aid of racketeering
Jose Armando Saravia-Romero, aka “Pinky,” sentenced to 57 months in federal prison for assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering
Jonathan Alexander Baires, aka “Splinter,” sentenced to 120 months for attempted murder in aid of racketeering
HSI, the Irving Police Department, and the Dallas Police Department conducted the investigation. Trial Attorney Julie Finocchiaro of the Criminal Division’s Organized Crime and Gang Section and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Gary Tromblay and Sid Moody prosecuted the case.
The year 2020 marks the 150th anniversary of the Department of Justice. Learn more about the history of our agency at www.Justice.gov/Celebrating150Years.
Three former caregivers in Fulton, Missouri, have been sentenced for their roles in the death of a disabled resident at Second Chance Homes, an organization that provided housing and care for developmentally disabled persons through a Missouri Department of Mental Health initiative.
On Tuesday, September 1, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Brian C. Wimes sentenced Sherry Paulo to 210 months of imprisonment. Today, Judge Wimes sentenced Anthony Flores to 188 months of imprisonment and Anthony R. K. Flores (“R.K. Flores”) to three years of probation.
On Nov. 22, 2019, Sherry Paulo, 55, and Anthony Flores, 60, each pleaded guilty in federal court in the Western District of Missouri to one count of willfully failing to provide necessary medical care to victim C.D., resulting in injury to and the death of C.D. Paulo also pleaded guilty to one count of health care fraud arising from her efforts to hide C.D.’s death. On February 12, 2020, R.K. Flores pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly falsifying a document with the intent to impede, obstruct, and influence a federal investigation related to the death of C.D.
“Our caregivers have a moral as well as legal obligation to treat those they are entrusted to care for with respect and protect them from abuse,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband of the Civil Rights Division. “In this free country, it is the solemn duty of government to protect all persons, including those who are most vulnerable, from criminal acts that result in the horror that occurred in this case. No one should be confined and left to die in a small, dark basement and then hidden in a trash can filled with cement. The department of Justice will ensure that those who commit acts like these and violate the civil rights of others see justice under the law.”
“These defendants violated their legal and moral obligation to provide medical care to a person with developmentally disabilities, who was dependent upon them, then attempted to cover up their crime beneath layers of deceit and literal concrete,” said U.S. Attorney Tim Garrison of the Western District of Missouri. “Besides substandard care and dismal living conditions, they refused to seek medical treatment for their victim as his health deteriorated. Today the justice system is holding them accountable for their roles in his tragic death.”
“These sentencings are the culmination of the unwavering commitment to seeking justice for those most vulnerable in our society,” said Timothy R. Langan, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Kansas City, Missouri. “The defendants in this case not only failed to provide care for the victim, but took steps to conceal their abuse while continuing to profit from their actions. The FBI remains committed to seeking justice for victims and insuring those responsible are held accountable.”
“These former caregivers committed horrendous crimes against a patient with a developmental disability, while raiding vital Medicaid funds to prop up their alibis,” said Curt L. Muller, Special Agent in Charge of the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to ensure such criminals are brought to justice.”
According to court documents filed in connection with the sentencings, Paulo, Flores, and R.K. Flores worked as caregivers at Second Chance Homes. Victim C.D., who was significantly developmentally disabled and entirely dependent upon his caretakers, had been a resident at Second Chance Homes (SCH) since 2008. Paulo was assigned to care for C.D. in the months leading up to C.D.’s death.
In their guilty pleas, Flores and Paulo admitted that, beginning in 2014, they observed C.D.’s weight decline and his health deteriorate. However, Paulo stopped following C.D.’s prescribed health regimen and stopped taking C.D. to his doctors’ appointments. Paulo and Flores observed C.D. become underweight and pale, struggle to eat, and appear to have less energy. As C.D.’s health deteriorated, Paulo occasionally took C.D. out of his designated SCH residence and put him in the basement of the home she shared with Flores. The basement was small and dark without access to sunlight or running water. Although Paulo and Flores witnessed C.D.’s health continue to decline while in her basement, they did not take C.D. to get necessary medical treatment because they did not want Paulo to be blamed for C.D.’s malnutrition and ill health.
In approximately September 2016, C.D. suffered an acute medical emergency while in the basement room of Paulo and Flores’s home. Despite observing C.D.’s physical distress and obvious medical need, Paulo and Flores chose not to seek medical care for C.D. C.D. died in their home while Paulo and Flores watched. Before his death in or about September 2016, C.D. last saw a doctor in December 2015.
In their plea agreements, Paulo and Flores admitted that, after C.D.’s death, Paulo placed C.D.’s body in a trashcan. Paulo and Flores put the trashcan in a wooden crate that they filled with cement. Paulo, Flores, and R.K. Flores then placed the crate in Paulo’s storage unit.
In the months that followed, Paulo took extensive measures to cover up C.D.’s death. She instructed another SCH resident to lie in C.D.’s bed to convince officials that C.D. was still present at SCH; repeatedly used C.D.’s Electronic Benefits Card; asked an SCH employee to falsely present another SCH resident as C.D. at a doctor’s appointment and get a prescription in C.D.’s name; and falsified numerous official records related to C.D.
In particular, Paulo admitted that after C.D. died, she submitted, or caused to be submitted, false Medicaid claims for services purportedly rendered to C.D. when, as Paulo knew, C.D. was deceased. The amount wrongfully paid by Medicaid, between approximately September 2016 and April 2017, was $106,795.
It was not until April 2017 that the defendants admitted C.D. was no longer at SCH. Paulo reported C.D. missing to the Fulton, Missouri Police Department on April 17, 2017. When interviewed by the police, Paulo, Flores, and R.K. Flores falsely stated that they had seen C.D. on April 16, 2017. In truth, none of the defendants had seen C.D. in months; Paulo and Flores further knew that C.D. had died. Defendants Paulo, Flores, and R.K. Flores did not admit their wrongdoing until a week later, when the Fulton Police Department discovered C.D.’s body.
This case was investigated by the Jefferson City Resident Agency of the FBI Kansas City Division and the St. Louis Field Office of the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General Kansas City Region. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Cindi Woolery and Gregg Coonrod of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and Special Litigation Counsel Julia Gegenheimer and Trial Attorney Janea Lamar of the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Criminal Section. The Fulton, Missouri Police Department and Callaway County Prosecutor Christopher Wilson contributed significantly to the investigation and prosecution of this matter.
Three residents of Lima, Peru, pleaded guilty yesterday to extortion for overseeing a ring of call centers that threatened and extorted Spanish-speaking victims in the United States, the Department of Justice and U.S. Postal Inspection Service announced.
