Score:   1
Docket Number:   D-RI  1:19-cr-00055
Case Name:   USA v. Kohanbash
  Press Releases:
PROVIDENCE – A Brooklyn, N.Y., clothing and goods wholesaler pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Providence today to charges related to his participation in a conspiracy that sold more than twenty million dollars worth of Chinese-made counterfeit goods to the United States military, government purchasers, and companies that supply the U.S. Government.

Among the items that Ramin Kohanbash, 49, and others arranged to counterfeit were 200 military parkas of a type used by U.S. Air Force personnel stationed in Afghanistan. These parkas were falsely represented to be genuine Multicam®, a fabric which incorporates specialized near-infrared management technology designed to make the wearer more difficult to detect with equipment such as night-vision goggles.

Other items carried labels that made explicit, and false, representations about the product’s safety. In one case, labels on counterfeit hoods intended for military and law enforcement personnel stated that the items were “permanently flame resistant,” and that they met a specific industry standard for flame-resistant attire. In reality, the counterfeit hoods were not flame resistant. 

“Our men and women in uniform confront danger every day to defend this nation and its values.” said U.S. Attorney Weisman. “The uniforms they wear and the gear they carry are meant to protect them as they carry out their mission, not to put them in harm’s way. This case should serve notice that suppliers who do business with the military must comply with the law, or they will be held to account.” 

"Individuals and companies that sell counterfeit goods to the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) endanger the safety and effectiveness of our military," stated Leigh-Alistair Barzey, Special Agent in Charge of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service's (DCIS) Northeast Field Office.  "Today’s guilty plea is the direct result of a joint investigative effort with the General Services Administration OIG, Army CID, Air Force OSI and Homeland Security Investigations, and demonstrate DCIS' ongoing commitment to work with its law enforcement partners and the U.S. Attorney's Office to protect the integrity of the DoD's procurement process."

Kohanbash admitted to the Court that he and others provided, reviewed, and approved photographs, descriptions, and samples of tags and labels to be attached to the knockoff products, so that the counterfeit versions appeared legitimate. Trademarks and brand names of actual U.S.-made products were added to the foreign counterfeit versions to make them appear legitimate. 

The goods were shipped from China to Kohanbash and sold to other wholesalers who ultimately marketed and sold the knock-off products to military and government buyers as genuine, American-made products.

Under two U.S. laws known as The Berry Amendment and the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”), goods sold to the military and certain other government buyers are required to be manufactured in the United States and certain other designated countries; China is not one of those countries.  In order to sell the counterfeit goods, Kohanbash provided wholesalers who did business with the government with false certification letters claiming that the goods were made in the U.S., and therefore complied with the Berry Amendment.  In other instances, Kohanbash falsely represented that the goods met TAA requirements. 

Kohanbash further admitted that the Government is entitled to forfeit twenty million dollars representing proceeds of the offenses, along with actual counterfeit goods seized during the investigation.

Kohanbash’s guilty plea to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and trafficking in counterfeit goods is announced by United States Attorney Aaron L. Weisman; Leigh-Alistair Barzey, Special Agent-in-Charge of Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Northeast Field Office; Special Agent in Charge Luis A. Hernandez, General Services Administration Office of Inspector General, New England Regional Investigations Office; Resident Agent in Charge Michael D. Conner, Boston Fraud Resident Agency, US Army Criminal Investigation Command; Jason T. Hein, Special Agent in Charge, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Office of Procurement Fraud Investigation, Detachment; Homeland Security Investigations Newark, NJ, Special Agent in Charge Brian A. Michael, Troy Miller, Director of Custom and Border Protection, New York Field Office.

Kohanbash is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Court on Chief Judge William E. Smith on January 17, 2020.

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud is punishable by statutory penalties of up to 5 years in federal prison, 3 years supervised release, and a fine of up to $250,000; Trafficking in counterfeit goods is punishable by statutory penalties of up to 10 years in federal prison, 3 years supervised release, and a fine of up to $250,000.

 The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sandra R. Hebert and Zachary A. Cunha.

PROVIDENCE – A criminal information filed today in U.S. District Court in Providence, R.I., in an ongoing investigation, charges a Brooklyn, N.Y., clothing and goods wholesaler with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and trafficking in counterfeit goods in connection with the alleged sale of more than twenty million dollars worth of Chinese-made counterfeit goods to the United States military and other government purchasers, as well as to other companies that supply the U.S. Government. 

 It is alleged in the information that Ramin Kohanbash, 49, working with other members of the conspiracy, provided samples of actual military uniforms and gear to manufacturers in China to replicate. It is also alleged that Kohanbash and his co-conspirators provided, reviewed, and approved photographs, descriptions, and samples of tags and labels to be attached to the knockoff products, so that the counterfeit versions appeared legitimate.  In many instances, this process allegedly involved copying the trademarks and brand names of actual U.S.-made products and adding them to the foreign counterfeit versions.

 After being manufactured in China, it is alleged that the counterfeit goods were shipped to Kohanbash and sold to other wholesalers who ultimately marketed and sold them to military and government buyers off as genuine, American-made products.

Under two U.S. laws known as The Berry Amendment and the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”), goods sold to the military and certain other government buyers are required to be manufactured in the United States and certain other designated countries; China is not one of those countries.  In order to sell the counterfeit goods, it is alleged that Kohanbash provided wholesalers who did business with the government with false certification letters claiming that the goods were made in the U.S., and therefore complied with Berry Amendment.  In other instances, it is alleged that Kohanbash falsely represented that the goods met TAA requirements. 

The information alleges that, among other items Kohanbash and his co-conspirators arranged to counterfeit, were military parkas used by U.S. Air Force personnel stationed in Afghanistan. These parkas are made with a fabric known as Multicam®, which incorporates specialized near-infrared (“NIR”) management technology designed to make the wearer more difficult to detect with equipment such as night-vision goggles.  According to the information, two hundred of these counterfeit Multicam® parkas, lacking the critical NIR management technology, were sold to a U.S. Air Force Base Supply Center. Other items carried labels that allegedly made explicit, and false, representations about the product’s safety. In one case, labels on counterfeit hoods intended for military and law enforcement personnel stated that the items were “permanently flame resistant,” and that they met a specific industry standard for flame-resistant attire. In reality, the counterfeit hoods were not flame resistant. 

The filing of an information in U.S. District Court in Providence, R.I., in this matter is announced by United States Attorney for the District of Rhode Island Aaron L. Weisman; Special Agent-in-Charge Leigh-Alistair Barzey, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Northeast Field Office; Special Agent in Charge Luis A. Hernandez, General Services Administration Office of Inspector General, New England Regional Investigations Office; Resident Agent in Charge Michael D. Conner, Boston Fraud Resident Agency, US Army Criminal Investigation Command; Jason T. Hein, Special Agent in Charge, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Office of Procurement Fraud Investigation, Detachment; and Homeland Security Investigations Newark, NJ, Special Agent in Charge Brian A. Michael.

Kohanbash is scheduled to appear before United States Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan on June 12, 2019, for an initial appearance on the charges contained in the information. An information is merely an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.           

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud is punishable by statutory penalties of up to 5 years in federal prison, 3 years supervised release, and a fine of up to $250,000; Trafficking in counterfeit goods is punishable by statutory penalties of up to 10 years in federal prison, 3 years supervised release, and a fine of up to $250,000.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sandra R. Hebert and Zachary A. Cunha.

###

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-o_uaJ7_MaKLmH_srQMhud1tseaqHkZbIonXZFQKWZg
  Last Updated: 2024-04-12 02:07:43 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E