Score:   1
Docket Number:   ND-OH  1:18-cr-00759
Case Name:   United States of America v. Ewais et al
  Press Releases:
A City of Cleveland employee pleaded guilty to charges related to extortion, accepting bribes and other crimes after he accepted below-market improvements on his property from a contractor seeking city business and directed city projects to benefit himself, his outside businesses, and his clients.

Khalil Ewais, 44, of Cleveland, is scheduled to be sentenced on October 16. He pleaded guilty to charges including Hobbs Act extortion, bribery, federal program theft, making false statements and filing false tax returns.

His brother Abdeljawad Ewais, of Cleveland, is charged with filing false tax returns and is scheduled for a change of plea hearing on July 8.

As detailed in the plea agreement, Ewais admitted to the following facts related to his crimes:

Ewais worked in the Mayor’s Office of Capital Projects (“MOCAP”) as the section chief of construction in the division of engineering and construction. In that capacity, he oversaw construction inspectors who inspect work on the city’s roads, bridges and sidewalks. He had a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the city and its citizens.

Ewais also owned and operated Pioneer Engineering, a private engineering and consulting business that did work for private clients. He also, along with Abedeljawad Ewais and other family members, owned commercial and residential rental properties in and around Cleveland.

Company 1 bid on jobs with the City of Cleveland. In April 2015, it was awarded a contract to perform most of the resurfacing of residential streets in certain wards of Cleveland for two years. Company 1 bid approximately $5.8 million for the work.

Khalil Ewais, in his job with the city, had input into whether Company 1 received additional contracts from the city. Company 1 could not receive payment for the work it did until Ewais certified it was done appropriately. He could also direct Company 1 to complete “corrective work” which would cost the company additional time and money. He could also use his official position to help Company 1 obtain faster payment for its services.

Ewais in August 2016 contacted multiple companies, including Company 1, about paving the parking lot adjacent to Captain’s Grill, a property at 6104 Storer Ave. that he and his brother owned. Quotes for the work ranged from $48,923 to $59,152.

Ewais contacted an owner of Company 1 on August 10, 2016, about the estimate for the parking lot and said “I need it to be in the $25K range.” The owner quickly responded, “I will do the job for a lump sum of $26,000.”

Even though the parking lot work was a private job for Ewais, he sent an email form his City email address to another City official regarding the sewer connection at the border of Ewais’s property and West 61st Street, and stated that “E&C [ MOCAP’s Division of Engineering & Construction] directed the roadway work and the connection fix in the street as part of the E&C Requirement Contract.”  In fact, no City agency had directed any roadway work on West 61st Street at that time, and the work was related to Ewais’s private construction project.

Ewais also used his official position to cause the city to pay to repave most of the short public alleyway next to the parking lot, West 62nd Place. Around Oct. 25, 2016, Company 1— at the direction of Ewais — instructed a subcontractor to expand the scope of its work on the parking lot job to include milling and paving the part of West 62nd Place that adjoined the parking lot, but not the short additional distance to reach the home at the end of the alleyway.

The work was completed on Nov. 5, 2016, with the parking lot connected to West 62nd Place. Company 1 spent approximately $81,534 to complete the work. Ewais paid $31,336 for the work and Company 1 did not request any further payment.

In designating the portion West 62nd Place adjoining his property to be repaved, Ewais avoided the established process for selecting streets to be resurfaced. The city, through a contractor, had sought to rate the condition of all the streets in Cleveland leading up to the 2016 resurfacing program. The city’s pavement management group, which included Ewais, met to discuss the lowest-rated streets in each ward to recommend to the City Council members which streets to include as part of the resurfacing program. The list of streets to be resurfaced never included West 62nd Place, which never even received a rating in the evaluation process.

Ewais, without the necessary approvals and authorizations, created a task order to have West 62nd Place, the small alleyway next to the Captain’s Grill parking lot, resurfaced.  As a result of Ewais’s actions, the City of Cleveland paid a total for $10,938 to have West 62nd Place resurfaced. 

In December 2017, Ewais lied to federal agents when he was questioned about the repaving of West 62nd Place, falsely claiming that a Cleveland City Councilperson had selected West 62nd Place to be repaved. 

Khalil Ewais also filed numerous false tax returns in which he failed to report rental income.

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigations, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – Office of Inspector General and the Cleveland Division of Police. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Chelsea S. Rice and Elliot Morrison.

 

 

 

A City of Cleveland employee was indicted for extortion, accepting bribes and other crimes after he accepted below-market improvements on his property from a contractor seeking city business and directed city projects to benefit himself, his outside businesses, and his clients.

Khalil Ewais, 43, of Cleveland, was indicted on charges including Hobbs Act extortion, receipt of a bribe, federal program theft, making false statements and filing false tax returns.

His brother Abdeljawad Ewais, 45, of Cleveland, was charged with filing false tax returns.

According to a 14-count indictment unsealed in federal court:

Ewais worked in the Mayor’s Office of Capital Projects as the section chief of construction in the division of engineering and construction. He oversaw construction inspectors who inspect work on the city’s roads, bridges and sidewalks. He had a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the city and its citizens.

Ewais also owned and operated Pioneer Engineering, a private engineering and consulting business that did work for private clients. He also, along with Abedeljawad Ewais and other family members, owned commercial and residential rental properties in and around Cleveland.

Company 1 bid on jobs with the City of Cleveland. In April 2015, it was awarded a contract to perform most of the resurfacing of residential streets in certain wards of Cleveland for two years. Company 1 bid approximately $5.8 million for the work.