Jesus Gerardo Gutierrez Rojas, 37, Maria de Guadalupe Alexandra Podesta Bengoa, 38, and Virgilio Ignacio Polo Davila, 43, were extradited from Peru in April and pleaded guilty before U.S. District Court Judge Roy K. Altman in Fort Lauderdale yesterday. As part of his guilty plea, Gutierrez admitted that he oversaw a number of affiliated call centers in Peru that falsely told Spanish-speaking victims across the United States that they had incurred debts and would suffer various consequences for failure to pay off the debts that they did not, in fact, owe. As part of their guilty pleas, Podesta and Polo admitted that they managed and supervised two of these affiliated call centers that used extortion to obtain money from U.S. victims.
“The Department of Justice is committed to identifying and prosecuting criminals who target and extort U.S. consumers,” said Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt. “Yesterday’s guilty pleas demonstrate that those who threaten U.S. consumers by phone cannot escape justice by placing their calls from abroad. Working with our international partners, we will bring them to justice no matter where they reside. I thank the Republic of Peru for extraditing these defendants to face justice in our courts and the U.S. Postal Insecption Service for its work investigating this case.”
As part of their guilty pleas, Podesta and Polo admitted that their Peruvian call centers contacted U.S. consumers, many of whom were elderly and vulnerable, using Internet-based calls. Claiming to be attorneys and government representatives, Podesta, Polo and their callers falsely told victims that they failed to pay for or receive a delivery of products and threatened them into paying fraudulent settlements for nonexistent debts. The callers falsely threatened victims with lawsuits, negative marks on their credit reports, imprisonment, or immigration consequences if they did not immediately pay for the purportedly delivered products and “settlement fees.” Many victims made payments based on these baseless extortionate threats.
Gutierrez was the general manager of a larger company where he worked in partnership with Podesta, Polo, and others to facilitate their extortion scheme. The defendants’ associates in Miami collected the payments and sometimes shipped packages to victims in the U.S.
“If an individual who claims to be an attorney or government representative calls and instructs you to pay money to: receive products you did not buy; avoid a lawsuit; avoid imprisonment; or avoid a change in immigration status, hang up and immediately report that threat to www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov,” said U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Ariana Fajardo Orshan. “I thank the Republic of Peru for extraditing the defendants in this case and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service for their unwavering commitment to investigate and pursue those who threaten U.S. consumers.”
“The U.S. Postal Inspection Service will continue to aggressively investigate and pursue those who threaten U.S. consumers and extort them of their hard earned money, regardless of what country they operate from,” said U.S. Postal Inspector in Charge Antonio J. Gomez. “The U.S. Postal Inspection Service appreciates the continued partnership with the Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch in pursuing South American call center operators who victimize consumers through the U.S. mail.”
With yesterday’s three guilty pleas, all five defendants who have been charged in connection with this large-scale extortion scheme have now pleaded guilty.
Trial Attorney Phil Toomajian of the Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch is prosecuting the case. The Postal Inspection Service investigated the case. The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs, the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of Florida, the Diplomatic Security Service, and the Peruvian National Police provided critical assistance.
A former National Football League (NFL) player was sentenced today to five years in prison for orchestrating a nationwide scheme to defraud a health care benefit program for retired NFL players.
According to court documents, Robert McCune, 42, of Riverdale, Georgia, defrauded the Gene Upshaw NFL Player Health Reimbursement Account Plan (the Plan). The Plan was established pursuant to the NFL’s 2006 collective bargaining agreement. It provided former players, their spouses and their dependents, up to a maximum of $350,000 per player tax-free reimbursement of out-of-pocket medical care expenses that were not covered by insurance.
Court documents show that McCune submitted false and fraudulent claims to the Plan on his own behalf and on behalf of dozens of other former NFL players. Between June 5, 2017, and April 12, 2018, he submitted 68 claims for 51 other players. The claims typically sought reimbursement of $40,000 or more for expensive medical equipment such as hyperbaric oxygen chambers, ultrasound machines and electromagnetic therapy devices. None of the medical equipment described in the claims was ever purchased or received. In total, McCune and his co-conspirators submitted approximately $2.9 million in fraudulent claims to the Plan.
Court documents further show that McCune obtained identifying information for other participants in the Plan, including the player’s name, insurance identification number, social security number, mailing address and/or date of birth. In exchange for submitting the false and fraudulent claims, McCune demanded kickbacks and bribes in the thousands of dollars for each claim submitted.
McCune pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, 10 counts of wire fraud, 12 counts of health care fraud and three counts of aggravated identity theft.
Thirteen other defendants have been sentenced for their participation in the nationwide scheme:
John Eubanks, 38, of Cleveland, Mississippi, was sentenced to 18 months in prison;
Tamarick Vanover, 47, of Tallahassee, Florida, and Ceandris Brown, 39, of Iowa Colony, Texas, were each sentenced to a year and a day in prison;
Correll Buckhalter, 43, of Colleyville, Texas, was sentenced to 10 months in prison, followed by 300 days’ home detention;
Clinton Portis, 40, of Fort Mill, South Carolina, was sentenced to six months in prison, followed by 180 days’ home detention;
Etric Pruitt, 40, of Theodore, Alabama, was sentenced to three months in prison, followed by 180 days’ home detention;
James Butler, 39, of Atlanta, Georgia, was sentenced to two months in prison, followed by 180 days’ home detention;
Carlos Rogers, 40, of Alpharetta, Georgia, was sentenced to 180 days’ home detention and 400 hours of community service;
Anthony Montgomery, 37, of Cleveland, Ohio; Antwan Odom, 40, of Irvington, Alabama; Darrell Reid, 39, of Farmingdale, New Jersey; and Fredrick Bennett, 38, of Port Wentworth, Georgia, were each sentenced to 180 days’ home detention and 240 hours of community service; and
Joe Horn, 50, of Columbia, South Carolina, was sentenced to 200 hours of community service.
Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr. of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Carlton S. Shier IV for the Eastern District of Kentucky; Assistant Director Luis Quesada of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division; and Special Agent in Charge George L. Piro of the FBI’s Miami Field Office made the announcement.
This case was investigated by the FBI and included efforts by various FBI Field Offices and Resident Agencies, including Augusta, Georgia; Birmingham and Mobile, Alabama; Cleveland, Ohio; Chicago, Illinois; Columbia, South Carolina; Dallas and Houston, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Jackson, Mississippi; Lexington, Kentucky; New Orleans, Louisiana; Miami, Jacksonville, and Tampa, Florida; Newark, New Jersey; Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, and Newport Beach, California; Phoenix, Arizona; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Washington, D.C.
