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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
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
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 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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE2 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE2 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
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
SAN DIEGO – Three South American cocaine traffickers were sentenced in federal court this week after being convicted of transporting approximately 1,230 kilograms (2,706 pounds) of cocaine—worth more than $28 million USD—on the high seas. The sentencing hearings followed a week-long trial in April in which a federal jury convicted all three defendants on all charges.
U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez handed down significant custodial sentences for defendants Adrian Andres Cortez-Quinonez, Segundo Marcial Dominguez-Caicedo, and Victor Gaspar-Chichande, sentencing them to 228 months, 216 months, and 160 months, respectively. Cortez-Quinonez and Gaspar-Chichande were sentenced today; the court handed down Dominguiz-Caicedo’s sentence on Tuesday.
At trial, the United States proved that on December 31, 2017, the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Stratton responded to a report of a suspicious go-fast vessel traveling in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, approximately 100 nautical miles north of the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. The Stratton launched a helicopter and two small boats to intercept the vessel.
As the helicopter closed in, the defendants stopped their vessel to avoid detection. But as the helicopter circled the vessel, the defendants took off, and soon a high-speed chase on the high seas ensued.
The defendants eventually brought their vessel to a stop when they could not outrun the Coast Guard helicopter. Dramatic video from the helicopter captured the defendants jettisoning dozens of bales of cocaine overboard. The defendants sped away again. With the go-fast vessel barreling through the high seas, and the helicopter in pursuit, a Coast Guard precision marksman hanging from the side of the helicopter took five shots at the vessel’s engines, disabling the vessel. Defendants were ultimately detained by the Coast Guard, and other Coast Guard boats recovered the jettisoned cocaine. After the defendants were transported to the United States, agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration continued the investigation.
“Defendants were not a haphazardly thrown-together motley crew. They operated a well-oiled machine,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Mokhtari at sentencing. “But for the incredible skill, training and acumen of the United States Coast Guard, defendants might well be celebrating a successful cocaine venture.”
“This prosecution required precision targeting of a speeding vessel during a dramatic high seas chase,” said U.S. Attorney Robert S. Brewer, Jr. “From the capture at sea to the terrific presentation at trial this was the epitome of a team effort and I commend the U.S. Coast Guard, DEA, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Mokhtari and our former Coast Guard Special Assistants, Ari Fitzwater and Emily Gibbons”
“Coast Guard crews who risk their lives interdicting multi-ton shipments of cocaine at sea are gratified to see another successful prosecution of smugglers,” said Rear Adm. Peter W. Gautier, Commander of the 11th Coast Guard District. “I’m proud of what our people on patrol accomplish, and appreciate the U.S. Attorneys who bring these drug traffickers to justice and make Coast Guard actions worthwhile. Together our law enforcement crews at sea, investigators ashore, and prosecutors in courtrooms are working to disrupt the criminal networks behind the deadly flow of illegal drugs that threaten our nation.”
“These men tried to bring over 24 million dosage units of cocaine into the United States. That is so much cocaine that the 1.4 million residents of San Diego City each could have gotten over 17 dosages units. That is crazy. Cocaine is a dangerous drug and while it was not meant to stay in San Diego, it would have crushed the city had it made it through,” said DEA Special Agent in Charge Karen Flowers. “In this case, DEA teamed up with the U.S. Coast Guard and our law enforcement partners to save lives and protect the homeland. These men wanted to profit off of their greed, with utter disregard for other people’s lives. Now they will pay for their actions with 13 to 19 years of their lives.”
This case is the result of the ongoing efforts by the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), a partnership that brings together the combined expertise and unique abilities of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt, dismantle and prosecute high-level members of drug trafficking, weapons trafficking and money laundering organizations and enterprises.
DEFENDANTS Case Number 18cr0421-BEN
Adrian Andres Cortez-Quinonez Age: 25 Ecuador
Segundo Marcial Dominguez-Caicedo Age: 36 Colombia
Victor Gaspar-Chichande Age: 30 Ecuador
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine Onboard a Vessel Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States – Title 46, U.S.C., Section 70503, 70506(b)
Maximum Penalty: Life in prison and $10 million fine
Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Onboard a Vessel Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States – Title 46, U.S.C., Section 70503
Maximum Penalty: Life in prison and $10 million fine
AGENCY
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF)
Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Mokhtari (619) 546-8402, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Ari Fitzwater (619) 546-8756, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Emily Gibbons (619) 546-8419
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – April 17, 2019
SAN DIEGO – Three South American men were convicted by a federal jury late yesterday of trafficking approximately 1,230 kilograms (2,706 pounds) of cocaine worth more than $28 million on the high seas. The verdict came after a weeklong trial before U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez.
At trial, the government proved that on December 31, 2017, a U.S. Coast Guard Cutter responded to a report of a suspicious vessel traveling in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, approximately 100 nautical miles north of the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. The Coast Guard Cutter Stratton launched a helicopter and two small boats to intercept the vessel.
As the helicopter closed in, the defendants – Adrian Andres Cortez-Quinonez, Segundo Marcial Dominguez-Caicedo and Victor Gaspar-Chichande – stopped their go-fast vessel to avoid detection. But as the helicopter circled the vessel, the defendants attempted to evade the helicopter.
The defendants eventually brought their vessel to a stop when they could not outrun the Coast Guard helicopter and then began jettisoning dozens of bails of cocaine overboard. They took off again, but a U.S. Coast Guard marksman onboard the helicopter disabled the fleeing vessel’s engines with precision. The Coast Guard detained the defendants and recovered the jettisoned cocaine. After the defendants were transported to the United States, agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration continued the investigation.
“The high seas are not a secret freeway for narco-traffickers to cross with impunity,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “This verdict is proof that we are watching, and we will take whatever action necessary to prevent these dangerous drugs from hitting our streets. I appreciate the efforts of prosecutors Kevin Mokhtari, Ari Fitzwater and Emily Gibbons and our partners at the Coast Guard and the DEA. Their hard work has led to this outcome.”
“Thanks to the determined efforts of the Stratton’s officers and crew, as well as the helicopter detachment, these smugglers have been brought to justice,” said Eleventh Coast Guard District Commander, Rear Admiral Peter W. Gautier. “This seizure is just one example of the thousands of kilograms of narcotics seized every month by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard will continue its tireless fight against trafficking of illegal narcotics at sea and the networks that threaten this country.”
“These traffickers attempted to smuggle more than one ton of cocaine into the United States - which would have had a devastating impact on our communities,” said DEA Special Agent in Charge Karen Flowers. “Due to the collaborative efforts of the Coast Guard and DEA, we were able to stop these traffickers and keep these deadly drugs out of our communities.”
This case is the result of the ongoing efforts by the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), a partnership that brings together the combined expertise and unique abilities of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt, dismantle and prosecute high-level members of drug trafficking, weapons trafficking and money laundering organizations and enterprises.
The defendants are scheduled to be sentenced on July 15, 2019 before Judge Benitez.
DEFENDANTS Case Number 18cr0421
Adrian Andres Cortez-Quinonez Age: 24 Ecuador
Segundo Marcial Dominguez-Caicedo Age: 35 Colombia
Victor Gaspar-Chichande Age: 29 Ecuador
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine Onboard a Vessel Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States –
Title 46, U.S.C., Section 70503, 70506(b)
Maximum Penalty: Life in prison and $10 million fine
Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Onboard a Vessel Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States – Title 46, U.S.C., Section 70503
Maximum Penalty: Life in prison and $10 million fine
AGENCY
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF)
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: 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
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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the third most severe
disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE3
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE3
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
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
Assistant U. S. Attorney Charlotte E. Kaiser (619) 546-7282
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – May 24, 2021
SAN DIEGO – The pilot of a boat that capsized during a drug and human smuggling event was sentenced in federal court today to 50 months in custody.
Henrry Javier Garcia Valle pleaded guilty in September 2020 to Possession of Methamphetamine with Intent to Distribute on Board a Vessel, in violation of Title 46, United States Code, Section 70502(a)(1).
At the hearing, U.S. District Judge John Houston admonished the defendant: “Tell the other fishermen – ‘Don’t do it.’ . . . You are placing everyone in danger. The smugglers don’t care. Tell your friends don’t do this.”
“Maritime drug and human smugglers repeatedly engage in dangerous tactics to avoid law enforcement,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman. “In this event, 14 individuals including the defendant almost lost their lives due to the defendant’s conduct. We will continue to hold accountable those who engage in these dangerous tactics.” Grossman praised Assistant U.S. Attorney Charlotte Kaiser and law enforcement partners for their excellent work on this case.
“We’re encountering more smugglers who attempt to avoid detection by navigating their ill-equipped vessels farther out to sea,” said Cardell T. Morant, Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). “It cannot be overstated—dangerous smuggling operations like these could potentially result in lives lost at sea.”
“Smuggling attempts like these oftentimes lead to tragic consequences, which fortunately were avoided this time,” said Rear Adm. Brian Penoyer, Eleventh Coast Guard District commander. “Today, justice has been served, and the Coast Guard will continue to work with our maritime partners to bring these criminals to justice.”
According to the government’s sentencing memorandum, on July 25, 2020 at 11 p.m., air interdiction agents spotted a vessel using no navigational lights headed towards the United States from Mexico. At approximately 3:58 a.m. on July 26, 2020, the U.S Coast Guard attempted to interdict the vessel containing 14 individuals, who later were determined to be non-citizens without legal status to be in the United States. The location was approximately 7.5 miles west of Mission Bay. Reports from law enforcement and information from fellow defendants indicated that the defendant gave chase for several minutes and then the boat stopped. At that point, law enforcement saw certain individuals toss bags from the boat. Three of the bags subsequently were recovered and contained approximately 37.2 kilograms of methamphetamine. On further testing, the amount came to 35 kilograms of actual methamphetamine, and was deemed 100 percent pure.
At the time the boat stopped, it began to take on water. The occupants shifted and the boat began to capsize. U.S. Coast Guard officials were able to rescue all 14 occupants including defendant and three co-defendants identified as crew members. Two of those other codefendants – Faustino Dominguez Padilla and Ivan Ramirez Guzman - pleaded guilty to human smuggling and were sentenced to approximately 7.5 and 10 months in custody, respectively. Another co-defendant – Joel Lopez Burgos – pleaded guilty to the same charge as defendant and will be sentenced in June 2021.
As part of his plea agreement, the defendant admitted that he was pilot or captain of the vessel that contained 14 occupants including himself, all of whom lacked lawful status to enter or remain in the United States, as well as the 37.2 kilograms of methamphetamine. The defendant admitted that he conspired to bring the occupants and the drugs into the United States illegally. He further admitted that the boat not only had no navigational lights on during the overnight journey but also that it had engine problems and that none of the defendants was wearing life vests. He additionally recognized that the boat capsized after a pursuit.
DEFENDANTS Case Number 20CR2524-JAH
Henrry Javier Garcia Valle Age: 38 Sinaloa, Mexico
For Defendants Henrry Javier Garcia Valle and Joel Lopez Burgos:
Possession of Methamphetamine with Intent to Distribute on Board a Vessel – Title 46, United States Code, Section 70502(a)(1) – Maximum penalty: Life in prison and $10 million fine.
For Defendants Faustino Dominguez-Padilla and Ivan Ramirez Guzman:
Attempted Bringing in Without Presentation and Aiding and Abetting – Title 8, U.S.C., Section 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2
Maximum penalty: Five years in prison, and $250,000 fine.
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey D. Hill (619) 546-7924
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – May 18, 2017
SAN DIEGO – Abel Jose Perez pleaded guilty in federal court today to theft of public property, admitting that he stole $271,925.60 in Social Security retirement benefits intended for his father, Angel Perez-Barajas, who died in 1997.
During a hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler, Perez acknowledged that for more than 16 years, he retained exclusive access to and controlled a bank account belonging to his deceased parents, and all funds deposited therein. Perez, who was not an authorized user of the bank account, also never informed either the bank or the Social Security Administration of his father’s death.
