Score:   1
Docket Number:   ND-OH  1:18-cr-00708
Case Name:   United States of America v. Tyson
  Press Releases:
A Cuyahoga County Land Bank employee was indicted for soliciting and accepting improvements to his property in Cleveland Heights in return for assisting a demolition company get contracts.

Kenneth Tyson, 48, was indicted on one count of conspiracy to commit bribery and honest services fraud, three counts of honest services wire fraud and one count of bribery.

Tyson worked as property specialist for the Cuyahoga County Land Reutilization Corp., also known as the Cuyahoga County Land Bank. Tyson served as a liaison with East Cleveland on land acquisition, demolition and other projects, according to the indictment.

He vetted prospective demolition contractors seeking to be placed on the Land Bank’s list of qualified contractors and exercised influence over who could compete for Land Bank contracts, according to the indictment.

Residential Commercial Industrial (RCI) Services  was a demolition company whose principal place of business was East Cleveland. It was operated by someone identified in the indictment as M.R. A person identified as M.S. served as chief of staff in the city of East Cleveland

Tyson conspired with M.R. and M.S. between 2013 and 2018. Tyson solicited M.R. to provide free contractor and repair services to Tyson’s property at 1210 Castleton Road in Cleveland Heights. In exchange, Tyson assisted and arranged for RCI to be put on the Land Bank’s qualified demolition contractor list and for RCI to be invited to bid on Land Bank demolition jobs, according to the indictment.

In October 2013, M.R. was billed approximately $2,565 for plumbing work done at Tyson’s property. That same month, M.R. paid someone approximately $1,000 to cut down a tree on the property, according to the indictment.

An East Cleveland employee, at the direction of M.S., sent documents and pictures to the Land Bank confirming RCI had previously completed demolition work in East Cleveland. Tyson and others conducted a site visit to RCI on Elderwood Road in East Cleveland, according to the indictment.

RCI was added to the Land Bank’s system as a demolition contractor on Nov. 21, 2013, allowing it to bid on Land Bank contracts. Five days later, the Land Bank invited RCI to bid on jobs at three sets of properties. RCI submitted the lowest bids on those jobs and was awarded the contracts, according to the indictment.

The Land Bank sent RCI three checks between January and March 2014, paying approximately $32,355 for the work, according to the indictment.

Around July 2014, RCI paid approximately $3,200 for concrete work done at Tyson’s property, according to the indictment.

“This defendant used his position to enrich himself with free home repairs when he was supposed to be helping rid our community of blight,” said U.S. Attorney Justin Herdman. “We remain committed to stamping out public corruption in all its forms.”

“The charges disclosed today prove our continuing resolve to root out fraud and corruption in all forms, especially when the programs involved should have been used to help our neediest families,” said HUD-OIG Special Agent in Charge Brad Geary. “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.”

"Competition in federal blight demolition programs is critical to protecting taxpayers, with no room for contract awards involving bribery, as is alleged against this land bank official,” said Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program Christy Goldsmith Romero.  “Cuyahoga County Land Bank has taken nearly $60 million from TARP’s Blight Elimination Program to demolish homes and improve local communities. It is critical that these taxpayer funds be used appropriately and for their intended purpose.  I thank U.S. Attorney Justin Herdman and his team of prosecutors for standing with SIGTARP in the fight against blight-related crime.”

“Our tax-paying citizens are entitled to decisions based on the best interests of the public, not the best interests of corrupt public officials and bribe-paying contractors,” FBI Special Agent in Charge Stephen D. Anthony said. “The FBI will continue to hold those that violate the public trust accountable in a court of law.”

This case was investigated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Inspector General, The Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and and the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigations. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Carmen E. Henderson and Chelsea S. Rice.

If convicted, the defendant’s sentence will be determined by the Court after review of 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.

A charge 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.

 

 

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JaNaSH3Lj8xivE-ewUJ0MHxg5mtFnf9sxuEDotcP_FU
  Last Updated: 2024-04-08 23:08:18 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 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