Assistant Chief John (Fritz) Scanlon and Trial Attorney Alexander J. Kramer of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew E. Smith of the Eastern District of Kentucky prosecuted the case.
On Wednesday, November 14, 2018, Hyundai Construction Equipment Americas Inc. (Hyundai), then a subsidiary of Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd, pleaded guilty and was sentenced in federal court in Atlanta, Georgia, to pay a $1.95 million dollar criminal fine for conspiring to defraud the United States government and to violate the Clean Air Act, the Justice Department announced today. The charges relate to construction equipment Hyundai imported for sale into the United States from the Republic of Korea that contained engines that did not comply with air emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.
Hyundai imports construction and other equipment into the United States, which it sells to its dealer network. During a phase-in period for new air emissions standards, Hyundai opted to participate in a transition program that allowed it to import limited numbers of engines not in compliance with the new standards. As part of the program, Hyundai had to report the number of imported noncompliant engines to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hyundai’s imports of noncompliant engines substantially exceeded its allowance. A consultant retained by Hyundai to provide advice about complying with the requirements warned the company that it was out of compliance and that it risked a substantial penalty. The consultant advised Hyundai to stop importing and notify the EPA. Nonetheless, Hyundai continued to import the noncompliant engines, and its employees conspired to lie to the EPA and to impede EPA’s ability to enforce emissions standards. Ultimately, Hyundai submitted a report that intentionally understated the number of noncompliant engines it had imported from Korea.
“This case underscores the necessity for foreign companies that opt to do business in the United States to comply with our Nation’s laws developed to protect human health and the environment,” said Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark for the Environment and Natural Resources Division. “A self-reporting regime, such as the one here, depends upon the honesty and integrity of the regulated parties. We hope that this case will chart a new course for Hyundai, and serve as a lesson for all companies that interact with our regulatory agencies.”
“Hyundai Construction Equipment Americas tried to increase its profits by illegally importing diesel engines that did not comply with U.S. Clean Air Act regulations,” said EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Assistant Administrator Susan Bodine. “This case shows that EPA and our law enforcement partners will not allow importers to gain a competitive advantage or risk the health and safety of our communities by evading U.S. environmental laws.”
Assistant Attorney General Clark thanked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Criminal Investigation Division for its work in this investigation. The case is being prosecuted by Senior Counsel Krishna Dighe of the Environmental Crimes Section of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Huber, Deputy Chief of the Complex Fraud Section, of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia.
Christopher A. Parris, 41, formerly of Rochester, New York, and currently of Lawrenceville, Georgia, pleaded guilty today to conspiracy to commit mail fraud related to a Ponzi scheme, as well as to wire fraud involving the fraudulent sale of purported N95 masks during the pandemic.
“The fraud schemes at issue here, including the purported sales of personal protective equipment that the defendant could not actually provide, are particularly egregious,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “The Department of Justice is committed to prosecuting anyone who would try to profit through this kind of conduct.”
“Defendant Parris, together with his co-defendant Perry Santillo, bilked millions of dollars from unsuspecting investors in their Ponzi scheme,” said U.S. Attorney James P. Kennedy Jr. for the Western District of New York. “Their web of deceit spread far and wide as they purchased established investment advisor or broker businesses from across the country in order to gain access to new victims. This office remains committed to working with all of our partners to identify and bring to justice those who seek to enrich themselves by defrauding others.”
“Preying on companies and the Department of Veterans Affairs as they sought to protect their employees and patients from this pandemic is beyond the pale,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips for the District of Columbia. “The department and our law enforcement partners will catch and stop those who take advantage of public health emergencies to perpetrate such frauds.”
“The U.S. Postal Inspection Service aggressively conducts investigations of those who fraudulently use the U.S. Mail to facilitate complex fraud schemes,” said Acting Inspector in Charge Joshua W. McCallister of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Boston Division. “Today’s plea demonstrates our ongoing work with law enforcement partners to stop those who are engaged in these types of fraudulent activities.”
“Financial frauds are grounded in greed, so it's no surprise that when multiple people are behind a single scheme the greed runs deeper and the damage hits harder,” said Special Agent-in-Charge Stephen Belongia of the Buffalo Office of the FBI. “The only guarantee in a Ponzi scheme is that it will fall short, and the founders who contrived them will too.”
“The urgent need to protect veterans and VA health care workers during this fast-moving pandemic required the Department of Veterans Affairs to rapidly purchase personal protective equipment” said Inspector General Michael J. Missal of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). “Working with our law enforcement partners, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) stopped a criminal who was attempting to profit from this horrible crisis and prevented the government and taxpayers from being defrauded of hundreds of millions of dollars. The VA OIG will continue to work zealously to ensure schemes like this are uncovered, investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
“Since the onset of the pandemic, HSI quickly adapted to investigate the increasing and evolving threat posed by COVID-19-related fraud and criminal activity,” said Acting Special Agent in Charge Jack P. Staton of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), New Orleans Field Office. “This guilty plea is a testament to the commitment we have, along with our law enforcement partners, to protecting the American public in times of crisis.”
The Ponzi Scheme
Between January 2011 and June 2018, Parris conspired with co-defendant Perry Santillo and others to obtain money through an investment fraud, commonly known as a Ponzi scheme. Specifically, in 2007, Parris and Santillo, as equal partners, formed a business known as Lucian Development in Rochester. Prior to approximately July 2007, Lucian Development raised millions of dollars from investors in Rochester, and elsewhere, by soliciting investments for City Capital Corporation, a business operated by Ephren Taylor. In July 2007, Parris and Santillo were advised by Ephren Taylor that their investors’ money had been lost. In response, in August 2007, Parris and Santillo agreed to acquire the assets and debts of City Capital Corporation. The acquisition proved financially ruinous, with the amount of the acquired debt far exceeding the value of the acquired assets. Taylor was later prosecuted and convicted of operating a Ponzi scheme.
Subsequently, Parris and Santillo chose not to disclose the truth to investors that their money, entrusted to Lucian Development for investment in City Capital Corporation, was gone. Instead, Parris and Santillo continued to solicit ever-increasing amounts of money from new investors in an unsuccessful attempt to recoup the losses. In order to find potential investors to solicit and defraud, Parris and Santillo purchased businesses from established investment advisors or brokers who were looking to exit their businesses. Between approximately 2008 and September 2017, Parris and Santillo, using money obtained from prior investors, purchased the businesses of at least 15 investment advisors or brokers, located in Tennessee, Ohio, Minnesota, Nevada, California (five businesses), Florida, South Carolina (two businesses), Texas, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Indiana.