Perez also admitted that he never requested that the Social Security Administration terminate the monthly direct deposit of his father’s retirement benefits, which continued each month from August 1997 until February 2014. Indeed, Perez admitted that he knew his father’s Social Security retirement benefits should have terminated upon his death, but he nonetheless converted all $271,925.60 to his own use, with no intention of ever returning it to the United States of America.
“The only difference between this and armed robbery is the gun,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Alana W. Robinson. “This defendant stole hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the ultimate victims are those who pay into Social Security expecting to receive benefits down the road. We won’t let thieves get away with these crimes, even if they have untraditional methods.”
“The Social Security Administration’s Office of the Inspector General is committed to pursuing those who defraud SSA and its benefit programs, which are a lifeline for so many Americans and their families,” said Robb Stickley, the Special Agent in Charge of the San Francisco Field Division, which is responsible for Southern California. “We will continue to assist the U.S. Attorney’s Office in bringing violators to justice."
As a part of his plea agreement, Perez agreed to pay full restitution to the Social Security Administration for all of the money he gained by his crime. Perez faces up to 10 years in federal prison and a fine of up to twice his gross gains from this crime at his sentencing on August 7, 2017 before U.S. District Court Judge William Q. Hayes.
DEFENDANT Case Number 17-cr-01259-WQH
Abel Jose Perez San Diego, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Theft of Public Property – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 641
Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment, $543,851.20 fine, restitution
AGENCY
Social Security Administration’s Office of the Inspector General
SAN DIEGO – Tien Tan Vo, a doctor practicing in Imperial Valley, was sentenced in federal court yesterday for crimes related to his years-long use of foreign unapproved and misbranded cosmetic drugs. According to his plea and court records, Vo injected as many as 178 patients with unapproved drugs that had been smuggled into the United States from Mexico.
Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard sentenced Vo to three years of probation and ordered him to pay a $201,534 fine and forfeit the $100,767 in proceeds he made from his use of unlawful cosmetic drugs. A restitution hearing is set for December 7, 2023, to finalize an order for restitution to potential victims.
In August, Vo pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts: receipt of misbranded drugs in interstate commerce and being an accessory after the fact to Flor Cham, who smuggled the unapproved drugs into the United States from Mexico. Cham is charged in case number 23-cr-01926-JLS.
In his plea agreement, Vo admitted that none of the injectable botulinum toxin or lip fillers used by his clinics between November 2016 and October 2020 were approved for use in the United States. This specifically included a botulinum toxin product called “Xeomeen” and an injectable lip filler called Probcel—both products that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
According to court papers, Vo used these unapproved drugs on approximately 178 patients over about four years. Many were never told that they received unapproved drugs as part of their treatment.
“The public faith in the FDA approval process relies on medical providers adhering to those rules,” said U.S. Attorney Tara McGrath. “By side-stepping the safety and approval protocols of the FDA, Dr. Vo compromised care and put profits before patients. But thanks to the hard work of the agencies and our federal restitution process, those ill-gained profits will be recovered in this case.”
“Today’s sentencing serves as our promise to use every tool to investigate and hold accountable those who deliberately smuggle and administer products that pose a significant public health threat,” said Chad Plantz, special agent in charge for HSI San Diego. “HSI, together with the U.S. Attorney’s Office will continue to work together to prosecute those individuals who deceive and threaten our communities.”
“The FDA’s requirements help ensure that patients receive safe and effective medical treatments. Evading the FDA process and distributing unapproved drugs to U.S. consumers will not be tolerated,” said Special Agent in Charge Robert M. Iwanicki, FDA Office of Criminal Investigations, Los Angeles Field Office. “We will continue to investigate and hold accountable those who traffic in unapproved drugs.”
A restitution hearing is set for December 7, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Allison H. Goddard.
Potential victims related to this case may provide or request information by emailing USACAS.Cosmetic.Case@usdoj.gov. Individuals may submit written statements including information about potential losses or requests for refunds that may be included as part of the restitution ordered on December 7, 2023.
DEFENDANT Case Number 23cr1700-AHG
Tien Tan Vo Age: 47 El Centro, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Accessory After the Fact to Entry of Goods by Means of False Statement – Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 542 and 3
Maximum penalty: one year in prison, fine of $100,000 or twice the pecuniary gain or loss
Receipt in Interstate Commerce of Misbranded Drugs and Delivery for Pay or Otherwise – Title 21, U.S.C., Sections 331(c) and 333(a)(1)
Maximum penalty: one year in prison, fine of $1,000 or twice the pecuniary gain or loss
AGENCIES
Homeland Security Investigations
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Office of Criminal Investigations
Federal Bureau of Investigation
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Lisa J. Sanniti (619) 546-8811
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – October 6, 2020
SAN DIEGO – Antonia Barber, the former operations manager for Carlsbad-based contractors’ insurance company Target Financial and Insurance Services, was sentenced in federal court yesterday to 21 months in prison for stealing $726,060.75 from the company.
Sentencing documents reflect that Barber held a sensitive position at Target Financial, where she was permitted to approve reimbursement requests from employees, issue reimbursement checks, pay vendors, and report to the owner as to the financial condition of the company. In 2008, Barber began writing hundreds of checks to a family member for bogus “Records Management” services that were never provided. Barber’s conduct escalated to writing herself checks for nonexistent “expense reimbursement,” totaling over $600,000.
Barber went so far as to report to the owner that the company was struggling financially, causing the owner to infuse money into the company to keep people employed and the business afloat. Barber’s scheme went on for seven years until the owner caught on to her theft, and reported it to law enforcement.
“This defendant abused her position of trust to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “This sentence is a reminder that there will be a price to pay for employees who use company coffers as a personal bank account.” Brewer praised prosecutor Lisa Sanniti and agents from the U.S. Secret Service for their hard work in this case.
DEFENDANT Case No. 18-CR-4028-W
ANTONIA BARBER Age 52 San Diego, CA
aka “Antonia M. Barber”
aka “Antonia Marie Barber”
aka “Antonia Marie Martinez”
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Wire Fraud – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1343
Maximum penalty: Twenty years in custody and a $250,000 fine
Assistant U. S. Attorney Melanie K. Pierson (619) 546-7976
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – December 14, 2020
SAN DIEGO – Tijuana resident John Jaimes Torres was sentenced in federal court today to six months in custody for smuggling protected sea cucumbers valued at more than $60,000 into the United States.
In November of 2019, Torres was discovered with 101 undeclared packages of sea cucumbers, totaling 145 kilograms, concealed in, under, and behind toolboxes in the bed of his truck. The sea cucumbers were of the species Isostichopus fuscus, which is protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). In order to lawfully import these sea cucumbers, a CITES import/export permit and CITES certificate of origin was required, as well as an import/export license from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, none of which Torres possessed.
As noted in court proceedings, in addition to the sea cucumbers, Torres possessed four cell phones. A search of these phones revealed evidence of prior smuggling events. For example, in July of 2019, Torres delivered more than 20 bags of sea cucumbers to a storage unit in the San Diego area. He sent a photo of the sea cucumbers in the storage unit to his client.
The search of the phones also indicated that Torres was an all-service smuggler, crossing food products, alcohol, medications and cigarettes in addition to the sea cucumbers, for profit. At the time he crossed the border, Torres was in possession of $1,600 in cash. In addition to the custodial sentence, Torres was also ordered to make restitution of $10,000 to the government of Mexico as compensation for the loss of its natural resources. Torres was ordered to self-surrender to begin serving his sentence on or before February 12, 2021.
“Scientists tell us that sea cucumbers play a critical role in keeping coral reef and other tropical ocean ecosystems healthy,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “Unfortunately the black market for sea cucumbers is thriving, making these cases against smugglers even more important.” Brewer praised prosecutor Melanie Pierson and agents with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement and Homeland Security Investigations and Customs and Border Protection for their excellent work on this case.
“The unlawful commercialization of living marine faunae, such as CITES-protected sea cucumbers, not only harms the individual species, but it promotes the destruction of ocean ecosystems that other wildlife depend on for survival,” said special agent in charge Dan Crum. “Today's sentencing sends a message that our law enforcement agents and prosecutors will continue to investigate, prosecute and bring to justice any violators who illegally exploit wildlife for profit.”
“The illegal sea cumber trade is a real problem, and illicit trafficking in protected species fuels crime and decimates protected wildlife populations,” said Cardell T. Morant, Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations. “This arrest and conviction demonstrates our commitment to work with our law enforcement partners to protect threatened and endangered species and bring justice to the criminals that seek to profit from their exploitation.”
DEFENDANT Case Number 19cr4848-W
John Jaimes Torres Age: 52 Tijuana, Mexico
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Count 1
Conspiracy – Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 371
Maximum penalty: Five years in prison and $250,000 fine
Counts 2-5
Smuggling/Importation Contrary to Law – Title 18, U.S.C., Sec.545
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison and $250,000 fine
AGENCY
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement
Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicholas W. Pilchak and Andrew J. Galvin (619) 546-9709 and (619) 546-9721
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – February 8, 2018
SAN DIEGO – A father and son fraud team that won over $4 million of federal contracts using false financial statements and other lies pleaded guilty in federal court today. The father—a long-time self-described government contracting consultant—also admitted to stealing over a half million dollars from his consulting clients.
At a hearing today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major, Joseph Glenn Osborne, Sr., 68, pleaded guilty to wire fraud and participating in a wire fraud conspiracy with his son, Joseph Glenn Osborne, II, 31. Osborne, II pleaded guilty to falsely making a writing to obtain money from the United States.
In his plea agreement, Osborne, Sr. admitted that he stole $588,489 from three different small businesses that retained him as a government contracting consultant. According to court documents and his admissions, Osborne, Sr. promised to represent the victims in obtaining and fulfilling contracts with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Instead, he used his position as the sole holder of their web passwords to change their banking information in the online federal system controlling where their contract payments would be sent. When USDA paid on his clients’ contracts, the money was diverted to Osborne, Sr. instead of the victims.
Osborne, Sr. also admitted to lying to his clients when they questioned the missing payments. For example, when one client repeatedly pressed him to attend a conference call to explain the missing money and passwords, Osborne, Sr. repeatedly told the client he couldn’t take the client’s calls because he had been seated on a state court jury for a multiple murder trial. In fact, according to court filings, Osborne, Sr. has never reported for jury duty.
According to the plea agreement, Osborne, Sr. used a portion of the stolen money to put a down payment on a $2.7 million mansion in Rancho Santa Fe, California. Osborne, Sr. forged further emails to conceal the source of the money by falsely claiming that it was an early retirement withdrawal from a benefits account at an agency where he had never worked.
In 2013, after Osborne, Sr. was terminated by his clients, the Osbornes agreed to submit fraudulent financial statements to qualify Osborne, II’s new business—Worldwide Connect LLC (WWC)—as an approved USDA contractor. As set out in their guilty pleas, the Osbornes recruited Osborne, II’s friend and bookkeeper to prepare false financial statements which substantially overstated WWC’s financial health. For example, the statements fraudulently converted WWC’s 2013 year-end cash position from a $5,546 deficit to a $37,954 surplus.
The Osbornes also admitted to falsely certifying to the USDA that none of WWC’s principals was suspended or debarred from federal contracting. In fact, according to documents filed in the case, Osborne, Sr. was suspended and debarred from November 2013 to October 2016 for conduct associated with his prior business, Global Health & Safety.
As a result of these fraudulent submissions, WWC was approved for federal contracting and won over $4 million of USDA food supply contracts. Four of the five contracts were terminated for contractor default, after WWC failed to deliver over 100,000 cases of fruit juice and raisins to community food banks and lunch programs. The Osbornes admitted that WWC caused its suppliers and financing company over $1.5 million in losses. Meanwhile, as set out in the plea agreements and court filings, the Osbornes paid themselves approximately $285,245 of WWC funds in little more than a year. They also used other company money for personal expenses—including almost $10,000 of nightclub charges, luxury hotel stays, and over $9,000 of new flooring in Osborne, Sr.’s personal residence.
After their contracts were terminated, the plea documents explain that the Osbornes applied to the Small Business Administration (SBA) to be readmitted to federal contracting. As part of that application, Osborne II misstated Osborne, Sr.’s military history, telling the SBA he was a retired colonel in the Marine Corps when in fact Osborne, Sr. had retired as a first lieutenant. Osborne II also supplied a variety of falsified tax returns to the SBA for himself and WWC, including an altered (signed) tax return that converted his real $14,870 tax liability into a fake $5,427 tax overpayment.
