DETROIT - A grand jury returned a superseding indictment yesterday charging Wansa Nabih Makki, her husband, Hossam Tanana, and her brother, Mahmoud Makki with multiple health care fraud and money laundering offenses, U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider announced today.
Schneider was joined in the announcement by Special Agent in Charge Steven M. D’Antuono 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 and criminal complaints are:
Wansa Nabih Makki, 42, of Dearborn
Mahmoud Makki., 37, of Dearborn
Hossam Tanana, 54 of Dearborn
According to the superseding indictment, between January 2010 and January 2018, Wansa Makki owned and oversaw the operations of two local pharmacies, LifeCare Pharmacy in Livonia and LifeCare of Michigan in Farmington Hills. Both pharmacies were “closed door” pharmacies, meaning that they were not open to the public and only filled prescriptions for individuals associated with various care facilities.
The superseding indictment alleges that during the course of the conspiracy, Wansa Makki, Hossam Tanana, and Mahmoud Makki engaged in a scheme to bill Medicare, Medicaid and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for approximately $9.2 million dollars for medications that were never dispensed. The fraud scheme was detected by Medicare, in part, because of a huge deficit between each pharmacy’s recorded inventories and the claims that each submitted for insurance reimbursement. As part of the scheme to defraud, the defendants billed insurance companies for allegedly submitting claims for delivering over 500 medications to people who had died prior to the claimed date of delivery. The grand jury also charged Wansa Makki with making a false statement to the IRS when she falsely claimed to be a Pharmacist in her 2015 tax return.
According to the indictment, proceeds of the fraud scheme were laundered by overpaying consulting and delivery companies owned by Hossam Tanana and Mahmoud Makki. For instance, Hossam Tanana was previously convicted for diverting controlled substances such as oxycodone, hydrocodone (Vicodin) and alprazolam (Xanax) while being licensed as a pharmacist. Two days after being released from federal custody in April of 2012, Tanana incorporated a pharmacy consulting company. Between the date of incorporation and December of 2013, Tanana’s consulting company received over $400,000 from the LifeCare Pharmacy. LifeCare Pharmacy also paid over one million dollars to a delivery service opened by Wansa Makki’s brother, Mahmoud Makki, in a 14-month period beginning in December of 2013.
According to the Indictment, Wansa Makki used the proceeds to make a $21,500 payment for a Mercedes G63 AMG while Hossam Tanana used fraud proceeds to purchase a $545,000 Waterford Lakehouse. The indictment further alleged that Wansa Makki spent more than $3,000 in dock repairs to the Waterford Lakehouse.
During the investigation, the FBI and United States Attorney’s Office deployed the full arsenal of financial investigation tools to seize assets, which will be returned to the victim taxpayers in the event of a conviction. Seized assets include the following:
Over $2 million in liquid assets seized from accounts controlled by members of the conspiracy;
Eight King George Gold Coins valued at over $3,000, One QueenElizabeth II Gold Coin valued at $378, One Tiffany Diamond Ring Valued at $60,000, six Troy once Suisse gold bars valued at approximately $8,000, and 27 designer handbags – including Hermes Birkin™ and Coco Chanel™ valued at approximately $78,000.
According to court records, upon conviction, the United States Attorney’s Office will seek the forfeiture of the additional following property, the 5,700 square foot residence of Wansa Makki and Hossam Tanana in Dearborn. Further, upon conviction, the United States will seek the forfeiture of $113,000 in proceeds from the sale of a Waterford lake house purchased by Hossam Tanana for $545,000 while he was on federal supervised release following his 2010 distribution of controlled substance conviction.
According to court records, a member of the same conspiracy, Mohamad Ali Makki pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing. As part of his plea agreement, Mohamad Ali Makki, agreed to forfeit approximately $2.6 million in liquid assets seized from accounts he controlled. He additionally agreed to the imposition of a $2.3 million forfeiture judgment. The United States is authorized to forfeit any and assets Mohamad Ali Makki owns to satisfy the forfeiture judgment. In addition to the forfeiture judgment, the district court will also impose a restitution judgment of approximately $9.8 million based on the pecuniary losses to Medicare, Medicaid, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.
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.
If convicted of a health care fraud charge, the defendants face a maximum sentence of imprisonment of ten years, and a maximum fine of $250,000. If convicted of the money laundering charges, the defendants face up to twenty years’ imprisonment. Upon conviction, the court would be required to impose both forfeiture and restitution judgments.
The case was investigated by Special Agents of the HHS and FBI, with cooperation and assistance from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services - Office of Inspector General.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Philip Ross and Mitra Jafary-Hariri. Fraud Section Trial Attorney Shankar Ramamurthy previously prosecuted the Asset Forfeiture aspects of this case before transferring to his current position.
BOSTON – A Connecticut man was sentenced today for fraudulently obtaining more than 100 gold coins and then transporting them outside of Massachusetts. William Dawson, 52, was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Margaret R. Guzman to five years of probation, with one year of home confinement, and ordered to pay restitution. In April 2024, Dawson pleaded guilty to one count of interstate transportation of property taken by fraud. Dawson was arrested and charged in October 2023.Dawson held himself out as a property buyer and reseller. Person-1 operated a home cleanout business in Massachusetts that sold property contained in decedent estates. In or around December 2022, Person-1 was retained by a decedent estate to clean out a residence in Shrewsbury, Mass. In that home, Person-1 found 170 QueenElizabeth II Canadian Gold Maple Leaf Coins, collectively worth approximately $290,000. With approval from the estate, Person-1 agreed to sell 120 of the gold coins to Dawson.In January 2023, Dawson met with Person-1 in Millbury and purchased the 120 gold coins with two checks totaling $198,800. However, Dawson had significantly less than $198,800 in the relevant bank account when he wrote the checks to Person-1. Later that same day, Dawson called Person-1, falsely claiming that his car had been broken into and that the gold coins had been stolen. The next day, Dawson traveled to a pawn shop in Pawtucket, R.I. where he sold 43 of the gold coins in exchange for $80,442. On several occasions in February 2023, Dawson traveled to a pawn shop in Cranston, R.I., where he sold 19 more of the gold coins in exchange for a total of approximately $35,094.United States Attorney Leah B. Foley and Andrew Murphy, Special Agent in Charge of the United States Secret Service, Boston Field Office made the announcement today. Valuable assistance was provided by the Milford Police Department and the Worcester County District Attorney’s Office. Assistant U.S. Attorney Brendan O’Shea of the Worcester Branch Office prosecuted the case.
BOSTON – A Connecticut man pleaded guilty yesterday to fraudulently obtaining more than 100 gold coins and then transporting them outside of Massachusetts.
William Dawson, 52, pleaded guilty to on one count of interstate transportation of property taken by fraud. U.S. District Court Judge Margaret R. Guzman scheduled sentencing for June 18, 2024. Dawson was arrested and charged in October 2023.
Dawson held himself out as a property buyer and reseller. Person-1 operated a home cleanout business in Massachusetts that sold property contained in decedent estates. In or around December 2022, Person-1 was retained by a decedent estate to clean out a residence in Shrewsbury. In that home, Person-1 found 170 QueenElizabeth II Canadian Gold Maple Leaf Coins, collectively worth approximately $290,000. With approval from the estate, Person-1 agreed to sell 120 of the gold coins to Dawson.
In January 2023, Dawson met with Person-1 in Millbury and purchased the 120 gold coins with two checks totaling $198,800. However, Dawson had significantly less than $198,800 in the relevant bank account when he wrote the checks to Person-1. Later that same day, Dawson called Person-1, falsely claiming that his car had been broken into and that the gold coins had been stolen. The next day, Dawson traveled to a pawn shop in Pawtucket, R.I. where he sold 43 of the gold coins in exchange for $80,442. On several occasions in February 2023, Dawson traveled to a pawn shop in Cranston, R.I., where he sold 19 more of the gold coins in exchange for a total of approximately $35,094.
The charge of interstate transportation of property taken by fraud, provides for a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, up to three years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutes which govern the determination of a sentence in a criminal case.
Acting United States Attorney Joshua S. Levy and Andrew Murphy, Special Agent in Charge of the United States Secret Service, Boston Field Office made the announcement today. Valuable assistance was provided by the Milford Police Department and the Worcester County District Attorney’s Office. Assistant U.S. Attorney Brendan O’Shea of the Worcester Branch Office is prosecuting the case.
BOSTON – A Connecticut man was arrested today for fraudulently obtaining gold coins and transporting them outside of Massachusetts.
William Dawson, 51, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Worcester on one count of interstate transportation of property taken by fraud. Dawson was arrested this morning and released on conditions following an initial appearance in federal court in Worcester.
According to the indictment, Dawson held himself out as a property buyer and reseller. Person-1 operated a home cleanout business in Massachusetts that sold property contained in decedent estates.
It is alleged that in or around December 2022, Person-1 was retained by a decedent estate to clean out a residence in Shrewsbury. In that home, Person-1 found 170 QueenElizabeth II Canadian Gold Maple Leaf Coins, collectively worth approximately $290,000. With approval from the estate, Person-1 allegedly agreed to sell 120 of the gold coins to Dawson.
In January 2023, Dawson allegedly met with Person-1 in Millbury and purchased the 120 gold coins with two checks totaling $198,800. However, it is alleged that Dawson had significantly less than $198,800 in the bank account when he wrote the checks to Person-1. Later that same day, Dawson allegedly called Person-1 claiming that his car had been broken into and that the gold coins had been stolen. The next day, Dawson allegedly traveled to a pawn shop in Pawtucket, R.I. where he sold 43 of the gold coins in exchange for $80,442. It is further alleged that, on several occasions in February 2023, Dawson traveled to a pawn shop in Cranston, R.I., where he sold 19 more of the gold coins in exchange for a total of approximately $35,094.
Acting United States Attorney Joshua S. Levy and Andrew Murphy, Special Agent in Charge of the United States Secret Service, Boston Field Office made the announcement today. Valuable assistance was provided by the Milford Police Department and the Worcester County District Attorney’s Office. Assistant U.S. Attorney Brendan O’Shea of the Worcester Branch Office is prosecuting the case.
The details contained in the indictment are allegations. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
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 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
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 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
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
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
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 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
ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Eleven members or close associates of the MS-13 gang were arrested this week relating to the sexual exploitation and physical abuse of a minor in northern Virginia and Maryland.
“Sex traffickers often prey upon the most vulnerable victims in our society, and when combined with the horrific abuses of a gang like MS-13, the effects can be devastating,” said G. Zachary Terwilliger, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. “I have personally handled the prosecution of MS-13 members in northern Virginia for over a decade, including for gang-controlled sex trafficking, and I have led meaningful outreach efforts with the Hispanic community in order to raise public awareness of these serious threats. As I’ve noted before, no one suffers more at the hands of MS-13 than other individuals of Central American birth or ancestry, and cases like this are proof of the need for community leaders to step up, acknowledge this reality, and work together to be part of the solution. I want to thank our law enforcement partners for conducting this complex investigation and arrest operation in a diligent and professional manner, and for their sustained commitment to eradicating MS-13 from our communities. These defendants are charged with heinous offenses, but are appropriately presumed innocent unless or until proven otherwise.”
According to court documents, in Aug. 2018, a 13-year-old identified as MINOR 2 ran away from a youth home in northern Virginia. Shortly after running away, MINOR 2 was introduced to members of MS-13. Members of the gang beat MINOR 2 26 times with a baseball bat as part of a gang initiation. Gang members then sex trafficked MINOR 2 in Virginia and Maryland using the currency of cash and drugs. While in Virginia, men lined up to have sex with her in a wooded area behind one target’s apartment complex. The men gave her drugs in exchange for sex. She also was harbored in various apartments in northern Virginia where men paid her and her handlers cash for sex.
“MS-13 is known for their violence and intimidation, but the horrific crimes alleged in this case show how their cruelty and depravity know no bounds,” said Robert E. Bornstein, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office Criminal Division. “The FBI and our community will not stand by while children are beaten, plied with drugs, and trafficked for sex. We will continue to work tirelessly with our law enforcement partners to disrupt violent gang activity and bring justice on behalf of the innocent victims on whom they prey.”
According to court documents, MINOR 2 was later beaten again with a bat 26 times. After the second bat beating, MINOR 2 was transported to Maryland, where she was sold to numerous gang members and other customers in exchange for cash. Law enforcement recovered photographs and videos of MINOR 2 while being sexually exploited, along with numerous social media messages regarding the trafficking and sexual exploitation of MINOR 2.
“Today’s arrests are a prime example of the commitment and dedication of local police officers and federal agents to safeguard northern Virginia against crime and violence,” said Edwin C. Roessler Jr., Chief of Fairfax County Police. “The Fairfax County police department will continue to use every resource and leverage the full weight of our agency and our federal partners to prevent violence by interdicting organized crime and holding alleged criminal street gangs accountable.”
Below is a list of individuals arrested in this operation:
Name, Age
Hometown
Charges
Moises Orlando Zelaya-Veliz, 25
Woodbridge, VA
Sex trafficking a minor victim under the age of 14 in or effecting interstate commerce (“Sex Trafficking of a Minor”) (18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), (c) and 2)
Sioni Alexander Bonilla Gonzalez, 20
Woodbridge, VA
Sex Trafficking of a Minor (18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), (c) and 2) and Violent Crime in Aid of Racketeering Activity through assault with a dangerous weapon (“VICAR Assault”) (18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(3) and 2)
Carlos Jose Turicios Villatoro, 22
Woodbridge, VA
VICAR Assault (18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(3) and 2)
Jose Eliezar Molina-Veliz, 20
Woodbridge, VA
Sex Trafficking of a Minor (18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), (c) and 2)
Santos Ernesto Gutierrez Castro, 21
Woodbridge, VA
Sex Trafficking of a Minor (18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), (c) and 2)
Luis Alberto Gonzales, 31
Greenbelt, MD
Sex Trafficking of a Minor (18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), (c) and 2)
Reina Elizabeth Hernandez, 48
Hyattsville, MD
Sex Trafficking of a Minor (18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), (c) and 2)
Nelson Ezequiel Caballero Portillo, 24
College Park, MD
Sex Trafficking of a Minor (18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), (c) and 2)
Gilberto Morales, 31
Hyattsville, MD
Sex Trafficking of a Minor (18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), (c) and 2)
Jonathan Rafael Zelaya-Veliz, 24
Hyattsville, MD
Sex Trafficking of a Minor (18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), (c) and 2)
Orlando Alexis Salmeron Funez, 38
Riverdale, MD
Sex Trafficking of a Minor (18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), (c) and 2)
If convicted, each defendant charged with sex trafficking of a minor faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison and a maximum penalty of life in prison, and each defendant charged with VICAR assault faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison if convicted of that offense. 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.
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by U.S. Attorney’s Offices and the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to better locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc.
This case also is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), which is the centerpiece of the Department of Justice’s violent crime reduction efforts. PSN is an evidence-based program proven to be effective at reducing violent crime. Through PSN, a broad spectrum of stakeholders work together to identify the most pressing violent crime problems in the community and develop comprehensive solutions to address them. As part of this strategy, PSN focuses enforcement efforts on the most violent offenders and partners with locally based prevention and reentry programs for lasting reductions in crime.
G. Zachary Terwilliger, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; Robert E. Borstein, Acting Special Agent in Charge, Criminal Division, FBI Washington Field Office; Colonel Edwin C. Roessler Jr., Fairfax County Chief of Police; and Jarad L. Phelps, Chief of Prince William County Police, made the announcement. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Maureen C. Cain and Seth Schlessinger are prosecuting the case.
This case was investigated by the FBI Washington Field Office’s Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force, which is composed of FBI Agents and Task Force Officers from the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, the Fairfax County Police, the Arlington County Police, the Alexandria City Police, the Prince William County Police and other surrounding agencies. Investigative and tactical assistance has been provided by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement Removal Operations, the FBI Baltimore Field Office, FBI Norfolk Field Office, FBI Richmond Field Office, along with the Prince George’s County Police and the Montgomery County Police.
A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information are located on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 1:20-mj-215.
A criminal complaint is merely an accusation. Each defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
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 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
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 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
SAVANNAH, GA: A Georgia couple has been indicted on multiple child pornography charges in a virtual U.S. District Court grand jury session necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
John Paul Joseph Keegan, 29, of Midway, Ga., is charged with three counts of Production of Child Pornography, and one count each of Receipt of Child Pornography and Possession of Child Pornography, while Sharon Elizabeth Keegan, 28, of Midway, Ga., is charged with one count each of Production of Child Pornography, Distribution of Child Pornography, and Possession of Child Pornography, said Bobby L. Christine, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia. The most serious charges carry a penalty of up to 30 years in prison, along with substantial financial penalties followed by a period of supervised release.
There is no parole in the federal system.
“This case represents a substantial cooperative effort between local and federal law enforcement agencies in investigating and bringing charges,” said U.S. Attorney Christine. “Together with our law enforcement partners we are shining our light in the dark corners where vulnerable victims need our help most.”
Undercover agents monitoring messaging applications were alerted to images of child pornography and notified Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), leading law enforcement agencies to the Keegans’ residence and the subsequent discovery of images exploiting two minor victims on electronic devices in possession of the Keegans.
“The production of child pornography and the associated victimization of the child in producing such material tears at the heart of every parent out there,” said acting Special Agent in Charge Robert Hammer, who oversees HSI operations in Georgia and Alabama. “HSI and all of its partners will continue to prioritize production investigations as there is always a child in the shadows crying out for help to escape.”
“This indictment shows the dedicated work of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute crimes against children,” said Vic Reynolds, Director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. “The Georgia Bureau of Investigation is committed to working with our local, state, and federal partners to combat the epidemic of child sexual exploitation.”
Criminal indictments contain only charges; defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
This investigation took place under the umbrella of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Project Safe Childhood, and was investigated by Homeland Security Investigations, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the Liberty County Sheriff’s Office and the Richmond Hill Police Department. The case is being prosecuted for the United States by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jennifer Kirkland and Project Safe Childhood Coordinator Tara M. Lyons.
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 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
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Ashan M. Benedict, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”), and James P. O’Neill, the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), announced the unsealing of a Superseding Indictment, charging three additional individuals, JOWAYNE TOMLISON, SEAN KNOTT, and ELIZABETH MCCASKILL, with trafficking in firearms, including the trafficking of firearms from South Carolina to the New York City area. A fourth defendant, Dayvon Chestnut, was previously arrested and indicted on the same charges. TOMLISON and KNOTT were arrested today and will be presented today at the United States Courthouse in Manhattan. MCCASKILL was arrested this afternoon in the District of South Carolina.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “The defendants conspired to put illegal firearms on the streets of New York, increasing the risk of gun violence. Today, thanks to our partners at the ATF and the NYPD, they face federal charges for their crimes.”
ATF Special Agent-in-Charge Ashan M. Benedict said: “Protecting Americans from gun violence is central to the ATF mission. The defendants are alleged to have been part of a ring responsible for numerous illegal firearms out on our city streets. The ATF/ NYPD Joint Firearms Task Force is committed to disrupting and dismantling trafficking rings and bringing those responsible to justice. I would like to thank the United States Attorney’s Office for prosecuting this case.”
According to the allegations and information in the public record, including the allegations in the Superseding Indictment[1]:
From 2016 to 2018, Chestnut was unlawfully purchasing firearms in South Carolina for resale, and directing others, such as MCCASKILL, to do the same. In April and May 2018, Chestnut traveled to the New York City area on at least four occasions to distribute those firearms. TOMLISON and KNOTT obtained firearms from Chestnut for further resale to other individuals.
* * *
All four defendants – Chestnut, 25, of Bishopville, South Carolina, TOMLISON, 28, of Brooklyn, New York, KNOTT, 52, of Queens, New York, and MCCASKILL, 29, of Bishopville, South Carolina, are charged with conspiracy to traffic in firearms and firearms trafficking, each of which carries a maximum statutory penalty of five years in prison.
The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman praised the efforts of the ATF and NYPD in this case.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Violent and Organized Crime Unit. Assistant United States Attorney Sarah Krissoff in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Superseding Indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Superseding Indictment and the description of the Superseding Indictment forth herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
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 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
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Ashan M. Benedict, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”), and James P. O’Neill, the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), announced the arrest of DAYVON CHESTNUT, a/k/a “Dayvon Denaris Wynez Chestnut,” for trafficking in firearms, including the trafficking of firearms from South Carolina to the New York City area. CHESTNUT was arrested this morning in South Carolina by the ATF and the NYPD, and will be presented today on a complaint in federal court in the District of South Carolina.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “A big part of keeping our city safe is curtailing the flow of illegal guns to our streets. As alleged, until today, trafficking in illegal firearms was Dayvon Chestnut’s stock in trade. Now, thanks to the ATF and NYPD, he is in custody and awaiting prosecution by our Office.”
ATF Special Agent-in-Charge Ashan M. Benedict said: “As alleged, Dayvon Chestnut conspired to traffic firearms into the state of New York. Those who traffic in firearms are a direct focus of the ATF mission to combat violent crime. ATF and its partners at the NYPD work together every day to disrupt and dismantle these organizations and groups that circumvent the law by putting illegal firearms on the streets of New York. I would like to thank the Special Agents and NYPD Detective Task Force Officers of the ATF Crime Gun Intelligence Center for their diligent work on this case. I would also like to extend my gratitude to the United States Attorney’s Office for their work in prosecuting the case.”
According to the allegations in the Complaint[1]:
Since in or about 2016 through the present, CHESTNUT has been purchasing firearms in South Carolina, and directing others to purchase firearms in South Carolina, and selling those firearms to other individuals. CHESTNUT utilizes Facebook communications and phone communications, among other methods, to communicate with some of his co-conspirators. In April and May 2018, CHESTNUT traveled to the New York City area on at least four occasions to distribute those firearms.
* * *
CHESTNUT, 25, of Bishopville, South Carolina, is charged with conspiracy to traffic in firearms and firearms trafficking, each of which carries a maximum statutory penalty of five years in prison.
The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman praised the efforts of the ATF and NYPD in this case.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Violent and Organized Crime Unit. Assistant United States Attorney Sarah Krissoff in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the complaint are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint and the description of the Complaint forth herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
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 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
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that ROBERT DIAZ, a/k/a “Facey,” a/k/a “Face,” was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan to 120 months in prison for distributing heroin and other narcotics, including heroin that caused serious bodily injury to a victim who overdosed from using the heroin and was revived only after the administration of naloxone. DIAZ pled guilty on February 14, 2018, before U.S. Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “For years, Robert Diaz peddled heroin and other drugs in and around Rockland County, contributing to the opioid crisis plaguing our community today and causing at least one victim to overdose. Today’s sentence should serve as a message to those seeking to profit off of this tragic epidemic.”
According to the Indictment filed in Manhattan federal court, previous court filings, and statements made at public court proceedings:
DIAZ and eight co-defendants – Rene Sanchez, a/k/a “Renny,” Pablo Perez, a/k/a “Menor,” Christian Cardenas, a/k/a “Chris,” a/k/a “Spoonie,” David Almonte, a/k/a “Elli,” Ronald Bolanos, a/k/a “Ronny,” a/k/a “ET,” Rolando Paulino, a/k/a “Santana Paulino,” Theresa Keefe, a/k/a “Terry,” and Nicole Munderville, a/k/a “Nicki” – were charged with participating in a drug trafficking organization that distributed significant quantities of narcotics, including heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, and crack cocaine, in and around Rockland County, New York, and obtained those narcotics for resale from the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens, New York.
DIAZ sold retail quantities of drugs to users in Rockland County during the period from approximately 2012 to approximately May 2017. On or about December 15, 2016, DIAZ provided heroin to an individual (“Victim-1”) who overdosed after using the heroin. Medical personnel were required to administer naloxone to reverse the effects of the overdose, saving Victim-1’s life.
On multiple occasions during the course of the conspiracy, DIAZ indicated that he was well aware that the narcotics he and others were distributing contained fentanyl, were particularly dangerous, and had caused adverse reactions in multiple drug customers, including the overdose of Victim-1. DIAZ nevertheless continued obtaining and selling heroin, expressing on one occasion, subsequent to Victim-1’s overdose, that his customers were doing the “fentanyl dance” and that he had a “new connect” for “straight up fentanyl” that his customers “love[d].”
* * *
In addition to his prison sentence, DIAZ, 50, was sentenced to four years of supervised release.
Pablo Perez, Ronald Bolanos, and Theresa Keefe previously pled guilty and were sentenced to 90 months, 80 months, and 40 months in prison, respectively. Rene Sanchez, Christian Cardenas, Rolando Paulino, and Nicole Munderville previously pled guilty and are awaiting sentencing.
Mr. Berman praised the investigative work of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Rockland County Drug Task Force, and thanked the Rockland County District Attorney’s Office for their assistance in this investigation.
This matter is being handled by the Office’s Narcotics Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Elizabeth Hanft, Jane Kim, and Jason Richman are in charge of the prosecution.
Matthew Podolsky, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that HERMAN CALVIN BRIGHTMAN, a/k/a “Nazir Griffiths,” a/k/a “Nazir Luckett,” was sentenced today to 10 years in prison for repeatedly stalking and assaulting several women he met online while posing as a nurse. BRIGHTMAN previously pled guilty to traveling in interstate commerce to commit a crime of violence and sending interstate threats. U.S. District Judge John P. Cronan imposed today’s sentence.Acting U.S. Attorney Matthew Podolsky said: “Herman Brightman preyed on women he met through online dating websites. By posing as a nurse, Brightman earned the trust of his victims, and then stalked, assaulted, and threatened them. With today’s lengthy prison sentence, Brightman can no longer inflict pain or fear in his victims. I commend the brave women who spoke out against Brightman to ensure that he was held accountable for his crimes.”As alleged in the Indictment and statements made in public filings and public court proceedings:From at least January 2022 through September 2023, BRIGHTMAN used social media platforms such as Facebook and the dating application Hinge to meet, and occasionally date, women under false pretenses. Specifically, BRIGHTMAN often used an alias, created false identities for himself, and posed as a nurse or nurse practitioner working at New York City-area hospitals. To convince women of his lies, BRIGHTMAN sent pictures and videos of himself wearing scrubs and lab coats, some examples of which are included below:
Shortly after he began dating his victims, BRIGHTMAN began to act violently towards them, especially when they attempted to end the relationship. Court filings detailed how BRIGHTMAN brutalized at least four such women.In July 2022, BRIGHTMAN traveled from New Jersey to the Bronx, where he brandished a knife at a woman (“Victim-1”) and her minor child, after Victim-1 decided to break up with him. BRIGHTMAN then forced Victim-1 and her child to travel from Westchester County to BRIGHTMAN’s home in New Jersey. Upon arriving at BRIGHTMAN’s residence, BRIGHTMAN threatened Victim-1 if she tried to escape. Eventually, Victim-1 was able to call 911, and police officers arrived and freed her and her child from BRIGHTMAN’s apartment.In August 2023, BRIGHTMAN brutally attacked and held at knifepoint a Queens woman he had been dating (“Victim-2”). The attack occurred inside Victim-2’s home, and BRIGHTMAN threatened to use the knife to “gut” Victim-2 “like a fish.” BRIGHTMAN also bound Victim-2’s hands and attempted to tape Victim-2’s mouth. Approximately one week after this incident, Victim-2 ended her relationship with BRIGHTMAN. In the 24 hours that followed, BRIGHTMAN called Victim-2 over 20 times, including from private blocked numbers. During one phone call, BRIGHTMAN repeatedly threatened Victim-2. In early September 2023, BRIGHTMAN traveled from New Jersey to the Bronx and lured a third woman he was dating (“Victim-3”) to his car. While in BRIGHTMAN’s car, BRIGHTMAN forced Victim-3 to call Victim-2. BRIGHTMAN then punched Victim-3, leaving a bruise on her arm. When Victim-3 attempted to escape, BRIGHTMAN chased after her and put her in a choke hold. Victim-3 was eventually able to run into her building and call the police. Several days later, BRIGHTMAN confronted Victim-3 while she was waiting for a bus home from work. During the confrontation, BRIGHTMAN repeatedly asked Victim-3 if she had contacted the police about him. BRIGHTMAN then followed Victim-3 home, where BRIGHTMAN assaulted her again, pushing Victim-3 to the ground and throwing a traffic cone at her.In or about late September 2023, BRIGHTMAN traveled to the Bronx and convinced a fourth woman (“Victim-4”), who had previously ended her relationship with BRIGHTMAN, to allow him into her home. Inside Victim-4’s home, BRIGHTMAN assaulted and strangled Victim-4, leaving her with bruising on her neck. BRIGHTMAN also repeatedly threatened to kill Victim-4 and watched her while she showered. Victim-4 was discretely able to contact a friend, who eventually arrived at the apartment and helped free her.* * *In addition to his prison term, BRIGHTMAN, 31, of New Jersey, was sentenced to three years of supervised release.Mr. Podolsky praised the outstanding investigative work of the New York City Police Department. The case is being handled by the Office’s Violent and Organized Crime Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Ni Qian, Patrick Moroney, and Elizabeth Daniels are in charge of the prosecution.