The investment offerings pitched by Parris and Santillo consisted principally of unsecured promissory notes and preferred stock issued by various entities controlled by Parris and Santillo. Potential investors were offered an apparent array of investment options to create the illusion of a diversified investment portfolio. Those investment options included products issued by purported issuers such as First Nationle Solutions (FNS), Percipience Global Corporation, United RL Capital Services, Boyles America, Middlebury Development Corporation and NexMedical Solutions, among others. None of these issuers had substantial bona fide business operations or used investor money in the manner and for the purposes represented to investors. To the extent that an issuer may have had some minor legitimate business activities, it was not profitable, and insufficient revenues were generated to pay investors any returns (let alone return the principal amounts of their investments).
Over the years, to keep the Ponzi scheme from being detected, a substantial portion of incoming new investor monies were depleted by making promised interest and other payments to earlier investors. Most of the rest of incoming investor money was used by Parris, Santillo and other co-conspirators to finance lavish lifestyles of the conspirators, their families and associates; to expand the scheme by purchasing investment advisor/brokerage businesses to obtain access to fresh investors; and to pay operating expenses – salaries for a sales force and administrative staff, office rents and related expenses, housing for employees, and interest on loans – all of which were used to keep the scheme going and maintain a façade of legitimate business operations.
Very little investor money was deployed in productive investments, and when so deployed, the investments yielded meager income and were not profitable, or failed altogether. The Ponzi scheme was headquartered and based out of locations in Rochester, with a number of satellite offices around the country. Administrative and banking functions were largely performed out of Rochester. The conspiracy employed a variety of salespeople, including Parris and Santillo, who traveled around the country to meet with and solicit new investors.
Between January 2012 and June 19, 2018, Parris and Santillo obtained at least $115.5 million from approximately 1,000 investors. By the time the scheme collapsed in late-2017/early 2018, Parris and Santillo, doing business through an array of corporate entities, had returned approximately $44.8 million to investors as part of their scheme, but continued to owe investors approximately $70.7 million in principal.
Among the Rochester area victims of the Ponzi scheme were the following:
A resident of Webster, New York, who held a total asset value of $94,341.89 with a fictitious company known as First Nationle Solutions (FNS), which, as of Dec. 31, 2017, was in fact worthless or close to worthless; and
A resident of Victor, New York, and his wife, who invested approximately $221,758.67 with FNS and Middlebury Development. The couple received three payments of $2,500 but lost approximately $214,258.67.
Parris and Santillo controlled hundreds of different business bank accounts opened under numerous different business names at various financial institutions, including but not limited to Bank of America, Citizens Bank, Genesee Regional Bank and ESL Federal Credit Union. Santillo and Parris directed and authorized the transactions that occurred in the accounts, including deposits, withdrawals, check writing and funds transfers. The various bank accounts were used to transfer money from one account to another. Incoming investor money was routinely transferred through several accounts before the funds were finally spent on whatever purpose Parris and/or Santillo authorized. By moving investors’ funds through various accounts in various entity names, Parris and Santillo were able to conceal and obscure the fact that new investor money was being used to repay earlier investors, finance the operations of the Ponzi scheme, and fund their lifestyles.
Santillo was previously convicted and is awaiting sentencing.
The COVID-19 Fraud Scheme
Parris also pleaded guilty in a case originally charged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to defrauding the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA), as well as at least eight other victim companies, in a scheme involving personal protection equipment (PPE). Between February and April 10, 2020, the defendant, as the owner and operator of Encore Health Group, a company based in Atlanta, that purported to broker medical equipment, offered to sell scarce PPE, including 3M-brand N95 respirator masks, to various medical supply companies and governmental entities. In these proposals, Parris knowingly misrepresented his access to, and ability to obtain and deliver on time, vast quantities of 3M N95 masks and other PPE. The defendant falsely represented that he was able to obtain 3M N95 masks directly from authorized sources in the United States, when in fact, he had no ready access to 3M factories or 3M N95 masks or other PPE, no proven source of supply, and no track record of procuring and delivering such items.
For example, in March 2021, Parris offered to sell the VA 125 million 3M N95 masks at a cost of $6.45 per mask. In this process, the defendant attempted to obtain an upfront payment of $3.075 million from the VA, even though he knew at the time that he had no access to the promised masks or present ability to deliver the promised masks.
As part of his guilty plea, Parris admitted that, in addition to attempting to defraud the VA, he actually obtained upfront payments totaling approximately $7.4 million from at least eight clients for 3M N95 masks that he knew he had no access to or present ability to obtain or deliver on time. Parris also admitted that the proceeds of the scheme totaled approximately $6,218,525. In total, Parris sought orders in excess of $65 million for the non-existent PPE equipment.
* * *
Parris is scheduled to be sentenced on Dec. 8 before U.S. District Judge Frank P. Geraci Jr. He faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for conspiracy regarding the Ponzi scheme, 30 years in prison for wire fraud in connection to a presidentially-declared emergency, and 10 years in prison for committing the offense originally charged in the District of Columbia while on release from the Western District of New York.
The plea is the result of an investigation by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, under the direction of Acting Inspector-in-Charge Joshua W. McCallister of the Boston Division; the FBI, Buffalo Division, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Stephen Belongia, the IRS, Criminal Investigation Division, under the direction of Thomas Fattorusso, Acting Special Agent-in-Charge; the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations – Labor Racketeering and Fraud, under the direction of Nikitas Splagounias, Acting Special Agent-in-Charge, New York Region, the New York State Department of Financial Services, under the direction of Superintendent Linda A. Lacewell; the Securities and Exchange Commission; the VA OIG, under the direction of Michael J. Missal, Inspector General, and HSI, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Jack P. Staton of the New Orleans Field Office.
Assistant U.S. Attorney John J. Field is handling the prosecution in the Western District of New York, and Trial Attorney Patrick Runkle of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch and Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Lallas are handling the prosecution in the District of Columbia.
On May 17, 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 fraud related to 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 Justice Department announced that three former White River Juvenile Detention Center officers: Will Ray, 26, Thomas Farris, 47, and Jason Benton, 42, have been indicted by a federal grand jury for their roles in a conspiracy to assault juvenile inmates.
The seven-count indictment charges that Ray, Farris, and Benton conspired to assault juvenile detainees, assaulted the detainees, and then tried to cover up their misconduct. The indictment charges that, in some instances, the defendants used pepper spray on juveniles and then, rather than decontaminating them, shut them in their cells to “let them cook.”