In addition to pleading guilty, each defendant agreed to pay restitution to their victims in the amounts of approximately $1.7 million for Osborne, Sr. and $1.5 million for Osborne II.
A sentencing hearing for both defendants is scheduled for May 7, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Roger T. Benitez.
“Businesspeople who lie, cheat and steal have no place in federal contracting systems funded with American tax dollars,” said U.S. Attorney Adam L. Braverman. “We will be sure that white collar criminals manipulating the system from behind the scenes are held accountable.”
Special Agent-in-Charge Lori Chan, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Office of Inspector General (OIG), Western Region, stated, “The USDA OIG has the responsibility for protecting the integrity of the Agriculture Marketing Service, Commodity Procurement Program. OIG conducts investigations in each region of the U.S. to deter and uncover criminal activity that undermines the Commodity Procurement Program. Contractors who engage in financial fraud exploit the public’s trust. The OIG at USDA works to ensure the integrity of USDA programs.”
FBI Special Agent in Charge John Brown commented, “This comprehensive investigation revealed a continued pattern of theft, deceit, and fraud—all for personal greed and self-promotion. Working closely with our law enforcement partners, the FBI will continue to pursue and bring to justice those who seek to perpetrate these fraudulent financial schemes and take advantage of victim clients, the federal contracting process, and the American tax payers."
This case was investigated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Nicholas W. Pilchak and Andrew J. Galvin.
DEFENDANT Case Number 16CR2546-BEN
Joseph Glenn Osborne, Sr. Age: 68 Carlsbad, California
Joseph Glenn Osborne, II Age: 31 Carlsbad, California
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1343; term of custody including 20 years in prison, $250,000 fine, 3 years of supervised release, and mandatory restitution.
Wire Fraud Conspiracy, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1349; term of custody including 20 years in prison, $250,000 fine, and 3 years of supervised release, and mandatory restitution.
Falsely Making a Writing to Obtain Money From the United States, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 495; term of custody including 10 years in prison, $250,000 fine, 3 years of supervised release, and mandatory restitution.
AGENCIES
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General
SAN DIEGO – Dr. Karim Arabi was convicted by a federal jury today of fraud and money laundering charges in connection with a massive $180 million scheme targeting his then-employer, Qualcomm.After a four-week trial, the jury deliberated for less than two days. The jury found that while working as vice president of Qualcomm’s Research and Development Department, Dr. Arabi committed fraud by developing a valuable microchip technology, marketing the technology through a company, Abreezio, which he created to conceal his involvement, and then selling the company and its purported technology to Qualcomm for $180 million.As part of his employment with Qualcomm, Dr. Arabi had agreed that virtually all technology he invented while working at Qualcomm belonged to Qualcomm. To perpetrate the fraud, Dr. Arabi carefully hid his role as the new company’s shadow CEO, picked its corporate name (Abreezio) and weighed in on its office furniture.Dr. Arabi created fake email accounts and sent phony emails to impersonate his sister, the supposed inventor of the new technology. In truth, the sister was a nonentity throughout its formation, development, marketing and sale. In the summer of 2015, when Abreezio was filing a new round of patent applications, the sister legally changed her last name to further conceal her relationship with Dr. Arabi.According to evidence presented at trial, after the deal closed and Qualcomm unwittingly paid almost $92 million to Dr. Arabi’s sister, the campaign of concealment continued: Dr. Arabi invested the money in Canadian and Norwegian real estate while hiding his involvement, funneled funds back to his U.S. companies via intermediary shells, lied repeatedly through Qualcomm’s subsequent civil fraud suit, and received steady installments of laundered fraud proceeds until the month before his arrest in this case.“The defendant took advantage of the trust placed in him, lining his pockets with millions by orchestrating a scheme to deceive and then bleed his own employer,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Andrew Haden. “His actions weren’t just a betrayal of the company - they were a direct attack on the very principles of fairness and integrity that keep business honest. Today’s jury verdict sends a clear message: In the Southern District of California, fraud has consequences. We will relentlessly pursue justice against those who try to profit through lies and deceit.”“Dr. Arabi perpetrated an elaborate and exhaustive scheme to conceal, deceive, and defraud his own employer out of millions of dollars,” said FBI San Diego Acting Special Agent in Charge Houtan Moshrefi. “With today’s verdict, Dr. Arabi will now face the consequences of this massive fraud, sending the clear message that corporate executives who facilitate fraud will be held accountable for their crimes.”“As vice president of Research and Development, Mr. Arabi was entrusted with protecting Qualcomm’s intellectual property rights,” said Special Agent in Charge Tyler Hatcher, IRS Criminal Investigation, Los Angeles Field Office. “Mr. Arabi executed a scheme to swindle Qualcomm out of $180 million for what was rightfully their own technology. This guilty verdict is reflective of outstanding investigative work by IRS-CI and our partners at the FBI and U.S. Marshal’s Service.”Qualcomm actually paid $150 million to the coconspirators and others before discovering the fraud.Two other defendants pleaded guilty in the scheme prior to Arabi’s trial. Ali Akbar Shokouhi, another former Qualcomm employee and the primary investor in Abreezio, pleaded guilty to money laundering and is scheduled to be sentenced on August 1, 2025; Sanjiv Taneja, Abreezio’s nominal CEO, pleaded guilty to money laundering and is scheduled to be sentenced on July 11, 2025.This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Nicholas W. Pilchak, Janaki G. Chopra and Eric R. Olah.DEFENDANT Case Number 22-CR-1152 Karim Arabi Age: 58 San Diego, CACHARGESWire Fraud Conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349Maximum Penalties: Twenty years in prison; $1 million fine or twice the amount of the criminally derived property involved in the transactionWire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343Maximum Penalties: Twenty years in prison; $1 million fineConspiracy to Launder Monetary Instruments, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)Maximum Penalties: Twenty years in prison; fine of $500,000 or twice the amount of the criminally derived property involved in the transactionINVESTIGATING AGENCIESFederal Bureau of InvestigationInternal Revenue Services, Criminal InvestigationUnited States Marshals Service
Assistant U. S. Attorney Melanie K. Pierson (619) 546-7976
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – September 8, 2022
SAN DIEGO – Felipa Oliveros was sentenced in federal court today to three months in custody for smuggling pesticides into the United States from Mexico.
Oliveros pleaded guilty in April 2022 to smuggling bottles of Bovitraz or Taktic into the United States. Oliveros had been charged as part of a larger organized pesticide smuggling ring, which also included her daughter, Laura Orellana, who was sentenced to 92 days in custody for her role in the conspiracy.
On June 7, 2022, Sofia Mancera Morales, the ringleader of this pesticide smuggling organization, was sentenced to eight months in custody and ordered to pay $7,497 in restitution for the cost of disposal of the illegal pesticides. In pleading guilty, Mancera had acknowledged she obtained the illegal pesticides in Mexico and delivered them to others to smuggle into the United States.
According to sentencing documents, Mancera recruited individuals via Facebook, offering to pay $40-$150/box of six 1-liter bottles delivered to the United States. Morales directed her recruits to deliver the pesticides to a self-storage facility near the border in Calexico and required them to send her photographs of the pesticides in the storage unit as proof of delivery prior to payment. Mancera paid the recruits to lease self-storage units in their own names, and provide her with the keys. Recruits caught at the border with pesticides reported that they had seen items delivered by others in their self-storage units, including pesticides, veterinary medications and alcohol. One recruit delivered almost 1,000 bottles of pesticides in a one-month period, while others advised that they had delivered pesticides two to five times per week.
The pesticides involved were primarily Bovitraz and Taktic, which contain the active ingredient amitraz at an emulsifiable concentration of 12.5 percent. In the United States, amitraz in this form is a cancelled and unregistered pesticide. Amitraz is an acaricide that, in the United States, is registered to control varroa mites in honeybee colonies at a concentration of 3.33 percent and is also registered for use in dog flea collars. Additionally, amitraz is classified as a Group C possible human carcinogen based upon rodent studies, and, therefore, long-term exposure could result in cancer.
Federal law prohibits the distribution and sale of cancelled or unregistered pesticides. Only pesticides registered with the EPA may be imported or sold in the United States. All pesticides intended for use in the United States must bear their EPA registration number on their labels, preceded by the phrase “EPA Registration No.” or “EPA Reg. No.” In addition, all required information on a label must appear in the English language. All of the containers smuggled by this group were labeled only in Spanish and bore no EPA registration numbers. The lawful importation of pesticides into the United States requires a Notice of Arrival to be provided to U.S. Customs or U.S. EPA, pursuant to 19 CFR 12.112. None of the co-conspirators provided a Notice of Arrival for the pesticides in this case.
This case was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California and the U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Crimes Section.
DEFENDANT Case Number 20cr3054-JAH__
Felipa Oliveros Age: 52 El Centro, California
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Smuggling – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 545
Maximum penalty: Five years in prison and $250,000 fine
Assistant U. S. Attorney Alexandra F. Foster (619) 546-6735
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – May 24, 2021
SAN DIEGO – Kirill Victorovich Firsov, a Russian citizen, was sentenced to 30 months in custody for his role as the administrator of a website that catered to cyber criminals by virtually selling items such as stolen credit card information, other personal information and services to be used for criminal activity.
The now-defunct online platform DEER.IO started operations as of at least October 2013, and, as of Firsov’s arrest in March 2020, the platform hosted approximately 3,000 active shops with sales exceeding $17 million. Although Firsov maintained that the bulk of the sales on DEER.IO were Russian accounts, the parties agreed that the government could show that shop owners on the DEER.IO platform sold at least $1.2 million in U.S.-based stolen information, to include the gamer accounts identified in the plea agreement.
At sentencing, the prosecutor noted that Firsov built the DEER.IO platform in 2013 and maintained it for almost seven years. Further, the prosecutor asserted that Firsov knew DEER.IO was selling stolen and counterfeit accounts, because he built the platform, which included a number of icons for U.S.-based companies that anyone setting up a store on DEER.IO could click on to then sell stolen accounts from those U.S. companies. Also, DEER.IO was easily searchable, so anyone --including Firsov-- could search the platform for stolen U.S. accounts and information. Even though it sold stolen accounts, DEER.IO was not cloaked in secrecy and required no special password for access, because everything was run out of Russia, and American law enforcement could gain no foothold.
DEER.IO sold not only stolen accounts, like the gamer accounts identified in the plea agreement, but also Americans’ personal information, to include names, current addresses, telephone numbers and at times Social Security numbers. On March 4, 2020, the FBI purchased 1,100 gamer accounts, and on March 5, 2020, the FBI purchased the personal information for over 3,600 Americans. On March 7, 2020, Firsov was arrested by the FBI in New York City when he flew into JFK Airport from Moscow.
In sentencing Firsov to 30 months, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant acknowledged that he had been incarcerated in the United States for 15 months, while the COVID-19 pandemic swept the world and, very specifically, the American jail system. She also recognized that Firsov had been incarcerated in the United States, far from his support system of family and friends in Russia. Finally, she noted that once released, Firsov would likely be incarcerated as he underwent deportation proceedings back to Russia. Nonetheless, she noted that without Firsov’s involvement, there would be no DEER.IO, and that facilitated the sale of stolen property on a large scale. Balancing these factors, Judge Bashant sentenced Firsov to 30 months.
“This platform provided cybercriminals with easy access to the personal accounts and information of people around the world, including Americans,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman. “Stopping that flow of stolen information to criminals is critical to addressing the cybercrime threats facing our country, and we will prosecute those who are responsible.” Grossman commended the excellent work of Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexandra F. Foster and the FBI agents on this case.
“The FBI will pursue cyber-criminals across the globe,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Suzanne Turner. “Today’s sentence sends a message – conducting criminal activity from outside the United States does not mean you are out of reach. The FBI will identify and pursue criminal actors in the cyber-sphere, regardless of where they operate, and work to bring them to justice in a United States court.”