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced the convictions last week of MIRCEA CONSTANTINESCU, NIKOLAOS LIMBERATOS, and ALEXANDRU RADULESCU for their participation in an international conspiracy to commit a variety of offenses, including access device fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft, following a seven-day trial before the Honorable Sidney H. Stein.
United States Attorney Damian Williams said: “As the jury recognized, these defendants participated in a prolific ATM skimming and money laundering ring that spanned years and continents. They caused staggering losses by, among other things, stealing account numbers and personal identification numbers of their victims using sophisticated technology. Because of yesterday’s verdict, they will no longer be able to ‘cash out’ on others’ identities.”
As proven at trial:
MIRCEA CONSTANTINESCU, NIKOLAOS LIMBERATOS, and ALEXANDRU RADULESCU were members of an international “ATM skimming” and money laundering organization (the “Skimming Organization”). From approximately 2014 to 2019, the Skimming Organization made millions of dollars by installing sophisticated machinery on ATMs and point-of-sale machines, capturing unsuspecting bank customers’ card numbers and PINs, reencoding that information on counterfeit cards, and then “cashing out” those cards to withdraw as much money as they could.
The Skimming Organization sent crews of “install” and “cash out” workers to travel throughout the country, carrying out numerous skimming operations at various banks and on point-of-sale machines. The operations often lasted a period of days. After cashing out, the teams would take a cut of the money earned and provide the rest to the Skimming Organization’s leaders.
LIMBERATOS and RADULESCU were leaders of the Skimming Organization, who ran teams of “install” and “cash out” workers, oversaw the manufacture and repair of skimming devices, cased ideal locations, organized skimming jobs, and made millions of dollars as a result. LIMBERATOS also participated in laundering the proceeds of the skimming jobs, including through a restaurant business he owned. CONSTANTINESCU helped to send and receive packages containing skimming and skimming-related equipment, worked with an engineer who fashioned skimming devices, and laundered money for the Skimming Organization from the United States to Romania.
CONSTANTINESCU, LIMBERATOS, and RADULESCU were among 33 defendants charged in connection with this case.
* * *
CONSTANTINESCU, 48, of Queens, New York, was convicted of one count of conspiring to commit access device fraud, one count of conspiring to commit wire and bank fraud, one count of aggravated identity theft, and one count of conspiring to commit money laundering. Those counts carry a maximum potential sentence of 59 years and six months in prison, and a mandatory minimum sentence of two years of in prison.
LIMBERATOS, 56, of Deer Park, New York, was convicted of one count of aggravated identity theft. Shortly before trial, LIMBERATOS pled guilty to one count of conspiring to commit access device fraud, one count of conspiring to commit wire and bank fraud, and one count of conspiring to commit money laundering. Those counts together carry a maximum potential sentence of 59 years and six months of in prison, and a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison.
RADULESCU, 36, of Romania, was convicted of one count of aggravated identity theft. Shortly before trial, RADULESCU pled guilty to one count of conspiring to commit access device fraud, one count of conspiring to commit wire and bank fraud, and one count of access device fraud. Those counts together carry a maximum potential sentence of 54 years and six months in prison, and a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison.
The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.
All three defendants are scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Stein on October 13, 2022, at 2:30 p.m. (CONSTANTINESCU), 3:00 p.m. (LIMBERATOS), and 3:30 p.m. (RADULESCU).
This case is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Elizabeth Hanft, Samuel P. Rothschild, Maggie Lynaugh, and Robert B. Sobelman are in charge of the prosecution.
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
Joon H. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, James J. Hunt, the Special Agent in Charge of the New York Field Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), James P. O’Neill, the Commissioner of the Police Department for the City of New York (“NYPD”), and Mark G. Peters, the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Investigation (“DOI”), today announced the arrests of ERNESTO LOPEZ, a New York-licensed doctor who wrote thousands of medically unnecessary prescriptions for oxycodone and fentanyl patches over an approximately three-year period, SHARON WASHINGTON-BHAMRE, a pediatric nurse practitioner who also wrote medically unnecessary prescriptions for oxycodone, and AUDRA BAKER, an employee at one of LOPEZ’s medical offices who helped facilitate the diversion scheme. All three defendants are charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and were arrested earlier this morning. The defendants will be presented in Manhattan federal court before U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses later today.
Acting U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim stated: “As alleged, these defendants acted like drug dealers in lab coats, directly contributing to the glut of highly-addictive opioids flooding the streets of New York City and its surrounding communities. Our office will continue to investigate and prosecute all those who abuse their medical licenses to enrich themselves.”
DEA Special Agent in Charge James J. Hunt stated: “At the same time that cartels are pushing fentanyl on opioid users, this investigation identified a rogue doctor following suit. With offices strategically located in Nassau County, Manhattan, and Queens, Dr. Lopez allegedly wrote unnecessary prescriptions for oxycodone and fentanyl worth millions of dollars on the street. I commend our law enforcement partners for their collaboration and hard work on this investigation.”
DOI Commissioner Mark G. Peters said: “This doctor and his co-defendants in the medical profession disregarded their duty to aid the sick and infirmed, deciding instead to heed personal profit in return for pushing dangerous opioids, according to the charges. DOI is proud to work with our federal and local law enforcement partners on this significant investigation to expose and stop a pill mill advancing the perilous opioid crisis.”
The following allegations are based on the Complaints[1] and other documents filed in Manhattan federal court:
Oxycodone and fentanyl are highly addictive, narcotic opioids that are used to treat severe and chronic pain conditions. Oxycodone prescriptions are in high demand and have significant cash value to drug dealers, who sell them on the street for large amounts of money. For example, 30-milligram oxycodone tablets have a current street value of approximately $20 to $30 per tablet in New York City, with street prices even higher in other parts of the country. Thus, a single prescription for 120 30-milligram tablets of oxycodone can net an illicit distributor $2,400 in cash or more. Fentanyl patches are also commonly abused and sold for cash on the street by drug dealers. Because it is much more potent than heroin, fentanyl frequently results in overdoses that can lead to respiratory depression and death.
From 2015 until October 2017, LOPEZ operated medical clinics located in Manhattan, New York; Jackson Heights, New York; and Franklin Square, New York, where LOPEZ wrote thousands of prescriptions for large quantities of oxycodone and fentanyl patches in exchange for cash payments. BAKER assisted LOPEZ in operating two of his medical offices. LOPEZ typically charged $200 to $300 in cash for “patient visits,” where LOPEZ performed no meaningful physical examination of patients. Instead, a typical “patient visit” consisted primarily of recording a patient’s vital signs and sometimes involved the brief movement of a patient’s limbs. LOPEZ then prescribed large quantities of oxycodone, most frequently 120 30-milligram tablets, and fentanyl patches. Between January 2015 and the present, LOPEZ wrote more than 8,000 oxycodone prescriptions, resulting in an estimated $2 million in fees to LOPEZ. BAKER assisted LOPEZ in the diversion of oxycodone and fentanyl. For example, BAKER steered at least one patient to a particular individual (“CC-1”), so that CC-1 could purchase that individual’s oxycodone prescriptions and resell the drugs on the street.
From December 2015 until October 2017, WASHINGTON-BHAMRE, a pediatric nurse practitioner, wrote scores of medically unnecessary oxycodone prescriptions. During this time, WASHINGTON-BHAMRE wrote oxycodone prescriptions in the names of individuals provided to her by CC-1 without performing any examination of the purported patients.
* * *
LOPEZ, 74, of Flushing, New York, BAKER, 49, of Manhattan, New York, and WASHINGTON-BHAMRE, 52, of Rochelle Park, New Jersey, are each charged with one count of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The maximum potential sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.
Mr. Kim praised the outstanding investigative work of the DEA’s New York Tactical Diversion Squad, which comprises agents and officers from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, the New York City Police Department, the New York State Police, New York State Division of Financial Services and New York City Department of Investigation. Mr. Kim also thanked the Department of Health and Human Services, the New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General, the New York City Human Resources Administration, the Nassau County Police Department and Asset Forfeiture Unit, the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office, the New York County District Attorney’s Office, and the New York State Department of Financial Services for their work on the investigation.
Parts of this case were conducted under the auspices of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), a partnership between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt, and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, and money laundering organizations and those primarily responsible for the nation’s illegal drug supply.
This matter is being handled by the Office’s Narcotics Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Elizabeth Hanft and Michael McGinnis are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Complaints are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaints, and the description of the Complaints set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
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
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that ERNESTO LOPEZ, a New York-licensed medical doctor who wrote thousands of medically unnecessary prescriptions for oxycodone and fentanyl over an approximately three-year period, was sentenced today in Manhattan federal court to five years in prison. LOPEZ was previously found guilty, in February 2019, of conspiring to distribute narcotics and distribution of narcotics after a jury trial before United States District Judge Denise L. Cote, who imposed today’s sentence.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman stated: “Today’s sentence serves as a message that a doctor who doles out narcotics without regard to his patients’ medical needs and addictions is no more than a drug dealer. Lopez will serve a substantial sentence for his reprehensible conduct, having betrayed the public’s and his patients’ trust for his own financial gain.”
According to the allegations contained in the Complaint, Indictment, Superseding Indictment, evidence presented during the trial, and statements made in Manhattan federal court:
Oxycodone and fentanyl are highly addictive, narcotic opioids that are used to treat severe pain conditions. Oxycodone prescriptions are in high demand and have significant cash value to drug dealers, who sell them on the street for large amounts of money. For example, 30-milligram oxycodone tablets have a current street value of approximately $20 to $30 per pill in New York City, with street prices even higher in other parts of the country. Thus, a single prescription for 120 30-milligram tablets of oxycodone can net an illicit distributor $2,400 in cash or more. Fentanyl patches are also commonly abused and sold for cash on the street by drug dealers. Because it is so potent, fentanyl frequently results in overdoses that can lead to respiratory depression and death.
From approximately 2015 until his arrest in November 2017, LOPEZ operated medical clinics located in New York, New York; Jackson Heights, New York; and Franklin Square, New York, where LOPEZ wrote thousands of prescriptions for large quantities of oxycodone and fentanyl in exchange for cash payments. In total, LOPEZ wrote prescriptions for nearly one million oxycodone pills, with a street value of approximately $20 million. LOPEZ typically charged $200 to $300 in cash for patient visits, despite the fact that nearly 80 percent of his patients maintained health insurance. During many of these visits, LOPEZ performed no meaningful physical examination of patients and did not attempt to diagnose them. LOPEZ prescribed large quantities of oxycodone, most frequently 120 30-milligram tablets, and fentanyl patches, often to patients who demonstrated clear signs of drug addiction and whose test results showed that they were not taking – and therefore were redistributing – the oxycodone he prescribed.
In addition to prescribing medically unnecessary oxycodone and fentanyl patches, LOPEZ also prescribed to many patients a fentanyl-based spray intended to treat breakthrough cancer pain, for which those patients had no legitimate medical need. In connection with those prescriptions, LOPEZ submitted an application to INSYS Therapeutics to join a “speaker’s program,” wherein doctors received payments in exchange for prescribing the fentanyl-based spray to patients.
At the time of LOPEZ’s arrest, agents recovered hundreds of fentanyl sprays and patches from the closet of his residence, along with approximately $729,000 in cash.
* * *
In addition to the prison sentence, LOPEZ, 76, of Flushing, New York, was sentenced to three years of supervised release, was ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $50,000, and was ordered to forfeit $1,400,000.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the DEA’s New York Tactical Diversion Squad. Mr. Berman also thanked the New York City Police Department, the Department of Health and Human Services, the New York City Department of Investigation, the New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General, the New York City Human Resources Administration, the Nassau County Police Department and Asset Forfeiture Unit, the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office, the New York County District Attorney’s Office, and the New York State Department of Financial Services for their work on the investigation.
Parts of this case were conducted under the auspices of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), a partnership between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking, weapons trafficking and money laundering organizations and those primarily responsible for the nation’s illegal drug supply.
This matter is being handled by the Office’s Narcotics Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Nicholas Folly, Elizabeth Hanft, Michael McGinnis, and Daniel Richenthal are in charge of the prosecution.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced the conviction yesterday of ERNESTO LOPEZ, a New York-licensed medical doctor who wrote thousands of medically unnecessary prescriptions for oxycodone and fentanyl over an approximately three-year period, following an eight-day trial before the Honorable Denise L. Cote. LOPEZ was remanded into custody following his conviction. Audra Baker, a medical assistant who worked in one of LOPEZ’s medical offices, and who was tried with LOPEZ, was acquitted of all charges against her.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman stated: “As the jury unanimously recognized, Ernesto Lopez betrayed his patients and the public, peddling dangerous opioids to addicts and drug dealers for his own personal financial profit. His flagrant drug dealing is all the more shocking coming as it did from a licensed medical professional who has taken an oath to do no harm to his patients.”
As reflected in the Indictment, documents previously filed in the case, and evidence introduced at trial:
From approximately 2015 until his arrest in November 2017, LOPEZ operated medical clinics in New York, New York, Jackson Heights, New York, and Franklin Square, New York, where LOPEZ, who purported to specialize in pain management, wrote thousands of prescriptions for oxycodone and fentanyl in exchange for cash payments. In total, LOPEZ wrote prescriptions for nearly one million oxycodone pills, with a street value of approximately $20 million. LOPEZ typically charged $200 to $300 in cash for patient visits, despite the fact that nearly 80 percent of his patients had health insurance. During many patient visits, LOPEZ neither performed a meaningful physical examination of patients, nor attempted to diagnose them. Instead, a typical such patient visit consisted primarily of recording a patient’s vital signs and sometimes involved the brief movement of a patient’s limbs. LOPEZ then prescribed large quantities of oxycodone, most frequently 120 30-milligram tablets, and fentanyl patches.
In addition to prescribing oxycodone and fentanyl patches to patients without a legitimate medical need, LOPEZ also prescribed to many patients a fentanyl-based spray, called Subsys, which was intended to treat breakthrough cancer pain, for which those patients – many of whom did not have cancer – had no legitimate medical need. In connection with these prescriptions, LOPEZ submitted an application to INSYS Therapeutics to join a so-called “speaker’s program,” where doctors received payments in exchange for prescribing the fentanyl-based spray to patients.
LOPEZ also provided loose oxycodone pills, without a prescription, directly to at least one patient on multiple occasions, instructed an employee to fill a prescription for oxycodone pills and then to give the pills to LOPEZ, and instructed the same employee to crush an oxycodone pill and put the resulting powder into a urine sample, so as to cheat a drug test.
At the time of LOPEZ’s arrest, law enforcement agents recovered, among other things, hundreds of fentanyl sprays and patches from his residence, along with approximately $729,000 in cash in boxes.
After the verdict was announced, Judge Cote said: “Lives were destroyed and damaged. People have suffered enormously because of what the doctor chose to do for those years.”
* * *
LOPEZ, 75, of Flushing, New York, was convicted of one count of conspiring to distribute oxycodone and fentanyl outside the usual course of professional practice and without legitimate medical need, and eight counts of distributing oxycodone outside the usual course of professional practice and without legitimate medical need. Each count carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The maximum potential sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by Judge Cote on June 11, 2019.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s New York Tactical Diversion Squad. Mr. Berman also thanked the New York City Police Department, the Department of Health and Human Services, the New York City Department of Investigation, the New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General, the New York City Human Resources Administration, the Nassau County Police Department and Asset Forfeiture Unit, the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office, the New York County District Attorney’s Office, and the New York State Department of Financial Services for their work on the investigation.
Parts of this case were conducted under the auspices of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), a partnership between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt, and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, and money laundering organizations and those primarily responsible for the nation’s illegal drug supply.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Narcotics Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Nicholas Folly, Elizabeth Hanft, and Michael McGinnis are in charge of the prosecution.
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
Joon H. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, James J. Hunt, the Special Agent in Charge of the New York Field Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), James P. O’Neill, the Commissioner of the Police Department for the City of New York (“NYPD”), and Mark G. Peters, the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Investigation (“DOI”), today announced the arrests of ERNESTO LOPEZ, a New York-licensed doctor who wrote thousands of medically unnecessary prescriptions for oxycodone and fentanyl patches over an approximately three-year period, SHARON WASHINGTON-BHAMRE, a pediatric nurse practitioner who also wrote medically unnecessary prescriptions for oxycodone, and AUDRA BAKER, an employee at one of LOPEZ’s medical offices who helped facilitate the diversion scheme. All three defendants are charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and were arrested earlier this morning. The defendants will be presented in Manhattan federal court before U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses later today.
Acting U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim stated: “As alleged, these defendants acted like drug dealers in lab coats, directly contributing to the glut of highly-addictive opioids flooding the streets of New York City and its surrounding communities. Our office will continue to investigate and prosecute all those who abuse their medical licenses to enrich themselves.”
DEA Special Agent in Charge James J. Hunt stated: “At the same time that cartels are pushing fentanyl on opioid users, this investigation identified a rogue doctor following suit. With offices strategically located in Nassau County, Manhattan, and Queens, Dr. Lopez allegedly wrote unnecessary prescriptions for oxycodone and fentanyl worth millions of dollars on the street. I commend our law enforcement partners for their collaboration and hard work on this investigation.”
DOI Commissioner Mark G. Peters said: “This doctor and his co-defendants in the medical profession disregarded their duty to aid the sick and infirmed, deciding instead to heed personal profit in return for pushing dangerous opioids, according to the charges. DOI is proud to work with our federal and local law enforcement partners on this significant investigation to expose and stop a pill mill advancing the perilous opioid crisis.”
The following allegations are based on the Complaints[1] and other documents filed in Manhattan federal court:
Oxycodone and fentanyl are highly addictive, narcotic opioids that are used to treat severe and chronic pain conditions. Oxycodone prescriptions are in high demand and have significant cash value to drug dealers, who sell them on the street for large amounts of money. For example, 30-milligram oxycodone tablets have a current street value of approximately $20 to $30 per tablet in New York City, with street prices even higher in other parts of the country. Thus, a single prescription for 120 30-milligram tablets of oxycodone can net an illicit distributor $2,400 in cash or more. Fentanyl patches are also commonly abused and sold for cash on the street by drug dealers. Because it is much more potent than heroin, fentanyl frequently results in overdoses that can lead to respiratory depression and death.
From 2015 until October 2017, LOPEZ operated medical clinics located in Manhattan, New York; Jackson Heights, New York; and Franklin Square, New York, where LOPEZ wrote thousands of prescriptions for large quantities of oxycodone and fentanyl patches in exchange for cash payments. BAKER assisted LOPEZ in operating two of his medical offices. LOPEZ typically charged $200 to $300 in cash for “patient visits,” where LOPEZ performed no meaningful physical examination of patients. Instead, a typical “patient visit” consisted primarily of recording a patient’s vital signs and sometimes involved the brief movement of a patient’s limbs. LOPEZ then prescribed large quantities of oxycodone, most frequently 120 30-milligram tablets, and fentanyl patches. Between January 2015 and the present, LOPEZ wrote more than 8,000 oxycodone prescriptions, resulting in an estimated $2 million in fees to LOPEZ. BAKER assisted LOPEZ in the diversion of oxycodone and fentanyl. For example, BAKER steered at least one patient to a particular individual (“CC-1”), so that CC-1 could purchase that individual’s oxycodone prescriptions and resell the drugs on the street.
From December 2015 until October 2017, WASHINGTON-BHAMRE, a pediatric nurse practitioner, wrote scores of medically unnecessary oxycodone prescriptions. During this time, WASHINGTON-BHAMRE wrote oxycodone prescriptions in the names of individuals provided to her by CC-1 without performing any examination of the purported patients.
* * *
LOPEZ, 74, of Flushing, New York, BAKER, 49, of Manhattan, New York, and WASHINGTON-BHAMRE, 52, of Rochelle Park, New Jersey, are each charged with one count of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The maximum potential sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.
Mr. Kim praised the outstanding investigative work of the DEA’s New York Tactical Diversion Squad, which comprises agents and officers from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, the New York City Police Department, the New York State Police, New York State Division of Financial Services and New York City Department of Investigation. Mr. Kim also thanked the Department of Health and Human Services, the New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General, the New York City Human Resources Administration, the Nassau County Police Department and Asset Forfeiture Unit, the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office, the New York County District Attorney’s Office, and the New York State Department of Financial Services for their work on the investigation.
Parts of this case were conducted under the auspices of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), a partnership between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt, and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, and money laundering organizations and those primarily responsible for the nation’s illegal drug supply.
This matter is being handled by the Office’s Narcotics Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Elizabeth Hanft and Michael McGinnis are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Complaints are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaints, and the description of the Complaints set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
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
Joon H. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Thomas Zugibe, the Rockland County District Attorney, and James J. Hunt, Special Agent in Charge of the New York Field Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), today announced the unsealing of an indictment charging nine defendants with participating in a drug trafficking organization that distributed a variety of narcotics, including heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, and crack cocaine, in and around Rockland County, New York, and obtained those narcotics for resale from the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens, New York. The indictment alleges that the use of heroin distributed by defendant ROBERT DIAZ, a/k/a “Facey,” a/k/a “Face,” resulted in serious bodily injury to a particular victim (“Victim-1”) on or about December 15, 2016, in Queens, New York.
All but one of the defendants were arrested last night and today. RENE SANCHEZ, PABLO PEREZ, CHRISTIAN CARDENAS, DAVID ALMONTE, and RONALD BOLANOS were presented in federal court in Manhattan before U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein this afternoon. ROBERT DIAZ, THERESA KEEFE, and NICOLE MUNDERVILLE will be presented tomorrow before Judge Gorenstein. ROLANDO PAULINO remains at large.
Acting U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim stated: “As alleged, the defendants conspired to sell deadly drugs, including heroin and fentanyl, even though some of them knew that users were overdosing on their drugs. The opioid epidemic, and in particular, overdoses on fentanyl, is on the rise in too many of our communities, including Rockland County. Together with our partners at the DEA and the Rockland County District Attorney’s Office, we are working to combat this deadly epidemic.”
Rockland County District Attorney Thomas Zugibe stated: “Sadly, we're seeing high numbers of fentanyl and heroin related overdoses in Rockland County. Dealers selling heroin-laced fentanyl or replacing the heroin entirely with fentanyl are a major threat to our community. Often times, users never know that the substance they purchased has been cut with this opioid, which is 50 times more powerful than regular heroin. Today’s arrests help to stem the flow of heroin and fentanyl into our neighborhoods. Along with our law enforcement partners, the Rockland County District Attorney's Office is committed to holding dealers accountable with the full force of the law.”
DEA Special Agent in Charge James J. Hunt stated: “The after effects of this Rockland County drug crew added casualties to the number of opioid overdoses nationwide, as they callously discussed doing the ‘fentanyl dance.’ In addition to dismantling drug trafficking organizations, law enforcement and our community partners are collaborating to alert the public on the dangers of drug dealers pushing heroin and fentanyl into our neighborhoods.”
According to the Indictment[1] unsealed in Manhattan federal court:
ROBERT DIAZ, a/k/a “Facey,” a/k/a “Face,” RENE SANCHEZ, a/k/a “Renny,” PABLO PEREZ, a/k/a “Menor,” CHRISTIAN CARDENAS, a/k/a “Chris,” a/k/a “Spoonie,” DAVID ALMONTE, a/k/a “Elli,” RONALD BOLANOS, a/k/a “Ronny,” a/k/a “ET,” ROLANDO PAULINO, a/k/a “Santana Paulino,” THERESA KEEFE, a/k/a “Terry,” and NICOLE MUNDERVILLE, a/k/a “Nicki,” conspired to distribute significant amounts of narcotics, including heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine, and fentanyl, in and around Rockland County, New York, from 2012 to May 2017 as members of a drug trafficking organization (the “Rockland DTO”). CARDENAS, ALMONTE, PEREZ, PAULINO, and BOLANOS acted as suppliers for the Rockland DTO, while DIAZ, SANCHEZ, KEEFE, and MUNDERVILLE distributed and assisted in distributing the narcotics to customers in and around Rockland County. The Rockland DTO distributed narcotics on a daily basis, and obtained narcotics for resale from the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens.
Some members of the Rockland DTO were aware of the potency and danger of the narcotics they were distributing. For example, from December 2016 to May 2017, DIAZ indicated to certain other members of the Rockland DTO that the narcotics he, KEEFE, and MUNDERVILLE were selling, and that CARDENAS was supplying, contained fentanyl, were particularly dangerous, and had caused adverse reactions in multiple customers, including at least one overdose that had required the administration of naloxone to Victim-1 on or about December 15, 2016. Also, as described in the Indictment, on January 5, 2017, DIAZ told CARDENAS that “three people fell out” from the drugs DIAZ had provided. DIAZ subsequently informed KEEFE and MUNDERVILLE that the drugs they were selling, thought by customers to be heroin, actually contained fentanyl. In addition, on March 20, 2017, DIAZ, in a conversation with PEREZ, laughed as he discussed doing the “fentanyl dance,” telling PEREZ that he had a “new connect” for “straight up fentanyl” and that customers “love it.”
* * *
Each defendant is charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute narcotics, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. DIAZ also faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison for having distributed heroin resulting in serious bodily injury to a victim. The statutory maximum sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge. A chart with the defendants’ ages and residences is below.
Mr. Kim thanked the DEA’s Westchester Tactical Diversion Squad, the Rockland County Drug Task Force, the Rockland County REACT Team, and the Rockland County District Attorney’s Office for their work on the investigation. The DEA’s Westchester TDS comprises agents and officers of the DEA, Westchester County Police Department, Town of Orangetown Police Department, Rockland County Sheriff’s Office, Rockland County District Attorney’s Office, Yonkers Police Department, New Windsor Police Department, Putnam County Sheriff’s Office and U.S. Health and Human Services.
This matter is being handled by the Office’s Narcotics Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Jane Kim, Jason Richman, and Elizabeth Hanft are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
DEFENDANT
AGE
RESIDENCE
ROBERT DIAZ, a/k/a “Facey,” a/k/a “Face”
49
Haverstraw, New York
RENE SANCHEZ, a/k/a “Renny”
52
Haverstraw, New York
PABLO PEREZ, a/k/a “Menor”
37
Bronx, New York
CHRISTIAN CARDENAS, a/k/a “Chris,” a/k/a “Spoonie”
41
Queens, New York
DAVID ALMONTE, a/k/a “Elli”
36
Bronx, New York
RONALD BOLANOS, a/k/a “Ronny,” a/k/a “ET”
47
Queens, New York
ROLANDO PAULINO, a/k/a “Santana Paulino”
46
Manhattan, New York
THERESA KEEFE, a/k/a “Terry”
55
Haverstraw, New York
NICOLE MUNDERVILLE, a/k/a “Nicki”
34
Haverstraw, New York
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment, and the description of the Indictment set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F. Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Troy Miller, Director, Field Operations, New York, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), and James P. O’Neill, the Police Commissioner for the City of New York (“NYPD”), today announced the unsealing of an indictment and two superseding indictments charging 18 defendants with participating in an international conspiracy to commit a variety of offenses, including access device fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft.