In addition to the conspiracy, Ray is charged in Count Two with participating in the Nov. 6, 2013, assault of a fourteen-year-old boy who had been lying asleep on his bunk. According to the indictment, Ray grabbed the boy from his bunk and held him so that another officer could spray the boy in the face with pepper spray.
Farris, in addition to the conspiracy, is charged in Count Three with assaulting a seventeen-year-old juvenile on Nov. 21, 2013, by pepper spraying him in the face.
Counts Four through Seven of the Indictment charged Benton with two assaults and with falsifying incident reports related to those assaults. According to the Indictment, on June 6, 2012, Benton assaulted a sixteen-year-old juvenile by grabbing, shoving, and choking him. The indictment also charges that, on May 19, 2013, Benton deployed pepper spray in the face of a fifteen-year-old juvenile. According to the indictment, none of the juveniles posed a physical threat to anyone nor physically resisted in any way at the time they were assaulted by the officers.
The charges contained in this indictment are simply accusations, and not evidence of guilt.
This case is being investigated by the FBI’s Little Rock Division and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie Peters of the Eastern District of Arkansas and Trial Attorney Samantha Trepel of the Civil Rights Division.
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 loss and the distribution of over 3.25 million pills of opioids in “pill mill” clinics. The takedown includes new charges against 48 defendants for their roles in submitting over $160 million in fraudulent claims, including charges against 15 doctors or medical professionals, and 24 who were charged for their roles in diverting opioids.
In addition to the new charges, today’s enforcement action also includes the guilty pleas of three corporate executives, including the Vice President of Marketing of numerous telemedicine companies and two owners of approximately 25 durable medical equipment companies, for their roles in causing the submission of over $600 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare. This is one of the largest health care fraud schemes ever investigated by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG) and prosecuted by the Department of Justice, which previously resulted in charges against 21 other defendants. The enforcement action also includes three additional recent guilty pleas by other defendants. In addition, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Program Integrity (CMS/CPI) announced today that all appropriate administrative actions would be taken based on these charges. As part of the announcement in April, CMS/CPI announced that it took administrative action against 130 DME companies that submitted over $1.7 billion in claims to the Medicare program.
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 Investigations (IRS-CI), Department of Defense-Defense Criminal Investigative (DoD-DCIS), Food and Drug Administration-Office of Inspector General (FDA-OIG), U.S. Postal Service-Office of Inspector General (USPS-OIG), the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit and other federal and state law enforcement agencies participated in the operation.
The charges and guilty pleas announced today continue to target corporate health care fraud involving fraudulent telemedicine companies and the solicitation of illegal kickbacks and bribes from health care suppliers in exchange for the referral of Medicare beneficiaries for medically unnecessary durable medical equipment and other testing. The charges also 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 Medicare Fraud Strike Force, 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 to the public fisc, and the illegal prescribing and distribution of opioids and other dangerous narcotics.
“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.”
“As today’s takedown demonstrates, this Strike Force has produced precisely what we hoped it would – and by that I mean tangible results,” said U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. “We have brought together a wealth of resources, knowledge, and subject-matter expertise – that of health care fraud prosecutors, civil enforcement assistant U.S. attorneys, data analysts, and law enforcement agencies – all working to stop fraud, waste, and abuse within our federal health care programs and to stem the tide of illegal opioid distribution. These are top priorities of the Department of Justice and my Office, and our focus in this area continues to pay off.”
“Under the law, healthcare professionals are obligated to exercise appropriate care and judgment in the manner in which opiates are prescribed and distributed in order to ensure that such substances are, in fact, ‘controlled,’” said U.S. Attorney James P. Kennedy Jr. of the Western District of New York. “When such professionals abandon that obligation and instead engage in acts of fraud and deceit, they will be prosecuted.”
“As alleged, defendants charged in the Eastern District of New York used fraud and deceit to steal Medicaid and Medicare funds meant to protect our elderly and most vulnerable residents,” stated U.S. Attorney Donoghue of the Eastern District of New York. “As this initiative demonstrates, we will continue to bring to justice those that defraud our nation’s health care programs.”
“We continue to work closely with our law enforcement partners to identify, investigate and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse in the nation’s federal healthcare programs,” said Deputy Administrator and CPI Center Director Alec Alexander. “In this case, CMS will take swift administrative action against providers responsible for fraudulent billings to federal healthcare programs. CMS is committed to protecting vulnerable beneficiaries from exploitation and safeguarding taxpayer dollars.”
“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," said Assistant Special Agent in Charge Wayne Jacobs of the FBI’s Newark Field Office. “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.”
“Healthcare fraud is not a victimless crime—with unscrupulous providers preying on Medicare beneficiaries and taxpayers alike. Especially insidious is the fraud committed by healthcare professionals who are trusted to provide needed, quality services to patients,” said Special Agent in Charge Scott J. Lampert of HHS-OIG. “With our law enforcement partners, our agency will continue to thoroughly investigate medical providers and others involved in healthcare fraud.”
“The physicians who chose to violate their oaths to “Do no harm” are nothing more than drug dealers wearing a white lab coat,” said Special Agent in Charge Susan A. Gibson of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s New Jersey Field Division. “They have turned their backs on those most vulnerable. We will continue to vigorously pursue these doctors who violate the faith and trust of those who need help.”