If victimized in a cyber security incident, the FBI encourages companies to immediately contact the FBI. Specialized cyber agents will work with companies to protect company information and the personal data of its customers. Please contact the FBI San Diego's cyber program by calling our field office at (858) 320-1800 or submitting tips at Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3).
DEFENDANT Case Number 20cr1182-BAS
Kirill Victorovich Firsov Age: 30 Moscow, Russia
SUMMARY OF CHARGE
Unauthorized Solicitation of Access Devices (18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(6))
Maximum Penalty: Ten years in prison, $250,000 fine.
Valerie Chu (619) 546-6750 and Michelle L. Wasserman (619) 546-8431
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – August 19, 2022
SAN DIEGO – Elliot Adler, an attorney and founding partner of a boutique San Diego law firm, was sentenced in federal court today to one year and one day in custody for conspiring with former Chabad of Poway Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein to commit tax fraud. He was also ordered to pay a $20,000 fine.
Beginning at least as early as 2010 and continuing through October 2018, Adler participated in a so-called “90/10” tax scheme with Rabbi Goldstein. Specifically, Adler gave money to Rabbi Goldstein that purported to be a donation to Chabad of Poway. Goldstein then secretly funneled ninety percent of the funds back to Adler, keeping ten percent of the funds as his fee. None of the donated funds was actually given to the Chabad as a charitable donation. Adler then falsely claimed that the fraudulent donations were tax-deductible on his tax returns, allowing him to reduce his personal income tax liability by approximately $500,000 (cumulatively) for tax years 2011 through 2017.
To accomplish the scheme, Adler and Goldstein communicated using coded language. Goldstein would refer to cash as “challah,” the source of the cash as “the baker,” and would invite co-conspirators to “wrap tefillin” when he proposed meeting to receive checks or deliver cash. For example, on Thursday, January 7, 2016, Goldstein texted Adler, “Good morning I got the challah[.] What time?” That same day, Adler replied via text message, “Monday morning 8am at shul or today before 12pm if you can come to my office.” Goldstein then replied, “Monday @8 is fine.” On Monday, January 11, 2016, Goldstein deposited a check from Adler for $30,000 payable to Chabad of Poway.
On or about December 29, 2017, Goldstein deposited two sequentially-numbered checks from Adler, one for $180,000 and the other for $980,000. On Friday, January 5, 2018, Goldstein sent Adler a coded text message proposing that they “get together and wrap teffilin.” A few days later, on January 10, 2018, Goldstein wired approximately $1 million to a wholesale and retail jeweler to purchase 246 Suisse Fortuna 1 oz. rectangular gold ingots, 246 Canadian Maple Leaf 1 oz. gold coins, and 246 American Eagle 1 oz. gold coins. On January 17, 2018, Goldstein sent another coded message to Adler asking him, “[w]hen can you come [i]n for a teffilin wrap? I’m ready for you.” Goldstein delivered the gold to Adler the next day. Adler nonetheless claimed on his 2017 tax returns that he had donated over $1 million to charity, fraudulently reducing his 2017 tax liability by approximately $447,000. Adler was ordered to forfeit the gold coins as part of his sentence.
At today’s hearing, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant also ordered Adler to forfeit the gold. A restitution hearing is set for October 24, 2022, at 10:30 a.m.
Adler and Goldstein took additional steps to conceal their scheme from authorities. On or about October 18, 2018, Goldstein told Adler that he was under investigation by the IRS and that he had been the subject of an undercover operation relating to tax evasion. Goldstein asked for Adler’s help to prove, falsely, that Goldstein, and not Adler, was in possession of the gold coins purchased with Adler’s purported donation. In the early hours of October 19, 2018, Adler arrived at Goldstein’s residence and returned the gold coins.
In July 2020, Rabbi Goldstein pleaded guilty to fraud charges, admitting that he participated in a complex, years-long, multi-million-dollar tax-evasion scheme and other financial deceptions involving theft of public money. Rabbi Goldstein’s plea agreement outlined the fraud scheme with Adler.
Adler is the eleventh and final individual to be sentenced for crimes discovered in this investigation. Two additional individuals agreed to deferred prosecution agreements as a result of the investigation.
“For several years, Elliot Adler defrauded the United States while giving the false appearance of making charitable donations,” said U.S. Attorney Randy S. Grossman. “This investigation and the resulting prosecutions should leave no doubt that the United States takes tax fraud seriously and those who perpetrate these schemes will be brought to justice.” Grossman thanked the prosecution team and the FBI and IRS for their excellent work on this case.
“For years, attorney Adler chose to ignore the laws and ethical rules of conduct he swore to uphold and conspired with others using sophisticated schemes to commit tax fraud,” said Special Agent in Charge Stacey Moy of the FBI San Diego Field Office. “Such schemes erode the public's trust in the legal and charitable institutions within our community, but today's sentencing ends his criminal career. Financial crimes have long been a top FBI investigative focus and we remain steadfast in our efforts, in coordination with our partners, to bringing such fraudsters to justice.”
“Mr. Adler, who is an educated and successful attorney, knowingly broke the law by repeatedly committing tax fraud for over seven years,” said Special Agent in Charge Tyler R. Hatcher of IRS Criminal Investigation’s Los Angeles Field Office. “Adler stole over half-a-million dollars from the United States, and our special agents are committed to bringing thieves like him to justice. Our tax and financial systems rely on Americans to pay their fair share in order to ensure that our infrastructure, our national security, and our education and benefits programs are funded. IRS Criminal Investigation is proud to work alongside the FBI and the US Attorney’s Office on this incredibly impactful investigation.”
SUMMARY OF CHARGES Case Number 22-CR-821-BAS
Elliott Adler Age:45 San Diego, CA
Conspiracy to Commit Tax Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
PREVIOUSLY CHARGED DEFENDANTS AND SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Yisroel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR1916-BAS Age: 58 Poway
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Sentenced to 14 months in custody
Alexander Avergoon, Case Number 19CR2955-BAS Age: 44 San Diego
Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 1343
Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of Title 18, USC 1028A
Money Laundering, in violation of Title 18, USC 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
Sentenced to 64 months in custody
Bruce Baker, Case Number 20CR1912-BAS Age: 74 La Jolla
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and file false tax returns, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Sentenced to 15 months in custody
Bijan Moossazadeh, Case Number 20CR1893-BAS Age: 63 San Diego
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Sentenced to three months in custody
Yousef Shemirani, Case Number 20CR1895-BAS Age: 74 Poway
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Sentenced to two years’ Probation
Boris Shkoller, Case Number 20CR1913-BAS Age: 83 Del Mar
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Sentenced to one year Probation
Mendel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR2772-BAS Age: 63 Brooklyn, NY
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Sentenced to eight months in custody
Stuart Weinstock, Case Number 21CR0042-BAS Age: 64 Escondido, CA
Filing False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, U.S.C. §7206(1)
Sentenced to eight months in custody
Jason Ellis, Case Number 21CR2200-BAS Age: 42 Poway, CA
Filing False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, U.S.C. §7206(1)
Sentenced to six months of home confinement
Yehuda Hadjadj, Case Number 22CR148-BAS Age: 47 La Jolla, CA
Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Sentenced to three years’ Probation
Rotem Cooper, Case Number 20CR3968-BAS Age: 54 San Diego
Deferred Prosecution Agreement
Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Igor Shtilkind, Case Number 20CR3955-BAS Age: 55 San Diego
Deferred Prosecution Agreement
Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
INVESTIGATING AGENCIES
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigations
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Valerie Chu (619) 546-6750, Caroline Han (619) 546-6968 and Fred Sheppard (619) 546-8237
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – February 22, 2019
SAN DIEGO – This week in federal court a slew of conspirators involved in a massive Workers’ Compensation kickback scheme were ordered to serve prison sentences and pay millions in financial penalties for their roles in the corrupt payment of millions of dollars to induce doctors and other medical professionals to refer hundreds of injured workers for medical treatments and services.
According to court records, dozens of marketers, doctors, lawyers and medical service providers conspired to bilk the Workers’ Compensation system in California by buying and selling patients -- and their individual “body parts” -- like commodities. Among the defendants sentenced this week was an attorney, a chiropractor, two business owners and several marketers who referred patients for tests (such as MRIs, functional capacity exams and sleep studies), treatments (such as “shockwave,” x-rays, and ultrasound), pain medications, and durable medical equipment (DME) based on the corrupt payments. The conspirators often subjected patients to uncomfortable and sometimes painful procedures, so the conspirators could thereafter bill insurance companies for millions of dollars. As the government argued in its sentencing papers, the conspirators’ corruption of the doctor-patient relationship caused physicians to see price tags on every patient’s body parts. Each of the defendants played a critical role in the corrupt scheme.
The Corrupt Network
Defendant Fermin Iglesias and co-defendant Carlos Arguello operated a patient-capping enterprise, in which they found individuals who would file Workers’ Compensation claims against their employers. Iglesias and Arguello then sold, bartered and exchanged these applicants with others in the Workers’ Compensation industry, including attorneys, primary care physicians, and providers of medical goods and services. Each of these entities had to “pay to play,” and as the patient was referred throughout this corrupt system, money changed hands at each step. Arguello operated several patient-recruitment entities, including one called Centro Legal. Through billboards, flyers, advertisements and business cards, Centro Legal recruited persons to seek workers' compensation benefits from their employers or former employers. When the injured worker called the 1-800 number on the billboard or card, he or she reached a call center, which might be located in another country. From there, Iglesias’ company, Providence Scheduling, took over brokering the patient to maximize the profit that could be extracted from him or her.
Centro Legal referred the newly-acquired patient to complicit Workers' Compensation attorneys, including, in San Diego, attorney Sean O’Keefe, who had one of the largest Workers’ Comp caseloads in the region. To get these new clients, the attorneys in the corrupt network were expected to comply with certain conditions: first, they had to use Arguello’s copying service to fulfil document requests for all of the new client’s medical records; second, they had to agree to designate as their client’s primary treating physician (“PTP”) one of the complicit physicians within the corrupt network. In exchange, the attorneys received compensation. For O'Keefe, the compensation took a variety of forms. One hospital administrator paid the salaries of two employees of O’Keefe’s law firm, as a kickback to O’Keefe for referring spinal surgeries to that hospital. In another variation, the kickback payments were disguised as payments for nonexistent legal services, for which O’Keefe generated phony “legal invoices” to cover up those obviously illegal payments.
The corrupt physician could serve as the patients' primary care physician in the Workers' Comp system. This was a key gatekeeper role, because the PTP was entrusted with the authority to determine what additional goods and services the patient needed. Iglesias required that the chiropractors prescribe a certain minimum quota of goods and services, on average, for each patient. If the chiropractor failed to live up to the quota, Iglesias would cut off the flow of new patients.
Dr. Steven Rigler was one of the chiropractors involved in the corrupt referral network. He had clinics in Calexico, San Diego, and Escondido. To get patients for his San Diego and Escondido clinics, Rigler agreed to meet the referral “quota” set by Iglesias and Arguello. Court records reflect that Iglesias set a “value” for each type of service the physicians could refer, for example, $30 for each MRI, and $150 for Durable Medical Equipment (DME), to meet the quota of $600. To get credit, physicians had to refer their DME orders to Iglesias’ company, Meridian Medical Resources. Many of the MRIs were referred to Advanced Radiology, a diagnostic imaging company owned by Dr. Ronald Grusd. In Calexico, Ruben Martinez ran Rigler’s clinic and managed all of Rigler’s referrals for ancillary services. Alexander K. Martinez performed the same service for Rigler’s other clinics.
If the physicians failed to meet the quota, Iglesias cut off the pipeline of new patients. Iglesias employed Miguel Morales to ensure that physicians met the quota, and to demand lump-sum payoffs from them if they failed to do so. And to avoid such problems, and ensure a smooth referral process, Arguello hired referral managers who worked in chiropractor offices. For a time, Julian Garcia was paid by Arguello to manage Rigler's referrals. Garcia had Rigler's signature stamp, and if Rigler got behind, Garcia would simply increase the number of MRIs referred for each patient. Eventually, Garcia himself got licensed as a DME provider, and he himself paid chiropractors $50 apiece to prescribe “hot/cold packs” for pain relief, which were then billed to insurance companies for nearly $6,000.