Defendants NIKOLAOS LIMBERATOS, a/k/a “Nicu Limberto,” CRISTIAN COSTEA, a/k/a “Momo,” THEOFRASTOS LYMBERATOS, ANDREW ELIOPOULOS, PETER SAMOLIS, KELLY KARKI LAM, and IULIANA MIHAILESCU were arrested this morning and will be presented in federal court in Manhattan before U.S. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang later today. Defendants MIRCEA CONSTANTINESCU, a/k/a “Sobo,”ALIN HANES CALUGARU, IONELA CONSTANTINESCU, a/k/a “Pitica,” and GEORGE SERBAN were also arrested this morning and will be presented in federal court in Miami before U.S. Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis later today. Defendant FLORIAN CLAUDIU MARTIN, a/k/a “Florin Claudiu,” a/k/a “Johnny Ion,” a/k/a “Jane Hotul,” a/k/a “Petru Andrioaie,” a/k/a “Petru Andrioane,” was arrested this morning in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, and defendant RAUL IONUT VIDRASAN, a/k/a “Michu,” a/k/a “The Boy,” was arrested this morning in Perugia, Italy. Defendants VALENTIN PETRESCU, a/k/a “Gico Cosmin Giscan,” a/k/a “Zoltan Pruma,” DRAGOS DIACONU, MADLIN ALEXANDRU ANCA, a/k/a “Mateo Fernandez Alejandro,” and CRISTIAN ULMANU, a/k/a “Boris Moravec,” are currently in custody on other charges and will be transferred to federal custody in New York and presented at a later date. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, the defendants participated in a wide-ranging international ATM skimming and money laundering operation, using their technological know-how to steal tens of millions of dollars from financial institutions and individual victims. Thanks to the FBI, CBP, and the NYPD, the defendants are in custody and facing felony charges for their alleged offenses.”
FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said: “An extremely frustrating thing to experience, you grab cash from an ATM but then find out your bank information was stolen and your account drained. The scheme detailed here cost victims money, time, and effort to get their finances returned and their identities restored, which can be an infuriating long process. The FBI New York Cyber Crimes Task Force and our law enforcement partners have worked exhaustively to find the members of this criminal organization, and the arrests and charges are a testament to their hard work stopping these thieves from creating more havoc for anyone trying to access their hard-earned money.”
CBP Director of New York Field Operations Troy Miller said: “This case serves as a great example of collaborative law enforcement efforts to combat international debit card schemes. U.S. Customs and Border Protection in coordination with our partners at FBI and the NYPD will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that criminals associated with transnational criminal organizations are brought to justice.”
NYPD Commissioner James P. O’Neill said: “The NYPD and its law enforcement partners are committed to dismantling criminal enterprises that leverage attacks against our cyber infrastructure. We comprehensively confront everything from highly-sophisticated transnational groups, like this one, to those criminals who exploit our citizens with cyber-enabled scams. I want to thank our federal partners and NYPD detectives for their coordination and tireless efforts in bringing this important case.”
According to the allegations in the Indictment and Superseding Indictments[1] unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:
From 2014 until September 2019, FLORIAN CLAUDIU MARTIN, a/k/a “Florin Claudiu,” a/k/a “Johnny Ion,” a/k/a “Jane Hotul,” a/k/a “Petru Andrioaie,” a/k/a “Petru Andrioane,” ALEX DONATI, RAUL IONUT VIDRASAN, a/k/a “Michu,” a/k/a “The Boy,” MIRCEA CONSTANTINESCU, a/k/a “Sobo,” NIKOLAOS LIMBERATOS, a/k/a “Nicu Limberto,” CRISTIAN COSTEA, a/k/a “Momo,” ALIN HANES CALUGARU, IONELA CONSTANTINESCU, a/k/a “Pitica,” THEOFRASTOS LYMBERATOS, ANDREW ELIOPOULOS, VALENTIN PETRESCU, a/k/a “Gico Cosmin Giscan,” a/k/a “Zoltan Pruma,” PETER SAMOLIS, KELLY KARKI LAM, GEORGE SERBAN, DRAGOS DIACONU, MADLIN ALEXANDRU ANCA, a/k/a “Mateo Fernandez Alejandro,” CRISTIAN ULMANU, a/k/a “Boris Moravec,” and IULIANA MIHAILESCU participated in a transnational organization that engaged in what is colloquially referred to as “ATM skimming” (the “Skimming Organization”). The Skimming Organization unlawfully obtained victim accountholders’ debit card account information by using advanced technological devices to surreptitiously record the debit card numbers and personal identification numbers at automatic teller machines (“ATMs”), and then manufacturing counterfeit and fraudulent debit cards that bore the victim accountholders’ account information. The Skimming Organization’s members then used those cards to fraudulently withdraw cash from victims’ bank accounts.
Certain of the defendants directed, or worked in, teams that the Skimming Organization deployed across the United States in order to carry out ATM skimming attacks, casing ideal locations for the attacks, installing skimming devices on ATMs, removing those devices, and cashing out large numbers of fraudulent debit cards manufactured as a result of the skimming operations. Other defendants assisted in receiving packages containing skimming devices or component parts that were shipped from other parts of the U.S. and from abroad. Other defendants assisted in engineering the skimming devices that the Skimming Organization used. Still other defendants laundered the proceeds of the skimming attacks through bank accounts, properties, businesses, and the transportation of bulk cash.
The defendants carried out hundreds of ATM skimming operations across the U.S., including in New York and at least 17 other states. The scheme defrauded financial institutions and individual victims of more than $20 million.
* * *
Each defendant is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit access device fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 7 ½ years in prison; one count of conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison; and one count of aggravated identity theft, which carries a mandatory sentence of two years in prison, consecutive to any other sentence imposed. FLORIAN CLAUDIU MARTIN, a/k/a “Florin Claudiu,” a/k/a “Johnny Ion,” a/k/a “Jane Hotul,” a/k/a “Petru Andrioaie,” a/k/a “Petru Andrioane,” MIRCEA CONSTANTINESCU, a/k/a “Sobo,” NIKOLAOS LIMBERATOS, a/k/a “Nicu Limberto,” CRISTIAN COSTEA, a/k/a “Momo,” ALIN HANES CALUGARU, and KELLY KARKI LAM are also charged with one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. FLORIAN CLAUDIU MARTIN, a/k/a “Florin Claudiu,” a/k/a “Johnny Ion,” a/k/a “Jane Hotul,” a/k/a “Petru Andrioaie,” a/k/a “Petru Andrioane” is also charged with two counts of bank fraud, each of which carry a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison. ALEX DONATI is also charged with one count of access device fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.
The statutory maximum and minimum sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge. A chart with the defendants’ ages, places of residence, and nationalities is below.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI, CBP, and the NYPD, and thanked the United States Postal Inspection Service, INTERPOL-Rome, INTERPOL-Mexico City, and Mexico’s Agencia de Investigación Criminal and Instituto Nacional de Migración for their assistance.
This case is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Elizabeth A. Hanft, Daniel M. Loss, Samuel P. Rothschild, and Robert B. Sobelman are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
MADLIN ALEXANDRU ANCA, a/k/a “Mateo Fernandez Alejandro”
22
Nashville, Tennessee
Romania
CRISTIAN ULMANU, a/k/a “Boris Moravec”
54
Russellville, Arkansas
Romania
IULIANA MIHAILESCU
42
Queens, New York
Romania
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment and Superseding Indictments, and the description of the Indictment set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
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 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
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, James J. Hunt, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), James D. Robnett, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (“IRS-CI”), Scott Lampert, Special Agent in Charge for the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS-OIG”), James P. O'Neill, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), and Mark G. Peters, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Investigations (“DOI”), announced today the unsealing five Indictments and a criminal Complaint in Manhattan federal court charging a total of 10 defendants with illegally distributing oxycodone.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “These doctors and other health professionals should have been the first line of defense against opioid abuse, but as alleged in today’s charges, instead of caring for their patients, they were drug dealers in white coats. They hid behind their medical licenses to sell addictive, dangerous narcotics. This Office will do everything in its power to bring to justice anyone responsible for fueling the opioid epidemic that has taken so many lives.”
DEA Special Agent-in-Charge James J. Hunt said: “From drug cartels to street distributors, law enforcement is targeting all levels of drug traffickers amidst the worst drug crisis in American history. The worst villains in the fight against drug abuse are doctors whose criminal actions fuel addiction and overdoses. As a result of separate investigations from three DEA offices, five doctors, a pharmacist, a nurse practitioner and three associates have been arrested for their role in distributing millions of unnecessary oxycodone pills, allegedly. SAC Hunt commends the men and women from DEA’s Tactical Diversion Squads, our law enforcement partners and Southern District of New York for their commitment and hard work.”
IRS-CI Special Agent-in-Charge James D. Robnett said: “Medical professionals and others callously placed individuals in harm’s way simply because of greed. It takes a special kind of person to prey on the sick and vulnerable. The special agents of IRS Criminal Investigation will continue their mission to disrupt the flow of ill-gotten gains from these criminals.”
HHS-OIG Special Agent-in-Charge Scott Lampert said: “These individuals allegedly engaged in a greed-fueled scheme that put lives at risk and callously contributed to the opioid epidemic that continues to plague our society. These charges should serve as a warning to medical professionals that act like drug dealers and profit off of the vulnerable individuals they should be helping. Along with our law enforcement partners we are committed to ending the illegal distribution of opioids in this country and protecting the public’s health and welfare.”
NYPD Commissioner James P. O’Neill said: “Our entire country is suffering through an opioid abuse crisis, and we need to do everything we can to save as many lives as possible. We need to help people from falling into a black hole of addiction and fatal overdoses. We have to push New York City and our nation to thrive, and to turn this epidemic around. A good step in that direction is to investigate and put away the criminals who have so clearly betrayed their professional oaths – who have put illegal profits above their own integrity, and above the well-being of their fellow man. I commend each of our law enforcement partners on the Drug Enforcement Task Force, and all the New Yorkers who alert the police when they suspect criminality. This is how each of us – cops, prosecutors, and all the people we serve – are sharing the responsibility for public safety. And this is how we are making our way forward.”
DOI Commissioner Mark G. Peters said: “These joint investigations demonstrate the scourge that opioid abuse has on our community and the emphatic response from law enforcement: Any individual who seeks to promote prescription fraud and drug abuse will be exposed, arrested and prosecuted. DOI stands firmly with its federal partners on this serious issue and we will continue to work together to stop this crime and save lives.”
According to the allegations in the five Indictments and one Complaint unsealed today: [[1]]
DANTE A. CUBANGBANG, JOHN F. GARGAN, MICHAEL KELLERMAN, and LOREN PIQUANT, who together operated a medical clinic in Queens, were arrested yesterday evening and will be presented in Manhattan federal court today. According to the allegations in the Indictment unsealed today, CUBANGBANG, a physician, and GARGAN, a nurse practitioner, prescribed over 6 million oxycodone pills to individuals they knew did not need the medication for any legitimate medical reason. CUBANGBANG and GARGAN prescribed more than twice as many oxycodone pills that were paid for by Medicare and Medicaid than the next highest prescriber in New York. CUBANGBANG and GARGAN doled out these prescriptions during office visits that lasted no more than a few minutes and involved little to no physical examination. Together with KELLERMAN and PIQUANT, who worked in the clinic and recruited patients, the defendants collected more than $5 million in all-cash office visit fees, which they laundered and divided amongst themselves.
CARL ANDERSON, a Staten Island physician, and ARTHUR GRANDE were arrested yesterday evening and will be presented in Manhattan federal court today. According to the allegations in the Indictment unsealed today, ANDERSON prescribed nearly a million oxycodone pills to patients he knew had no legitimate medical need for the medication, including GRANDE, who sold the pills on the streets of New York. ANDERSON often saw his patients, some of whom displayed visible signs of drug addiction, without appointments and with little notice, in the middle of the night, and required that they pay hundreds of dollars in cash for each prescription. Noisy crowds of pill-seeking patients often gathered outside of ANDERSON’s office and in his waiting room, prompting occasional 911 calls from neighbors. Even after some of ANDERSON’s patients died of drug overdoses, he did not alter his prescribing practices.
ANTHONY PIETROPINTO, a psychiatrist residing in Manhattan, was arrested this morning and will be presented today before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott. According to the allegations in the Complaint unsealed today in Manhattan federal court, PIETROPINTO wrote thousands of medically unnecessary oxycodone prescriptions in exchange for $50 to $100 in cash per visit. PIETROPINTO wrote these prescriptions to drug-addicted individuals, including one patient who overdosed on drugs, and who had previously been prescribed by PIETROPINTO both oxycodone and naloxone, a medication used to block the effects of opioid overdoses, because PIETROPINTO was aware of, but disregarded, that patient’s addiction issues. PIETROPINTO saw these patients in a rented office space after hours, and instructed his patients to not fill prescriptions at large chain pharmacies because pharmacists at those pharmacies would call and question PIETROPINTO about why he wrote prescriptions for large amounts of oxycodone.
NKANGA NKANGA, a Staten Island physician, was arrested this morning and will be presented in Manhattan federal court today. According to the allegations in the Indictment unsealed today, in exchange for cash payments, NKANGA wrote thousands of oxycodone prescriptions for patients, some of whom displayed visible signs of drug addiction, without conducting any physical examination, or even seeing them in an examination room. NKANGA also wrote prescriptions in the names of patients who did not even visit his medical office. On one occasion, for instance, NKANGA asked a patient, “how many people are you representing today,” and then wrote prescriptions in the names of people, even though three were not present. NKANGA regularly prescribed over 100 oxycodone pills per patient per month until July 2018 when he reduced all patients’ monthly allotment, telling one patient he was “very worried” about scrutiny from law enforcement.
NADEM J. SAYEGH, a physician with offices in the Bronx and Westchester, was arrested this morning and will be presented in Manhattan federal court today. According to the allegations in the Indictment unsealed today, SAYEGH maintained a corrupt relationship with a co-conspirator, issuing oxycodone prescriptions in his name, variations of his name, his family members’ names, and the names of other individuals in exchange for thousands of dollars in cash, expensive dinners, high-end whisky, cruises, and all-expense-paid trips. SAYEGH wrote some of these prescriptions, for which there was no legitimate medical purpose, for individuals who did not visit his medical office, including a patient who was overseas and another patient who was incarcerated.
MARC KLEIN, a pharmacist in White Plains, was arrested this morning and will be presented in Manhattan federal court. According to the allegations in the Indictment unsealed today, KLEIN filled oxycodone prescriptions that he knew were illegitimate, including prescriptions filled by a customer in multiple variations of his name and date of birth, and prescriptions filled in the names of individuals who never were present in the pharmacy. KLEIN filled thousands of these oxycodone prescriptions, “fronted” controlled substances, and made false reports to New York State authorities, in exchange for cash payments and a vacation. KLEIN admitted, in substance, that he and his employees could be called “licensed drug dealers” because “oxy pays the bills” at KLEIN’s pharmacy.
* * *
CUBANGBANG, 50, of Franklin Square, New York, GARGAN, 62, of Manhattan, New York, KELLERMAN, 54, of Queens, New York, and PIQUANT, 37, of Bronx, New York, have been charged in an Indictment with one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. CUBANGBANG, GARGAN, and KELLERMAN are also charged with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
ANDERSON, 57, of Staten Island, New York, and GRANDE, 53, of Staten Island, New York, have been charged in an Indictment with one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
PIETROPINTO, 80, of Manhattan, New York, has been charged in a Complaint with one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and two counts of distribution of controlled substances, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
NKANGA, 65, of Staten Island, New York, has been charged in an Indictment with one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and four counts of distribution of controlled substances, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
SAYEGH, 64, of Yonkers, New York, has been charged in an Indictment with one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; one count of distribution of controlled substances, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; one count of health care fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison; making false statements, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; and aggravated identity theft, which carries a two year mandatory minimum prison sentence to be served consecutive to any other term of imprisonment.
KLEIN, 47, of White Plains, New York, has been charged in an Indictment with one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and 14 counts of distribution of controlled substances, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
The maximum potential sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by their respective judges.
Mr. Berman praised the investigative work of the DEA Tactical Diversion Squads in New York, Long Island and Newark as well as HHS, DOI and IRS. DEA’s Tactical Diversion Squad, New York (Group TDS-NY) comprises agents and officers from the DEA, the NYPD, the New York State Police, New York State Department of Financial Services and New York City Department of Investigation. DEA’s Long Island Tactical Diversion Squad (LIDO –TDS) comprises agents and officers of the DEA, Nassau County Police Department, Rockville Centre Police Department, Suffolk County Police Department, Port Washington Police Department and Internal Revenue Service. Newark Tactical Diversion Squad (Newark-TDS) comprises agents and officers from the DEA, Elizabeth Police Department, Essex County Sheriff’s Office, Toms River Police Department, Clinton Police Department, West Orange Police Department, Pohatcong Police Department, Long Branch Police Department, and Marlboro Police Department. Assistance was also provided by the Yonkers Police Department and Greenburgh Police Department.
Parts of this cases were conducted under the auspices of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), a partnership between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt, and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking and money laundering organizations and those primarily responsible for the nation’s illegal drug supply.
These cases are being handled by the Office’s Narcotics Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael Krouse and Louis Pellegrino are in charge of the prosecution in United States v. Cubangbang et al., Assistant U.S. Attorneys Stephanie Lake and Nicolas Roos are in charge of the prosecution in United States v. Pietropinto, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicolas Roos is in charge of the prosecutions in United States v. Anderson et al., United States v. Nkanga, United States v. Sayegh, and United States v. Klein.
The charges contained in the Indictment and Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the texts of the Indictments and Complaint, and the description of the Indictments and Complaint set forth herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
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 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
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 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
DAYTON, Ohio – A Springfield, Ohio, man was sentenced in U.S. District Court to 1,200 months in prison for producing and distributing videos depicting the sexual abuse of children.
Marcus Leon Davis, 34, was arrested on Oct. 25, 2023. His case was unsealed today.
Davis received the maximum sentence on each count as charged and will serve those sentences consecutively.
“Davis’s sexual abuse is among the most abhorrent acts that one can perpetrate against a child. If his behavior against the victims wasn’t bad enough, he chose to record his sexual abuse against them,” said U.S. Attorney Kenneth L. Parker. “By publishing videos of his sexual abuse against these victims, Davis ensured the abuse will never end. Each time one of those images or videos is shared, traded, downloaded and viewed the children are victimized again. This sentence will forever protect the community from future harm committed by Davis.”
"This sentencing was the result of an intensive investigation by the U.S. Secret Service and our law enforcement partners," said Yvonne DiCristoforo, Special Agent in Charge of the Secret Service's Cincinnati Field Office. "The Secret Service and our partners are working relentlessly so predators that exploit innocent children face justice for their heinous actions."
According to court documents, from January 2022 until October 2023, Davis sexually abused children and documented the abuse on video.
The defendant published the videos on a child pornography website. Investigators have now tracked the content to other users and websites.
Davis pleaded guilty in February 2024 to two counts of producing child pornography and two counts of distributing child pornography.
Kenneth L. Parker, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio; Yvonne DiCristoforo, Special Agent in Charge, United States Secret Service; and Springfield Police Chief Allison Elliott announced the sentence imposed on May 13 by U.S. District Judge Michael J. Newman. Assistant United States Attorneys Amy M. Smith and Elizabeth L. McCormick are representing the United States in this case.
U.S. Attorney Parker commended the investigation by the U.S. Secret Service, who worked with the Queensland Police Service, Australian Federal Police, Europol and U.S. Homeland Security Investigations to quickly identify and locate Davis based on the images of child sexual abuse he shared online.
Earlier today, Junior Zelaya Canales, also known as “Terco,” a Queens-based regional leader of the 18th Street gang, pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy charges in connection with his participation in the September 12, 2016 murder of 15-year-old Joshua Guzman in Hempstead, New York. The guilty plea proceeding was held in federal court in Brooklyn before United States District Judge Hector Gonzalez.Zelaya Canales is the ninth and final defendant to plead guilty under a seventh superseding indictment in connection with a sprawling racketeering conspiracy that also involved the October 25, 2017 murder of 20-year-old Jonathan Figueroa in Saugerties, New York; the February 2, 2018 murder of 20-year-old Oscar Antonio Blanco Hernandez in Queens; and multiple shootings and other gang activity. Zelaya Canales’ co-defendants Walter Fernando Alfaro Pineda, Jose Douglas Castellano, Yanki Misael Cruz Mateo, Israel Mendiola Flores, Yoni Alexander Sierra, Jose Jimenez Chacon, Carolina Cruz and Eric Chavez previously pled guilty. Flores and Chacon were previously sentenced to 425 months’ imprisonment and 269 months’ imprisonment, respectively. At sentencing, each remaining defendant faces up to life imprisonment.Breon Peace, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and James E. Dennehy, Assistant Director in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI) announced the guilty pleas.“Today’s guilty plea marks the end of a sweeping investigation into the violent and disturbing affairs of the 18th Street gang that removed some of the most influential, powerful and ruthless gang leaders and members from city streets across the country,” stated United States Attorney Peace. “Together with our law enforcement partners around the nation and the world, my Office will not rest until the scourge of gang violence and senseless loss of life is put to an end. While these guilty pleas cannot undo the grave harm this gang has caused, we hope that it will bring a measure of closure to the victims and their families.”Mr. Peace expressed his appreciation to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York, the Ulster County District Attorney’s Office, the Queens County District Attorney’s Office, the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office, the United States Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations Dallas, the New York State Police, the Kingston Police Department, the New York City Police Department (NYPD), the Nassau County Police Department, the Hempstead Police Department, and the Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs for their assistance during the investigation.Today’s conviction is the latest in a series of recent convictions in this case of leaders, members and associates of 18th Street. According to court filings and proceedings, 18th Street is a well-known and well-established international criminal organization and violent street gang with members and associates residing throughout New York State including Queens and Long Island, and elsewhere throughout the United States including Houston, Texas. 18th Street members regularly engage in murder, attempted murder, assault, extortion, illegal drug and firearms trafficking, false identification document production, witness tampering and money laundering. The defendants occupied various positions within the gang:Alfaro Pineda was a national 18th Street gang leader based in Houston, Texas, whose power and control extended across the United States. For example, he collected illicit funds raised by gang members in New York from fees extorted from prostitution brothels and illegal drug trafficking to further promote gang activity, including by providing the money to incarcerated 18th Street members in the United States and in El Salvador. Alfaro Pineda also supplied and trafficked illegal firearms to the gang’s New York-based members.Zelaya Canales was a regional 18th Street gang leader based in Queens, New York, whose power and control extended across the New York City metropolitan area.Castellano was a senior 18th Street gang member based in Brooklyn, New York, whose influence extended to upstate New York.Cruz Mateo was a Queens-based 18th Street gang member.Flores was a Kingston, New York-based 18th Street gang associate.Sierra was a Queens-based 18th Street gang associate.Chacon was a New Jersey-based 18th Street gang member.Cruz was a New Jersey-based 18th Street gang associate.Chavez was a Queens-based 18th Street gang member.The defendants committed multiple acts of violence in order to promote and enhance the prestige and reputation of the gang, and to maintain and increase their own membership and status in the gang, including:September 12, 2016 Murder of Joshua GuzmanIn September 2016, Zelaya Canales, then the regional leader of the Shatto Park Locos Sureños (SPLS) sect of 18th Street, ordered that Guzman be killed, in part, because the gang perceived Guzman to have been disrespectful towards 18th Street gang members. In the evening of September 11, 2016, Zelaya Canales dispatched two lower-level gang members to Long Island to lure Guzman out and murder him as part of a demonstration of their allegiance to 18th Street. On September 12, 2016 at approximately 1:03 a.m., the Hempstead Police Department received a ShotSpotter notification of gunshots fired near the intersection of Linden Avenue and Laurel Avenue in Hempstead, New York. A Hempstead Police Department officer and members of Nassau Police Department responded to the location and discovered the body of 15-year-old Guzman near the curb. Guzman was shot once in the back of the head and pronounced dead at the crime scene.July 9, 2017 Attempted Murder of Rival Gang MembersOn July 9, 2017, Zelaya Canales led a shootout in Woodside, Queens, with assistance from at least two additional 18th Street gang members, over a territorial dispute with a rival gang. At approximately 10:35 p.m., NYPD officers responded to the area after numerous calls were made to 9-1-1 concerning multiple gunshots. Multiple witnesses reported hearing gunshots and seeing approximately three to four men run towards Woodhaven Boulevard. After a canvas of the area, police officers recovered nine 9-millimeter shell casings among other evidence.NYPD subsequently went to Zelaya Canales’s apartment in Queens to execute two arrest warrants unrelated to the shooting. During the execution of the warrants, NYPD recovered a 9-millimeter Ruger with a defaced serial number, 4 rounds of 9-millimeter ammunition, 56 rounds of .357 magnum ammunition, 34 rounds of .380 caliber ammunition and 23 rounds of .38 ammunition. Subsequent forensic ballistics examination revealed that the Zelaya Canales’s 9-mm Ruger was the same weapon that fired the 9-millimeter shell casings found at the crime scene of the July 9, 2017 shootout in Woodhaven.September 20, 2017 Assault of John DoeOn September 20, 2017, Chavez, together with another 18th Street gang member, approached an individual (John Doe) on the street and shot him because they believed he was a member of the rival gang Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). John Doe survived and was treated for a gunshot wound at a local hospital.October 25, 2017 Murder of Jonathan FigueroaBy October 2017, gang members in New York suspected Jonathan Figueroa, a fellow 18th Street gang member, of cooperating with law enforcement in connection with the investigation of the murder of Guzman. Senior gang members, including Castellano, sought Alfaro Pineda’s authorization to murder Figueroa. Alfaro Pineda’s authorization was sought because Alfaro Pineda had initiated Figueroa into 18th Street in Houston, Texas, and because murdering a fellow gang member required approval from a senior member of the gang, such as Alfaro Pineda. With Alfaro Pineda’s authorization, Castellano activated gang members based in Kingston, New York, and directed them to coordinate with Queens-based gang members to see to Figueroa’s execution. Gang members in Kingston then began digging a grave in Turkey Point State Forest in anticipation of Figueroa’s arrival.In the late-night hours of October 24, 2017, Cruz Mateo lured and travelled with Figueroa from Queens to Kingston, New York. Upon their arrival in Kingston, they were met by Flores and other 18th Street members and associates who, into the early morning hours of October 25, 2017, brought Figueroa to Turkey Point State Forest, brutally stabbed him to death and buried him in the makeshift grave. Cruz Mateo ordered the murder to be video-recorded—capturing multiple 18th Street members and associates repeatedly stabbing Figueroa, slashing his throat, amputating his ear and dragging his body. In the video, Cruz Mateo stated that Figueroa was being murdered for “being a rat.” Cruz Mateo then sent the video to other 18th Street members as a warning to other gang members who might disrespect the gang or cooperate with law enforcement. Figueroa’s body was discovered in February 2018 by the FBI, along with state and local law enforcement authorities, in a five-foot deep grave in Turkey Point. He sustained more than 100 stab wounds including at least one stab wound to the head that appears to have fractured his skull, and a slash to his throat that ruptured his trachea.February 2, 2018 Murder of Oscar Antonio Blanco HernandezOn February 2, 2018, several gang members killed Blanco Hernandez because they believed he was a member of the rival MS-13 gang. Chacon had met Blanco Hernandez weeks earlier through their mutual employer, a New Jersey-based house painting company. On the morning of the murder, Cruz and Chacon picked up Blanco Hernandez at his home in New Jersey under the guise of going to smoke marijuana as friends. Cruz and Chacon drove Blanco Hernandez to Queens where they met 18th Street gang members including Cruz Mateo and Sierra who entered the rear passenger seat of Cruz’s car on opposite sides, sandwiching Blanco Hernandez between them. Cruz drove Chacon, Cruz-Mateo, Sierra and Blanco Hernandez a short distance to a quiet residential neighborhood. Cruz-Mateo, Sierra and Blanco-Hernandez got out of the car and started walking, while Cruz and Chacon stayed behind with the car. After walking for a few minutes, Cruz-Mateo drew a .380 caliber semiautomatic handgun and shot Blanco-Hernandez in the back of the head, killing him instantly. Blanco Hernandez’s body was discovered on a residential street in the Jamaica Hills section of Queens. He sustained three gunshot wounds: two gunshots to the torso and one to the head.* * * * *This case is part of an ongoing Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) investigation led by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and the FBI. The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking, weapons trafficking and money laundering organizations, and those primarily responsible for the nation’s illegal drug supply. OCDETF uses a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s International Narcotics and Money Laundering Section. Assistant United States Attorneys Jonathan P. Lax, Erin Reid, Margaret Schierberl, Adam Amir and Rebecca Urquiola are in charge of the prosecution, with the assistance of Paralegal Specialists Tareva Torres and Samuel Ronchetti.The Defendant:JUNIOR ZELAYA-CANALES, also known as “Terco” Age: 28 Jamaica, New YorkCo-Defendants Previously Convicted:WALTER FERNANDO ALFARO PINEDA, also known as “Clever” Age: 45 Houston, TexasYANKI MISAEL CRUZ MATEO, also known as “Yenki Misael Cruz Mateo,” “Yankee Mateo,” “Doggy” and “Wino” Age: 25 Jamaica, New YorkISRAEL MEDIOLA FLORES, also known as “Chapito” and “Sinaloa” Age: 29 Kingston, New YorkYONI ALEXANDER SIERRA, also known as “Arca,” “Arc Angel” and “Wasson” Age: 26 Jamaica, New YorkJOSE JIMENEZ CHACON, also known as “Little One” Age: 26 New Brunswick, New JerseyCAROLINA CRUZ, also known as “La Fiera” Age: 31 Elizabeth, New JerseyJOSE DOUGLAS CASTELLANO, also known as “Chino” Age: 26 Brooklyn, New YorkERIC CHAVEZ, also known as “Lunatico” Age: 25 Jamaica, New YorkE.D.N.Y. Docket No. 18-CR-139 (S-7) (HG)
Earlier today, in federal court in Brooklyn, Yanki Misael Cruz-Mateo, a member of the 18th Street gang, pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy charges in connection with his participation in two murders: the October 25, 2017 murder of 20-year-old Jonathan Figueroa in Saugerties, New York and the February 2, 2018 murder of 20-year-old Oscar Antonio Blanco Hernandez in Queens. The guilty plea proceeding was held before United States Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara. When sentenced, Cruz-Mateo faces up to life in prison.