*********
Among those charged in the District of New Jersey are the following:
Elliot Loewenstern, 56, of Boca Raton, Florida, the vice president of marketing of purported call centers and telemedicine companies, pleaded guilty on Sept. 24, 2019, for his role in one of the largest health care fraud schemes ever investigated by the FBI and HHS-OIG and prosecuted by the Department of Justice, which resulted in charges in April 2019 against 24 defendants. Loewenstern pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and pay and receive health care kickbacks, and one count of solicitation of health care kickbacks. Loewenstern was the Vice President of Marketing of PCS CC LLC and a marketer for Video Doctor USA (Video Doctor) and Telemed Health Group LLC (AffordADoc) (collectively, the Video Doctor Network). In connection with his plea agreement, Loewenstern admitted causing the submission of over $424 million in fraudulent claims that resulted from the solicitation of illegal kickbacks and bribes in exchange for the referral of brace orders to brace providers. In connection with his guilty plea, Loewenstern admitted that he and others agreed to solicit and receive illegal kickbacks and bribes from patient recruiters, brace suppliers and others in exchange for the arranging for doctors to order medically unnecessary orthotic braces for beneficiaries of Medicare and other insurance carriers. The beneficiaries were contacted through an international telemarketing network that lured hundreds of thousands of elderly and/or disabled patients into a criminal scheme that crossed borders, involving call centers in the Philippines and throughout Latin America, Loewenstern stated. Loewenstern admitted that many of these orders were written after only a short telephone call between the health care provider and the beneficiary, with whom the health care provider had no prior doctor-patient relationship. In addition, Loewenstern admitted that he was aware that the owners and other executives of the Video Doctor Network schemed to defraud investors and others by making false and fraudulent representations that the Video Doctor Network was a legitimate telemedicine enterprise that made revenue of “$10 million per year” and “20 percent profit” from payments by beneficiaries who enrolled in a membership program and paid for the telemedicine consultations. These statements were false because revenue was obtained by the Video Doctor Network through the receipt of illegal kickbacks and bribes, Loewenstern admitted. In connection with his plea agreement, Loewenstern agreed to pay $200 million in restitution to the United States, as well as forfeit assets and property traceable to proceeds of the conspiracy to defraud the United States. Loewenstern’s sentencing is set for Jan. 9, 2020, before U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the District of New Jersey, who accepted his plea. Loewenstern was charged along with Creaghan Harry, 51, of Highland Beach, Florida, and Lester Stockett, 52, of Medellin, Colombia, in an indictment charging one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and pay and receive health care kickbacks and four counts of health care kickbacks. Stockett and Harry were separately charged with one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Stockett, the Chief Executive Officer, previously entered a plea of guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and one count of money laundering. The case against Harry is pending. Trial has not been set. The case was investigated by FBI, HHS-OIG, and IRS-CI. The case is being prosecuted by Acting Assistant Chief Jacob Foster and Trial Attorney Darren Halverson of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
Joseph DeCoroso, M.D., 62, of Toms River, New Jersey, pleaded guilty for his role in a $13 million conspiracy to commit health care fraud and separate charges of health care fraud for writing medically unnecessary orders for durable medical equipment (DME), in many instances without ever speaking to the patients, while working for two telemedicine companies. Sentencing is set for Jan. 8, 2020. The case was investigated by FBI Newark and HHS-OIG. The case is being prosecuted by Acting Assistant Chief Jacob Foster and Trial Attorney Darren Halverson.
Nelly Petrosyan, 56, of New York, New York, the owner and operator of orthotic brace suppliers in New York, New York, was indicted on one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay and receive health care kickbacks and three counts of payment of health care kickbacks. The charges result from a $5.6 million conspiracy in which Petrosyan offered and paid kickbacks and bribes to several purported telemedicine companies in exchange for completed doctors’ orders of medically unnecessary orthotic braces for Medicare beneficiaries. Petrosyan and her coconspirators concealed the fraud by entering into sham contracts and producing false invoices characterizing the kickbacks and bribes as payments for “marketing.” The investigation was conducted by FBI Newark and HHS-OIG. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Darren Halverson.
Alice Chu, M.D., 62, of Fort Lee, New Jersey, was indicted on one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and four counts of health care fraud. The charges stem from Chu’s alleged submission of false and fraudulent claims to Medicare and private insurance companies for services that were medically unnecessary, never provided, not provided as represented or not eligible for reimbursement. Chu was allegedly induced by a financial incentive to order expensive and medically unnecessary lab tests that were paid for by Medicare. The investigation was conducted by FBI Newark, HHS-OIG, DOD-DCIS and FDA-OIC. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Rebecca Yuan of the Fraud Section.
Aaron Williamsky 59, of Marlboro, New Jersey, and Nadia Levit, 40, of Englishtown, New Jersey, owners of approximately 25 durable medical equipment companies, pleaded guilty on Sept. 18 and Sept. 25, respectively, for their participation in a health care fraud scheme related to their payment of kickbacks in exchange for doctors’ orders for medically unnecessary orthotic braces. Levit’s conduct admittedly caused losses in excess of $120 million and Williamsky’s conduct admittedly caused losses in excess of $170 million. Williamsky also pleaded guilty to a money laundering conspiracy related to his attempt to conceal at least $1.65 million of the proceeds of the fraud. The case was investigated by FBI, HHS-OIG, and IRS-CI. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sean Sherman and Stephen Ferketic of the District of New Jersey.
Bernard Ogon, M.D., 46, of Burlington, New Jersey, pleaded guilty on Sept. 25 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 case was investigated by FBI Newark and HHS-OIG. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Gould of the District of New Jersey.
Joseph Santiamo, 64, of Staten Island, New York, a physician specializing in internal medicine and geriatrics was charged for allegedly conspiring to distribute and dispense controlled substances, including oxycodone, in exchange for sexual favors, and outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Urbano of the District of New Jersey.
Yana Shtindler, 44, of Glen Head, New York; Samuel “Sam” Khaimov, 47, of Glen Head, New York; Alex Fleyshmakher, 33, of Morganville, New Jersey; and Ruben Sevumyants 36, of Marlboro, New Jersey were indicted in connection with a scheme at Prime Aid Pharmacies (located in Union City, New Jersey and Bronx, New York) that included: (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 case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joshua Haber of the District of New Jersey.
Eduard “Eddy” Shtindler, 36, the owner and operator of Empire Pharmacy in West New York, New Jersey, was charged by criminal complaint for paying 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 case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joshua Haber of the District of New Jersey.
Matthew S. Ellis, 53, of Gainesville, Florida; Edward B. Kostishion, 59, 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 were indicted in connection with a genetic testing health care fraud scheme. 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 in bribes. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Bernard Cooney of the District of New Jersey.
Among those charged in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are the following:
Timothy F. Shawl, 60, of Garnet Valley, Pennsylvania, a medical doctor, was charged with five counts of unlawful distribution of controlled substances. He allegedly wrote prescriptions for controlled substances that were outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose. Shawl allegedly wrote prescriptions for controlled substances for patients without seeing, treating or examining them. Shawl allegedly prescribed hundreds of prescriptions for oxycodone to approximately 16 patients amounting to over 29,000 oxycodone tablets. The FBI conducted the investigation. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Debra Jaroslawicz of the Fraud Section.