Jennifer Louise White represented providers of other types of services, namely, Autonomic Nervous System (“ANS”) studies and sleep studies. She worked with Alex Martinez and with providers of the ANS and sleep studies to pay nearly $200,000 in kickbacks to Rigler to refer patients for these services.
Sentencing Hearings
In sentencing hearings held on February 20 and 21, 2019, U.S. District Judge Cynthia A. Bashant sentenced each defendant to custodial time. For his crimes, Iglesias was sentenced to 60 months in custody, and required to forfeit $1,005,000 in ill-gotten gains. Judge Bashant imposed five years’ probation on Igelsias’ corporations, MedEx and Meridian, and imposed a $500,000 joint and several fine. Miguel Morales was sentenced to 12 months and 1 day in custody, and was required to forfeit $140,000.
Alexander and Ruben Martinez were each sentenced to 33 months in custody and three years of supervised release. Their companies, Line of Sight and Desert Blue Moon, were sentenced to five years’ probation and fines of $45,000 and $20,000 respectively. Jennifer Louise White was sentenced to 24 months in custody, and ordered to pay fine of $25,000.
Onetime Workers’ Compensation applicant attorney Sean E. O’Keefe received a sentenced of 13 months in custody, and was required to forfeit $300,000 in ill-gotten gains. San Diego chiropractor Steven J. Rigler was sentenced to six months in custody, and was ordered to forfeit $150,000. The court substantially reduced both defendants’ sentences because they cooperated with authorities soon after being confronted by agents, and played critical roles in revealing the scope of the corrupt network.
Throughout the sentencing hearings, Judge Bashant expressed dismay that the defendants scammed a system “that’s set up to help people that really need the help.” She further expressed concern that these crimes would undermine public support for social safety-nets, such as the Workers’ Compensation system for injured workers. She expressed particular disappointment that licensed professionals like attorney O’Keefe and Dr. Rigler would engage in the fraud: “You are the most educated. You should know better,” she reproached them.
This week’s sentencing hearings, along with the conviction and sentence of Beverly Hills Radiologist Dr. Ronald Grusd, bring to a successful close the first wave of cases brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and its law enforcement partners to combat fraud in the California Workers’ Compensation System.
“It is unfortunate that some individuals see only an opportunity to profit in a system designed to aid injured workers,” said U.S. Attorney Robert S. Brewer, Jr. “What’s more, this crime corrupted the doctor-patient relationship. A doctor’s medical decisions should be based on the best interest of the patient, not the highest bidder.”
“Health care fraud betrays vulnerable patients and steals funds meant to care for injured workers,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge John Brown. “The cases in 'Operation Back Lash' have shown that these medical professionals, doctors, and attorneys who took bribes chose profit over their patients. This massive investigation, with over 30 convictions to date, demonstrates the FBI's commitment to finding those who commit fraud and bringing them to justice.”
Anyone with information about healthcare fraud may call the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI, or 1-800-225-5324 or the California Department of Insurance’s toll-free fraud hotline, 800-927-4357.
DEFENDANTS
United States v. Grusd, et al., 15cr2821-BAS Sentence
Ronald Grusd, Los Angeles, CA 10 years, $1.3 million forfeiture, $250,000 fine
California Imaging Network Medical Group 5 years’ Probation, $500,000 fine
Willows Consulting Company 5 years’ Probation, $500,000 fine
Alex Martinez, El Centro, CA 37 months’ custody
Ruben Martinez, Murietta, CA 33 months’ custody
Line of Sight, Inc. 5 years’ Probation, $45,000 fine
Desert Blue Moon, Inc. 5 years’ Probation, $20,000 fine
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Valerie H. Chu (619) 546-6750 and Michelle L. Wasserman (619) 546-8314
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – January 4, 2022
SAN DIEGO – Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, former director at Chabad of Poway, was sentenced in federal court today to fourteen months in custody for his years-long, multi-million-dollar schemes to defraud the Internal Revenue Service, several San Diego Fortune 500 companies, and multiple public and private agencies. He was also ordered to pay restitution totaling $2,834,608.
According to his plea agreement, while Rabbi Goldstein was director of the Poway synagogue, he received at least $6.2 million in phony contributions to the Chabad and affiliated charities and secretly refunded up to 90 percent of the donations to the “donors.” After Rabbi Goldstein provided these donors with fake receipts, they illegally claimed huge tax deductions for these nonexistent donations, and the rabbi kept about 10 percent – more than half a million dollars over the course of the fraud - for himself. Tax losses to the IRS were more than $1.5 million.
Rabbi Goldstein also admitted that he defrauded three different Fortune 500 companies by tricking them into matching supposed charitable donations of their employees. Working with the employees, Rabbi Goldstein fabricated receipts and then secretly returned their fake “donations.” This allowed the employees to claim tax deductions for the completely fabricated donations, and allowed Rabbi Goldstein to collect the companies’ matching funds—including some that matched double their employees’ donations. Rabbi Goldstein helped to orchestrate this scheme with at least six taxpayer-employees and two other associates who helped recruit new donors or conceal the true recipient of the funds. In total, Rabbi Goldstein defrauded the companies out of at least $144,000, and helped the taxpayer-employees to claim nearly as much in fictitious tax-deductible charitable contributions to the IRS.
Rabbi Goldstein admitted that he also helped his brother Mendel Goldstein conceal approximately $700,000 in income by allowing him to use Chabad bank accounts to deposit his income, thereby hiding it from the IRS. As his cut, Rabbi Goldstein kept 10 percent of this individual’s income—more than $70,000.
Separate and apart from the tax evasion scheme, Rabbi Goldstein and another defendant, Alexander Avergoon, used false information and fabricated invoices and other records to pretend to be eligible for emergency funds, grants or donations, and private loans. These frauds on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), and private foundations resulted in losses to these programs of at least $860,000.
According to sentencing documents, the United States Attorney’s Office recommended departures from the sentencing guidelines for Goldstein because of his cooperation against other individuals, and because of the extraordinary events he suffered as a victim of the April 27, 2019 shooting at the Chabad of Poway.
In imposing sentence, U.S. District Judge Cynthia A. Bashant commented, “You dragged down so many congregants. Many of those individuals thought that they were committing these offenses to benefit the Chabad or the synagogue in general, when in fact it was to benefit you. I just can’t ignore that. … I think time in custody is important. It’s important to send a message to the community, and it’s important to send a message to you.”
“Yisroel Goldstein exploited his position and stature as a faith leader to commit well-planned and carefully executed crimes of greed,” said U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman. “As his serious criminal conduct was under investigation, the rabbi became a victim in a devastating attack on the synagogue he led. Today’s sentence accounts for these extraordinary circumstances and our office’s mission to always seek justice.” Grossman thanked the prosecution team, the FBI and the IRS for their excellent work on this case.
“The defendant used the Chabad of Poway’s tax-exempt status as a religious organization to compile millions of dollars in fraudulent ‘donations’,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Suzanne Turner. “This scheme enabled Rabbi Goldstein to line his own pockets; reward his fake ‘donors’ with reimbursement for their contributions; and provided receipts enabling the ‘donations’ to be written off as charitable contributions, all in furtherance of the scheme. The FBI will continue to root out fraud disguised as charitable donations which ultimately hurts those organizations relying on the generosity of donors.”
“Rabbi Goldstein veiled over $2.8 million in fraud schemes he perpetrated with at least ten other co-conspirators by exploiting the non-profit statuses of the Chabad of Poway and the Friendship Circle of San Diego, organizations entrusted to him to serve the community,” said Special Agent in Charge Ryan L. Korner of IRS Criminal Investigation's Los Angeles Field Office. “IRS Special Agents were proud to work alongside the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office in this multimillion-dollar tax and grant fraud investigation that uncovered decades of illegal conduct. In addition to holding Rabbi Goldstein accountable for cheating U.S. taxpayers and businesses for personal gain, my fervent hope is that today's sentencing brings closure and healing to all who were affected by his crimes.”
Rabbi Goldstein was ordered to surrender into federal custody by noon on February 23, 2022.
DEFENDANT Case Number 20CR1916-BAS
Yisroel Goldstein Age: 60 Poway
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Michelle L. Wasserman (619) 546-8431 and Valerie H. Chu (619) 546-6750
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – June 14, 2021
SAN DIEGO –Stuart Weinstock, an Escondido businessman and former owner of Salsa Market in Vista, was sentenced in federal court today to eight months in custody for evading over $180,000 in taxes as part of an eight-year tax-evasion scheme with former Chabad of Poway Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein.
At today’s hearing, U.S. District Judge Cynthia A. Bashant told the defendant: “It’s important to send the message: ‘You commit tax fraud, you go to jail.’”
Until around 2018, Rabbi Goldstein was the director and head rabbi at Chabad of Poway, a tax-exempt religious organization. Weinstock pleaded guilty in February 2021, admitting that starting in approximately 2010, he met monthly with Goldstein to give him purported donation checks for the Chabad, generally about $8,000 a month. Goldstein would then funnel back 75 percent of the funds, or generally about $6,000 to Weinstock, keeping the remaining 25 percent of the funds for himself.
Between 2010 and 2018, Weinstock gave over $870,000 in fraudulent donations to the Chabad, of which over $650,000 was funneled back to him in cash. Although Weinstock knew that he had received back, in cash, the vast majority of his donations, he nonetheless falsely claimed on his tax returns that the checks to the Chabad were either tax-deductible charitable contributions or legitimate business expenses.
In July 2020, Rabbi Goldstein pleaded guilty to fraud charges, admitting that he participated in a complex, years-long, multi-million dollar tax evasion scheme and other financial deceptions involving theft of public money. Rabbi Goldstein’s plea agreement outlined the tax evasion scheme with Weinstock.
“Stuart Weinstock has cheated the system and evaded paying his fair share of taxes,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Randy S. Grossman. “Those who cheat the system by exploiting the tax-exempt status of non-profits and religious organizations will be held to account for their conduct.” Grossman praised prosecutors Michelle Wasserman and Valerie Chu and FBI and IRS agents for their excellent work on this case.
“For nearly nine years, Mr. Weinstock, a successful business man, funneled hundreds-of-thousands of dollars, veiled as donations, through Chabad of Poway’s tax-exempt status to skirt paying his fair share,” said IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent in Charge, Ryan L. Korner. “When you get an envelope of cash in exchange for your ‘donation’, it is neither charitable giving nor a legitimate business expense; it is fraud. Today’s sentencing of the 10th defendant to plead guilty in this widespread tax evasion scheme sends a clear message – the IRS will pursue and seek punishment for tax cheats who exploit religious organizations to enrich themselves.”
“The FBI and our law enforcement partners continue to pursue those who use fraudulent charitable contributions to shield their tax obligations,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Suzanne Turner. “What Mr. Weinstock was doing was illegal – and he knew it – however he continued to do it for years to line his own pockets and avoid paying taxes. These crimes shake the confidence of potential donors and adversely affect legitimate charities who rely on those donations to survive and it will not be tolerated.”
SUMMARY OF CHARGES Case Number 21CR0042-BAS
Stuart Weinstock Age: 64 Escondido, CA
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
PREVIOUSLY CHARGED DEFENDANTS AND SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Yisroel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR1916-BAS Age: 58 Poway
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Alexander Avergoon, Case Number 19CR2955-BAS Age: 44 San Diego
Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 1343
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of Title 18, USC 1028A
Maximum Penalty: Two years minimum consecutive term in prison
Money Laundering, in violation of Title 18, USC 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Bijan Moossazadeh, Case Number 20CR1893-BAS Age: 63 San Diego
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Yousef Shemirani, Case Number 20CR1895-BAS Age: 74 Poway
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Boris Shkoller, Case Number 20CR1913-BAS Age: 83 Del Mar
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Mendel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR2772-BAS Age: 63 Brooklyn, NY
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Bruce Baker, Case Number 20CR1912-BAS Age: 75 San Diego
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and File False Tax Returns, in violation of Title 18, U.S.C. §371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Rotem Cooper, Case Number 20CR3968-BAS Age: 54 San Diego
Deferred Prosecution Agreement
Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Igor Shtilkind, Case Number 20CR3955-BAS Age: 55 San Diego
Deferred Prosecution Agreement
Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Assistant U. S. Attorney Melanie K. Pierson (619) 546-7976
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – May 13, 2020
SAN DIEGO – Curtis Technology Inc., a San Diego firm that makes specialized coatings, was sentenced in federal court today to pay a $45,000 fine and $114,297 in clean-up costs for illegally transporting hazardous waste from its facility without a manifest.