Breon Peace, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, announced the guilty plea.
“Cruz-Mateo had boasted of his participation in the murders in a horrific video and in text messages, but today’s admission in a federal courtroom in Brooklyn holds him accountable for two savage killings committed for the purpose of instilling fear and promoting gang violence,” stated United States Attorney Peace. “While the defendant’s guilty plea cannot bring back the two lives senselessly taken or undo the cruelty of his actions, it is my hope that it will bring a measure of closure to his victims’ families.”
United States Attorney Peace also expressed his appreciation to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI), United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York, the Ulster County District Attorney’s Office, the Queens County District Attorney’s Office, the New York State Police, the Kingston Police Department, and the New York City Police Department for their assistance during the investigation.
According to court filings, proceedings, and statements made during today’s guilty plea proceeding, Cruz-Mateo was a member of the Queens-based Shatto Park Locos Sureños sect of 18th Street. He committed the following crimes in order to maintain and increase his membership and status in the gang:
October 25, 2017 Murder of Jonathan Figueroa
In the late evening of October 24, 2017, Cruz-Mateo lured and travelled with Figueroa from Queens to Kingston, New York, planning to murder him because 18th Street members suspected he was an informant for law enforcement. Upon their arrival in Kingston, they were met by other 18th Street members and associates who, into the early morning hours of October 25, 2017, brought Figueroa to Turkey Point State Forest, stabbed him to death, and buried him in a makeshift grave. Cruz-Mateo ordered the murder to be video-recorded—capturing multiple 18th Street members and associates repeatedly stabbing Figueroa, slashing his throat, amputating his ear, and dragging his body. In the video, Cruz-Mateo stated that Figueroa was being murdered for “being a rat.” Cruz-Mateo then sent the video to other 18th Street members as a warning not to disrespect the gang or cooperate with law enforcement. Figueroa’s body was discovered in February 2018 by the FBI, along with state and local law enforcement authorities, in a five-foot deep grave. The victim sustained more than 100 stab wounds including at least one stab wound to the head that appears to have fractured his skull and a slash to his throat that ruptured his trachea.
February 2, 2018 Murder of Oscar Antonio Blanco Hernandez
On February 2, 2018, Cruz-Mateo shot and killed Blanco Hernandez in Queens because 18th Street gang members suspected him of being a member of 18th Street’s principal rival, La Mara Salvatrucha, also known as the MS-13 gang. Blanco Hernandez’s body was discovered on a residential street in the Jamaica Hills section of Queens. He had been shot three times in the torso and head. Cruz-Mateo fled the area and returned upstate to Kingston. He was arrested by the FBI following a statewide manhunt.
Co-defendant Israel Mediola Flores previously pleaded guilty to Figueroa’s murder and was sentenced in June 2023 to 425 months in prison. Co-defendants Yoni Alexander Sierra, Jose Jimenez Chacon, and Carolina Cruz previously pleaded guilty to Blanco Hernandez’s murder and are currently awaiting sentencing.
Today’s conviction is the latest in a series of recent convictions in this case of members and associates of 18th Street, a well-known and well-established international criminal organization and violent street gang with members and associates residing throughout New York State including Queens and Long Island, and elsewhere throughout the United States including Houston, Texas.
This case is part of an ongoing Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) investigation led by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and the FBI. The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt, and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, and money laundering organizations, and those primarily responsible for the nation’s illegal drug supply. OCDETF uses a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.
The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s International Narcotics and Money Laundering Section. Assistant United States Attorneys Jonathan P. Lax, Erin Reid and Margaret Schierberl are in charge of the prosecution, with the assistance of Paralegal Specialist Tareva Torres.
The Defendant:
YANKI MISAEL CRUZ-MATEO (also known as “Yenki Misael Cruz Mateo,” “Yankee Mateo,” “Doggy” and “Wino”)
Age: 25
Jamaica, New York
Co-Defendants Previously Convicted:
ISRAEL MEDIOLA FLORES (also known as “Chapito” and “Sinaloa”)
Age: 29
Kingston, New York
YONI ALEXANDER SIERRA (also known as “Arca,” “Arc Angel” and “Wasson”)
Age: 25
Jamaica, New York
JOSE JIMENEZ CHACON (also known as “Little One”)
Age: 25
New Brunswick, New Jersey
CAROLINA CRUZ (also known as “La Fiera”)
Age: 30
Elizabeth, New Jersey
Co-Defendants Awaiting Trial:
WALTER FERNANDO ALFARO PINED (also known as “Clever”)
Earlier today, Robert Sylvester Kelly, the R&B singer also known as “R. Kelly,” was sentenced by United States District Judge Ann M. Donnelly to 30 years in prison. On September 27, 2021, following six weeks of trial, a federal jury in Brooklyn convicted Kelly of all nine counts of a superseding indictment charging him with racketeering predicated on criminal conduct including sexual exploitation of children, forced labor and Mann Act violations involving the coercion and transportation of women and girls in interstate commerce to engage in illegal sexual activity.
Breon Peace, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and Steve K. Francis, Acting Executive Associate Director, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), announced the sentence.
“R. Kelly used his fame, fortune and enablers to prey on the young, the vulnerable and the voiceless for his own sexual gratification, while many turned a blind eye,” stated U.S. Attorney Peace. “Through his actions, Kelly exhibited a callous disregard for the devastation his crimes had on his victims and has shown no remorse for his conduct. With today’s sentence he has finally and appropriately been held accountable for his decades of abuse, exploitation and degradation of teenagers and other vulnerable young people. We hope that today’s sentence brings some measure of comfort and closure to the victims, including those who bravely testified at trial, and serves as long-overdue recognition that their voices deserve to be heard and their lives matter.”
Mr. Peace also thanked the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office for their assistance with the case.
“Robert Kelly is a prolific serial predator who utilized his wealth and fame to prey on the young and vulnerable by dangling promises of fame, fortune and stardom for his own sexual gratification. For nearly thirty years, Kelly and his accomplices silenced his victims through bribery, intimidation, blackmail and physical violence, confident they were immune to justice” stated HSI Acting Executive Associate Director Steve K. Francis. “Today’s sentence is a victory which belongs to the survivors of Kelly’s abuse. These brave women and men came forward, despite threats to their own personal safety, and were forced to relive the pain of the most traumatic days of their lives to tell the truth and make their voices heard.”
As proven at trial, for nearly three decades, Kelly was the leader of a criminal enterprise (the Enterprise) consisting of himself and an entourage of individuals who served as managers, bodyguards, accountants, drivers, personal assistants and runners for the defendant. As the leader of the Enterprise, Kelly used his fame to recruit women and girls to engage in illegal sexual activity with him. Kelly identified these girls and women at concerts, and then directed members of the Enterprise to escort them backstage following his musical performances. Kelly exchanged contact information with girls and women so that he and other members of the Enterprise could arrange travel and lodging for them to visit Kelly and engage in the charged illegal sexual conduct.
The evidence at trial included the testimony of 45 government witnesses, including more than 10 victims, five of whom are named in the superseding indictment, testimony from employees of the defendant, text messages, video and audio recordings, photographs, phone and travel records, DNA evidence and expert witnesses.
Kelly issued rules that many of his sexual partners were required to follow, including that the women and girls were to call him “Daddy”; they were not permitted to leave their rooms to eat or visit the bathroom without receiving his permission; they were required to wear baggy clothing when not accompanying Kelly to an event; and they were directed to keep their heads down and not look at or speak to other men. Kelly also isolated the women and girls from their friends and family and made them dependent on him for their financial well-being. He required the victims to engage in sex with him and others, and recorded many of the sexual encounters.
Racketeering Act One – Bribery
Kelly bribed a state employee to create an identification card for Jane Doe #1, then 15 years old, so that Kelly could marry Jane Doe #1 because he believed she was pregnant and therefore the marriage could keep him out of jail.
Racketeering Acts Two, Seven and Ten – Sexual Exploitation of a Child – Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #4 and Jane Doe #5
Kelly coerced Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #4 and Jane Doe #5 to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing video recordings. Over the course of decades, he made these recordings, and other recordings of sexually explicit conduct, using VHS video cameras, Canon camcorders, iPhones and iPads. Such videos constituted child pornography.
Racketeering Acts Six, Eleven and Thirteen – Forced Labor – Jane Doe #4, Jane Doe #5 and Jane Doe #6
Kelly used the threat of physical harm and physical restraint to ensure that his victims, including Jane Doe #4, Jane Doe #5 and Jane Doe #6, performed sexually at his command. As to Jane Doe #4, he slapped her, choked her and spit on her, before demanding she give him oral sex. As to Jane Doe #5, over a period of years, he spanked her, viciously assaulted her, confined her to a room or a bus for prolonged periods of time, including days, and otherwise manipulated her, to ensure that she would perform for him sexually, including with other women and a man. As to Jane Doe #6, he forced her to give him oral sex while there was a gun within Kelly’s reach.
Racketeering Acts Five and Nine – Mann Act Violations – Jane Doe #4 and Jane Doe #5
Between May 2009 and January 2010, Kelly regularly spoke with Jane Doe #4 over the telephone to arrange for Jane Doe #4 to come to his residence in Olympia Fields for the purpose of illegal sexual activity, which was illegal because Jane Doe #4, who was then 16 years old, was too young to consent to sex in Illinois. Similarly, between September 2015 and October 2015, Kelly transported Jane Doe #5, who was then 17 years old, from New York City to Oakland, California for the purpose of illegal sexual activity, as she was too young to consent to sex in California.
Racketeering Acts Eight, Thirteen and Fourteen – Mann Act Violations – Jane Doe #5 and Jane Doe #6
In April 2015, Kelly arranged for Jane Doe #5 to fly from her home in Orlando, Florida, to Los Angeles, California, for the purpose of illegal sexual activity, which was illegal because Kelly knew he had an incurable sexually transmitted disease (STD) and did not inform Jane Doe #5 about the STD prior to engaging in sexual intercourse with her. In May of 2017 and again in February of 2018, Kelly arranged for Jane Doe #6 to fly from her home in San Antonio, Texas, to La Guardia Airport in Queens, New York, for the purpose of illegal sexual activity, which again was illegal because Kelly failed to disclose that he had an incurable STD and obtain Jane Doe #6’s consent to engage in sexual intercourse under those circumstances.
The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s Civil Rights Section. Assistant United States Attorneys Elizabeth Geddes, Nadia Shihata and Maria Cruz Melendez are in charge of the prosecution.
A third superseding indictment was unsealed today in federal court in Brooklyn charging 11 members and associates of the violent New York City-based street gang known as the “Bully Gang” with racketeering for their role in multiple crimes, including attempted murder, armed robbery, narcotics trafficking, bribery, extortion and money laundering. Charges against multiple co-conspirators were also unsealed, including a New York City Department of Correction (DOC) officer and a former DOC officer who are charged with participating in a drug trafficking conspiracy led by the founder and leader of the Bully Gang which trafficked drugs into DOC facilities. Six defendants were arrested in the New York area today and will be arraigned via videoconference this afternoon before United States Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon. The remaining defendants will be arraigned at a later date.
Seth D. DuCharme, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, John B. DeVito, Special Agent-in-Charge, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, New York Field Division (ATF), Dermot F. Shea, Commissioner, New York City Police Department (NYPD), and Margaret Garnett, Commissioner, New York City Department of Investigation (DOI), announced the arrests and charges.
“For years, members and associates of the Bully Gang have committed brutal and wanton acts of violence while spreading the poison of dangerous and illicit drugs throughout communities and even correctional institutions,” stated Acting United States Attorney DuCharme. “Thanks to the tireless efforts of our law enforcement partners, today’s charges mark significant progress towards permanently neutralizing the Bully Gang and dismantling its destructive drug-trafficking network.”
“Today, a sophisticated criminal network, committing acts of violence, trafficking in firearms, and distributing dangerous narcotics across the east coast has been dismantled. Thanks to the unwavering efforts of the ATF/NYPD Joint Firearms Task Force, these Bully Gang members and their associates are off the streets and facing lengthy prison sentences, where they will no longer be a threat to public safety,” stated ATF Special Agent-in- Charge DeVito.
“This investigation deals a substantial blow to gang violence on our City streets and demonstrates the critical need to uphold integrity as a City employee and in all City operations. As charged, these current and former City Correction officers used the access and influence of their position to traffic dangerous drugs from the Bully Gang to inmates on Rikers Island in exchange for bribes, undermining the safety of the City's jails and that of their fellow officers. DOI is proud to partner with the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, the ATF, and the NYPD on this important investigation and we will continue to work together to protect our City jails from contraband smuggling,” stated DOI Commissioner Garnett.
As set forth in the indictment and other court filings, the defendants used force and violence to promote their power, terrorize surrounding communities and enrich themselves and their members. For example, in June 2018, Moeleek Harrell, the founder and leader of the Bully Gang, conspired with Derrick Ayers, another member, to murder a perceived “rival” of the gang, whom Harrell later shot at multiple times on a street in Brooklyn. Harrell’s leadership of the gang continued even after his incarceration at Rikers Island, where he led a drug trafficking, bribery and money laundering scheme responsible for smuggling drugs into the jail through the use of conspirators and the payment of bribes to correctional officers.
As alleged, the defendants also operated a years-long, sophisticated drug trafficking network responsible for trafficking large quantities of dangerous drugs like cocaine base (“crack”), heroin and fentanyl through New York to Maine, and elsewhere. As alleged, the gang’s leaders sent Brooklyn-based drug dealers, including Bully Gang members and associates, from New York to Maine to operate “trap” houses where narcotics were stored and sold. The organization’s drug proceeds were collected on a regular basis and laundered through financial transactions and the purchase of high-value assets, including jewelry and cars. During the investigation, law enforcement seized more than $380,000 in cash, more than 15 firearms, six kilograms of cocaine, 600 grams of fentanyl, multiple luxury watches and four vehicles with concealed “trap” compartments installed.
In the summer of 2020, Bully Gang members Franklin Gillespie and Latrell Johnson committed a spree of gunpoint robberies, displaying firearms to victims on the street in lower Manhattan to overpower them. In 2020 and 2021, Johnson also extorted a local business in Brooklyn, brandishing a firearm as part of the extortion scheme.
Between June 2019 and June 2020, Johnny Chiles, currently employed by DOC as an officer, and then-DOC officer Darius Murphy accepted payments from gang associates in exchange for delivering papers soaked in synthetic cannabinoids to inmates at Rikers Island.
The charges in the indictment are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s Organized Crime and Gangs Section and Public Integrity Section. Assistant United States Attorneys Drew G. Rolle, Nicholas J. Moscow and Lindsey R. Oken and Special Assistant United States Attorney Virginia T. Nguyen, are in charge of the prosecution.
New Defendants:
KASSIN APPLING (also known as “Killa” and “Kassim”)
Age: 34
Brooklyn, New York
JOHNNY CHILES
Age: 36
Brooklyn, New York
RONALD DAVIS (also known as “Ronno”)
Age: 29
Brooklyn, New York
BRITTANY DUNCAN
Age: 26
Bayonne, New Jersey
NEHEMIE ERIL (also known as “Poca”)
Age: 24
Orange, New Jersey
LARON ESTRADA (also known as “Yetta”)
Age: 27
Brooklyn, New York
ROBERT HOLT (also known as “Ricky” and “Ghost”)
Age: 33
Brooklyn, New York
DARIUS MURPHY
Age: 24
Brooklyn, New York
TERRELL RATLIFF (also known as “Rello”)
Age: 29
Brooklyn, New York
JAMEL SMITH
Age: 23
Bronx, New York
Defendants Previously Indicted:
JESSICA ALMEIDA
Age: 33
Detroit, Maine
DERRICK AYERS (also known as “Dee” and “Mel”)
Age: 34
Rahway, New Jersey
TYRONE BANKS (also known as “Ty Hitta”)
Age: 23
Brooklyn, New York
JANET BLOOD
Age: 47
Troy, Maine
DAYVON BOSTICK-SAMUELS (also known as “Daytoe”)
Age: 22
Brooklyn, New York
BERMON CLARKE (also known as “G” and “Blue”)
Age: 28
Rahway, New Jersey
MIKE GUSTAVO CONNOR (also known as “Gus”)
Age: 21
Brooklyn, New York
RASHAAD CRAIG (also known as “Skeeno”)
Age: 25
Brooklyn, New York
QUINTEN DELVALLE (also known as “Q”)
Age: 24
Brooklyn, New York
ELIZABETH DUECASTER
Age: 35
Searsport, Maine
CHRISTINA ESTEVEZ
Age: 31
Queens, New York
ERICA FAGGIOLE
Age: 44
Maine
ANTONIO FULTON (also known as “Tone”)
Age: 23
Brooklyn, New York
FRANKLIN GILLESPIE (also known as “Spazz” and “Frankie Gino”)
Age: 30
Newark, New Jersey
ROMEO GONZALES
Age: 22
Brooklyn, New York
NIA GOVAN (also known as “Cam” and “V”)
Age: 29
Boston, Massachusetts
KEON GRANT (also known as “Keys”)
Age: 34
Brooklyn, New York
MOELEEK HARRELL (also known as “Moe Money”)
Age: 31
Brooklyn, New York
PAUL HARRIS (also known as “Baldhead”)
Age: 31
Brooklyn, New York
NADINE HEATH
Age: 54
Troy, Maine
AMANDA HUARD
Age: 38
Raymond, Maine
LATRELL JOHNSON (also known as “Barlie Buckz”)
Age: 27
Brooklyn, New York
ANTHONY KENNEDY (also known as “Biggie”)
Age: 34
Queens, New York
TYQUAWN LANE (also known as “Bicks” and “Tah Tah”)
Robert Sylvester Kelly, the R&B singer also known as “R. Kelly,” was convicted today by a federal jury in Brooklyn of all nine counts of a superseding indictment charging him with racketeering predicated on criminal conduct including sexual exploitation of children, forced labor and Mann Act violations involving the coercion and transportation of women and girls in interstate commerce to engage in illegal sexual activity. The verdict followed six weeks of trial before United States District Judge Ann M. Donnelly.
Jacquelyn M. Kasulis, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and Peter C. Fitzhugh, Special Agent-in-Charge, Homeland Security Investigations, New York (HSI), announced the verdict.
“Today’s guilty verdict forever brands R. Kelly as a predator, who used his fame and fortune to prey on the young, the vulnerable, and the voiceless for his own sexual gratification,” stated Acting U.S. Attorney Kasulis. “A predator who used his inner circle to ensnare underage teenage girls, and young women and men, for decades, in a sordid web of sex abuse, exploitation and degradation. To the victims in this case, your voices were heard, and justice was finally served. We hope that today’s verdict brings some measure of comfort and closure to the victims.” Ms. Kasulis also thanked the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois and the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office for their assistance with the case.
“Robert Kelly is a serial sexual predator who used his fame and musical tours as his personal hunting grounds to find his victims,” stated HSI Special Agent-in-Charge Fitzhugh. “Mr. Kelly ran a criminal enterprise whose mission was to serve his sexual gratification by setting up a complex organization of enablers and handlers. When his victims tried to escape, Mr. Kelly and his accomplices silenced them through bribery, intimidation, and physical violence. The brave survivors who overcame Mr. Kelly’s abuse deserve our upmost respect for telling their stories and bringing an end to his 30-year reign of terror over the young and vulnerable.”
As proven at trial, for nearly three decades, Kelly was the leader of a criminal enterprise (“the Enterprise”) consisting of himself and an entourage of individuals who served as managers, bodyguards, accountants, drivers, personal assistants and runners for the defendant. As the leader of the Enterprise, Kelly used his fame to recruit women and girls to engage in illegal sexual activity with him. Kelly identified these girls and women at concerts, and then directed members of the Enterprise to escort them backstage following his musical performances. Kelly exchanged contact information with girls and women so that he and other members of the Enterprise could arrange travel and lodging for them to visit Kelly and engage in the charged illegal sexual conduct.
The evidence at trial included the testimony 45 government witnesses, including more than 10 victims, five of whom are named in the superseding indictment, testimony from employees of the defendant, text messages, video and audio recordings, photographs, phone and travel records, DNA evidence and expert witnesses.
Kelly issued rules that many of his sexual partners were required to follow, including that the women and girls were to call him “Daddy”; they were not permitted to leave their rooms to eat or visit the bathroom without receiving his permission; they were required to wear baggy clothing when not accompanying Kelly to an event; and they were directed to keep their heads down and not look at or speak to other men. Kelly also isolated the women and girls from their friends and family and made them dependent on him for their financial well-being. He required the victims to engage in sex with him and others, and recorded many of the sexual encounters.
Racketeering Act One – Bribery
Kelly bribed a state employee to create an identification card for Jane Doe #1, then 15 years old, so that Kelly could marry Jane Doe #1 because he believed she was pregnant and therefore the marriage could keep him out of jail.
Racketeering Acts Two, Seven and Ten – Sexual Exploitation of a Child – Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #4 and Jane Doe #5
Kelly coerced Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #4 and Jane Doe #5 to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing video recordings. Over the course of decades, he made these recordings, and other recordings of sexually explicit conduct, using VHS video cameras, Canon camcorders, iPhones and iPads.
Racketeering Acts Six, Eleven and Thirteen – Forced Labor – Jane Doe #4, Jane Doe #5 and Jane Doe #6
Kelly used the threat of physical harm and physical restraint to ensure that his victims, including Jane Doe #4, Jane Doe #5 and Jane Doe #6, performed sexually at his command. As to Jane Doe #4, he slapped her, choked her and spit on her, before demanding she give him oral sex. As to Jane Doe #5, over a period of years, he spanked her, viciously assaulted her, confined her for periods of days and otherwise manipulated her, to ensure that she would perform for him sexually, including with other women and a man. As to Jane Doe #6, he forced her to give him oral sex. When he did that, there was a gun within Kelly’s reach.
Racketeering Acts Five and Nine – Mann Act Violations – Jane Doe #4 and Jane Doe #5
Between May 2009 and January 2010, Kelly regularly spoke with Jane Doe #4 over the telephone to arrange for Jane Doe #4 to come to his residence in Olympia Fields for the purpose of illegal sexual activity, which was illegal because Jane Doe #4 was too young to consent to sex in Illinois. Similarly, between September 2015 and October 2015, Kelly transported Jane Doe #5, who was then 17 years old, from New York City to Oakland, California for the purpose of illegal sexual activity, as she was too young to consent to sex in California.
Racketeering Acts Eight, Thirteen and Fourteen – Mann Act Violations – Jane Doe #5 and Jane Doe #6
In April 2015, Kelly arranged for Jane Doe #5 to fly from her home in Orlando, Florida, to Los Angeles, California, for the purpose of illegal sexual activity, which was illegal because Kelly knew he had an incurable sexually transmitted disease (“STD”) and did not inform Jane Doe #5 about the STD prior to engaging in sexual intercourse with her. In May of 2017 and again in February of 2018, Kelly arranged for Jane Doe #6 to fly from her home in San Antonio, Texas, to La Guardia Airport in Queens, New York, for the purpose of illegal sexual activity, which again was illegal because Kelly failed to disclose that he had an incurable STD and obtain Jane Doe #6’s consent to engage in sexual intercourse under those circumstances.
When sentenced, Kelly faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment and up to life in prison.
The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s Civil Rights Section. Assistant United States Attorneys Elizabeth Geddes, Nadia Shihata and Maria Cruz Melendez are in charge of the prosecution.
Fifteen individuals, including two doctors, two licensed physical therapists, a licensed clinical social worker, a pharmacist and four pharmacy owners and operators, have been charged for their participation in schemes that fraudulently billed the Medicare and Medicaid programs for more than $15 million. The charges filed in federal court in Brooklyn, New York are part of a nationwide health care fraud takedown led by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, which resulted in criminal charges against more than 300 individuals for their alleged participation in health care fraud schemes involving approximately $6 billion in fraudulent claims.
The charges were announced by Seth D. DuCharme, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York; Brian C. Rabbitt, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; William F. Sweeney, Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI); Scott Lampert, Special Agent-in- Charge, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations, New York Regional Office (HHS-OIG); Ray Donovan, Special Agent-in-Charge, Drug Enforcement Administration, New York Division (DEA); Jonathan D. Larsen, Special Agent-in-Charge, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation, New York (IRS-CI), Acting Medicaid Inspector General Erin E. Ives of New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG) and Dermot F. Shea, Commissioner New York City Police Department (NYPD).
The results of the nationwide takedown were announced today Acting Assistant Attorney General Rabbitt; Assistant Director Calvin Shivers of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division; Deputy Inspector General Gary Cantrell of HHS-OIG; and Assistant Administrator Tim McDermott of the DEA.
“The defendants, many of them healthcare professionals, abused their positions by engaging in fraud in order to steal precious benefit funds that were meant to help the most vulnerable among us,” stated Acting United States Attorney DuCharme. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York is working arm-in-arm with our federal and local law enforcement partners to protect our community and our taxpayer-funded programs from the potential harm posed by corrupt healthcare professionals and those who aid them.”
“This nationwide enforcement operation is historic in both its size and scope, alleging billions of dollars in healthcare fraud across the country,” stated Acting Assistant Attorney General Rabbitt. “These cases hold accountable those medical professionals and others who have exploited health care benefit programs and patients for personal gain. The cooperative law enforcement actions announced today send a clear deterrent message and should leave no doubt about the department’s ongoing commitment to ensuring the safety of patients and the integrity of health care benefit programs, even amid a national health emergency.”
“As alleged today, the defendants took advantage of programs established for the benefit of those less fortunate, illegally profiting by ripping off the rest of the law abiding public,” stated FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Sweeney. “This is not a victimless crime - health care fraud is a theft against all of us who contribute hard earned income and taxes into the system. While today’s charges are a victory for the public at large, and those who play by the rules, they also highlight a constant glaring problem. It is easy to illegally profit in the health care field, and the FBI’s New York office will continue to investigate and hold accountable those who break federal law while lining their own pockets.”