Khalil Ewais, in his job with the city, had input into whether Company 1 received additional contracts from the city. Company 1 could not receive payment for the work it did until Ewais certified it was done appropriately. He could also direct Company 1 to complete “corrective work” which would cost the company additional time and money. He could also use his official position to help Company 1 obtain faster payment for its services.

Ewais in August 2016 contacted multiple companies, including Company 1, about paving the parking lot adjacent to Captain’s Grill, a property at 6104 Storer Ave. that he and his brother owned. Quotes for the work ranged from $48,923 to $59,152.

Ewais contacted an owner of Company 1 on August 10, 2016, about the estimate for the parking lot and said “I need it to be in the $25K range.” The owner quickly responded, “I will do the job for a lump sum of $26,000.”

Company 1 was busy performing larger jobs for the city at the time, and so hired subcontractors to complete the work at Ewais’s parking lot.

While doing the work, the subcontractor learned the connection between the parking lot and the sewer was damaged and would need to be replaced. Ewais used his position to categorize that work as repair work for the city.

Ewais also used his official position to cause the city to pay to repave most of the short public alleyway next to the parking lot, West 62nd Place. Around Oct. 25, 2016, Company 1— at the direction of Ewais — instructed a subcontractor to expand the scope of its work on the parking lot job to include milling and paving the part of West 62nd Place that adjoined the parking lot, but not the short additional distance to reach the home at the end of the alleyway.

The work was completed on Nov. 5, 2016, with the parking lot connected to West 62nd Place. Company 1 spent approximately $81,534 to complete the work. Ewais paid $31,336 for the work and Company 1 did not request any further payment.

In designating the portion West 62nd Place adjoining his property to be repaved, Ewais avoided the established process for selecting streets to be resurfaced. The city, through a contractor, had sought to rate the condition of all the streets in Cleveland leading up to the 2016 resurfacing program. The city’s pavement management group, which included Ewais, met to discuss the lowest-rated streets in each ward to recommend to the City Council members which streets to include as part of the resurfacing program. The list of streets to be resurfaced never included West 62nd Place, which never even received a rating in the evaluation process.

Ewais, on his own accord, created a task order for resurfacing West 62nd Place around October 2016. It had an estimated cost of $9,363.70, to be paid to Company 1 under its contract with the city. He also created a task order for Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant ramps at the corners of West 62nd Place and Storer Avenue, at an estimated cost of $5,898, to be paid to another contractor. Ewais on Oct. 28, 2016, sent Company 1 a copy of the resurfacing task order to indicate Company 1 should repave West 62nd Street under its city contract.

Also in 2016, Ewais had a private client through Pioneer Engineering. Ewais used his position with the city to change the Lorain Avenue Rehabilitation plans to create a parking pull-off lane sought by his client. The cost to the city was approximately $10,000.

In 2017, Ewais agreed to help another client get additional street parking off Melbourne Avenue. This would require moving a utility pole, which the client would be billed for if the move were part of a private project. But the utility company would pay the cost of moving the pole if it were part of a public City of Cleveland project.

In order to ensure his private client would not be billed for moving the pole, Ewais contacted the utility company from his City of Cleveland email address. He used his official position and title and made false and misleading statements that were intended to, and did, mislead representatives of the utility to believe that moving the pole to create a parking pull-off was a public project.

Ewais sent an email from his city email address to an employee of the public utility and others on June 13, 2017. The email subject was: “Pole Place[d] Incorrectly in the Public R/W [Right of Way]. The email stated: “The City has been working with the Developer at the above address for over a year to renovate this building and bring in some new tenants. There is a plan to implement a pull off lane off Melbourne Avenue to accommodate some parking requirements.” It also stated the utility had “placed a pole in the middle of the proposed parking area” and that “[t]his pole will need to be relocated so as not to hamper this improvement.”

Both Khalil and Abdeljawad Ewais also filed numerous false tax returns in which they failed to report rental income.

U.S. Attorney Justin Herdman said: “Public service is a privilege, not a license to get preferential treatment and discounted improvements. This defendant used his job at City Hall to benefit himself and put his personal interests ahead of the people of Cleveland he was supposed to be serving.”

“Our tax-paying citizens are entitled to decisions based on the best interests of the public, not the best interests of corrupt government employees who want to financially benefit themselves,” FBI Acting Special Agent in Charge Robert E. Hughes said.  “The FBI will continue to work with our law enforcement partners and the United States Attorney's Office to ensure those who violate the public trust are held accountable.”

“Today’s indictment serves as a reminder that no matter the source of income, taxpayers, and especially government employees have an obligation to the American public to pay their fair share of income taxes,” said Ryan Korner, Special Agent in Charge, IRS-Criminal Investigation’s Cincinnati Field Office. “Bringing to justice those who abscond from their tax liabilities has been and will continue to be a top priority.”

“The charges disclosed today prove our continuing resolve to root out fraud and corruption in all forms,” said Brad Geary, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – Office of Inspector General. “It is our continuing core mission to work with our federal law enforcement partners and the United States Attorney’s Office to protect the integrity of our housing programs and to take strong action against those who seek to personally benefit from taxpayer-funded grants.”

If convicted, the defendant's sentence will be determined by the Court after reviewing factors unique to this case, including the defendant's prior criminal record, 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.

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigations, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – Office of Inspector General and the Cleveland Division of Police. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Chelsea S. Rice and Elliot Morrison.

An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt.  The burden of proof is always on the government to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.       

 

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qckxkKu6ZR15NGxV7580lQMjzv70tL_DAIwEJMvjSUI
  Last Updated: 2024-09-02 14:07:02 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
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