Curtis Technology Inc. (CTI) pleaded guilty in February, admitting that it conducted metal finishing operations at its location on Sorrento Valley Road, which generated various wastes, including ferric chloride, alkaline, waste filter cake, solvents and other chemicals. The company admitted that between December 12, 2015 and August 22, 2019, the CTI owner and a maintenance employee transported chemicals, including waste ferric chloride, waste filter cake, waste alkaline, waste solvents and other chemical wastes, from the CTI location on Sorrento Valley Road to the CTI owner’s three residences located on Wrelton Drive, Corte Morea, and Bourgeois Way, without an accompanying hazardous waste manifest.
On November 8, 2019, a maintenance worker for CTI told the FBI that beginning in 2017, at the direction of the company owner, he transported various chemicals (both unused and waste) to be stored at the owner’s three residences in San Diego. The employee stated that the chemicals were hazardous, and that some could react with others stored at the same location if they were to come in contact with each other, potentially resulting in explosion. The employee further stated that he had been to the residences prior to 2017 with the owner and had observed containers of unknown chemicals at the residences prior to his first deliveries at each location. The chemicals he delivered were stored in five-gallon buckets with lids and jars with lids, and included selenium, cesium, ferric chloride, alkaline and filter cake (solids strained from liquids or sludges). All three residences where the chemicals were stored were unoccupied, and none of the chemicals were labeled as hazardous waste. None of the chemicals transported to the residences by the employee were accompanied by a hazardous waste manifest.
On November 14, 2019, federal search warrants were executed at the three residences identified by the employee as places where the hazardous waste was being stored. Collectively, at the three sites, over 300 containers of waste chemicals were discovered. At one of the locations, chemicals deemed too unstable to transport were discovered. The area was evacuated, the San Diego Fire Department Bomb Squad arrived, and the chemicals were detonated on site. The remaining chemicals were removed from the sites, and disposed of as hazardous waste through the EPA Superfund program at a cost of approximately $114,000. The illegal activity occurred after the company had been subject to an adverse administrative action relating to its management of its hazardous waste.
“This company was so cavalier and irresponsible about the storage of chemicals that it knowingly put an entire neighborhood at risk,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “This sentence holds the company accountable for its illegal actions.” Brewer also commended the prosecution team headed by AUSA Melanie Pierson for their diligence in this case.
“The illegal transportation and storage of dangerous chemicals and hazardous waste could have easily resulted in a serious injury or death,” said San Diego FBI Acting Special Agent in Charge Omer Meisel. “Today’s conviction demonstrates the FBI's commitment to working with our law enforcement partners to hold accountable those individuals who do not follow proper hazardous waste protocol and put the community at risk.”
“The defendant illegally stored chemicals in a residential area that were too unstable to safely transport for disposal,” said Acting Special Agent in Charge Scot Adair of EPA’s criminal enforcement program in California. “These actions required the evacuation of a neighborhood to allow local law enforcement officials to detonate the chemicals safely. EPA and our law enforcement partners are committed to addressing these risks and enforcing our environmental laws.”
DEFENDANT Case Number 20cr0715-JAH
Curtis Technology Inc. Incorporated: 1981 San Diego, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Transportation of Hazardous Waste Without a Manifest – Title 42, U.S.C., Section 6928(d)(5)
Maximum penalty for corporation: Five years of probation and a fine of the greater of $500,000 or $50,000 per day of violation and a minimum fine of $5000 per day of violation
AGENCY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Criminal Investigation Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Assistant U. S. Attorney Melanie K. Pierson (619) 546-7976
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – February 27, 2020
SAN DIEGO – Curtis Technology, Inc., a San Diego firm that makes specialized coatings, pleaded guilty in federal court yesterday, admitting that the company illegally transported hazardous waste from its facility without a manifest. In pleading guilty, Curtis Technology admitted that it conducted metal finishing operations at its location on Sorrento Valley Road, which generated various wastes, including ferric chloride, alkaline, waste filter cake, solvents and other chemicals.
The company admitted that between December 12, 2015 and August 22, 2019, CTI owner Alex Jvirblis (deceased) and a maintenance employee transported chemicals, including waste ferric chloride, waste filter cake, waste alkaline, waste solvents and other chemical wastes, from the CTI location on Sorrento Valley Road to three residences in San Diego owned by Jvirblis located on Wrelton Drive, Corte Morea, and Bourgeois Way. The chemicals were not accompanied by a hazardous waste manifest at the time of transportation.
The waste ferric chloride and waste alkaline are federally-regulated hazardous wastes having the characteristic of corrosivity. The waste solvents are federally-regulated hazardous wastes having the characteristic of ignitability. The waste filter cake is a federally-regulated listed hazardous waste, assigned waste code F006 for wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations. All of these wastes are required by regulation to be transported with a uniform hazardous waste manifest. The firm admitted that Alex Jvirblish acted knowingly, that is with knowledge that the chemicals transported to the three sites were not accompanied by a hazardous waste manifest and with knowledge that the chemicals were waste that had the potential or substantial potential to be harmful to others or to the environment.
Federal search warrants were conducted at the three sites in November, 2019, and the chemicals were recovered. At one of the residences, chemicals were discovered which were too unstable to safely transport for disposal. The area was evacuated, and the chemicals were detonated on site by the Sheriff’s Department Bomb Squad.
“These kind of violations have the potential to jeopardize public health and damage the environment,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “We will hold companies accountable when they take short cuts that put people and our environment at risk.”
San Diego FBI Special Agent in Charge Scott Brunner stated, “Today's plea was made possible by extraordinary investigative effort expended in a compressed time frame by the San Diego Environmental Crimes Task Force. The FBI is grateful for the integral support of the San Diego Fire Department, San Diego Police Department, San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (HAZMAT) and the Environmental Protection Agency, in expeditiously locating and neutralizing these dangerous chemicals."
“The law protects our communities and the environment by requiring proper storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste,” said Acting Special Agent-in-Charge Scot Adair of EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division in California. “This case demonstrates that EPA and its law enforcement partners are committed to holding knowing violators of those requirements accountable for their actions."
Sentencing is set before U.S. District Judge John A. Houston on March 16, 2020, at 11:00 am.
DEFENDANT Case Number 20cr0715-JAH
Curtis Technology, Inc. Incorporated: 1981 San Diego, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Transportation of Hazardous Waste Without a Manifest – Title 42, U.S.C., Section 6928(d)(5)
Maximum penalty for corporation: Five years of probation and a fine of the greater of $500,000 or $50,000 per day of violation and a minimum fine of $5,000 per day of violation
AGENCIES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Criminal Investigation Division
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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
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
SAN DIEGO – Constantin Sandu of Romania pleaded guilty in federal court today, admitting that he masterminded a scheme to steal more than $5 million in California unemployment insurance benefits intended to help workers impacted by the pandemic.
According to his plea agreement, Sandu conspired with an uncharged co-conspirator identified as “D.C.” plus 213 unnamed Romanian co-conspirators across California and in Romania to fraudulently obtain millions of dollars in California unemployment insurance benefits by fabricating documents, creating fictitious accounts and businesses, and filing bogus claims with California’s Economic Development Department, which administers the state’s unemployment benefits. Sandu wired $16,000 of proceeds from the fraud to Romania to renovate his house.
In a forfeiture addendum, Sandu agreed to forfeit $214,950 of proceeds that he personally received from the offenses.
“This defendant has admitted to presiding over a vast network of people who exploited a program that was meant to help Californians during the pandemic,” said U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman. “The scheme alleged in this case diverted millions of dollars from those who truly needed it. We will continue to zealously prosecute perpetrators of COVID relief fraud.” Grossman thanked the prosecution team and the investigating agencies for their excellent work on this case.
“I am extremely proud that San Diego’s law enforcement partners were able to successfully apprehend Sandu,” said FBI San Diego Field Office Special Agent in Charge, Stacey Moy. “Unfortunately, this was an elaborate scheme that involved many alleged fraudsters. We will continue to tirelessly work to bring all those involved to justice.”
“Millions of dollars of unemployment benefits and pandemic-related aid were fraudulently obtained by individuals who falsified information and redirected the funds for their own personal gain,” said Tyler Hatcher, Special Agent in Charge of IRS Criminal Investigation Los Angeles Field Office. “Constantin Sandu is now being held accountable for this $5 million scheme. IRS-CI will not tolerate criminal networks that prey on vulnerable communities and exploit resources meant for those in need. IRS-CI is committed to working with our law enforcement partners locally and internationally to locate and hold criminal organizations accountable for their crimes.”
The plea agreement said that beginning in July 2020 and continuing until late summer of 2022, Sandu and hundreds of unnamed co-conspirators, including the one identified as D.C., learned and developed a process to receive the most benefits possible by using fraudulent identifications, falsified utility bills, falsified earnings statements, falsified W2s, fraudulent health insurance cards and non-existent companies. Additionally, Sandu learned to “backdate” or modify the EDD applications with an earlier unemployment start date to generate even bigger pay days.
Co-conspirators across California would share information, knowledge and resources with Sandu, for Sandu to file claims for regular unemployment insurance and expanded pandemic unemployment insurance benefits from California EDD. Co-conspirators communicated with Sandu via Facebook or other electronic means or met with him in person to provide their Personal Identifying Information, known as PII.
According to the California Franchise Tax Board, none of the companies named in the various W2s submitted for conspirators’ EDD applications was real. According to Blue Cross Blue Shield, none of the member identification numbers submitted for conspirators’ EDD applications was real.
In total, Sandu conspired with D.C. and unnamed co-conspirators to fraudulently obtain no less than $5,207,687 in California unemployment insurance benefits.
Sandu is scheduled to be sentenced on October 16, 2023, at 10 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Larry Burns.