“Medical professionals who scheme to enrich themselves through health care fraud – such as Dr. Kalepu’s participation in a telefraud durable medical equipment scam -- undermine taxpayer-funded programs and drive up health care costs for everyone,” stated HHS-OIG Special Agent-in-Charge Lampert. “This takedown shows our commitment to collaborate with our law enforcement partners and effectively investigate such corrosive fraud schemes.”
“It is our duty to weed out those health care professionals who manipulate their position for profit,” stated DEA Special Agent-in-Charge Donovan. “DEA, and our law enforcement partners, are committed to safeguarding the integrity of our healthcare system and keeping Americans safe. I applaud all of our partners for their significant work in these investigations.”
“IRS-CI is proud to lend our financial expertise in this effort to uncover a wide web of criminal behavior that impacts our financial system and public trust,” stated IRS-CI Special Agent-in-Charge Larsen. “Both Diler and Hussnain are guilty of conspiring to participate in this broad scheme to steal from the United States taxpayers through both Medicare and Tax Fraud.”
“These arrests serve notice to those who attempt to exploit the Medicaid program for personal gain,” stated Acting Medicaid Inspector General Ives. “My office will continue to work closely with our law enforcement partners to root out fraud and hold wrongdoers fully accountable.”
“This sweeping set of federal charges highlights law enforcement’s combined efforts to protect innocent citizens and ensure integrity across our vital health systems,” stated NYPD Commissioner Shea. “I commend our NYPD investigators, and all of our partners, for their important work in these cases.”
Schemes charged in the Eastern District of New York, detailed in three indictments, five complaints and three criminal information, include the following:
United States v. Dalmacio Francisco and Michael Othman: The complaint charges Dr. Delmacio Francisco and Michael Othman with oxycodone distribution. The complaint alleges that Dr. Francisco, who operated two medical offices in Queens, provided large-quantity oxycodone scripts to “patients” – individuals he never actually evaluated – who were recruited by Othman in exchange for cash. Dr. Francisco also prescribed oxycodone in the names of two individuals who were incarcerated when the prescriptions were issued. During a search of Francisco’s home, DEA agents found $150,000 in bundled cash in a hidden lock box. Both defendants made their initial appearance by video before United States Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold on May 20, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys James McDonald and Elizabeth Macchiaverna of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.
United States v. Anand Kalepu: The information charges Anand Kalepu, a medical doctor, with conspiracy to commit health care fraud. The charges stem from Dr. Kalepu’s work with a telemedicine company through which he allegedly caused the submission of false and fraudulent claims for durable medical equipment (“DME”) to Medicare. Between 2018 and 2019 the amount billed to Medicare for Dr. Kalepu’s DME prescriptions was in excess of $1.3 million. Dr. Kalepu pleaded guilty to the information before United States District Judge Ann M. Donnelly at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, and the guilty plea was unsealed on September 30, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Mahmoud Elsanaa and Olga Popovych: The indictment charges Mahmoud Elsanaa, a licensed physical therapist and clinic owner, and Olga Popovych, the office manager of several physical therapy clinics controlled by Elsanaa, with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud (Elsanaa only) and one count of conspiracy to falsify medical records (Elsanaa and Popovych). The charges stem from the defendants’ alleged role in the operation of physical therapy clinics that billed Medicare and Medicaid for services that were unnecessary, procured by kickbacks, provided by unlicensed practitioners, or otherwise not provided as billed. Elsanaa and Popovych were arrested and arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on September 17, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Mazen Abdel Magid: The complaint charges Mazen Abdel Magid, a licensed physical therapist and clinic owner and a business partner of Mahmoud Elsanaa, with one count of submitting false claims to Medicare. The charges stem from Abdel Magid’s alleged submission of claims to Medicare for physical therapy services purportedly provided at his physical therapy clinic when, in fact, he was overseas and could not have provided the services. Abdel Magid was arrested and made an initial appearance before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on September 17, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Vladimir Geykhman: The indictment charges Vladimir Geykhman with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The charges stem from the defendant’s alleged role in falsifying physical evaluation records in support of claims submitted through no-fault automobile insurance policies and laundering the proceeds therefrom. Between March 2019 and August 2019, Geykhman was paid by New York State automobile insurance providers a total of approximately $1 million for claims that were based upon falsified patient records. Geykhman was arrested and arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on September 17, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Xuan Di Huang: The complaint charges Xuan Di Huang, also known as “Wendy Huang,” an owner and operator of Zhiqing Social Adult Day Care in Flushing, Queens, with aiding and abetting and a substantive violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The charges stem from a scheme in which Huang allegedly paid and offered to pay kickbacks to Medicaid beneficiaries for their attendance at Zhiqing Social Adult Day Care. Between August 2019 and March 2020, Huang, through Zhiqing Social Adult Day Care, billed approximately $3.2 million dollars to long term managed care plans for Medicaid beneficiaries. Huang was arrested and arraigned on August 27, 2020 before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Elizabeth Macchiaverna of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.
United States v. Nisha Diler: The information charges Nisha Diler, a licensed pharmacist, with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and subscribing a false tax return. The charges stem from Diler’s role in a scheme to hold herself out as the supervising pharmacist at New Moon Pharmacy, when in fact she did not work at the pharmacy. Diler was paid kickbacks by Hussnain for her role in the scheme, which she then under-reported on her taxes. Between 2016 and 2019, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursed the pharmacy approximately $3 million for pharmaceutical claims submitted through New Moon Pharmacy. Diler pleaded guilty to the information before United States District Judge Rachel Kovner at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn on September 16, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Harris Hussnain: The information charges Harris Hussnain with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, narcotics distribution and unlawful financial transactions. The charges stem from Hussnain’s ownership of a Queens pharmacy, New Moon Pharmacy, and dispensing of prescription medications, including large amounts of Oxycodone, when the pharmacy did not employ a full-time licensed pharmacist. Instead, Hussnain paid a co-conspirator, Nisha Diler, a licensed pharmacist, to hold herself out as the full-time pharmacist despite the fact that she visited the pharmacy only sporadically. Between 2016 and 2019 Medicare and Medicaid reimbursed New Moon Pharmacy approximately $3 million for pharmaceutical claims. Hussnain pleaded guilty to the information before United States District Judge Rachel Kovner at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn on September 29, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Aleah Mohammed, Aripha Mohammed and Shejer El Maliki: A criminal complaint charges Aleah Mohammed, Aripha Mohammed and Shejer El Maliki, the owners and operators of the pharmacy Village Stardrugs Inc. in Queens, New York, with conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Additionally, Aleah Mohammed was charged with health care fraud and aggravated identity theft, and Aripha Mohammed and Shejer El Maliki were each charged with money laundering. The charges stem from their alleged roles in a scheme to submit claims through the pharmacy for medications that were not in fact prescribed as claimed, including claims for purportedly dispensing medications when the pharmacy was no longer licensed by the State of New York. From March 2019 to March 2020, Medicare Part D plans reimbursed the pharmacy approximately $1.5 million for pharmaceutical claims, $1.4 million of which was reimbursed when the pharmacy was no longer licensed. Aleah Mohammed, Aripha Mohammed and Shejer El Maliki were arrested and arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on September 23, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Andrew Estes of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Gorgi Naumovski: The indictment charges Naumovski, the owner and operator of a durable medical equipment company Life Source Medical, Inc., in Greensboro, North Carolina, with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. The charge stems from Naumovski’s alleged role in a scheme in which claims were submitted to Medicare for durable medical equipment, including orthotic braces, where the defendant and his co-conspirators paid bribes and kickbacks by purchasing doctors’ orders for the equipment, including equipment that was not medically necessary. Between April 2016 and December 2018, Life Source Medical billed Medicare approximately $4.1 million for claims for orthotics-related equipment and was paid approximately $1.8 million on those claims. Naumovski was arrested and arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly by video in Benton, Illinois on September 29, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Andrew Estes of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
The charges are allegations and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
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 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
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 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
Fifteen individuals, including two doctors, two licensed physical therapists, a licensed clinical social worker, a pharmacist and four pharmacy owners and operators, have been charged for their participation in schemes that fraudulently billed the Medicare and Medicaid programs for more than $15 million. The charges filed in federal court in Brooklyn, New York are part of a nationwide health care fraud takedown led by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, which resulted in criminal charges against more than 300 individuals for their alleged participation in health care fraud schemes involving approximately $6 billion in fraudulent claims.
The charges were announced by Seth D. DuCharme, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York; Brian C. Rabbitt, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; William F. Sweeney, Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI); Scott Lampert, Special Agent-in- Charge, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations, New York Regional Office (HHS-OIG); Ray Donovan, Special Agent-in-Charge, Drug Enforcement Administration, New York Division (DEA); Jonathan D. Larsen, Special Agent-in-Charge, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation, New York (IRS-CI), Acting Medicaid Inspector General Erin E. Ives of New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG) and Dermot F. Shea, Commissioner New York City Police Department (NYPD).
The results of the nationwide takedown were announced today Acting Assistant Attorney General Rabbitt; Assistant Director Calvin Shivers of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division; Deputy Inspector General Gary Cantrell of HHS-OIG; and Assistant Administrator Tim McDermott of the DEA.
“The defendants, many of them healthcare professionals, abused their positions by engaging in fraud in order to steal precious benefit funds that were meant to help the most vulnerable among us,” stated Acting United States Attorney DuCharme. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York is working arm-in-arm with our federal and local law enforcement partners to protect our community and our taxpayer-funded programs from the potential harm posed by corrupt healthcare professionals and those who aid them.”
“This nationwide enforcement operation is historic in both its size and scope, alleging billions of dollars in healthcare fraud across the country,” stated Acting Assistant Attorney General Rabbitt. “These cases hold accountable those medical professionals and others who have exploited health care benefit programs and patients for personal gain. The cooperative law enforcement actions announced today send a clear deterrent message and should leave no doubt about the department’s ongoing commitment to ensuring the safety of patients and the integrity of health care benefit programs, even amid a national health emergency.”
“As alleged today, the defendants took advantage of programs established for the benefit of those less fortunate, illegally profiting by ripping off the rest of the law abiding public,” stated FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Sweeney. “This is not a victimless crime - health care fraud is a theft against all of us who contribute hard earned income and taxes into the system. While today’s charges are a victory for the public at large, and those who play by the rules, they also highlight a constant glaring problem. It is easy to illegally profit in the health care field, and the FBI’s New York office will continue to investigate and hold accountable those who break federal law while lining their own pockets.”
“Medical professionals who scheme to enrich themselves through health care fraud – such as Dr. Kalepu’s participation in a telefraud durable medical equipment scam -- undermine taxpayer-funded programs and drive up health care costs for everyone,” stated HHS-OIG Special Agent-in-Charge Lampert. “This takedown shows our commitment to collaborate with our law enforcement partners and effectively investigate such corrosive fraud schemes.”
“It is our duty to weed out those health care professionals who manipulate their position for profit,” stated DEA Special Agent-in-Charge Donovan. “DEA, and our law enforcement partners, are committed to safeguarding the integrity of our healthcare system and keeping Americans safe. I applaud all of our partners for their significant work in these investigations.”
“IRS-CI is proud to lend our financial expertise in this effort to uncover a wide web of criminal behavior that impacts our financial system and public trust,” stated IRS-CI Special Agent-in-Charge Larsen. “Both Diler and Hussnain are guilty of conspiring to participate in this broad scheme to steal from the United States taxpayers through both Medicare and Tax Fraud.”
“These arrests serve notice to those who attempt to exploit the Medicaid program for personal gain,” stated Acting Medicaid Inspector General Ives. “My office will continue to work closely with our law enforcement partners to root out fraud and hold wrongdoers fully accountable.”
“This sweeping set of federal charges highlights law enforcement’s combined efforts to protect innocent citizens and ensure integrity across our vital health systems,” stated NYPD Commissioner Shea. “I commend our NYPD investigators, and all of our partners, for their important work in these cases.”
Schemes charged in the Eastern District of New York, detailed in three indictments, five complaints and three criminal information, include the following:
United States v. Dalmacio Francisco and Michael Othman: The complaint charges Dr. Delmacio Francisco and Michael Othman with oxycodone distribution. The complaint alleges that Dr. Francisco, who operated two medical offices in Queens, provided large-quantity oxycodone scripts to “patients” – individuals he never actually evaluated – who were recruited by Othman in exchange for cash. Dr. Francisco also prescribed oxycodone in the names of two individuals who were incarcerated when the prescriptions were issued. During a search of Francisco’s home, DEA agents found $150,000 in bundled cash in a hidden lock box. Both defendants made their initial appearance by video before United States Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold on May 20, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys James McDonald and Elizabeth Macchiaverna of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.
United States v. Anand Kalepu: The information charges Anand Kalepu, a medical doctor, with conspiracy to commit health care fraud. The charges stem from Dr. Kalepu’s work with a telemedicine company through which he allegedly caused the submission of false and fraudulent claims for durable medical equipment (“DME”) to Medicare. Between 2018 and 2019 the amount billed to Medicare for Dr. Kalepu’s DME prescriptions was in excess of $1.3 million. Dr. Kalepu pleaded guilty to the information before United States District Judge Ann M. Donnelly at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, and the guilty plea was unsealed on September 30, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Mahmoud Elsanaa and Olga Popovych: The indictment charges Mahmoud Elsanaa, a licensed physical therapist and clinic owner, and Olga Popovych, the office manager of several physical therapy clinics controlled by Elsanaa, with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud (Elsanaa only) and one count of conspiracy to falsify medical records (Elsanaa and Popovych). The charges stem from the defendants’ alleged role in the operation of physical therapy clinics that billed Medicare and Medicaid for services that were unnecessary, procured by kickbacks, provided by unlicensed practitioners, or otherwise not provided as billed. Elsanaa and Popovych were arrested and arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on September 17, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Mazen Abdel Magid: The complaint charges Mazen Abdel Magid, a licensed physical therapist and clinic owner and a business partner of Mahmoud Elsanaa, with one count of submitting false claims to Medicare. The charges stem from Abdel Magid’s alleged submission of claims to Medicare for physical therapy services purportedly provided at his physical therapy clinic when, in fact, he was overseas and could not have provided the services. Abdel Magid was arrested and made an initial appearance before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on September 17, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Vladimir Geykhman: The indictment charges Vladimir Geykhman with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The charges stem from the defendant’s alleged role in falsifying physical evaluation records in support of claims submitted through no-fault automobile insurance policies and laundering the proceeds therefrom. Between March 2019 and August 2019, Geykhman was paid by New York State automobile insurance providers a total of approximately $1 million for claims that were based upon falsified patient records. Geykhman was arrested and arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on September 17, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Xuan Di Huang: The complaint charges Xuan Di Huang, also known as “Wendy Huang,” an owner and operator of Zhiqing Social Adult Day Care in Flushing, Queens, with aiding and abetting and a substantive violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The charges stem from a scheme in which Huang allegedly paid and offered to pay kickbacks to Medicaid beneficiaries for their attendance at Zhiqing Social Adult Day Care. Between August 2019 and March 2020, Huang, through Zhiqing Social Adult Day Care, billed approximately $3.2 million dollars to long term managed care plans for Medicaid beneficiaries. Huang was arrested and arraigned on August 27, 2020 before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Elizabeth Macchiaverna of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.
United States v. Nisha Diler: The information charges Nisha Diler, a licensed pharmacist, with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and subscribing a false tax return. The charges stem from Diler’s role in a scheme to hold herself out as the supervising pharmacist at New Moon Pharmacy, when in fact she did not work at the pharmacy. Diler was paid kickbacks by Hussnain for her role in the scheme, which she then under-reported on her taxes. Between 2016 and 2019, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursed the pharmacy approximately $3 million for pharmaceutical claims submitted through New Moon Pharmacy. Diler pleaded guilty to the information before United States District Judge Rachel Kovner at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn on September 16, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Harris Hussnain: The information charges Harris Hussnain with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, narcotics distribution and unlawful financial transactions. The charges stem from Hussnain’s ownership of a Queens pharmacy, New Moon Pharmacy, and dispensing of prescription medications, including large amounts of Oxycodone, when the pharmacy did not employ a full-time licensed pharmacist. Instead, Hussnain paid a co-conspirator, Nisha Diler, a licensed pharmacist, to hold herself out as the full-time pharmacist despite the fact that she visited the pharmacy only sporadically. Between 2016 and 2019 Medicare and Medicaid reimbursed New Moon Pharmacy approximately $3 million for pharmaceutical claims. Hussnain pleaded guilty to the information before United States District Judge Rachel Kovner at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn on September 29, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Aleah Mohammed, Aripha Mohammed and Shejer El Maliki: A criminal complaint charges Aleah Mohammed, Aripha Mohammed and Shejer El Maliki, the owners and operators of the pharmacy Village Stardrugs Inc. in Queens, New York, with conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Additionally, Aleah Mohammed was charged with health care fraud and aggravated identity theft, and Aripha Mohammed and Shejer El Maliki were each charged with money laundering. The charges stem from their alleged roles in a scheme to submit claims through the pharmacy for medications that were not in fact prescribed as claimed, including claims for purportedly dispensing medications when the pharmacy was no longer licensed by the State of New York. From March 2019 to March 2020, Medicare Part D plans reimbursed the pharmacy approximately $1.5 million for pharmaceutical claims, $1.4 million of which was reimbursed when the pharmacy was no longer licensed. Aleah Mohammed, Aripha Mohammed and Shejer El Maliki were arrested and arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on September 23, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Andrew Estes of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Gorgi Naumovski: The indictment charges Naumovski, the owner and operator of a durable medical equipment company Life Source Medical, Inc., in Greensboro, North Carolina, with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. The charge stems from Naumovski’s alleged role in a scheme in which claims were submitted to Medicare for durable medical equipment, including orthotic braces, where the defendant and his co-conspirators paid bribes and kickbacks by purchasing doctors’ orders for the equipment, including equipment that was not medically necessary. Between April 2016 and December 2018, Life Source Medical billed Medicare approximately $4.1 million for claims for orthotics-related equipment and was paid approximately $1.8 million on those claims. Naumovski was arrested and arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly by video in Benton, Illinois on September 29, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Andrew Estes of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
The charges are allegations and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
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 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
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 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
Fifteen individuals, including two doctors, two licensed physical therapists, a licensed clinical social worker, a pharmacist and four pharmacy owners and operators, have been charged for their participation in schemes that fraudulently billed the Medicare and Medicaid programs for more than $15 million. The charges filed in federal court in Brooklyn, New York are part of a nationwide health care fraud takedown led by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, which resulted in criminal charges against more than 300 individuals for their alleged participation in health care fraud schemes involving approximately $6 billion in fraudulent claims.
The charges were announced by Seth D. DuCharme, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York; Brian C. Rabbitt, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; William F. Sweeney, Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI); Scott Lampert, Special Agent-in- Charge, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations, New York Regional Office (HHS-OIG); Ray Donovan, Special Agent-in-Charge, Drug Enforcement Administration, New York Division (DEA); Jonathan D. Larsen, Special Agent-in-Charge, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation, New York (IRS-CI), Acting Medicaid Inspector General Erin E. Ives of New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG) and Dermot F. Shea, Commissioner New York City Police Department (NYPD).
The results of the nationwide takedown were announced today Acting Assistant Attorney General Rabbitt; Assistant Director Calvin Shivers of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division; Deputy Inspector General Gary Cantrell of HHS-OIG; and Assistant Administrator Tim McDermott of the DEA.
“The defendants, many of them healthcare professionals, abused their positions by engaging in fraud in order to steal precious benefit funds that were meant to help the most vulnerable among us,” stated Acting United States Attorney DuCharme. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York is working arm-in-arm with our federal and local law enforcement partners to protect our community and our taxpayer-funded programs from the potential harm posed by corrupt healthcare professionals and those who aid them.”
“This nationwide enforcement operation is historic in both its size and scope, alleging billions of dollars in healthcare fraud across the country,” stated Acting Assistant Attorney General Rabbitt. “These cases hold accountable those medical professionals and others who have exploited health care benefit programs and patients for personal gain. The cooperative law enforcement actions announced today send a clear deterrent message and should leave no doubt about the department’s ongoing commitment to ensuring the safety of patients and the integrity of health care benefit programs, even amid a national health emergency.”
“As alleged today, the defendants took advantage of programs established for the benefit of those less fortunate, illegally profiting by ripping off the rest of the law abiding public,” stated FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Sweeney. “This is not a victimless crime - health care fraud is a theft against all of us who contribute hard earned income and taxes into the system. While today’s charges are a victory for the public at large, and those who play by the rules, they also highlight a constant glaring problem. It is easy to illegally profit in the health care field, and the FBI’s New York office will continue to investigate and hold accountable those who break federal law while lining their own pockets.”
“Medical professionals who scheme to enrich themselves through health care fraud – such as Dr. Kalepu’s participation in a telefraud durable medical equipment scam -- undermine taxpayer-funded programs and drive up health care costs for everyone,” stated HHS-OIG Special Agent-in-Charge Lampert. “This takedown shows our commitment to collaborate with our law enforcement partners and effectively investigate such corrosive fraud schemes.”
“It is our duty to weed out those health care professionals who manipulate their position for profit,” stated DEA Special Agent-in-Charge Donovan. “DEA, and our law enforcement partners, are committed to safeguarding the integrity of our healthcare system and keeping Americans safe. I applaud all of our partners for their significant work in these investigations.”
“IRS-CI is proud to lend our financial expertise in this effort to uncover a wide web of criminal behavior that impacts our financial system and public trust,” stated IRS-CI Special Agent-in-Charge Larsen. “Both Diler and Hussnain are guilty of conspiring to participate in this broad scheme to steal from the United States taxpayers through both Medicare and Tax Fraud.”
“These arrests serve notice to those who attempt to exploit the Medicaid program for personal gain,” stated Acting Medicaid Inspector General Ives. “My office will continue to work closely with our law enforcement partners to root out fraud and hold wrongdoers fully accountable.”
“This sweeping set of federal charges highlights law enforcement’s combined efforts to protect innocent citizens and ensure integrity across our vital health systems,” stated NYPD Commissioner Shea. “I commend our NYPD investigators, and all of our partners, for their important work in these cases.”
Schemes charged in the Eastern District of New York, detailed in three indictments, five complaints and three criminal information, include the following:
United States v. Dalmacio Francisco and Michael Othman: The complaint charges Dr. Delmacio Francisco and Michael Othman with oxycodone distribution. The complaint alleges that Dr. Francisco, who operated two medical offices in Queens, provided large-quantity oxycodone scripts to “patients” – individuals he never actually evaluated – who were recruited by Othman in exchange for cash. Dr. Francisco also prescribed oxycodone in the names of two individuals who were incarcerated when the prescriptions were issued. During a search of Francisco’s home, DEA agents found $150,000 in bundled cash in a hidden lock box. Both defendants made their initial appearance by video before United States Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold on May 20, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys James McDonald and Elizabeth Macchiaverna of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.
United States v. Anand Kalepu: The information charges Anand Kalepu, a medical doctor, with conspiracy to commit health care fraud. The charges stem from Dr. Kalepu’s work with a telemedicine company through which he allegedly caused the submission of false and fraudulent claims for durable medical equipment (“DME”) to Medicare. Between 2018 and 2019 the amount billed to Medicare for Dr. Kalepu’s DME prescriptions was in excess of $1.3 million. Dr. Kalepu pleaded guilty to the information before United States District Judge Ann M. Donnelly at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, and the guilty plea was unsealed on September 30, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Mahmoud Elsanaa and Olga Popovych: The indictment charges Mahmoud Elsanaa, a licensed physical therapist and clinic owner, and Olga Popovych, the office manager of several physical therapy clinics controlled by Elsanaa, with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud (Elsanaa only) and one count of conspiracy to falsify medical records (Elsanaa and Popovych). The charges stem from the defendants’ alleged role in the operation of physical therapy clinics that billed Medicare and Medicaid for services that were unnecessary, procured by kickbacks, provided by unlicensed practitioners, or otherwise not provided as billed. Elsanaa and Popovych were arrested and arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on September 17, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Mazen Abdel Magid: The complaint charges Mazen Abdel Magid, a licensed physical therapist and clinic owner and a business partner of Mahmoud Elsanaa, with one count of submitting false claims to Medicare. The charges stem from Abdel Magid’s alleged submission of claims to Medicare for physical therapy services purportedly provided at his physical therapy clinic when, in fact, he was overseas and could not have provided the services. Abdel Magid was arrested and made an initial appearance before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on September 17, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Vladimir Geykhman: The indictment charges Vladimir Geykhman with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The charges stem from the defendant’s alleged role in falsifying physical evaluation records in support of claims submitted through no-fault automobile insurance policies and laundering the proceeds therefrom. Between March 2019 and August 2019, Geykhman was paid by New York State automobile insurance providers a total of approximately $1 million for claims that were based upon falsified patient records. Geykhman was arrested and arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on September 17, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Xuan Di Huang: The complaint charges Xuan Di Huang, also known as “Wendy Huang,” an owner and operator of Zhiqing Social Adult Day Care in Flushing, Queens, with aiding and abetting and a substantive violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The charges stem from a scheme in which Huang allegedly paid and offered to pay kickbacks to Medicaid beneficiaries for their attendance at Zhiqing Social Adult Day Care. Between August 2019 and March 2020, Huang, through Zhiqing Social Adult Day Care, billed approximately $3.2 million dollars to long term managed care plans for Medicaid beneficiaries. Huang was arrested and arraigned on August 27, 2020 before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Elizabeth Macchiaverna of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.
United States v. Nisha Diler: The information charges Nisha Diler, a licensed pharmacist, with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and subscribing a false tax return. The charges stem from Diler’s role in a scheme to hold herself out as the supervising pharmacist at New Moon Pharmacy, when in fact she did not work at the pharmacy. Diler was paid kickbacks by Hussnain for her role in the scheme, which she then under-reported on her taxes. Between 2016 and 2019, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursed the pharmacy approximately $3 million for pharmaceutical claims submitted through New Moon Pharmacy. Diler pleaded guilty to the information before United States District Judge Rachel Kovner at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn on September 16, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Harris Hussnain: The information charges Harris Hussnain with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, narcotics distribution and unlawful financial transactions. The charges stem from Hussnain’s ownership of a Queens pharmacy, New Moon Pharmacy, and dispensing of prescription medications, including large amounts of Oxycodone, when the pharmacy did not employ a full-time licensed pharmacist. Instead, Hussnain paid a co-conspirator, Nisha Diler, a licensed pharmacist, to hold herself out as the full-time pharmacist despite the fact that she visited the pharmacy only sporadically. Between 2016 and 2019 Medicare and Medicaid reimbursed New Moon Pharmacy approximately $3 million for pharmaceutical claims. Hussnain pleaded guilty to the information before United States District Judge Rachel Kovner at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn on September 29, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Aleah Mohammed, Aripha Mohammed and Shejer El Maliki: A criminal complaint charges Aleah Mohammed, Aripha Mohammed and Shejer El Maliki, the owners and operators of the pharmacy Village Stardrugs Inc. in Queens, New York, with conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Additionally, Aleah Mohammed was charged with health care fraud and aggravated identity theft, and Aripha Mohammed and Shejer El Maliki were each charged with money laundering. The charges stem from their alleged roles in a scheme to submit claims through the pharmacy for medications that were not in fact prescribed as claimed, including claims for purportedly dispensing medications when the pharmacy was no longer licensed by the State of New York. From March 2019 to March 2020, Medicare Part D plans reimbursed the pharmacy approximately $1.5 million for pharmaceutical claims, $1.4 million of which was reimbursed when the pharmacy was no longer licensed. Aleah Mohammed, Aripha Mohammed and Shejer El Maliki were arrested and arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on September 23, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Andrew Estes of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Gorgi Naumovski: The indictment charges Naumovski, the owner and operator of a durable medical equipment company Life Source Medical, Inc., in Greensboro, North Carolina, with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. The charge stems from Naumovski’s alleged role in a scheme in which claims were submitted to Medicare for durable medical equipment, including orthotic braces, where the defendant and his co-conspirators paid bribes and kickbacks by purchasing doctors’ orders for the equipment, including equipment that was not medically necessary. Between April 2016 and December 2018, Life Source Medical billed Medicare approximately $4.1 million for claims for orthotics-related equipment and was paid approximately $1.8 million on those claims. Naumovski was arrested and arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly by video in Benton, Illinois on September 29, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Andrew Estes of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
The charges are allegations and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
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
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
Fifteen individuals, including two doctors, two licensed physical therapists, a licensed clinical social worker, a pharmacist and four pharmacy owners and operators, have been charged for their participation in schemes that fraudulently billed the Medicare and Medicaid programs for more than $15 million. The charges filed in federal court in Brooklyn, New York are part of a nationwide health care fraud takedown led by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, which resulted in criminal charges against more than 300 individuals for their alleged participation in health care fraud schemes involving approximately $6 billion in fraudulent claims.