Neil K. Anand, M.D., 42, of Bensalem, Pennsylavia, and Asif Kundi, 31, Atif Mahmood Malik, 34, and Viktoriya Makarova, 33, all of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Anand, a medical doctor, Kundi and Malik, unlicensed foreign medical school graduates, and Makarova, a nurse practitioner, were indicted on one count of health care fraud and one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. The charges stem from the defendants’ alleged submission of false and fraudulent claims to Medicare, health plans provided by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and Independence Blue Cross (IBC). The claims allegedly were for “Goody Bags,” bags of medically unnecessary prescription medications that were dispensed by non-pharmacy dispensing sites owned by Anand. In total, Medicare, OPM and IBC allegedly paid over $4 million for the Goody Bags. Patients were allegedly required to take the Goody Bags in order to receive prescriptions for controlled substances. Malik and Kundi allegedly wrote prescriptions for controlled substances using blank prescriptions that were pre-signed by Anand or Makarova. Anand and Makarova allegedly prescribed over 10,000 prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances, of which over 7,000 were for oxycodone totaling over 634,000 oxycodone tablets. The investigation was conducted by the FBI, HHS-OIG, USPS-OIG and OPM. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Debra Jaroslawicz.
Twelve indictments were unsealed involving charges against 12 people for allegedly possessing oxycodone with intent to distribute. The indictments charge that, from September 2016 through June 2019, the 12 defendants all presented forged prescriptions for oxycodone to various pharmacies outside of Philadelphia, in order to obtain oxycodone to distribute to others. The defendants, all from Philadelphia, drove many miles to pharmacies in Mt. Laurel, New Jersey, Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania, and Kennett Square, Pennsylvania. The defendants are charged with at least two, and up to 32, counts of possession with intent to distribute oxycodone. The defendants are charged with having received anywhere from 6,300 milligrams to 135,000 milligrams of oxycodone. According to the indictments, the defendants would often travel together to the pharmacies to fill their forged prescriptions. Charged were: Lamar Dillard, 37; Jermaine Grant, 29; Katrina Tucker, 32; Maurice Bertrand, 31; Courtney Brockenborough, 34; Alan Alexander Harrison, 29; Abdullah Howard, 23; Jonathan Metellus, 32; Clinton Monte Bullock; Crystal Coleman, 31; Marques Russell, 35, and Joseph Michael Simmons, 31. One defendant, Metellus, is also charged with one count of health care fraud, for allegedly using his Medicaid card to purchase prescription drugs with a forged prescription. The case was jointly investigated by the DEA’s Tactical Diversion Squad, HHS-OIG, the Pennsylvania Department of State’s Bureau of Enforcement and Investigations, the Chester County District Attorney’s Office and the Easttown Township Police Department. The cases are being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys David E. Troyer, Elizabeth Abrams, Joan Burnes and Mary Kay Costello of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Search and seizure warrants are being executed today at approximately six different locations. The search and seizures are being executed by law-enforcement officers from six federal agencies, including HHS-OIG, the FBI, USPS-OIG, DOL-OIG, DOD and OPM.
Among those charged in the Eastern District of New York are the following:
Anna Steiner, M.D., also known as “Hanna Wasielewska,” 63, of Valatie, New York, a licensed anesthesiologist, was charged in a superseding indictment for an alleged $17.4 million health care fraud scheme related to the payment of kickbacks in return for the ordering of DME, prescription drugs and diagnostic tests that were not medically necessary and not the result of an actual doctor-patient relationship. Steiner was originally indicted on July 9, 2019. The case was investigated by FBI and HHS-OIG. The case is being prosecuted by Fraud Section Trial Attorney Andrew Estes.
Dr. Denny Martin, 46, of New York, New York, a licensed Neurologist, was charged in a complaint for an alleged healthcare fraud scheme related to the billing of doctor home visits where none actually occurred. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U. S. Attorney William P. Campos.
Andrew Barrett, 60, of New City, New York, and his former wife, pharmacy owner Phyllis Pincus, 58, of New City, New York, were charged by indictment with healthcare fraud and false claims in a scheme where they billed insurers for medications not actually dispensed to patients. In 2016, Barrett was sentenced to 43 months’ incarceration upon his guilty plea to tax fraud and healthcare fraud in which he billed insurers for medications not actually dispensed to patients. He was excluded from participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs for over 20 years. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney William P. Campos.
Kevin McMahon, 31, of Seaford, New York, a registered professional nurse, was charged in a misdemeanor information with possession of fentanyl, which he obtained through the course of his employment at Nassau University Medical Center. McMahon will plead guilty to the information pursuant to a plea agreement and has agreed to surrender his nursing license at the time of his plea. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Erin E. Argo.
Among those charged in the Western District of New York are the following:
Jillian Marks, 37, of Orchard Park, New York, a licensed nurse practitioner, was charged with obtaining controlled substances through fraud, wrongful use of government seal, and identity theft. With access to the Neighborhood Health Center in the City of Buffalo’s internal computer databases, the defendant allegedly abused her position and illegally accessed the Allscripts prescription prescribing portal. Marks allegedly prescribed approximately 2,000 dosage units of controlled substances such as Adderall and Oxycodone, in the names of health center patients, which she then had filled and picked up at local pharmacies. At one point, Marks allegedly forged a letter from the DEA in order to appear “good” to her employer and allegedly used the DEA seal illegally. The DEA conducted the investigation. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael J. Adler and Misha A. Coulson of the Western District of New York.
Karen Melton, 45, of Cuba, New York, was charged with obtaining controlled substances through fraud. Melton, a medical secretary working for a physician in Olean, New York, was not licensed to prescribe controlled substances. However, Melton allegedly used her access within the office to issue fraudulent prescriptions in her own name in both paper and electronic form. The prescriptions were allegedly issued without a legitimate medical purpose. Between September 2016 and May 2019, Melton allegedly issued 59 fraudulent prescriptions for controlled substances, including hydrocodone. The DEA conducted the investigation. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael J. Adler and Misha A. Coulson.
Among those charged in the District of Connecticut are the following:
Philippe R. Chain, M.D., has entered into a civil settlement agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut, in which he will pay $300,000 to resolve allegations that he violated the False Claims Acts. Chain, who currently practices medicine in Florida, previously practiced medicine in Connecticut and performed telehealth services from Connecticut for a telemedicine company located in Las Vegas, Nevada. The telehealth services Chain provided involved prescribing compounded medications to TRICARE beneficiaries. TRICARE is the federal health care program for active duty military personnel, retirees, and their families. The government alleges that Chain caused pharmacies to submit false claims for compounded medications to TRICARE by issuing or approving prescriptions which were invalid, because Chain did not speak with or examine the patients in question and did not have an established physician-patient relationship with them, in exchange for compensation paid to Chain. This matter was investigated by the U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General, Defense Criminal Investigative Service. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard M. Molot of the District of Connecticut.