DEFENDANT Case Number: 23-cr-00386-LAB
Constantin Sandu, aka Bobi Sandu, aka Ionut Mihai Age: 33 Transient, Romanian
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Title 18, U.S.C. § 1349 and 1343 - Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud
Maximum penalty: Thirty years in prison, a fine of $1 million or both;
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A) — Laundering Monetary Instruments
Maximum penalty: Twenty years in prison and $500,000 fine or twice the value of the monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation, transmission, or transfer, whichever is greater;
Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C) and 982(a)(1), and Title 28, U.S.C. § 2461(c) - Criminal Forfeitures
INVESTIGATING AGENCIES
Federal Bureau of Investigation
San Diego Police Department Economic Crimes Unit
Internal Revenue Service
California Employment Development Department Investigative Division
Homeland Security Investigations
Department of Labor Office of Investigator General
SAN DIEGO – Randal Vance and his longtime friend, Keir Ceballos-Rivera, were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges that they employed children to help them cultivate, produce and distribute psilocybin mushrooms at locations in Fallbrook and Bonsall.Also indicted was Rebecca Vance, wife of Randal Vance. The trio made their initial appearances in federal court today on an array of federal drug-trafficking charges. Randal Vance and Ceballos are charged with conspiring to use and employ minors to produce a controlled substance; all defendants are charged with conspiring to distribute a controlled substance and conspiring to obstruct justice by destroying evidence; and Randal Vance is charged with distributing a controlled substance to minors and possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.At today’s hearing, prosecutors told the court the children were 9 and 11 when the alleged conspiracy to harvest psilocybin at the locations on Ash Street in Fallbrook and Lilac Road in Bonsall began. Psilocybin mushrooms are a controlled substance that act as hallucinogenic drugs, inducing altered states of consciousness and vivid sensory experiences.All three defendants were arrested yesterday. At today’s hearing, U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres granted the government’s request that Randal and Rebecca Vance be detained without bond because they are a flight risk. A detention hearing for Ceballos-Rivera is set for March 25, 2025.The United States told the Court that Randal Vance informed customers and co-conspirators that the minors assisted him in producing psilocybin. For example, on or about October 18, 2023, Vance texted a photograph of one of the minors holding a large psilocybin mushroom in front of his face at the Ash Street location and said that the “11 year old helps me grow them.”One of the minors informed Randal Vance on May 31, 2024, that he was selling a psilocybin capsule to a friend for $3. At the time, the boy was a student at Lincoln Middle School in Oceanside. Randal Vance responded: “Nice! Make sure your friend’s parents don’t find out or you and I are in big big trouble.”Randal Vance boasted of dosing the children with psilocybin and advised others to do likewise, the indictment said. For example, on or about October 13, 2023, Randal Vance messaged a co-conspirator a photo of one of the minors holding a large psilocybin mushroom and stated that an 11-year old “cultivates and microdoses. It’s good for kids’ brains.” Later in the conversation, Randal Vance identified the other minor as nine years old and said, “Yeah I usually do a half dose of microdose capsules for them” and “.05 every other day for them. It’s such a difference too.”Ceballos-Rivera sent Randal Vance a photograph of another child at the Ash Street location holding a large psilocybin mushroom and covering part of his/her face on or about September 7, 2024. Ceballos-Rivera wrote: “From earlier today haha” and “‘No face, no case.’”Randal Vance is also charged with illegally possessing a Glock 34 pistol, a Walther P22 pistol, a Henry Survival AR7 rifle, a Smith and Wesson revolver, an H&R Model 900 revolver, and a Browning 30-06 rifle in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense.On October 4, 2024, law enforcement executed search warrants on the Fallbrook and Bonsall locations. At the Ash Street location, law enforcement recovered approximately 204 pounds of fresh psilocybin mushrooms, 53 pounds of dried psilocybin mushrooms, 35 pounds of psilocybin chocolate bars, 18 pounds of inoculated substrate to grow psilocybin mushrooms, and equipment used to grow, harvest, and process psilocybin mushrooms.At the Lilac Road location, law enforcement recovered approximately 25 pounds of dried psilocybin mushrooms, five pounds of psilocybin chocolates, and five pounds of psilocybin capsules, as well as molds used to make the psilocybin chocolate bars.Law enforcement officials also seized six firearms from the Lilac Road location: a Glock 34 pistol, a Walther P22 pistol, a Henry Survival AR7 rifle, a Smith and Wesson revolver, an H&R Model 900 revolver, and a Browning 30-06 rifle. None of the firearms were locked up, and loaded magazines were found next to the Glock 34 and Walther P22.Randal Vance was arrested that day. Prior to his federal arrest, he was out on bond pending state charges. After Randal Vance’s arrest by local law enforcement, the defendants are alleged to have conspired together to destroy evidence by deleting phone messages and taking down websites Randal Vance had used to distribute psilocybin.This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Paul Benjamin and Dana Segal.If you are concerned that your child may have been exposed to illegal drugs as a result of the activities alleged in this case, please contact the DEA at https://www.dea.gov/submit-tip.DEFENDANTS Case Number 25-CR-817-RSH Randal Vance Age: 42 Fallbrook, CARebecca Vance Age: 41 Oceanside, CAKeir Ceballos-Rivera Age: 33 Oceanside, CASUMMARY OF CHARGESConspiracy to Employ or Use Minors to Violate the Controlled Substances Act – Title 21, U.S.C., Sections 841, 846, and 861(a)Maximum penalty: Mandatory minimum one year to 40 years in prisonConspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Substance- – Title 21, U.S.C., Sections 841 and 846Maximum penalty: Twenty years in prisonDistribution of a Controlled Substance to Minors– Title 21, U.S.C., Section 859(a)Maximum penalty: Mandatory minimum one year to 40 years in prisonPossession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Offense- – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 924(c)Maximum penalty: Mandatory minimum five years to life in prisonConspiracy to Obstruct Justice- – Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 1503(a), (b)(3), and 371Maximum penalty: Ten years in prisonINVESTIGATING AGENCIESDrug Enforcement AdministrationSan Diego Sheriff’s Department*The charges and allegations contained in an indictment or complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.
SAN DIEGO – Tien Tan Vo, a doctor practicing in Imperial Valley, has pleaded guilty to crimes related to his years-long use of foreign unapproved and misbranded cosmetic drugs.
Vo pleaded guilty to receipt of misbranded drugs in interstate commerce and being an accessory after the fact to an accomplice, who smuggled the unapproved drugs into the United States from Mexico.
In his plea agreement, Vo admitted that none of the injectable botulinum toxin or lip fillers used by his clinics between November 2016 and October 2020 was approved for use in the United States. This specifically included a botulinum toxin product called “Xeomeen” and an injectable lip filler called Probcel—both products that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Vo acknowledged that he received $100,767 in gross receipts for almost four years of cosmetic services performed with unapproved drugs and devices. As part of his plea agreement, he has agreed to forfeit that amount, and to pay a fine of $201,534. Vo also agreed to pay restitution to victims of his offense.
In his plea agreement, Vo admitted purchasing most of his unapproved drugs and devices from the operator of a “med spa” in Mexicali, Mexico, who smuggled them into the United States without declaring them.
“All members of our community should be able to trust that their doctor is acting in their best interest,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Andrew Haden. “Through this prosecution, we are protecting patients from unapproved and potentially unsafe drugs and will always seek to thwart those who would exploit patients for financial gain.”
“Injecting unapproved medicines poses a significant threat to public health and can have serious consequences for individuals,” said Chad Plantz, Special Agent in Charge for HSI San Diego. “Together, with our partnered agencies, we need to educate people of the dangers caused by using unauthorized botulinum toxin (the active ingredient in Botox®, Xeomin®, and similar products) and thwart those who smuggle and illegally use it for cosmetic procedures.”
“The FDA’s requirements help ensure that patients receive safe and effective medical treatments. Evading the FDA process and distributing unapproved drugs to U.S. consumers will not be tolerated,” said Special Agent in Charge Robert M. Iwanicki, FDA Office of Criminal Investigations, Los Angeles Field Office. “We will continue to investigate and hold accountable those who traffic in unapproved drugs.”
Sentencing is set for November 16, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard.
Potential victims related to this case may provide or request information by emailing USACAS.Cosmetic.Case@usdoj.gov.
DEFENDANT Case Number 23cr1700
Tien Tan Vo Age: 47 El Centro, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Accessory After the Fact to Entry of Goods by Means of False Statement – Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 542 and 3
Maximum penalty: One year in prison, fine of $100,000 or twice the pecuniary gain or loss
Receipt in Interstate Commerce of Misbranded Drugs and Delivery for Pay or Otherwise – Title 21, U.S.C., Sections 331(c) and 333(a)(1)
Maximum penalty: One year in prison, fine of $1,000 or twice the pecuniary gain or loss
AGENCIES
Homeland Security Investigations
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Office of Criminal Investigations
Federal Bureau of Investigation
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Emily W. Allen (619) 546-9738, Oleksandra Johnson (619) 546-9769, and Randy Grossman (619) 546-6761
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – September 14, 2020
SAN DIEGO – Mendel Goldstein, the owner of a videography business based in Brooklyn, New York, pleaded guilty in federal court today to tax evasion charges relating to a long-running conspiracy with his brother, Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein.
Until around 2018, Yisroel Goldstein was the director and head rabbi at Chabad of Poway, a tax-exempt organization that the brothers used to divert Mendel Goldstein’s income and conceal more than $700,000 in earnings from the IRS. They hid the money by depositing it into Chabad accounts, then secretly funneling it back to Mendel Goldstein by writing checks to fictitious names like “Mr. Green,” “Mr. Gold,” or “Mr. Fish.”
According to his plea agreement, beginning in 2012, Mendel Goldstein agreed with his brother Yisroel Goldstein that Mendel Goldstein could deposit his freelance videography income directly into bank accounts owned by Chabad of Poway. This allowed Mendel Goldstein to avoid reporting his entire income to the IRS. In return, the brothers agreed that Yisroel Goldstein would keep 10 percent of Mendel Goldstein’s income as his fee—amounting to about $70,000. Mendel Goldstein saved approximately $155,881 in taxes he should have paid to the IRS.
As Mendel Goldstein admitted today, the conspiracy operated for several years until December 2018. At that time, Yisroel Goldstein discovered that he was under investigation for tax evasion and other crimes. He warned Mendel Goldstein about the investigation and encouraged him to conceal his tax evasion by filing delinquent tax returns.
In July 2020, Yisroel Goldstein, along with five other associates, pleaded guilty to fraud charges, admitting that he participated in a complex, years-long, multi-million dollar tax-evasion scheme and other financial deceptions involving theft of public money. Among the schemes he admitted as part of his guilty plea, Yisroel Goldstein outlined the tax avoidance conspiracy he operated with Mendel Goldstein. Yisroel Goldstein has agreed to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. He is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant on April 26, 2021.
“People who cheat on their taxes are cheating all honest taxpayers,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “We will not tolerate the exploitation of non-profit and religious organizations to line the perpetrators’ pockets at society’s expense.”
“The law clearly states that income is subject to tax and must be reported, from whatever source derived, including compensation for services,” said Ryan L. Korner, Special Agent in Charge of IRS Criminal Investigation. “Mr. Mendel Goldstein admitted that he broke the law by hiding over $700,000 in income and willfully evading his taxes for over six years. His tax crime is made even more egregious because he exploited the tax-exempt status of Chabad of Poway to cheat the United States. Today’s guilty plea demonstrates that the IRS will diligently continue our important enforcement efforts despite the ongoing challenges posed by Covid-19. We will work alongside our law enforcement partners in a collective effort to enforce the law and ensure the public trust.”
“This investigation uncovered a conspiracy of crimes involving fraud, deception and evasion that used the cloak of a tax-exempt religious organization, the Chabad of Poway, for personal financial benefit,” said Suzanne Turner, Special Agent in Charge of FBI's San Diego Field Office. “The FBI takes seriously the harm that financial crimes have on our country. We are all expected to follow the rule of law, and the FBI is charged with enforcing these laws. Today, Mendel Goldstein has been reminded of this important lesson, as he acknowledged with his guilty plea.”
Judge Bashant presided over today’s arraignment and guilty plea. Mendel Goldstein is next scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on December 14, 2020 at 9 a.m.
NEW DEFENDANT AND SUMMARY OF NEW CHARGES
Mendel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR2772-BAS Age: 63 Brooklyn, NY
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
PREVIOUSLY CHARGED DEFENDANTS AND SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Yisroel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR1916-BAS Age: 58 Poway
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Alexander Avergoon, Case Number 19CR2955-BAS Age: 44 San Diego
Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 1343
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of Title 18, USC 1028A
Maximum Penalty: Two years minimum consecutive term in prison
Money Laundering, in violation of Title 18, USC 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Bruce Baker, Case Number 20CR1912-BAS Age: 74 La Jolla
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and file false tax returns, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Bijan Moossazadeh, Case Number 20CR1893-BAS Age: 63 San Diego
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Yousef Shemirani, Case Number 20CR1895-BAS Age: 74 Poway
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Boris Shkoller, Case Number 20CR1913-BAS Age: 83 Del Mar
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
INVESTIGATING AGENCIES
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service
For Further Information, Contact:
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Emily W. Allen (619) 546-9738,Andrew Young (619) 546-7981, and Oleksandra Johnson (619) 546-9769
SAN DIEGO – Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, former director at Chabad of Poway, and five of his associates pleaded guilty in federal court today and Monday to fraud charges, admitting that they participated in a complex, years-long, multi-million dollar tax-evasion scheme and other financial deceptions involving theft of public money.
According to his plea agreement, while Rabbi Goldstein was director of the Poway synagogue, he received at least $6.2 million in phony contributions to the Chabad and affiliated charities and secretly refunded up to 90 percent of the donations to the “donors.” After Rabbi Goldstein provided these donors with fake receipts, they illegally claimed huge tax deductions for these nonexistent donations, and the rabbi kept about 10 percent – more than half a million dollars over the course of the fraud - for himself. Tax losses to the IRS were more than $1.5 million. At least 20 taxpayers were involved in this and related tax-evasion schemes.