The charges were announced by Seth D. DuCharme, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York; Brian C. Rabbitt, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; William F. Sweeney, Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI); Scott Lampert, Special Agent-in- Charge, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations, New York Regional Office (HHS-OIG); Ray Donovan, Special Agent-in-Charge, Drug Enforcement Administration, New York Division (DEA); Jonathan D. Larsen, Special Agent-in-Charge, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation, New York (IRS-CI), Acting Medicaid Inspector General Erin E. Ives of New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG) and Dermot F. Shea, Commissioner New York City Police Department (NYPD).
The results of the nationwide takedown were announced today Acting Assistant Attorney General Rabbitt; Assistant Director Calvin Shivers of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division; Deputy Inspector General Gary Cantrell of HHS-OIG; and Assistant Administrator Tim McDermott of the DEA.
“The defendants, many of them healthcare professionals, abused their positions by engaging in fraud in order to steal precious benefit funds that were meant to help the most vulnerable among us,” stated Acting United States Attorney DuCharme. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York is working arm-in-arm with our federal and local law enforcement partners to protect our community and our taxpayer-funded programs from the potential harm posed by corrupt healthcare professionals and those who aid them.”
“This nationwide enforcement operation is historic in both its size and scope, alleging billions of dollars in healthcare fraud across the country,” stated Acting Assistant Attorney General Rabbitt. “These cases hold accountable those medical professionals and others who have exploited health care benefit programs and patients for personal gain. The cooperative law enforcement actions announced today send a clear deterrent message and should leave no doubt about the department’s ongoing commitment to ensuring the safety of patients and the integrity of health care benefit programs, even amid a national health emergency.”
“As alleged today, the defendants took advantage of programs established for the benefit of those less fortunate, illegally profiting by ripping off the rest of the law abiding public,” stated FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Sweeney. “This is not a victimless crime - health care fraud is a theft against all of us who contribute hard earned income and taxes into the system. While today’s charges are a victory for the public at large, and those who play by the rules, they also highlight a constant glaring problem. It is easy to illegally profit in the health care field, and the FBI’s New York office will continue to investigate and hold accountable those who break federal law while lining their own pockets.”
“Medical professionals who scheme to enrich themselves through health care fraud – such as Dr. Kalepu’s participation in a telefraud durable medical equipment scam -- undermine taxpayer-funded programs and drive up health care costs for everyone,” stated HHS-OIG Special Agent-in-Charge Lampert. “This takedown shows our commitment to collaborate with our law enforcement partners and effectively investigate such corrosive fraud schemes.”
“It is our duty to weed out those health care professionals who manipulate their position for profit,” stated DEA Special Agent-in-Charge Donovan. “DEA, and our law enforcement partners, are committed to safeguarding the integrity of our healthcare system and keeping Americans safe. I applaud all of our partners for their significant work in these investigations.”
“IRS-CI is proud to lend our financial expertise in this effort to uncover a wide web of criminal behavior that impacts our financial system and public trust,” stated IRS-CI Special Agent-in-Charge Larsen. “Both Diler and Hussnain are guilty of conspiring to participate in this broad scheme to steal from the United States taxpayers through both Medicare and Tax Fraud.”
“These arrests serve notice to those who attempt to exploit the Medicaid program for personal gain,” stated Acting Medicaid Inspector General Ives. “My office will continue to work closely with our law enforcement partners to root out fraud and hold wrongdoers fully accountable.”
“This sweeping set of federal charges highlights law enforcement’s combined efforts to protect innocent citizens and ensure integrity across our vital health systems,” stated NYPD Commissioner Shea. “I commend our NYPD investigators, and all of our partners, for their important work in these cases.”
Schemes charged in the Eastern District of New York, detailed in three indictments, five complaints and three criminal information, include the following:
United States v. Dalmacio Francisco and Michael Othman: The complaint charges Dr. Delmacio Francisco and Michael Othman with oxycodone distribution. The complaint alleges that Dr. Francisco, who operated two medical offices in Queens, provided large-quantity oxycodone scripts to “patients” – individuals he never actually evaluated – who were recruited by Othman in exchange for cash. Dr. Francisco also prescribed oxycodone in the names of two individuals who were incarcerated when the prescriptions were issued. During a search of Francisco’s home, DEA agents found $150,000 in bundled cash in a hidden lock box. Both defendants made their initial appearance by video before United States Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold on May 20, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys James McDonald and Elizabeth Macchiaverna of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.
United States v. Anand Kalepu: The information charges Anand Kalepu, a medical doctor, with conspiracy to commit health care fraud. The charges stem from Dr. Kalepu’s work with a telemedicine company through which he allegedly caused the submission of false and fraudulent claims for durable medical equipment (“DME”) to Medicare. Between 2018 and 2019 the amount billed to Medicare for Dr. Kalepu’s DME prescriptions was in excess of $1.3 million. Dr. Kalepu pleaded guilty to the information before United States District Judge Ann M. Donnelly at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, and the guilty plea was unsealed on September 30, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Mahmoud Elsanaa and Olga Popovych: The indictment charges Mahmoud Elsanaa, a licensed physical therapist and clinic owner, and Olga Popovych, the office manager of several physical therapy clinics controlled by Elsanaa, with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud (Elsanaa only) and one count of conspiracy to falsify medical records (Elsanaa and Popovych). The charges stem from the defendants’ alleged role in the operation of physical therapy clinics that billed Medicare and Medicaid for services that were unnecessary, procured by kickbacks, provided by unlicensed practitioners, or otherwise not provided as billed. Elsanaa and Popovych were arrested and arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on September 17, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Mazen Abdel Magid: The complaint charges Mazen Abdel Magid, a licensed physical therapist and clinic owner and a business partner of Mahmoud Elsanaa, with one count of submitting false claims to Medicare. The charges stem from Abdel Magid’s alleged submission of claims to Medicare for physical therapy services purportedly provided at his physical therapy clinic when, in fact, he was overseas and could not have provided the services. Abdel Magid was arrested and made an initial appearance before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on September 17, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Vladimir Geykhman: The indictment charges Vladimir Geykhman with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The charges stem from the defendant’s alleged role in falsifying physical evaluation records in support of claims submitted through no-fault automobile insurance policies and laundering the proceeds therefrom. Between March 2019 and August 2019, Geykhman was paid by New York State automobile insurance providers a total of approximately $1 million for claims that were based upon falsified patient records. Geykhman was arrested and arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on September 17, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Xuan Di Huang: The complaint charges Xuan Di Huang, also known as “Wendy Huang,” an owner and operator of Zhiqing Social Adult Day Care in Flushing, Queens, with aiding and abetting and a substantive violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The charges stem from a scheme in which Huang allegedly paid and offered to pay kickbacks to Medicaid beneficiaries for their attendance at Zhiqing Social Adult Day Care. Between August 2019 and March 2020, Huang, through Zhiqing Social Adult Day Care, billed approximately $3.2 million dollars to long term managed care plans for Medicaid beneficiaries. Huang was arrested and arraigned on August 27, 2020 before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Elizabeth Macchiaverna of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.
United States v. Nisha Diler: The information charges Nisha Diler, a licensed pharmacist, with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and subscribing a false tax return. The charges stem from Diler’s role in a scheme to hold herself out as the supervising pharmacist at New Moon Pharmacy, when in fact she did not work at the pharmacy. Diler was paid kickbacks by Hussnain for her role in the scheme, which she then under-reported on her taxes. Between 2016 and 2019, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursed the pharmacy approximately $3 million for pharmaceutical claims submitted through New Moon Pharmacy. Diler pleaded guilty to the information before United States District Judge Rachel Kovner at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn on September 16, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Harris Hussnain: The information charges Harris Hussnain with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, narcotics distribution and unlawful financial transactions. The charges stem from Hussnain’s ownership of a Queens pharmacy, New Moon Pharmacy, and dispensing of prescription medications, including large amounts of Oxycodone, when the pharmacy did not employ a full-time licensed pharmacist. Instead, Hussnain paid a co-conspirator, Nisha Diler, a licensed pharmacist, to hold herself out as the full-time pharmacist despite the fact that she visited the pharmacy only sporadically. Between 2016 and 2019 Medicare and Medicaid reimbursed New Moon Pharmacy approximately $3 million for pharmaceutical claims. Hussnain pleaded guilty to the information before United States District Judge Rachel Kovner at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn on September 29, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Miriam Glaser Dauermann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Aleah Mohammed, Aripha Mohammed and Shejer El Maliki: A criminal complaint charges Aleah Mohammed, Aripha Mohammed and Shejer El Maliki, the owners and operators of the pharmacy Village Stardrugs Inc. in Queens, New York, with conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Additionally, Aleah Mohammed was charged with health care fraud and aggravated identity theft, and Aripha Mohammed and Shejer El Maliki were each charged with money laundering. The charges stem from their alleged roles in a scheme to submit claims through the pharmacy for medications that were not in fact prescribed as claimed, including claims for purportedly dispensing medications when the pharmacy was no longer licensed by the State of New York. From March 2019 to March 2020, Medicare Part D plans reimbursed the pharmacy approximately $1.5 million for pharmaceutical claims, $1.4 million of which was reimbursed when the pharmacy was no longer licensed. Aleah Mohammed, Aripha Mohammed and Shejer El Maliki were arrested and arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on September 23, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Andrew Estes of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
United States v. Gorgi Naumovski: The indictment charges Naumovski, the owner and operator of a durable medical equipment company Life Source Medical, Inc., in Greensboro, North Carolina, with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. The charge stems from Naumovski’s alleged role in a scheme in which claims were submitted to Medicare for durable medical equipment, including orthotic braces, where the defendant and his co-conspirators paid bribes and kickbacks by purchasing doctors’ orders for the equipment, including equipment that was not medically necessary. Between April 2016 and December 2018, Life Source Medical billed Medicare approximately $4.1 million for claims for orthotics-related equipment and was paid approximately $1.8 million on those claims. Naumovski was arrested and arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly by video in Benton, Illinois on September 29, 2020. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Andrew Estes of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
The charges are allegations and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
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 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
Today, a federal jury in Brooklyn returned a guilty verdict against Qing Ming Yu, also known as “Allen” and Zhe Zhang, also known as “Zack,” on both counts of an indictment charging them with murder-for-hire and murder-for-hire conspiracy in connection with the February 12, 2019 killing of 31-year-old Xin “Chris” Gu, outside of a karaoke bar in Queens. The verdict followed a two-week trial before United States District Judge Carol Bagley Amon. When sentenced, each defendant faces a mandatory term of life in prison.
Breon Peace, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, announced the verdict.
“The victim worked long hours to start his own company only to be murdered execution-style by these treacherous defendants who thought nothing of snuffing out a human life as part of their own business plan,” stated United States Attorney Peace. “Thanks to the jury, and the outstanding work of the prosecutors, NYPD detectives and FBI special agents, justice has been served and the defendants will be deservedly punished for this vicious killing.”
As proven at trial, Allen Yu was the president of Amaco, a multi-million dollar construction company that renovated apartments in New York City. In 2015, Xin Gu joined Amaco as a project manager. Although Amaco’s business nearly quadrupled after he joined the company, Xin Gu became concerned about the company’s financial viability and resigned in 2018 to start his own property development company called KG Management. After Xin Gu’s departure, several clients and employees also cut ties with Qing Ming Yu’s business. Multiple companies took their lucrative projects from Amaco to KG Management, including one project valued at $1,000,000. Enraged at Xin Gu’s perceived disloyalty, Qing Ming Yu hired co-conspirator You You and Zhe Zhang to kill Xin Gu in exchange for payment. Zhang in turn hired another co-conspirator, Antony Abreu, to assist in carrying out the murder.
On the evening of February 11, 2019, into the following morning, Xin Gu’s new company hosted a celebration of the Lunar New Year at Lake Pavilion restaurant in Flushing. After that dinner, Xin Gu and a smaller group went to a karaoke bar, Grand Slam KTV on Fowler Avenue. The hit team learned of the party and with You You acting as a lookout and Zhe Zhang serving as the getaway driver, Abreu allegedly shot the victim multiple times as he waited for an Uber, killing him. Over the next three months, Qing Ming Yu paid $150,000 to You You for the murder.
You You pleaded guilty to murder-for-hire conspiracy in June 2023 and is awaiting sentencing. Abreu is awaiting trial.
The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s Organized Crime and Gangs Section. Assistant United States Attorneys Devon Lash, Nadia E. Moore and Gabriel Park are in charge of the prosecution with the assistance of Paralegal Specialist Elizabeth Reed.
Mark J. Lesko, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, announced today the creation of a Civil Rights Team in the Office’s Civil Division. The Team, comprised of four Civil Division Assistant U.S. Attorneys and the Civil Division Chief of Civil Rights, enhances the Office’s focus on protecting the rights of the most vulnerable residents of the Eastern District of New York, especially those in disadvantaged communities. The Office has responsibility for the enforcement of our nation’s Civil Rights laws in the Eastern District of New York, which encompasses Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island and Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island. There are approximately eight million residents in the Eastern District.
The Office is creating this team in recognition of President Joseph Biden’s directive in Executive Order 13985, which sets forth that “[a]ffirmatively advancing equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity is the responsibility of the whole of our Government.” Among the areas that the Team will focus on are policing, patterns and practices of housing discrimination, and school segregation.
In announcing the formation of the Civil Rights Team, Acting United States Attorney Lesko stated, “Today, the Eastern District of New York, a jurisdiction created by President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, celebrates the Juneteenth National Independence Day commemorating the abolition of slavery, which was signed into law yesterday by President Biden. This Office is firmly committed to identifying and rooting out discrimination in all of its forms, wherever it persists, and we have a long and storied history in the Eastern District of New York of enforcing federal laws that prohibit discrimination. The creation of the Civil Rights Team will further strengthen the Office’s capacity to investigate and civilly prosecute civil rights violations in the City of New York and on Long Island, especially our ability to handle investigations of systemic discrimination. The establishment of the Team demonstrates the commitment of this Office to vigorously enforce our federal civil rights laws to help foster a community where individuals can live safely, free from unlawful discrimination, and ensure equal rights for all, regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.”
The Office’s Civil Rights Practice is led by Civil Division Chief of Civil Rights Michael J. Goldberger; the Civil Rights Team is made up of Assistant United States Attorneys Rachel G. Balaban, Megan Freismuth, Sean Greene-Delgado, Dara Olds, and Civil Rights Investigator Laura Riley. The Civil Rights Team is overseen by Civil Division Acting Chief Joseph A. Marutollo and Civil Division Deputy Chief Richard K. Hayes. The Team will continue to partner and coordinate with the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and federal, state and local agencies that enforce civil rights laws. The Office previously announced it had doubled the size of the Criminal Civil Rights Section under the leadership of Chief Elizabeth Geddes, who, among her other responsibilities, will act as liaison to the Civil Division’s newly formed Civil Rights Team.
The Office has also created a new webpage, located at https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/civil-rights, dedicated to Civil Rights Enforcement, which highlights the work of the Office and provides links to complaint forms and to other civil rights resources. For more information on the U.S. Attorney’s Office, or to report to report suspected violations of civil rights please visit https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny.
Earlier today, at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, Qing Ming Yu, also known as “Allen,” and Zhe Zhang, also known as “Zack,” were sentenced by United States District Judge Carol Bagley Amon to mandatory life imprisonment for their roles in the February 12, 2019 killing of 31-year-old Xin “Chris” Gu outside a karaoke bar in Queens. In October 2023, following a two-week trial, a federal jury found the defendants guilty of murder-for-hire and murder-for-hire conspiracy. As part of the sentence, the Court ordered the defendants to pay $1,035,000 in restitution to the victim’s family.
Breon Peace, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, James Smith, Assistant Director-in-Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI), and Edward A. Caban, Commissioner, New York City Police Department (NYPD), announced the sentences.
“Allen Yu set out to kill Xin Gu because he started a rival business and Zhang agreed to carry out the execution-style murder without hesitation,” stated United States Attorney Peace. “Driven by greed and revenge, they hired a hitman to commit a brutal murder of a young man, traumatizing the victim’s family as well as the Flushing community. The defendants will spend the rest of their lives behind prison walls for this premediated murder. I hope today’s sentences bring some measure of closure to Xin Gu’s family.”
“Threatened by Xin Gu’s entrepreneurial skills, Allen Yu sought revenge and unwarranted retribution against his former employee. After securing Zhang and a hitman as accomplices to his calculated plot, the trio unjustly ended the life of a promising young businessman. Today’s lifelong sentences serve as a just punishment for two individuals who deemed cold-blooded murder as an acceptable response for slighted feelings,” stated FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Smith.
“Today’s sentences bring with them some satisfaction to the dedicated investigators who worked on this horrific case and, hopefully, a modicum of relief to the family and friends of the victim,” stated NYPD Commissioner Caban. “Life in prison is an appropriate outcome for the crimes these men coldly carried out. I commend and thank our NYPD investigators for their meticulous work and our partners at the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York for their diligent prosecution.”
Allen Yu was the president of Amaco, a multi-million-dollar construction company that renovated apartments in New York City. In 2015, Xin Gu joined Amaco as a project manager. Although Amaco’s business nearly quadrupled after he joined the company, Xin Gu became concerned about the company’s financial viability and resigned in 2018 to start his own property development company called KG Management. After Xin Gu’s departure, several clients and employees also cut ties with Allen Yu’s business. Multiple companies took their lucrative projects from Amaco to KG Management, including one project valued at $1 million. Enraged at Xin Gu’s perceived disloyalty, Allen Yu hired Zhe Zhang and another co-conspirator to kill Xin Gu in exchange for payment. Zhang in turn hired another co-conspirator, Antony Abreu, to act as the shooter in carrying out the murder.
On the evening of February 11, 2019, into the following morning, Xin Gu’s new company hosted a celebration of the Lunar New Year at Lake Pavilion restaurant in Flushing. After that dinner, Xin Gu and a smaller group went to a karaoke bar, Grand Slam KTV, on Fowler Avenue. The hit team learned of the party and with Zhe Zhang serving as the getaway driver, Abreu walked up to the victim and shot him multiple times as he waited for an Uber, killing him. Over the next three months, Allen Yu paid a co-conspirator $150,000 and Zhe Zhang $30,000 for the murder.
Abreu was convicted of murder-for-hire and murder-for-hire conspiracy following a two-week trial in April 2024 and is awaiting sentencing.
The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s Organized Crime and Gangs Section. Assistant United States Attorneys Devon Lash, Nadia E. Moore, Gabriel Park and Eric Silverberg are in charge of the prosecution with the assistance of Paralegal Specialist Elizabeth Reed and Legal Assistant Thomas “Cole” Englert.
A 21-count superseding indictment was unsealed today in federal court in Brooklyn charging 36 defendants—including members, associates and co-conspirators of the New York City-based street gang known as the “Bully Gang”—with conspiring to distribute drugs, firearms trafficking and money laundering, among other crimes. Twelve defendants were arrested today in the New York area and will be arraigned today before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom. Four defendants will be arraigned this afternoon in the District of Maine, and one each in the Northern District of New York and the Northern District of Georgia. Three defendants were in custody in Maine and will be arraigned at a later date. Several members of the conspiracy were previously arrested and charged in June 2020. Two defendants are expected to report to Brooklyn for arraignment next week, and three additional defendants remain at large.
Seth D. DuCharme, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, John B. DeVito, Special Agent-in-Charge, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, New York (ATF), and Dermot F. Shea, Commissioner, New York City Police Department (NYPD), announced the charges.
“This violent drug organization endangered communities across the northeast, trafficking crack cocaine, heroin and fentanyl into towns in Maine and guns from Maine onto the streets of New York City,” stated Acting United States Attorney DuCharme. “The superseding indictment and today’s arrests are the result of our continuing efforts alongside our great partners in the ATF and NYPD to dismantle and disarm violent gangs.”
“These defendants, as alleged, not only poisoned communities throughout the east coast with dangerous narcotics, but trafficked firearms from Maine to New York City, fueling gang violence on our streets. Today’s arrests reaffirm ATF’s commitment to public safety and end the reign of a violent, multi-state, criminal organization,” stated ATF Special Agent-in-Charge DeVito.
“These alleged gang members, as outlined in the federal indictment, left a trail of crimes from Brooklyn to Maine. But working closely, our NYPD investigators and federal partners were relentless in making sure they would be brought to justice,” stated NYPD Commissioner Shea.
As set for in the superseding indictment and other court filings, the defendants were members of a drug trafficking conspiracy responsible for trafficking large quantities of cocaine base (“crack”), heroin and fentanyl through New York to Maine and elsewhere. Multiple Bully Gang members and associates from Brooklyn were sent from New York to Maine to operate “stash” houses that were used to store and sell narcotics. The organization’s drug proceeds were collected on a regular basis by runners who used vehicles with hidden “trap” compartments to conceal narcotics and drug proceeds. The proceeds were then laundered through direct cash deposits and wire transfers to co-conspirators, through intermediary bank accounts and the purchase of luxury vehicles.
Several co-conspirators allegedly purchased illegal firearms to protect the organization and its members. Facebook communications reveal that in August 2017, defendant Nicolette Tompkins purchased a Ruger firearm for co-conspirator Bermon Clarke, which was later seized by law enforcement in Brooklyn. Defendants Clarke, Keon Grant, Nadine Heath and Joanne Lydem participated in the August 2019 purchase of an illegal firearm. As part of that transaction, Grant informed Clarke that Lydem would “get the grip”—meaning purchase the firearm. Subsequently, when asked whether Lydem brought “the case the grip was in,” Grant sent Clarke a photograph of a gun box for a Glock pistol, confirming the purchase.
During the government’s investigation, stash houses and vehicles used by the defendants were searched in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Maine. Law enforcement seized more than $380,000 in cash, more than 15 illegal firearms, six kilograms of cocaine, 600 grams of fentanyl, four vehicles with concealed “trap” compartments and luxury watches.
The charges in the superseding indictment are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s Organized Crime and Gangs Section. Assistant United States Attorneys Drew G. Rolle, Nicholas J. Moscow and Lindsey R. Oken are in charge of the prosecution.
The Defendants:
JESSICA ALMEIDA
Age: 33
Detroit, Maine
TYRONE BANKS (also known as “Ty Hitta”)
Age: 23
Brooklyn, New York
JANET BLOOD
Age: 47
Troy, Maine
DAYVON BOSTICK-SAMUELS (also known as “Daytoe”)
Age: 22
Brooklyn, New York
MIKE GUSTAVO CONNOR (also known as “Gus”)
Age: 21
Brooklyn, New York
RASHAAD CRAIG (also known as “Skeeno”)
Age: 25
Brooklyn, New York
QUENTIN DELVALLE (also known as “Q”)
Age: 24
Brooklyn, New York
ELIZABETH DUECASTER
Age: 35
Searsport, Maine
CHRISTINA ESTEVEZ
Age: 31
Queens, New York
ERICA FAGGIOLE
Age: 44
Maine
ANTONIO FULTON (also known as “Tone”)
Age: 23
Staten Island, New York
ROMEO GONZALES
Age: 22
Brooklyn, New York
KEON GRANT (also known as “Keys”)
Age: 34
Brooklyn, New York
NADINE HEATH
Age: 54
Troy, Maine
TYQUAWN LANE (also known as “Bicks” and “Tah Tah”)
Age: 27
Brooklyn, New York
JOANNE LYDEM
Age: 49
Garland, Maine
TANEJIA MOORE
Age: 26
Brooklyn, New York
CHRISHAWN PENN (also known as “Prince”)
Age: 26
Brooklyn, New York
MICHAEL PEREZ (also known as “White Mike”)
Age: 29
Brooklyn, New York
JOELLE POCHE (also known as “Rico”)
Age: 21
Brooklyn, New York
MICHAEL REID (also known as “Half”)
Age: 39
Brooklyn, New York
ISAIAH TERRY SANDIFORD
Age: 21
Brooklyn, New York
CHINASA STRACHAN
Age: 33
Brooklyn, New York
NICOLETTE TOMPKINS
Age: 22
Westfield, Maine
DANIELLE WHITE
Age: 47
Swanville, Maine
DEVIN-JOHN JASON WILLIAMS (also known as “Pun” and “Fat Boy”)
Age: 28
Brooklyn, New York
Defendants Previously Indicted:
DERRICK AYERS (also known as “Dee” and “Mel”)
Age: 34
Rahway, New Jersey
BERMON CLARKE (also known as “G” and “Blue”)
Age: 28
Rahway, New Jersey
FRANKLIN GILLESPIE (also known as “Spazz” and “Frankie Gino”)
Age: 30
Newark, New Jersey
NIA GOVAN (also known as “Cam” and “V”)
Age: 29
Boston, Massachusetts
AMANDA HUARD
Age: 38
Raymond, Maine
ANTHONY KENNEDY (also known as “Biggie”)
Age: 34
Queens, New York
JESSICA PELKEY
Age: 26
Presque Isle, Maine
AMY SONNENBLICK
Age: 48
Brooklyn, New York
AMANDA WALTON (also known as “A”)
Age: 32
Portland, Maine
DEMETTRIUS WRIGHT (also known as “Clean” and “Meexhi Brim”)
Today, a federal jury in Brooklyn returned a guilty verdict against Antony Abreu on both counts of an indictment charging him with murder-for-hire and murder-for-hire conspiracy in connection with the February 12, 2019 killing of 31-year-old Xin “Chris” Gu, outside of a karaoke bar in Queens. The verdict followed a two-week trial before United States District Judge Carol Bagley Amon. When sentenced, the defendant faces a mandatory term of life in prison.
Breon Peace, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, James Smith, Assistant Director-in-Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI), and Edward A. Caban, Commissioner, New York City Police Department (NYPD), announced the verdict.
“With today’s conviction of Abreu, a cold-blooded triggerman who executed a young man in exchange for an expensive wristwatch, this Office has held all the conspirators responsible for this murder plot driven by greed and revenge,” stated United States Attorney Peace. “The victim was marked for death simply because he was pursuing the American dream by starting his own company. Chris Gu was celebrating his promising future and the Chinese New Year when his life was violently ended in the street on without warning. His killers will spend the rest of their lives in prison.”
“Antony Abreu appraised Xin “Chris” Gu to be worth that of an expensive watch, murdering him for such jewelry. After Gu decided to pursue his own business dream, his slighted employer bribed Abreu to carry out the final step in this twisted judge, jury, and executioner scheme. Today’s conviction of the final defendant in this cold-blooded conspiracy emphasizes the FBI’s commitment to restoring the balance of justice and reaffirming that no individual is permitted to put a price on another’s life,” stated FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Smith.
“The tireless work of the detectives, agents, and prosecutors in this case helped hold to full account the men responsible for this murder,” stated NYPD Commissioner Caban. “This is another example of our agencies’ collaborative commitment to public safety, and further proof that no one is beyond the reach of the law.”
As proven at trial, Abreu was hired to murder Gu as part a revenge scheme orchestrated by Gu’s former boss, Allen Yu. Allen Yu’s business, Amaco, lost substantial business when Gu left to start his own property development company. Enraged at Gu’s perceived disloyalty, Allen Yu hired co-conspirators You You and Zhe Zhang to kill Gu in exchange for payment. Zhang in turn hired Abreu to carry out the murder.