Among those charged in the Western District of Pennsylvania are the following:
Emilio Ramon Navarro, M.D., 58, of Coal Center, Pennsylvania, was charged with unlawfully dispensing controlled substances and health care fraud. Counts 1 – 28 of the Indictment allege that from April 2018 until April 2019, Navarro unlawfully distributed Oxymorphone and Oxycodone, Schedule II substances, to a person in return for sexual favors, either physically or by electronic communications, outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose. Navarro is also charged in Count 29 with health care fraud for causing fraudulent claims to be submitted to Medicaid for payments to cover the costs of the unlawfully prescribed controlled substances. This case was investigated by the Western Pennsylvania Opioid Fraud and Abuse Detection Unit which includes: FBI, HHS-OIG, DEA, IRS-CI, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General - Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General – Bureau of Narcotic Investigations, USPS, Veterans Affairs-OIG, FDA-CI, OPM-OIG, and the Pennsylvania Bureau of Licensing. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Robert S. Cessar and Mark V. Gurzo are prosecuting the case.
Among those charged in the District of Columbia are the following:
Hope Falowo, a personal care aide, was charged by information with one count of healthcare fraud for her role in a $400,000 fraud scheme where she would bill Medicaid in the District of Columbia for services she never provided. The case is being prosecuted by Counsel to the Chief of the Health Care Fruad Unit Amy Markopoulos.
Nkiru Uduji, a personal care aide, pleaded guilty to one count of health care fraud conspiracy charged in an August 2019 Information. The charges stem from Uduji’s role in a $600,000 fraud scheme in which she billed for more than 24 hours in a day, for services that were not rendered, and for services that were procured by kickbacks. The case is being prosecuted by Counsel to the Chief of the Health Care Fruad Unit Amy Markopoulos.
A complaint, information or indictment is merely an allegation, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
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.
Four individuals were charged with engaging in a massive fraud scheme in which their company processed payments from victims of numerous international mass-mail fraud campaigns, the Department of Justice announced.
Rosanne Day, 51; Robert Paul Davis, 63; Genevieve Renee Frappier, 49; and Miles Kelly, 55; each were charged in the District of Nevada with one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and multiple counts of mail fraud and wire fraud. Day and Davis were part-owners and the top managers of PacNet Services Ltd. (PacNet), a payment processing company based in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Frappier was in charge of PacNet’s Marketing and Client Services departments, and Kelly oversaw PacNet’s Compliance Department.
The indictment alleges that PacNet, under the defendants’ direction, was the payment processor of choice for companies that mailed large volumes of fraudulent notifications designed to mislead victims into falsely believing they would receive a large amount of money, a valuable prize, or specialized psychic services upon payment of a fee. Many alleged victims were elderly or otherwise vulnerable. PacNet served as the middleman between banks and the fraudulent mailers – aggregating the checks, cash, and credit card payments collected by its clients, depositing the payments into PacNet-controlled bank accounts, and then distributing the funds as directed by the clients, according to the indictment.
“The defendants are charged with enriching themselves by helping fraudsters who took money from elderly and otherwise vulnerable victims,” said Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt for the Department of Justice's Civil Division. “The United States Department of Justice will seek to hold accountable those who knowingly advance elder fraud schemes – including individuals outside our borders who enable fraudsters to move their ill-gotten gains into the banking system and benefit from their crimes.”
“As alleged in the indictment, numerous victims in Nevada were defrauded of money in connection with the defendants’ scheme, and at least one of PacNet’s fraudulent mass mail clients was located in Nevada,” said U.S. Attorney Nicholas A. Trutanich for the District of Nevada. “Working with our Postal Inspectors and other law enforcement partners, we will identify, investigate, and prosecute criminals – both foreign and domestic – who prey on our seniors and other vulnerable Nevada residents. These fraud schemes can happen to anyone. If you’re a victim, I urge you to immediately file a complaint with the FTC at 877-FTC-HELP.”
“The U.S. Postal Inspection Service has been at the forefront of protecting consumers from fraud schemes for many years,” said Inspector in Charge Delany DeLeon-Colon of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service’s Criminal Investigations Group. “We do this through traditional investigative methods to identify and stop the scammers, and consumer education, which is the best defense against criminals looking for easy money. Investigations like this one let the American public – especially our vulnerable population – know that Postal Inspectors are working hard to protect them and ensure their confidence in the U.S. Mail.”
From 1994 until Sept. 22, 2016, PacNet processed payments for a variety of clients, including mass-mail clients who sent fraudulent notifications to consumers in the United States and around the world, according to the indictment. Several individuals involved in operating mass-mail companies that processed payments through PacNet have been convicted of federal fraud charges during the last two years.
The indictment alleges that the defendants knew that multiple PacNet mass-mail clients obtained payments from victims through fraudulent notifications and nonetheless approved depositing those payments into U.S. bank accounts, allowing the clients to benefit from the fraud. Day, who was in charge of PacNet’s Vancouver headquarters, and Davis, who oversaw PacNet’s office in Shannon, Ireland, each earned approximately $15 million in Canadian dollars from 2013 through 2015, the last three full years that PacNet was in operation, according to the indictment.
PacNet’s policies required mass-mail clients to submit sample notifications to PacNet for review. The indictment alleges that the defendants approved processing for fraudulent notifications that had been submitted, in some situations approved processing for fraudulent notifications that had not been submitted, and at other times condoned the continued processing for mass-mail clients who were sending different, even more fraudulent notifications than what PacNet had approved.
Davis, who identified himself as PacNet’s general counsel, opened post office boxes in the United Kingdom to which certain PacNet mass-mail clients directed victim payments be sent, according to the indictment. The indictment alleges that Davis, who was a pilot, at times flew to the United Kingdom to pick up the mail and transport it to Ireland, where the mail was opened and the checks, cash, and other payments were processed. The indictment further alleges that on several occasions Davis flew to the Netherlands to pick up cash from facilities that were receiving mail for certain PacNet mass-mail clients. Davis then flew the cash to Ireland, according to the indictment.
Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The indictment contains only accusations against the defendants and is not evidence of guilt. The defendants should be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
The criminal charges are the result of an investigation conducted by the United States Postal Inspection Service, which through official requests received assistance from the Vancouver Police Department, Canada’s Competition Bureau, Ireland’s Criminal Assets Bureau, the United Kingdom’s National Crime Agency, and the Netherlands’ Fiscal Information and Investigation Service.
Senior Litigation Counsel Patrick Jasperse of the Department’s Consumer Protection Branch is prosecuting the case with assistance from Assistant United States Attorney Nicholas Dickinson of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada. The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs has provided critical support.
