Score:   1
Docket Number:   ED-MI  2:18-cr-20008
Case Name:   United States of America v. Chang et al
  Press Releases:
Dr. Zongli Chang, M.D., was ordered today to serve a sentence of 135 months for conspiring with seven other patient recruiters (co-defendants in this case) to illegally distribute prescription drugs, U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider announced today.

Schneider was joined in the announcement by Special Agent in Charge Timothy Slater of the FBI’s Detroit Division and Special Agent in Charge Lamont Pugh III of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General’s (HHS-OIG) Chicago Regional Office.

Dr. Chang previously pleaded guilty, admitting that from approximately January 2012 to May of 2017, he and his coconspirators engaged in large-scale opioid diversion scheme.  The scheme, according to Chang, relied upon “patient recruiters” bringing fake patients to his office.  Chang would, in turn, write medically unnecessary and highly addictive controlled substance prescriptions in return for cash payments. Chang commonly wrote prescriptions for controlled substances, to include Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen, Oxycodone HCl, Alprazolam, Carisoprodol and Promethazine/codeine syrup.  The amount paid for a visit and prescription varied, but according to Chang’s plea agreement, he was typically paid at least $150, up to as high as $400 for more desirable opioid controlled substances.  Chang further acknowledged that following the issuance of prescriptions, the recruiters would transport the patients to pharmacies where the prescriptions were filled, and then take possession of the controlled substances for further illegal distribution. These controlled substances had a conservative street value in excess of $18,000.000.

Since the charges in this case were unsealed in January, 2018, six of the seven patient recruiters have also pleaded guilty to engaging in this conspiracy. 

In addition to serving a 135-month sentence, United States District Court Judge Sean Cox ordered Chang to pay a $1 million criminal fine.  Chang also agreed to the entry of a $3 million forfeiture judgment, satisfied in large part by assets seized near the time of his arrest. 

U.S. Attorney Schneider noted that “this sentence sends a strong message to every other physician that deliberately writes unnecessary opioid prescriptions, knowing full well that the drugs will ultimately be sold on the streets, that they will be treated no differently than any other major drug dealer.  A medical license will not shield them from criminal consequences.”

“We entrust physicians to care for their patients in a manner that is consistent with their oath to do no harm,” said FBI SAC Slater. “Prescribing opioids with the knowledge that the drugs would ultimately be distributed illegally contributes to the ongoing opioid addiction crisis and cannot be tolerated. The FBI and our federal partners remain committed to identifying and disrupting physicians who engage in this type of drug diversion scheme.”

The Eastern District of Michigan is one of the twelve districts included in the Opioid Fraud Abuse and Detection Unit, a Department of Justice initiative created by Attorney General Sessions, that uses data to target and prosecute individuals that are contributing to the nation’s opioid crisis.  Dr. Chang’s suspicious patterns of prescriptions were detectable from data analysis by the Opioid Fraud Abuse and Detection Unit.

The case was investigated by Special Agents of the FBI and HHS and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Brant Cook, John Engstrom and Paul Kuebler.

An indictment was unsealed today charging Dr. Zongli Chang, M.D. and seven other individuals with conspiracy to illegally distribute prescription drugs, U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider announced today. Chang is also charged with health care fraud.

Schneider was joined in the announcement by Special Agent in Charge David P. Gelios of the FBI’s Detroit Division and Special Agent in Charge Lamont Pugh III of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General’s (HHS-OIG) Chicago Regional Office.

Charged in the indictment are:

Zongli Chang, 52, of Novi

Darryl Parker, 56, of Detroit

Tye Chandler, 26, of Detroit

Karen Hall, 57, of Detroit

Deangelo Givhan, 28, of Detroit

Yolanda Cannon, 39, of Detroit

Melvin McGuire, 48, of Detroit

Khary Tremble, 44, of Detroit

 

The indictment alleges that from January 2012 to May of 2017 (when the State of Michigan revoked Chang’s medical license), Chang and his coconspirators engaged in a large-scale drug diversion scheme.  It is alleged that Chang abused his medical license by writing medically unnecessary and highly addictive controlled substance prescriptions in return for cash payments. Chang commonly wrote prescriptions for controlled substances, to include Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen, Oxycodone HCl, Alprazolam, Carisoprodol and Promethazine/codeine syrup.   According to the indictment, Chang prescribed more than 2,700,000 dosage units of Schedule II, III and IV controlled substances during the course of the conspiracy.  These controlled substances had a conservative street value in excess of $18,000,000. Agents seized more than $600,000 in cash during a search of Chang’s Novi home.   

 

According to the indictment, Chang relied upon “patient recruiters” to bring “fake patients” to his office.  These recruiters paid cash to acquaintances to act as patients of Dr. Chang.  The recruiters paid Chang cash at each office visit for the prescriptions provided.  The recruiters also paid cash to the “fake patients” for appearing for the medical visits.  After a cursory examination or no examination at all, Chang always prescribed the requested controlled substances.   Darryl Parker, Tye Chandler, Karen Hall, Deangelo Givhan, Yolanda Cannon, Melvin McGuire and Khary Tremble all brought numerous fake patients to Chang’s office and ultimately took control of the controlled substances prescribed by Chang sale for illegal distribution in Michigan and elsewhere.   

In addition to the drug diversion charges, Chang faces three counts of health care fraud for billing Medicare for services not provided.   The indictment further seeks to forfeit all proceeds of Chang’s illegal activity, including $603,136 in cash seized from his home.

United States Attorney Schneider stated, “Our office has no tolerance for corrupt doctors who are making Michigan’s opioid crisis even worse by unnecessarily prescribing drugs.  We will vigorously prosecute those who spread these poisons on our streets.”

"The routine manner in which Dr. Chang illegally made medically unnecessary prescription drugs available to co-conspirators who enabled drug abusers to further their addictions will not be tolerated", said David P. Gelios, Special Agent in Charge, FBI, Detroit Division.  "The FBI and our federal partners remain committed to identifying and incarcerating those responsible for sophisticated drug diversion schemes in Michigan".

“Physicians who engage in the prescribing of prescription medications that put their profits before the safety of their patients and the community at large will be held accountable” said Lamont Pugh III, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Inspector General – Chicago Region. “The OIG has made the opioid crisis one of its’ top priorities and will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to help protect Medicare beneficiaries and the public as a whole from prescription drug abuse.”

The Eastern District of Michigan is one of the twelve districts included in the Opioid Fraud Abuse and Detection Unit, a Department of Justice initiative created by Attorney General Sessions, that uses data to target and prosecute individuals that are contributing to the nation’s opioid crisis.  Dr. Chang’s suspicious patterns of prescriptions were detectable from data analysis by the Opioid Fraud Abuse and Detection Unit.

An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. Each defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case was investigated by Special Agents of the FBI and HHS.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys John Engstrom and Brant Cook.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m3DRc8Sggw9EOd9LB5D8Ehi1eCCKLPxjRjihmlZJQRQ
  Last Updated: 2024-04-01 17:47:41 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: 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