On the evening of February 11, 2019, and into the following pre-dawn hours, Gu’s new company hosted a celebration of the Lunar New Year at Lake Pavilion restaurant in Flushing. After dinner, Gu and a smaller group went to a karaoke bar, Grand Slam KTV in Flushing. When Gu left the bar and was getting into a cab, Abreu approached and shot Gu multiple times at close range, killing him. In exchange for committing the murder, Zhang gave Abreu a luxury Richard Mille wristwatch valued at over $100,000.
In the days after the murder, in an effort to avoid detection, Abreu sold the car he used in the murder to a relative and sold a burner phone used to facilitate the murder. In the following months, Abreu repeatedly bragged about committing the murder to various associates and posted on social media about the wristwatch Zhang had given him. After his arrest, Abreu obtained a contraband phone in jail, which he used to attempt to intimidate and retaliate against government witnesses in the case and to make payments to potential defense witnesses.
You You pleaded guilty to murder-for-hire conspiracy in June 2023 and is awaiting sentencing. Allen Yu and Zhang were convicted at trial in October 2023 and face mandatory life sentences when they are sentenced.
The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s Organized Crime and Gangs Section. Assistant United States Attorneys Devon Lash, Gabriel Park and Eric Silverberg are in charge of the prosecution with the assistance of Paralegal Specialist Elizabeth Reed and Legal Assistant Thomas “Cole” Englert.
A criminal complaint filed today in federal court in Brooklyn charged Awais Chudhary, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Pakistan, with attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a designated foreign terrorist organization. Chudhary was arrested yesterday, and made his initial appearance this afternoon before United States Magistrate Judge James Orenstein. Chudhary was ordered held without bail.
Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, John C. Demers, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, William F. Sweeney, Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI), and James P. O’Neill, Commissioner, New York City Police Department (NYPD), announced the arrest.
“As alleged, Awais Chudhary planned to kill innocent civilians on behalf of ISIS and record the bloodshed in the hope of inspiring others to commit attacks,” stated United States Attorney Donoghue. “This Office, together with the FBI, the NYPD and all members of the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force will continue working tirelessly to identify ISIS sympathizers like the defendant and prevent them from carrying out their murderous intentions.”
“The defendant allegedly planned to conduct a deadly attack in New York on behalf of ISIS,” stated Assistant Attorney General Demers. “The National Security Division, working with our partners, will remain vigilant in our efforts to identify, disrupt and hold accountable those who would conduct a terrorist attack on our soil. I want to thank the agents, analysts and prosecutors who are responsible for this case and prevented this defendant from carrying out his deadly plans.”
“There’s no doubt Chudhary allegedly wanted to make headlines by attacking innocent people going about their daily lives. Thanks to the diligent work of the agents, analysts, and detectives on the FBI New York JTTF, the only thing to report today is his arrest, and the only photos Chudhary will be featured in are the ones taken in our prisoner processing room prior to his arrival in federal prison,” stated FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Sweeney.
“Awais Chudhary had accepted the call from ISIS to kill fellow New Yorkers in the city he called home,” stated NYPD Commissioner O’Neill. “He had carefully planned, conducted reconnaissance, picked a target, and was in the process of obtaining the weapon. All he has left to do was to strike. The FBI agents and NYPD detectives of the JTTF should be commended for the disruption of this plot. Their work almost certainly saved lives.”
As alleged in the complaint, in August 2019, Chudhary communicated to undercover law enforcement officers through text messaging that he planned to conduct a stabbing or bombing attack on behalf of ISIS. Chudhary also wanted to record his attack to inspire others to commit similar acts of violence. Chudhary identified the pedestrian bridges over the Grand Central Parkway to the Flushing Bay Promenade (the Promenade) and the area of the World’s Fair Marina (the Marina) as locations for the attack. On August 23, 2019, Chudhary told an undercover agent that he intended to use a knife “because that’s what he knows,” but if the undercover agent could instruct him on how to build a bomb, he would consider using an explosive device at a “mini-bridge over a busy road with many cars.” On the same day, Chudhary texted another undercover agent a screenshot of a document entitled “Islamic State,” with the subheadings: “Places to Strike,” “The Ideal Knife” and “Knives to Avoid.” The instructions included a diagram of the human body with directions where to stab a victim. Chudhary also sent the undercover agent videos of pedestrian bridges over the Grand Central Parkway, and stated that he was considering throwing explosives over the fencing at vehicles passing below.
Chudhary conducted multiple reconnaissance trips to the targeted locations. On August 24, 2019, FBI agents surveilled Chudhary enter the Promenade in the vicinity of 27th Avenue and Ditmars Boulevard and take videos and photos with his cellphone of various locations, as well as the Marina, a nearby gas station, a donut shop and a security camera near the donut shop.
Between August 25 and August 26, 2019, Chudhary ordered online a tactical knife, a mask, gloves and a cellphone chest and head strap to facilitate his recording of the attack. Chudhary was arrested yesterday as he attempted to retrieve the items from an online vendor’s retail location in Queens.
The charge in the complaint is an allegation, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. If convicted, Chudhary faces a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment.
The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s National Security and Cybercrime Section. Assistant United States Attorney Jonathan Algor and Special Assistant United States Attorney Elizabeth A. Hanft are in charge of the prosecution, with assistance from Trial Attorney Kevin C. Nunnally of the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section.
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
A criminal complaint filed today in federal court in Brooklyn charged Awais Chudhary, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Pakistan, with attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a designated foreign terrorist organization. Chudhary was arrested yesterday, and made his initial appearance this afternoon before United States Magistrate Judge James Orenstein. Chudhary was ordered held without bail.
Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, John C. Demers, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, William F. Sweeney, Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI), and James P. O’Neill, Commissioner, New York City Police Department (NYPD), announced the arrest.
“As alleged, Awais Chudhary planned to kill innocent civilians on behalf of ISIS and record the bloodshed in the hope of inspiring others to commit attacks,” stated United States Attorney Donoghue. “This Office, together with the FBI, the NYPD and all members of the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force will continue working tirelessly to identify ISIS sympathizers like the defendant and prevent them from carrying out their murderous intentions.”
“The defendant allegedly planned to conduct a deadly attack in New York on behalf of ISIS,” stated Assistant Attorney General Demers. “The National Security Division, working with our partners, will remain vigilant in our efforts to identify, disrupt and hold accountable those who would conduct a terrorist attack on our soil. I want to thank the agents, analysts and prosecutors who are responsible for this case and prevented this defendant from carrying out his deadly plans.”
“There’s no doubt Chudhary allegedly wanted to make headlines by attacking innocent people going about their daily lives. Thanks to the diligent work of the agents, analysts, and detectives on the FBI New York JTTF, the only thing to report today is his arrest, and the only photos Chudhary will be featured in are the ones taken in our prisoner processing room prior to his arrival in federal prison,” stated FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Sweeney.
“Awais Chudhary had accepted the call from ISIS to kill fellow New Yorkers in the city he called home,” stated NYPD Commissioner O’Neill. “He had carefully planned, conducted reconnaissance, picked a target, and was in the process of obtaining the weapon. All he has left to do was to strike. The FBI agents and NYPD detectives of the JTTF should be commended for the disruption of this plot. Their work almost certainly saved lives.”
As alleged in the complaint, in August 2019, Chudhary communicated to undercover law enforcement officers through text messaging that he planned to conduct a stabbing or bombing attack on behalf of ISIS. Chudhary also wanted to record his attack to inspire others to commit similar acts of violence. Chudhary identified the pedestrian bridges over the Grand Central Parkway to the Flushing Bay Promenade (the Promenade) and the area of the World’s Fair Marina (the Marina) as locations for the attack. On August 23, 2019, Chudhary told an undercover agent that he intended to use a knife “because that’s what he knows,” but if the undercover agent could instruct him on how to build a bomb, he would consider using an explosive device at a “mini-bridge over a busy road with many cars.” On the same day, Chudhary texted another undercover agent a screenshot of a document entitled “Islamic State,” with the subheadings: “Places to Strike,” “The Ideal Knife” and “Knives to Avoid.” The instructions included a diagram of the human body with directions where to stab a victim. Chudhary also sent the undercover agent videos of pedestrian bridges over the Grand Central Parkway, and stated that he was considering throwing explosives over the fencing at vehicles passing below.
Chudhary conducted multiple reconnaissance trips to the targeted locations. On August 24, 2019, FBI agents surveilled Chudhary enter the Promenade in the vicinity of 27th Avenue and Ditmars Boulevard and take videos and photos with his cellphone of various locations, as well as the Marina, a nearby gas station, a donut shop and a security camera near the donut shop.
Between August 25 and August 26, 2019, Chudhary ordered online a tactical knife, a mask, gloves and a cellphone chest and head strap to facilitate his recording of the attack. Chudhary was arrested yesterday as he attempted to retrieve the items from an online vendor’s retail location in Queens.
The charge in the complaint is an allegation, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. If convicted, Chudhary faces a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment.
The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s National Security and Cybercrime Section. Assistant United States Attorney Jonathan Algor and Special Assistant United States Attorney Elizabeth A. Hanft are in charge of the prosecution, with assistance from Trial Attorney Kevin C. Nunnally of the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section.
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
Today in Brooklyn, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York announced charges in five cases addressing violence at New York City’s federal pretrial detention facility, the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC-Brooklyn), located in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. These include charges against inmates for the murder of Uriel Whyte on June 7, 2024, the murder of Edwin Cordero on July 17, 2024, an attempted murder on April 27, 2024 and two violent assaults on August 24 and 27, 2024. The defendants, all of whom were previously ordered detained at MDC-Brooklyn on other charges, will be arraigned in the coming days.Breon Peace, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Lisa O. Monaco, United States Deputy Attorney General and James E. Dennehy, Assistant Director in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI), announced the charges.“Violence will not be tolerated in our federal jails.” stated United States Attorney Peace. “As alleged, in June and July of this year, two men detained at MDC-Brooklyn—Uriel Whyte and Edwin Cordero—were murdered by fellow inmates using makeshift weapons. Others at MDC-Brooklyn have been viciously assaulted by inmates, as alleged in the three other cases announced today. As the only federal pretrial facility in New York City, MDC-Brooklyn houses pretrial inmates accused of some of the most serious crimes in our region. No matter the reason for their detention, my Office will work tirelessly to vindicate the rights of victims who suffer violence within MDC-Brooklyn and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those who choose to commit such heinous acts. Let these charges serve as a warning to those who would engage in criminal conduct behind bars, and anyone else who facilitates those crimes: your conduct will be exposed, and you will be held accountable.”Mr. Peace thanked the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons for their assistance with the investigations.“Today’s charges demonstrate the Justice Department’s commitment to rooting out violence and criminal behavior at federal detention facilities—a critical component of our work to improve conditions across the Federal Bureau of Prisons,” stated Deputy Attorney General Monaco. “Violence and contraband in our prisons are unacceptable, and the Department will hold accountable those who threaten the safety of anyone in our custody.”“Several inmates of Brooklyn’s Metropolitan Detention Center allegedly orchestrated a series of distinct violent assaults, including the murders of fellow inmates, Uriel Whyte and Edwin Cordero. While this federal jail houses dangerous pretrial inmates, order and safety must remain paramount. Awaiting potential criminal charges is not a warranted justification to subject a detained individual to unnecessary attacks. May today’s indictments reflect the FBI’s determination to apprehend violent criminals, regardless of where the incidents may occur,” stated FBI Assistant Director in Charge Dennehy.United States v. Andrew Simpson and Devone Thomas, 24-CR-360 (EK)The defendants Andrew Simpson and Devone Thomas, who were previously detained at MDC-Brooklyn on racketeering and robbery charges, respectively, have been indicted by a grand jury for their roles in the June 7, 2024 murder of inmate Uriel Whyte.On the morning of June 7, 2024, following a verbal dispute between Simpson and Whyte, cellmates Simpson and Thomas armed themselves with makeshift weapons and proceeded to engage in a series of two-on-one attacks against Whyte. The escalating violent attacks, which took place over a span of approximately 15 minutes, were committed against Whyte inside Simpson and Thomas’s shared cell, which served to hide their conduct from guards and surveillance cameras. The attacks culminated with Whyte suffering a severe stab wound to his neck, which severed his carotid artery. While Whyte was able to exit the cell and seek medical aid, he succumbed to his wounds shortly thereafter despite the efforts of onsite medical personnel and responding paramedics.Simpson and Thomas are charged with murder in a federal detention facility, assault in a federal detention facility, obstruction of justice and possession of contraband in prison for their roles in fatally stabbing Whyte at MDC-Brooklyn.If convicted, Simpson and Thomas face mandatory sentences of life in prison.The government’s case against Simpson and Thomas is being handled by the Office’s Organized Crime and Gangs and General Crimes Sections. Assistant United States Attorneys Michael Maffei, Sophia Suarez and Elizabeth D’Antonio are in charge of the prosecution.United States v. Jamaul Aziz, James Bazemore and Alberto Santiago, 24-CR-380 (NCM) The defendants Jamaul Aziz, also known as “bugz,” James Bazemore, also known as “TJ” and “RS,” and Alberto Santiago, also known as “Kom” and “dotcom,” have been indicted by a grand jury for their roles in the July 17, 2024 murder of Edwin Cordero, a fellow inmate at MDC-Brooklyn. Aziz and Santiago were both previously detained at MDC-Brooklyn for various serious gun and drug-trafficking crimes; Bazemore was detained for racketeering conspiracy, murder in-aid-of racketeering, use of a firearm resulting in death and being a felon in possession of a firearm. All three have admitted their guilt or been found guilty in their underlying cases. In the afternoon of July 17, 2024—following an earlier altercation between Cordero and Santiago—Santiago, Aziz and Bazemore met with each other intermittently over approximately half an hour. Cordero then reengaged with Santiago—both of them armed with makeshift weapons—when shortly after Aziz and Bazemore, also armed, joined in. Aziz, Bazemore and Santiago cornered Cordero while swinging and stabbing at him. After Cordero was able to escape, Bazemore continued to attack him, which allowed Santiago to approach Cordero from behind and stab him in the center of his chest, perforating various parts of his heart. Cordero then staggered forward, and Bazemore stabbed him in the back. Aziz and Bazemore next cornered the victim again next to a table and repeatedly stabbed, struck and kicked him, including after he fell to the ground and tried to shield himself with the table. Staff members quickly responded to the commotion and delivered emergency medical care but were unable to save the victim. The indictment charges Aziz, Bazemore and Santiago with premeditated murder within a federal detention facility, conspiracy to commit murder within a federal detention facility, assault resulting in serious bodily injury within a federal detention facility and possession of one or more objects designed to be used as weapons within a prison.If convicted, the defendants face mandatory sentences of life in prison.The government’s case against Aziz, Bazemore and Santiago is being handled by the Office’s Organized Crime and Gangs and General Crimes Sections. Assistant United States Attorneys Irisa Chen and Elizabeth D’Antonio are in charge of the prosecution.United States v. Luis Rivas, 24-CR-390 (OEM)The defendant Luis Rivas has been indicted by a grand jury with attempted murder in a federal detention facility, assault in a federal detention facility and possession of contraband in prison, for his role in the April 27, 2024 assault of another inmate at MDC-Brooklyn. At the time of the attack, Rivas was detained at MDC-Brooklyn after being convicted of racketeering and assault in-aid-of-racketeering charges related to his membership in the gang La Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). On the morning of April 27, 2024, Rivas and two other MS-13 members brutally attacked another inmate in their housing unit. Prior to the attack, the victim was sitting peacefully, relaxing with his feet up. Rivas then approached the victim, took a makeshift weapon from his waistband, and stabbed the victim with it. Two other MS-13 members then came to Rivas’ aid and assisted him in punching and stabbing the victim repeatedly. After the assault, the victim was taken to MDC- Brooklyn’s medical unit and then to a hospital to treat the approximately 44 stab wounds to his back, chest, abdomen, right arm and legs.If convicted, Rivas faces up to 45 years in prison.The government’s case against Rivas is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Section. Assistant United States Attorney Sean M. Sherman is in charge of the prosecution. United States v. Bruce Silva and Hassan Elliott, 24-MJ-556 (MMH)The defendants Bruce Silva and Hassan Elliott have been charged by complaint with assault in a federal detention facility for their roles in the August 27, 2024 assault of another inmate at MDC-Brooklyn. At the time of the attack, Silva was detained at MDC-Brooklyn in connection with pending charges including racketeering conspiracy, narcotics conspiracy, firearms charges, attempted murder and assault in-aid-of racketeering in connection with his participation in multiple shootings in the Bronx, and other crimes related to his membership in “Dub City,” a street gang based in the Bronx. Elliott was detained at MDC-Brooklyn at the time of the attack in connection with 29 pending charges related to his membership in “1700 Scattergood,” a violent drug trafficking organization operating in Northeast Philadelphia, including the murder in-aid-of racketeering of a Philadelphia police sergeant (who was seeking to execute search and arrest warrants for Elliott at the time of his murder), racketeering conspiracy, three other murders in-aid-of racketeering, multiple charges related to multiple other shootings and related firearms and narcotics offenses.On the morning of August 27, 2024, Silva and Elliott tried to attack another inmate in their housing unit. They took makeshift weapons from their waistbands and tried to stab and slash their intended victim. When a fourth inmate interceded, Silva stabbed the fourth inmate in the spine with a makeshift icepick, leaving the icepick protruding from the inmate’s back. Silva and Elliott then continued to try to attack both the stabbing victim and their original intended victim. After the assault, the stabbing victim was taken to MDC-Brooklyn’s medical unit and then to a hospital to remove the weapon from his spine and treat him.If convicted, Silva and Elliott each face up to 10 years in prison.The government’s case against Silva and Elliott is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Section. Assistant United States Attorney Amanda Shami is in charge of the prosecution. United States v. Leury Mojica, 24-MJ-559 (MMH)Defendant Leury Mojica was charged by complaint with assaulting a federal officer. As alleged in the complaint, on August 24, 2024, Mojica punched a corrections officer in the face after the victim offered Mojica breakfast. Mojica was originally detained at MDC-Brooklyn in connection with a Hobbs Act robbery charge, and also previously participated in a violent stabbing of another inmate, which conduct was taken into account in his May 2024 sentencing in the Southern District of New York.If convicted, Mojica faces up to 20 years in prison.The government’s case against Mojica is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Section. Assistant United States Attorney David Berman is in charge of the prosecution. The charges in all of the indictments and complaints are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.The Defendants:ANDREW SIMPSON Age: 26 Brooklyn, New YorkDEVONE THOMAS Age: 24 Queens, New YorkE.D.N.Y. Docket No. 24-CR-360 (EK)--------------JAMAUL AZIZ Age: 44 New York, New YorkJAMES BAZEMORE Age: 42 Bronx, New YorkALBERTO SANTIAGO Age: 28 Queens, New YorkE.D.N.Y. Docket No. 24-CR-380 (NCM) ----------------LUIS RIVAS Age: 29 Jamaica, New YorkE.D.N.Y. Docket No. 24-CR-390 (OEM) ----------------BRUCE SILVA Age: 28 Bronx, New YorkHASSAN ELLIOTT Age: 26 Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaE.D.N.Y. Docket No. 24-MJ-556 (MMH)----------------LEURY MOJICA Age: 21 Bronx, New York E.D.N.Y. Docket No. 24-MJ-559 (MMH)
A criminal complaint was unsealed today in federal court in Brooklyn charging William Jacobsen and his wife Marta Medvedeva with conspiring, and aiding and abetting others, to enter into sham marriages with foreign nationals for the purpose of obtaining lawful permanent residency in the United States. The defendants were also charged with evading United States immigration laws by making materially false statements in immigration applications, affidavits and other documents. The defendants’ initial appearances were held this afternoon before United States Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon.
Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and William F. Sweeney, Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI), announced the charges.
“Our immigration process is not for sale. The defendants’ scheme to game the system and reap ill-gotten profits by promoting sham marriages is not only criminal, it is an affront to those individuals who abide by the rules to obtain permanent residency in the United States lawfully,” stated United States Attorney Donoghue. “Today’s charges send the clear message that this Office and our partners at the FBI will not tolerate such activity.”
As alleged in the complaint, between approximately November 2016 and January 2019, Jacobsen and Medvedeva identified and recruited U.S. citizens who were willing to enter into sham marriages with foreign nationals. The foreign nationals paid the defendants approximately $30,000 for their services, and a portion of the fee was then passed on to the U.S. citizen spouses for their participation in the fraud. The defendants also coached the couples on how to successfully pass immigration interviews and provided misleading or false documentation needed during various steps in the immigration process.
During several recordings and communications, Jacobsen and Medvedeva discussed the details of their scheme, including the number of participants they had available to participate in the “fake” marriages (as characterized by Jacobsen), payment of approximately $10,000 to the U.S. citizens for their services, and the coaching and training the couples would receive to pass the required immigration interviews. In one recorded conversation, Jacobsen explained to a confidential source posing as a potential U.S. citizen spouse:
The hardest part is getting married. The easy part is the [immigration] interview, because I know the questions they’re gonna ask you. That’s why everyone comes here, because they want training. Everybody’s looking for training. When I do it, it’s a five minute interview. You go with the lawyer, you’re in there for an hour, hour and a half. I’ve been doing it for fifteen years …. This is the easy part. The hardest part is the marriage, cause both sides are nervous, they have to go there and kiss each other. Interview is nothing, that’s the easy part.
The charges in the complaint are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. If convicted, Jacobsen and Medvedeva each face a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.
The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s Public Integrity Section. Assistant United States Attorneys Maria Cruz Melendez and Elizabeth Macchiaverna are in charge of the prosecution.
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 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
A criminal complaint was unsealed today in federal court in Brooklyn charging William Jacobsen and his wife Marta Medvedeva with conspiring, and aiding and abetting others, to enter into sham marriages with foreign nationals for the purpose of obtaining lawful permanent residency in the United States. The defendants were also charged with evading United States immigration laws by making materially false statements in immigration applications, affidavits and other documents. The defendants’ initial appearances were held this afternoon before United States Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon.
Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and William F. Sweeney, Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI), announced the charges.
“Our immigration process is not for sale. The defendants’ scheme to game the system and reap ill-gotten profits by promoting sham marriages is not only criminal, it is an affront to those individuals who abide by the rules to obtain permanent residency in the United States lawfully,” stated United States Attorney Donoghue. “Today’s charges send the clear message that this Office and our partners at the FBI will not tolerate such activity.”
As alleged in the complaint, between approximately November 2016 and January 2019, Jacobsen and Medvedeva identified and recruited U.S. citizens who were willing to enter into sham marriages with foreign nationals. The foreign nationals paid the defendants approximately $30,000 for their services, and a portion of the fee was then passed on to the U.S. citizen spouses for their participation in the fraud. The defendants also coached the couples on how to successfully pass immigration interviews and provided misleading or false documentation needed during various steps in the immigration process.
During several recordings and communications, Jacobsen and Medvedeva discussed the details of their scheme, including the number of participants they had available to participate in the “fake” marriages (as characterized by Jacobsen), payment of approximately $10,000 to the U.S. citizens for their services, and the coaching and training the couples would receive to pass the required immigration interviews. In one recorded conversation, Jacobsen explained to a confidential source posing as a potential U.S. citizen spouse:
The hardest part is getting married. The easy part is the [immigration] interview, because I know the questions they’re gonna ask you. That’s why everyone comes here, because they want training. Everybody’s looking for training. When I do it, it’s a five minute interview. You go with the lawyer, you’re in there for an hour, hour and a half. I’ve been doing it for fifteen years …. This is the easy part. The hardest part is the marriage, cause both sides are nervous, they have to go there and kiss each other. Interview is nothing, that’s the easy part.
The charges in the complaint are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. If convicted, Jacobsen and Medvedeva each face a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.
The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s Public Integrity Section. Assistant United States Attorneys Maria Cruz Melendez and Elizabeth Macchiaverna are in charge of the prosecution.
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 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
A superseding indictment was unsealed today in federal court in Brooklyn charging 26 defendants, including nine members and associates of the violent New York City-based street gang known as the “Bully Gang” with various offenses, including racketeering, murder, drug trafficking, money laundering, and firearms offenses. The superseding indictment includes new charges against the following members and associates of the Bully Gang for three murders and one attempted murder in Brooklyn, New York and Queens, New York committed in 2018 and 2020:
Derrick Ayers, also known as “Dee” is charged with the March 3, 2018 murder of Jonathan Jackson in Brooklyn.
Franklin Gillespie, also known as “Spazz” and “Frankie Gino,” is charged with the April 11, 2020 murder of Paul Hoilett in Brooklyn.
Gillespie and Anthony Kennedy, also known as “Biggie,” are charged with the April 15, 2020 murder of Mike Hawley in Queens.
Demetrius Johnson, also known as “Q,” is charged with the July 18, 2020 attempted murder of a victim in Brooklyn.
The superseding indictment also charged four new defendants, Tiri Brown, also known as “Tyhoe,” Courtney Foster, also known as “Biga,” Avery Goodluck, also known as “Ave,” and Johnson, with narcotics trafficking charges for their role in a scheme to traffic narcotics between New York and Maine.
Ayers, Gillespie, and Kennedy were previously in custody on the underlying indictment. Defendants Brown, Foster, Goodluck, and Johnson were arrested today and will be arraigned this afternoon before United States Chief Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak.
Breon Peace, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, John B. DeVito, Special Agent-in-Charge, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, New York Field Division (ATF), Keechant L. Sewell, Commissioner, New York City Police Department (NYPD), announced the arrests and charges and Jocelyn Strauber, Commissioner, New York City Department of Investigation (DOI), announced the new charges.
“As demonstrated by the superseding indictment, the dismantling of the Bully Gang is continuing with its members being held accountable for the cold-blooded murders, mayhem, and narcotics trafficking they unleashed upon the district,” stated United States Attorney Peace. “Reducing gun violence is a high priority for this Office and I commend our prosecutors and law enforcement partners for their relentless efforts to do justice to make our communities safer.”
“This superseding indictment shows the relentless efforts of federal, state, and local partners to hold violent criminals accountable,” ATF Special Agent in Charge DeVito said. “I commend the hard work of the ATF Joint Firearms Task Force, NYPD, NYC Department of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for leaving no stone unturned to charge those who commit senseless acts of violence in the name of loyalty to their gang. ATF’s commitment to protecting the public from violent offenders in collaboration with our partners is unwavering.”
“Targeting and dismantling gangs and crews, and preventing the violence so often associated with their illegal activities, are among the highest priorities for the NYPD and our law enforcement partners,” stated NYPD Commissioner Sewell. “By focusing on the relatively small number of people responsible for much of the crime and disorder in New York City and beyond, we remain relentless in our efforts to identify and arrest anyone who involves themselves in such senseless acts.”
DOI Commissioner Jocelyn E. Strauber said, "Gang violence and drug trafficking jeopardize communities within and beyond New York City. DOI and our law enforcement partners are committed to hold accountable those who engage in this very serious criminal conduct. DOI was pleased to assist the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York and our other law enforcement partners on this important investigation."
As set forth in the superseding indictment and other court filings, members and associates of the Bully Gang used force and violence to promote its power, terrorize communities in multiple states and enrich themselves and their members. Their members engaged acts of violence including murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, and arson. The superseding indictment adds charges stemming from the gang’s years-long use of violence and brutality to target its enemies. As alleged, on August 21, 2017, Bermon Clarke, a leader in one of the charged narcotics conspiracies, set fire to a house in Blaine, Maine with at least two occupants inside. The March 3, 2018 murder of Jonathan Jackson alleged in the indictment was the culmination of an exchange of gunfire that followed a “gender reveal” party in Brooklyn, New York. As alleged, during a foot chase along Kings Highway, Ayers repeatedly fired on Jackson at close range. The murders of Hoilett and Hawley occurred just days apart in April 2020. As alleged, Gillespie targeted Hoilett, approaching him from behind and firing at the back of Hoilett’s head at point-blank range. Four days later, Gillespie and Kennedy allegedly lured Hawley to a meeting place in Far Rockaway where Hawley was shot and killed.
As alleged, the Enterprise and its co-conspirators also operated a years-long, sophisticated drug trafficking network responsible for trafficking large quantities of dangerous drugs like cocaine base (“crack”), heroin and fentanyl through New York to Maine, and elsewhere. The enterprise’s drug proceeds were collected on a regular basis and laundered through financial transactions and the purchase of high-value assets, including jewelry and cars. During the investigation, law enforcement seized more than $380,000 in cash, more than 15 firearms, six kilograms of cocaine, 600 grams of fentanyl, multiple luxury watches, and four vehicles with concealed “trap” compartments installed.
The charges in the indictment are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
To date, 53 defendants have been charged as part of the prosecution with 27 pleading guilty.
The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s Organized Crime and Gangs Section. Assistant United States Attorneys Drew G. Rolle, Nicholas J. Moscow, Lindsey R. Oken, and Joy Lurinsky are in charge of the prosecution.
New Defendants:
TIRI BROWN
Age: 37
Brooklyn, New York
COURTNEY FOSTER
Age: 28
Brooklyn, New York
AVERY GOODLUCK
Age: 32
Brooklyn, New York
DEMETRIUS JOHNSON
Age: 26
Brooklyn, New York
Defendants Previously Indicted:
JESSICA ALMEIDA
Age: 33
Detroit, Maine
KASSIN APPLING (also known as “Killa” and “Kassim”)
Age: 34
Brooklyn, New York
DERRICK AYERS (also known as “Dee” and “Mel”)
Age: 34
Rahway, New Jersey
TYRONE BANKS (also known as “Ty Hitta”)
Age: 23
Brooklyn, New York
JANET BLOOD
Age: 47
Troy, Maine
DAYVON BOSTICK-SAMUELS (also known as “Daytoe”)
Age: 22
Brooklyn, New York
JOHNNY CHILES
Age: 36
Brooklyn, New York
BERMON CLARKE (also known as “G” and “Blue”)
Age: 28
Rahway, New Jersey
MIKE GUSTAVO CONNOR (also known as “Gus”)
Age: 21
Brooklyn, New York
RASHAAD CRAIG (also known as “Skeeno”)
Age: 25
Brooklyn, New York
RONALD DAVIS (also known as “Ronno”)
Age: 29
Brooklyn, New York
QUINTEN DELVALLE (also known as “Q”)
Age: 24
Brooklyn, New York
ELIZABETH DUECASTER
Age: 35
Searsport, Maine
BRITTANY DUNCAN
Age: 26
Bayonne, New Jersey
NEHEMIE ERIL (also known as “Poca”)
Age: 24
Orange, New Jersey
CHRISTINA ESTEVEZ
Age: 31
Queens, New York
LARON ESTRADA (also known as “Yetta”)
Age: 27
Brooklyn, New York
ERICA FAGGIOLE
Age: 44
Maine
ANTONIO FULTON (also known as “Tone”)
Age: 23
Brooklyn, New York
FRANKLIN GILLESPIE (also known as “Spazz” and “Frankie Gino”)
Age: 30
Newark, New Jersey
ROMEO GONZALES
Age: 22
Brooklyn, New York
NIA GOVAN (also known as “Cam” and “V”)
Age: 29
Boston, Massachusetts
KEON GRANT (also known as “Keys”)
Age: 34
Brooklyn, New York
MOELEEK HARRELL (also known as “Moe Money”)
Age: 31
Brooklyn, New York
PAUL HARRIS (also known as “Baldhead”)
Age: 31
Brooklyn, New York
NADINE HEATH
Age: 54
Troy, Maine
ROBERT HOLT (also known as “Ricky” and “Ghost”)
Age: 33
Brooklyn, New York
AMANDA HUARD
Age: 38
Raymond, Maine
LATRELL JOHNSON (also known as “Barlie Buckz”)
Age: 27
Brooklyn, New York
ANTHONY KENNEDY (also known as “Biggie”)
Age: 34
Queens, New York
TYQUAWN LANE (also known as “Bicks” and “Tah Tah”)
SHREVEPORT, La. – United States Attorney David C. Joseph announced today that a federal jury in Shreveport found five members of the “Block Boyz” gang guilty on RICO and drug trafficking offenses, as well as firearm offenses.
The five Shreveport residents found guilty were: DeMarcus D. Morris, 29; Jimmie R. Durden Jr., 29; Lonnie D. Johnson, 24; Gary J. McCain, 24; and Larshanda C. Davenport, 45. United States District Judge Elizabeth E. Foote presided over the trial that started Monday, September 17, 2018 and ended today. The jury deliberated for approximately five hours before returning the verdict. All of the defendants were named as part of a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization or RICO conspiracy in the indictment, which was filed in July of 2017.
The defendants were found guilty of Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances, Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, Distributing Crack Cocaine, and Distributing Powder Cocaine.
The “Block Boyz” gang has terrorized the Queensborough neighborhood for too long,” said U.S. Attorney David C. Joseph. “Today’s verdict will bring some peace to the citizens in Shreveport, and sends a clear message to drug dealers and gangs that this type of violent crime will not be tolerated - you will go to federal prison. These defendants were given a fair trial, and now they will face their consequences. The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to working with our law enforcement partners and the citizens of our communities to rid our streets of violent crime, and make our communities a safer place to work, live and play.“
“I applaud the jury’s decision and thank them for their hard work and sacrifices throughout this trial,” FBI Special Agent in Charge Eric J. Rommal stated. “I also commend the great work put forth by all of our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners to locate, apprehend, and bring the “Block Boyz” to justice. Without a doubt, the residents of Shreveport will feel much safer now and hopefully be able to reclaim their neighborhoods.”
Evidence admitted at trial revealed that beginning in 2012, the defendants took part in a criminal organization known as the “Block Boyz” and the “Get Money Boyz” or “GMB.” The organization distributed controlled substances, murdered, robbed, possessed firearms illegally and conducted other crimes primarily within the Queensborough and Ingleside neighborhoods of Shreveport. Gang members were charged with at least 66 acts that members of the organization committed to further the RICO conspiracy. The acts include threats, sale of drugs and shootings. The organization sold crack cocaine, powder cocaine, roxicodone, marijuana, ecstasy and alprazolam.
Gang members sold illegal drugs and committed armed robberies. They maintained and circulated a collection of firearms for use in their criminal activity and used cell phones to operate their criminal enterprise. Members of the organization bragged about their illegal activity, such as their possession of firearms, and took pictures of themselves with firearms and money to intimidate others and increase their position in the community.
As a result of their conviction on the RICO count, each defendant faces up to 20 years in prison. In addition to the RICO penalties, four of the five defendants face additional penalties for the drug and firearm offenses. The defendants also face fines up to $5 million and forfeiture of property seized in the case.
Frank J. Morris, 25; Ravion M. Alford, 23; Rodrick R. Hicks, 24; and Golanda W. Atkins, 41 all of Shreveport, were also indicted as part of the conspiracy. Alford pleaded guilty on December 21, 2017 to the RICO count. The court set sentencing for October 17, 2018. Hicks pleaded guilty on January 29, 2018 to the RICO count with a sentencing date of October 17, 2018. Morris pleaded guilty on August 30, 2018 to the RICO count with a sentencing date of January 4, 2019. Atkins was dismissed from the indictment on September 7, 2018.
The FBI Northwest Louisiana Violent Crimes Task Force, ATF, the U.S. Marshal’s Service, Bossier Parish Sheriff’s Office, Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Office, Desoto Parish Sheriff’s Office, Red River Parish Sheriff’s Office, and the Shreveport Police Department participated in the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Allison D. Bushnell and Tennille M. Gilreath are prosecuting the case.
SHREVEPORT, La. – The “Block Boyz” gang leader and final two defendants have been sentenced to federal prison, announced David C. Joseph, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana. DeMarcus D. Morris, 30, Jimmie R. Durden Jr., 30, and Gary J. McCain, 24, all of Shreveport, Louisiana, were sentenced this week in federal court for being part of a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) conspiracy, and for drug trafficking and firearms offenses.
DeMarcus D. Morris, the ring leader of the “Block Boyz” gang, was sentenced on Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Elizabeth E. Foote, to serve 405 months in federal prison for RICO conspiracy, conspiracy to distribute controlled substances (including crack cocaine, powder cocaine, Roxicodone and ecstasy), distribution of crack cocaine, and possession of firearms by a convicted felon.
On Thursday, Judge Foote sentenced the remaining two defendants, Jimmie R. Durden Jr., and Gary J. McCain, respectively, to 190 months in federal prison and 110 months in federal prison for RICO conspiracy, conspiracy to distribute controlled substances (including crack cocaine), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
Morris, Durden and McCain were named in an 18-count indictment filed in June of 2017 charging nine defendants with various crimes including RICO conspiracy, distributions of controlled substances, convicted felons in possession of firearms, and conspiracies to commit violent crimes. On October 3, 2018, following a two and a half-week trial, Marcus, Durden, and McCain were found guilty along with co-defendants, Lonnie D. Johnson and Larshandra C. Davenport. Defendants, Frank J. Morris, Ravion M. Alford, and Rodrick R. Hicks previously pleaded guilty to the RICO conspiracy and have been sentenced. Defendant, Golanda W. Atkins, was dismissed from the indictment on September 7, 2018.
“We hope that today a measure of peace is felt in the Queensborough neighborhood that this gang terrorized,” said U.S. Attorney David C. Joseph. “These defendants will be behind bars for years and miles away from the people that they harmed.
“And to those terrorizing their neighborhoods with firearm violence, to those poisoning our community with illegal drugs; make no mistake, we are coming for you,” Joseph continued. “If you don’t make a change in your life, your future – assuming that you aren’t killed by the drugs you sell or the firearms you carry – will be in federal prison. This is not a threat, it’s a promise.
“I want to thank the local and federal law enforcement officers who put it all on the line to convict these criminals,” said Joseph. “I also want to thank the prosecutors from my office for their hard work making and trying this case.”
“Along with our partners, the FBI has dedicated significant time, manpower, and resources toward investigating the “Block Boyz” gang,” said the FBI Acting Special Agent in Charge Anthony Riedlinger. “Justice has been served to those who chose to traffic and distribute illicit narcotics and terrorize their communities with senseless firearm violence. We will continue to enforce the laws and intervene when drugs and violence lead to the death of our citizens.”
The defendants have now been convicted and sentenced for their part in the conspiracy:
Co-Defendant
Date of Conviction
Sentencing/Charge
Demarcus D. Morris, 30, of Shreveport, Louisiana
October 3, 2018 (trial)
August 27 2019 – 405 months in prison and $108,130 restitution
Frank J. Morris, 26, of Shreveport, Louisiana
August 30, 2018 (guilty plea)
July 23, 2019 – 60 months in prison for RICO conspiracy.
Jimmie R. Durden Jr., 30, of Shreveport, Louisiana
October 3, 2018 (trial)
August 29, 2019 – 190 months in prison
Lonnie D. Johnson, 25, of Shreveport, Louisiana
October 3, 2018 (trial)
July 25, 2019 – 240 months in prison for RICO conspiracy, and $108,103 restitution.
Gary J. McCain, 24, of Shreveport, Louisiana
October 3, 2018 (trial)
August 29, 2019 – 110 months in prison
Ravion M. Alford, 24, of Shreveport, Louisiana
December 21, 2017 (guilty plea)
July 23, 2019 – 180 months in prison for RICO conspiracy.
Rodrick R. Hicks, 25, of Shreveport, Louisiana
January 29, 2018 (guilty plea)
September 29, 2019 – 42 months in prison for RICO conspiracy.
Larshandra C. Davenport, 46, of Shreveport, Louisiana
October 3, 2018 (trial)
July 30, 2019 – 71 months in prison for RICO conspiracy, conspiracy to distribute controlled substances (cocaine and Roxicodone), and distribution of powder cocaine.
The “Block Boyz” was a criminal enterprise that primarily used the west side of the Queensborough neighborhood as their base of operations. For many years, the defendants took part in a criminal organization known as the “Block Boyz” and the “Get Money Boyz” or “GMB.” In the federal indictment, gang members were charged with at least 66 criminal acts that members of the organization committed to further the RICO conspiracy. The acts included armed robberies, distribution of drugs, shootings and witness intimidation. The organization sold crack cocaine, powder cocaine, Roxicodone, marijuana, Ecstasy and Alprazolam.
Gang members sold illegal drugs and committed armed robberies. They maintained and circulated a collection of firearms for use in their criminal activity and used cell phones to operate their criminal enterprise. Members of the organization bragged about their illegal activity, such as their possession of firearms, and took pictures of themselves with firearms and money to intimidate others and increase their position in the community. “Block Boyz” members were also the prime suspects in several homicides.
The FBI Northwest Louisiana Violent Crimes Task Force, ATF, the U.S. Marshal’s Service, the Shreveport Police Department, Bossier Parish Sheriff’s Office, Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Office, Desoto Parish Sheriff’s Office, and Red River Parish Sheriff’s Office the participated in the investigation. Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorney Allison D. Bushnell and Assistant U.S. Attorney Tennille M. Gilreath prosecuted the case.
PITTSBURGH – The south Texas supplier of a Pittsburgh cocaine ring pleaded guilty in federal court to charges of violating federal narcotics and money laundering laws, Acting United States Attorney Soo C. Song announced today.
Dante Ivan Lozano, age 41, of Brownsville, Texas, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments before United States District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.
In connection with the guilty plea, the court was advised that between 2011 and 2015, Lozano mailed 100 or more packages of cocaine to Jeffrey Turner and April Racan in Elizabeth and McKeesport, in Allegheny County. Approximately eight kilograms (about 18 pounds) of cocaine were sent in this fashion.
Turner and Racan then sold the cocaine to Brian Kettering and others. Although drug proceeds in the form of cash were generally sent back to Lozano, during a six-month period of time in 2012, postal money orders were purchased by Kettering and William Coulson, at the direction of Turner and Racan. The money orders totaled at least $116,700, and were purchased in 11 Mon Valley-area post offices. Turner and Racan sent the money orders back to Texas to a Dairy Queen managed by Daniel Cosme. Cosme turned the money orders over to Lozano, who used Hugo Balboa and other straw parties to launder the money orders by cashing some and depositing others into various bank accounts.
Joseph Borrelli, at that time Postmaster in West Newton, PA, aided the drug conspiracy by providing addresses for vacant homes where the cocaine packages could be sent. When they arrived at the post office, the packages would be diverted to Turner and Racan.
Turner, Racan, Borrelli and Kettering were convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Turner, Racan, Cosme, Balboa, Kettering and Coulson were convicted of money laundering conspiracy.
The law provides for a maximum total sentence of not less than 10 years and up to life in prison, a fine of $10,000,000 or both on the drug conspiracy count, and a sentence of not more than 20 years in prison, a fine of $500,000, or both on the money laundering conspiracy count.
Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the actual sentence imposed would be based upon the seriousness of the offenses and the prior criminal history, if any, of the defendant.
Assistant United States Attorney Gregory J. Nescott is prosecuting this case on behalf of the government.
The United States Postal Service in Pittsburgh, the Drug Enforcement Administration in Brownsville, Texas, the Cameron County (TX) Sheriff’s Office, and the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General conducted the investigation leading to the indictment in this case.
WASHINGTON – Yixin Ren, 36, of Brooklyn, NY, and Yishan Lin, 35, of Queens, NY, pled guilty today before U.S. District Court Judge Timothy J. Kelly to one count of conspiracy to use false, forged, and counterfeited documents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, in connection with a scheme where Chinese nationals fraudulently obtained student visas by hiring people with fake Chinese passports to take an English proficiency test in their names.
The United States requires foreign citizens who wish to enter the United States on a temporary basis to study at a college or university to first obtain an F-1 student visa. To obtain a student visa, foreign citizens must first apply to study at a school that has been authorized by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) to enroll foreign students. In the United States, many SEVP-certified schools require foreign citizens whose first language is not English to certify proficiency in English by achieving a particular score on the TOEFL or other English proficiency examination.
When the foreign national goes to a TOEFL testing location, the test taker must present an original, non-expired, government-issued identification document recognized by their home country. As described in the indictment and the plea agreement, the defendants conspired to use counterfeit People’s Republic of China passports and national identification cards to impersonate at least 50 different Chinese nationals at various TOEFL testing locations internationally, including in the District of Columbia.
The announcement was made by Acting U.S. Attorney Michael R. Sherwin for the District of Columbia, and Special Agent in Charge Raymond Villanueva of the HSI Washington Field Office.
The charge of conspiracy to use false, forged, and counterfeited documents carries a statutory maximum penalty of five years in prison. Sentencing has been scheduled before the Honorable Timothy J. Kelly on December 11, 2020.
This case was investigated by Homeland Security Investigations’ Washington Field Office, with assistance from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service’s Fraud Detection National Security Section and the U.S. Treasury Office of the Inspector General. The Educational Testing Service, which administers the TOEFL exam, has also provided assistance during the investigation.
This matter is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Jessi Camille Brooks of the National Security Section, with assistance from Paralegal Specialist Jorge Casillas. Special thanks go to former Assistant United States Attorney Jeff Pearlman and former Special Assistant United States Attorney Elizabeth Dewar.
MADISON, WIS. -- Jeffrey M. Anderson, Acting United States Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, announced that Charles Raimondi, Sr., 74, Park Falls, Wis., was sentenced on May 24 by U.S. District Judge James Peterson to 10 years in federal prison for possessing child pornography. This prison term is to be followed by a lifetime period of supervised release. Raimondi pleaded guilty to this charge on March 16, 2017.
On October 5, 2016, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at Raimondi’s home in Park Falls and seized numerous electronic items. Analysts found numerous sexually explicit images of KV #1, a juvenile identified during the investigation, and other children on these devices.
In sentencing the defendant, Judge Peterson noted that Raimondi turned KV #1 into a sex object and further victimized her by sending pictures of her to other people.
The charge against Raimondi was the result of an investigation conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, Wisconsin Department of Justice Division of Criminal Investigation, Superior Police Department, Iron County Sheriff’s Office and the Queensland Australia Police Service. The prosecution of the case has been handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Altman.
Greenbelt, Maryland – On December 19, 2017, United States District Judge Roger W. Titus sentenced Aaron Lee Smiley, age 57, of Mechanicsville, Maryland to 25 years in prison, followed by a lifetime of supervised release, for Sexual Exploitation of a Minor for the Purpose of Producing Child Pornography. Judge Titus also ordered forfeiture of Smiley’s interest in his house because he used the computer in his home office to sexually exploit minors for the purpose of producing child pornography.
The sentence was announced by Acting United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Stephen M. Schenning; Special Agent in Charge Gordon B. Johnson of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Baltimore Field Office; Special Agent in Charge Andre R. Watson of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI); Colonel William M. Pallozzi, Superintendent of the Maryland State Police; and Sheriff Timothy K. Cameron of St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s office.
According to his plea agreement, between 2014 and 2016, Smiley had three victims ages 12 through 16 and one victim under the age of twelve. Smiley exchanged pictures, text messages, internet chats and videos with minors using a variety of programs, including Skype, ooVoo, and KIK. Smiley was entrusted with the custody, care, or supervisory control of the victim under twelve when he took pictures of the child.
During a raid of his home, Department of Homeland Security agents recovered over 100 online video recordings of chats between Smiley and one of the victims in which he entices the underage victim to engage in sexual explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions.
Acting United States Attorney Stephen M. Schenning praised the FBI, HSI, MSP, St. Mary’s County Sherriff and the Queensland Police Service in Brisbane, Australia for their work in the investigation. Mr. Schenning thanked Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Baldwin and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie Finocchiaro, who prosecuted the case.
Baltimore, Maryland – A federal grand jury has indicted Matthew Dale Bush, age 38, and Crystal French, a/k/a “Crystal Lynn Bush,” age 34, both of Graysonville, Maryland, on charges of Bank Robbery, Interstate Transportation of Stolen Vehicle and Conspiracy to Commit Offenses against the United States.
The indictment was announced by Acting United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Stephen M. Schenning; Special Agent in Charge Andre R. Watson of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI;) and Colonel William M. Pallozzi, Superintendent of the Maryland State Police.
According to the nine-count indictment, beginning in September 2017 and continuing through October 23, 2017, Bush and French stole ATMs and used stolen vehicles to travel to and from the scenes of the crimes. The burglaries took place within the District of Maryland, the Northern District of Virginia, the District of Delaware, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. Bush and French spent the proceeds of the crimes they committed on personal items including heroin and other illegal narcotics.
In September and October 2017, the couple allegedly stole or attempted to steal ATMs in the following locations; Stevensville, Maryland; Chester, Maryland; Kent County, Delaware; Sterling, Virginia; Broadlands, Virginia; Dover, Delaware; Stevensville, Maryland; and Cambridge, Maryland.
According to the indictment, in addition to the ATM burglaries, on October 23, 2017, Bush allegedly burglarized a High’s Store in Harford County, and robbed a bank in Perry Hall, Maryland.
Bush has also been indicted on charges of Bank Larceny, Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property, Felon in Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition, and four counts of Interstate Transportation of Stolen Vehicle.
Bush and French face a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison for conspiracy, 10 years in prison for each count of Interstate Transportation of Stolen Vehicle and 20 years in prison for bank robbery.
Bush also faces a maximum penalty of 10 years for each additional count of Bank Larceny, Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property, and Felon in Possession of a Firearm and ammunition.
An indictment is not a finding of guilt. An individual charged by indictment is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty at some later criminal proceedings.
Acting United States Attorney Stephen M. Schenning commended the HSI, Maryland State Police, Delaware State Police, Queen Anne’s County Office of the Sheriff, Harford County Sheriff’s Office, Baltimore County Police Department, and Loudon County, Virginia Sheriff’s Department for their work in the investigation. Mr. Schenning thanked Assistant U.S. Attorneys Paul Budlow and Sandra Wilkinson, who are prosecuting the case.
NEWARK, N.J. – Six individuals have pleaded guilty to participation in a multimillion-dollar conspiracy that used stolen credit card account information to make fraudulent retail purchases, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.
Hamilton Eromosele, 29, of the Bronx, New York, the leader of the scheme, pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge William Martini in Newark federal court to an information charging him with one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. George Edandison, 27, and Youssouf Traore, 21, both of the Bronx; Deja Handsford, 25, of New York City; Quincy Wielingen, 28, of Queens Village, New York; and Kaishce English, 32, of Allentown, Pennsylvania, all pleaded guilty before Judge Martini on previous dates to the same charge.
A seventh conspirator, Edward Dorsey, 28, of Mount Vernon, New York, appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion in Newark federal court on July 8, 2019, for an initial appearance on a criminal complaint charging him with participating in the same offense.
According to the documents filed in this case and statements made in court:
From at least 2015 through 2018, Eromosele led a network of individuals, based in the New Jersey/New York area, who made trips around the United States in order to use stolen credit card information to purchase gift cards, flights, hotels, rental cars, and other goods and services. Eromosele obtained stolen credit card information through the “dark web” and other sources, which he then provided to conspirators. Eromosele often recruited women via social media, with promises of easy profits, to fly to various locations to make fraudulent purchases. Eromosele collected his conspirators’ fraudulently purchased gift cards or luxury goods, sold them for cash, and dispersed a percentage of the proceeds to the conspirators. The conspirators made over $3.5 million in fraudulent purchases using over 4,000 stolen credit card accounts.
The conspiracy to commit bank fraud charge carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a maximum fine of $1 million. Sentencing for Eromosele is scheduled for Jan 16, 2020.
U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito credited special agents of the U.S. Secret Service, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Mark McKevitt, Newark Field Office, with the investigation leading to the guilty pleas.
The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Macurdy of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division in Newark.
The charge and allegations against Dorsey are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Defense counsel:
Eromosele: Pasquale Giannetta Esq., Newark
Edandison: Daniel Welch Esq., Jersey City, New Jersey
Handsford: Linwood Allen Jones Esq., East Orange, New Jersey
Traore: Angelo Servidio Esq., Nutley, New Jersey
English: Frank Arleo Esq., West Orange, New Jersey
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 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 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 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 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
NEWARK, N.J. – Six individuals have pleaded guilty to participation in a multimillion-dollar conspiracy that used stolen credit card account information to make fraudulent retail purchases, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.
Hamilton Eromosele, 29, of the Bronx, New York, the leader of the scheme, pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge William Martini in Newark federal court to an information charging him with one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. George Edandison, 27, and Youssouf Traore, 21, both of the Bronx; Deja Handsford, 25, of New York City; Quincy Wielingen, 28, of Queens Village, New York; and Kaishce English, 32, of Allentown, Pennsylvania, all pleaded guilty before Judge Martini on previous dates to the same charge.
A seventh conspirator, Edward Dorsey, 28, of Mount Vernon, New York, appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion in Newark federal court on July 8, 2019, for an initial appearance on a criminal complaint charging him with participating in the same offense.
According to the documents filed in this case and statements made in court:
From at least 2015 through 2018, Eromosele led a network of individuals, based in the New Jersey/New York area, who made trips around the United States in order to use stolen credit card information to purchase gift cards, flights, hotels, rental cars, and other goods and services. Eromosele obtained stolen credit card information through the “dark web” and other sources, which he then provided to conspirators. Eromosele often recruited women via social media, with promises of easy profits, to fly to various locations to make fraudulent purchases. Eromosele collected his conspirators’ fraudulently purchased gift cards or luxury goods, sold them for cash, and dispersed a percentage of the proceeds to the conspirators. The conspirators made over $3.5 million in fraudulent purchases using over 4,000 stolen credit card accounts.
The conspiracy to commit bank fraud charge carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a maximum fine of $1 million. Sentencing for Eromosele is scheduled for Jan 16, 2020.
U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito credited special agents of the U.S. Secret Service, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Mark McKevitt, Newark Field Office, with the investigation leading to the guilty pleas.
The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Macurdy of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division in Newark.
The charge and allegations against Dorsey are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Defense counsel:
Eromosele: Pasquale Giannetta Esq., Newark
Edandison: Daniel Welch Esq., Jersey City, New Jersey
Handsford: Linwood Allen Jones Esq., East Orange, New Jersey
Traore: Angelo Servidio Esq., Nutley, New Jersey
English: Frank Arleo Esq., West Orange, New Jersey
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
NEWARK, N.J. – Six individuals have pleaded guilty to participation in a multimillion-dollar conspiracy that used stolen credit card account information to make fraudulent retail purchases, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.
Hamilton Eromosele, 29, of the Bronx, New York, the leader of the scheme, pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge William Martini in Newark federal court to an information charging him with one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. George Edandison, 27, and Youssouf Traore, 21, both of the Bronx; Deja Handsford, 25, of New York City; Quincy Wielingen, 28, of Queens Village, New York; and Kaishce English, 32, of Allentown, Pennsylvania, all pleaded guilty before Judge Martini on previous dates to the same charge.
A seventh conspirator, Edward Dorsey, 28, of Mount Vernon, New York, appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion in Newark federal court on July 8, 2019, for an initial appearance on a criminal complaint charging him with participating in the same offense.
According to the documents filed in this case and statements made in court:
From at least 2015 through 2018, Eromosele led a network of individuals, based in the New Jersey/New York area, who made trips around the United States in order to use stolen credit card information to purchase gift cards, flights, hotels, rental cars, and other goods and services. Eromosele obtained stolen credit card information through the “dark web” and other sources, which he then provided to conspirators. Eromosele often recruited women via social media, with promises of easy profits, to fly to various locations to make fraudulent purchases. Eromosele collected his conspirators’ fraudulently purchased gift cards or luxury goods, sold them for cash, and dispersed a percentage of the proceeds to the conspirators. The conspirators made over $3.5 million in fraudulent purchases using over 4,000 stolen credit card accounts.
The conspiracy to commit bank fraud charge carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a maximum fine of $1 million. Sentencing for Eromosele is scheduled for Jan 16, 2020.
U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito credited special agents of the U.S. Secret Service, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Mark McKevitt, Newark Field Office, with the investigation leading to the guilty pleas.
The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Macurdy of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division in Newark.
The charge and allegations against Dorsey are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Defense counsel:
Eromosele: Pasquale Giannetta Esq., Newark
Edandison: Daniel Welch Esq., Jersey City, New Jersey
Handsford: Linwood Allen Jones Esq., East Orange, New Jersey
Traore: Angelo Servidio Esq., Nutley, New Jersey
English: Frank Arleo Esq., West Orange, New Jersey
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 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 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