This case was under investigation for more than two years before Rabbi Goldstein was shot and wounded during the April 27, 2019 attack on worshippers at the Chabad. In that case, federal civil rights and hate crimes charges are pending against John T. Earnest of Rancho Peñasquitos.
The rabbi was aware of the investigation at the time of the shooting. FBI and IRS agents had searched his home in October of 2018, and he began cooperating with the investigation shortly after that time.
According to his plea agreement, Rabbi Goldstein has agreed to cooperate with ongoing investigations of uncharged co-conspirators and to forfeit $1 million in proceeds and pay restitution of $2.5 million.
“This case has brought us all a great deal of anguish because of the attack on Chabad of Poway,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “But whatever a defendant’s dire personal circumstances, or stature in the community, we will always seek justice, first and foremost. We cannot, and will not, sweep serious criminal conduct under the rug. We cannot look the other way because a perpetrator of crime has suddenly become a victim of crime.”
“This case shows the FBI’s dedication to untangling the web of fraud in a complex, multi-million dollar charitable donation scheme that violated the trust of the Chabad of Poway and defrauded the United States government," said FBI San Diego Acting Special Agent-in-Charge Omer Meisel. “The FBI is committed to holding those accountable who use their position and stature in the community as a disguise to commit fraud. All the defendants in this case, including Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, have admitted their guilt in these fraudulent schemes and will no longer be able to use deceit and lies to cheat those who were intended to receive charitable funds and taxpayer dollars.”
“The Chabad of Poway, which has served its community for decades, was used by Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein and the five co-defendants to evade over $1.5 million in taxes over the last 8 years,” said Ryan L. Korner, Special Agent in Charge of the IRS’s Criminal Investigation Division. “The Chabad was further victimized in April 2019 when a shooter attacked its worshippers, and we recognize the pain that terrible event has caused for the Chabad, Rabbi Goldstein, and the community. Ultimately, the financial fraud schemes uncovered during this multi-year, multi-defendant investigation were egregious and IRS Criminal Investigation has a responsibility to bring to justice those who exploit and manipulate non-profit and religious organizations in order to benefit themselves. The IRS is responsible for protecting honest taxpayers and serving the public by ensuring the integrity of our tax system, which funds our nation’s critical infrastructures and vital programs, including supporting our citizens and small businesses during the ongoing pandemic. The hard work of our Special Agents will not stop despite the ongoing challenges posed by Covid-19. We will continue to work alongside our law enforcement partners, and this week’s six guilty pleas demonstrate our collective efforts to continue to enforce the law and ensure the public trust.”
Five others who participated in the scheme with Rabbi Goldstein also entered guilty pleas in federal court this week, admitting that they knowingly participated by concealing their donations through the Chabad and making false deductions on their tax forms, or by recruiting new taxpayers to participate in the scheme. One taxpayer, defendant Bruce Baker, admitted that he began participating in this scheme with Rabbi Goldstein in the 1980s, and made millions of dollars in fictitious donations over the years.
Rabbi Goldstein admitted today that in one instance in late 2017, he attempted to disguise the source of more than $1.1 million in fraudulent donations by purchasing gold coins worth approximately $1 million. He then delivered the gold to the phony donor.
CLICK HERE - Press Presentation Graphics
There were many schemes within the broader tax-fraud and kickback scheme, dating back to 2010 or earlier and continuing through 2018.
Rabbi Goldstein admitted he defrauded three different Fortune 500 companies by tricking them into matching supposed charitable donations of their employees. Working with the employees, Rabbi Goldstein fabricated fake receipts and then secretly returned their fake “donations.” This allowed the employees to claim tax deductions for the completely fabricated donations, and allowed Rabbi Goldstein to collect the companies’ matching funds—including some that matched double their employees’ donations. Rabbi Goldstein helped to orchestrate this scheme with at least six taxpayer-employees and two other associates who helped recruit new donors or conceal the true recipient of the funds. In total, Rabbi Goldstein defrauded the companies out of at least $134,000, and helped the taxpayer-employees to claim nearly as much in fictitious tax-deductible charitable contributions to the IRS.
Rabbi Goldstein admitted that he also helped an individual conceal more than $700,000 in income by allowing the individual to use Chabad bank accounts to deposit his income, thereby hiding it from the IRS. As his cut, Rabbi Goldstein kept 10 percent of this individual’s income—more than $70,000.
Separate and apart from the tax evasion scheme, Rabbi Goldstein and defendant Alexander Avergoon, who also pleaded guilty today, used false information and fabricated invoices and other records to pretend to be eligible for emergency funds, grants or donations, and private loans. These frauds on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), and private foundations resulted in losses to these programs of at least $875,000. Rabbi Goldstein and Avergoon have agreed to pay restitution to recoup these losses and reimburse these programs.
The rabbi also admitted in his plea agreement that he defrauded San Diego County courts by falsely certifying that co-conspirators and associates had performed volunteer work at the Chabad or its affiliated entities, so that those associates could submit fake reports to the courts that they had fulfilled sentencing requirements for criminal offenses showing dozens or even hundreds of community service hours. Finally, Rabbi Goldstein admitted that, along with Avergoon, he fraudulently obtained loans from banks and mortgage lending businesses by submitting false information in loan applications that they verified for one another.
“Sadly, the facts of this case show a willful, devious effort to deceive on the part of a trusted community leader,” Brewer said. “Evading taxes causes harm not just to the government, but also to one’s fellow citizens, who are forced to bear a heavier burden. Members of the Chabad of Poway are also victims of this crime, for those fake donations certainly did not benefit their congregation.
“There is no doubt that Rabbi Goldstein was the victim of a heinous hate crime that terrorized him and Chabad congregants,” Brewer said. “This is a mitigating factor, but this is no excuse. We acknowledge the rabbi’s cooperation and his community leadership in the wake of the shooting. But this illegal conduct had been going on for many years, and it cannot be ignored.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford presided over today’s arraignment and guilty plea. Rabbi Goldstein is next scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on October 19, 2020 at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant.
The five related guilty pleas involve a series of fraud and tax evasion schemes by Rabbi Goldstein’s co‑defendants:
1. Defendant Alexander Avergoon
Avergoon admitted that from 2010 to 2015, he recruited at least nine taxpayers who made more than $275,000 in fraudulent “donations” to the Chabad, then used Avergoon as a conduit to secretly return 90 percent of the money to the purported “donors.” He also admitted that he joined Rabbi Goldstein in the grant fraud scam in which they obtained hundreds of thousands of dollars in misappropriated grant funds.
As part of the government benefits fraud scheme, Avergoon used shell companies, including “Imagination Construction Company,” to create fictitious and backdated invoices for services like carpet installation, repairs to the Chabad of Poway’s HVAC system, and replacing damaged books and other supplies—even though Avergoon had never performed these services. In some cases, Avergoon would give Goldstein several fake bids from different shell companies, so that Rabbi Goldstein could trick the grant program administrators into believing he had complied with their competitive bidding requirements. Avergoon and Goldstein pretended that the government grant funds would be used for facilities upgrades, security systems, and community programs. But in reality, the money often went straight to Goldstein’s and Avergoon’s pockets; other times they used portions of it to pay contractors who had in fact charged much lower prices than reflected on Avergoon’s phony paperwork.
Apart from his fraudulent partnership with Rabbi Goldstein, Avergoon also admitted to participating in separate real estate Ponzi schemes from 2010 to 2016, in which he cheated retirement investors out of a total of $12 million. Avergoon was a San Diego-based real estate agent, and he used his industry knowledge and reputation to target trusting victims who would invest in what they thought was the purchase of rental property. Avergoon promised monthly dividends that would be paid from rental income. He created written investment materials like prospectus and projected income and expenses calculations, designed to give investors the false impression that their money would be safely tucked away in passive-income retirement investments. But in truth, instead of using investors’ money to buy rental properties as he promised, Avergoon spent the money himself and just pretended that he had purchased the apartment buildings and office space he advertised. In true Ponzi fashion, for a time, Avergoon made the promised dividend payments—but rather than using rent income, he funded those payments using new investor money.
Avergoon deceived more than a dozen unwitting investors, and convinced them to part with at least $5 million. When an investor would ask to cash out, he encouraged them to re-invest, and at one point he pretended to “roll over” their retirement investments to purchase a multi-million dollar commercial building. In reality, he bought that building with a loan, not with investor money, and again diverted their money to his own personal use. He created fake partnership agreements, false purchase documents and deeds, and other fictitious records, and forged the signatures of his investors to conceal the fraud—then laundered the proceeds in order to disguise the true source and ownership of the money.
Avergoon did not stop there. He convinced investors to part with another $5 million or more by pretending to use their money to fund short-term, low-risk loans supposedly secured by the borrowers’ high-end San Diego homes. But in reality, there were no “borrowers”—Avergoon used his real estate connections to identify homes he could pose as collateral, and he simply doctored up fake loan agreements and forged the borrowers’ signatures. In some cases, the individuals he claimed were the borrowers did not even own the homes that were purportedly used as collateral. Avergoon made fake loan agreements, Deeds of Trust, mortgage Notes, and other official-looking documents, and he even created fake notary stamps and San Diego County Recorder’s Office markings to make the paperwork appear legitimate. Once again, Avergoon used new investor money to make occasional payments to his victims, to make it appear that the “loans” were performing. But in truth, he diverted the money to his own use and the “investments” were worthless.
Avergoon was indicted in August 2019 and apprehended in Latvia. He was extradited to the United States in November 2019 and has remained in custody since his extradition and initial appearance in federal court in San Diego. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major presided over his change of plea hearing today. Avergoon is next scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on October 19, 2020 at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant.
2. Defendant Bruce Baker
Bruce Baker pleaded guilty to conspiring with Rabbi Goldstein to defraud the IRS and file false tax returns beginning as early as the mid-1980s. For three decades, Baker admitted that he used fabricated records from Goldstein to fraudulently reduce his tax liabilities by pretending he was eligible for tax deductions for millions of dollars in nonexistent “gifts to charity” he reportedly made to the Chabad. In reality, Goldstein secretly returned 90 percent of Baker’s donations, and kept a 10 percent fee.
This part of the scheme was especially complex and intricate. Rather than simply paying cash or returning Baker’s money in direct payments, Goldstein would pay Baker’s creditors, make large purchases on his behalf, give money to Baker’s relatives, or pay off bills on behalf of his family. To disguise the repayments, Rabbi Goldstein delivered the money in clandestine ways by, for example, paying:
around $200,000 to Baker’s business partner to buy the partner’s share of their business assets on Baker’s behalf;
more than $420,000 in tuition and fees for Baker’s son to attend dental school and a post-doctoral residency in dentistry;
at least $90,000 to a construction company for Baker’s benefit, another $200,000 directly to a building contractor working for Baker and $129,000 to a home builder, and more than $300,000 to Baker’s account at a construction and building supply company; and
$200,000 from the proceeds of the sale of Goldstein’s property paid directly to Baker’s son.
Over the years, Baker admitted that he “donated” at least $2.6 million to Chabad of Poway, with at least $2.4 million secretly funneled back from Goldstein to Baker. In total, Baker’s and Goldstein’s scheme cost the IRS around $644,000 in tax losses.
Separate from his dealings with Rabbi Goldstein, Baker also admitted that he engaged in a similar tax evasion scheme with the director of a separate religious congregation and community organization in San Diego. In 2006, that individual offered Baker and his family an arrangement where they would pretend to make an “in-kind” donation to the religious organization of an ancient Iranian Torah—although no such Torah existed and the “in-kind” donation was a hoax. This other director provided Baker with a fraudulent appraisal that valued the Torah at $1.2 million. Baker and his family used the fake paperwork to claim exorbitant tax deductions, and gave the co-conspirator a 10 percent fee—or $120,000—in return. On top of that, the director charged Baker $20,000 for the fake appraisal.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford presided over Baker’s arraignment and guilty plea on July 13, 2020. Baker is scheduled for sentencing on October 19, 2020, at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to make full restitution to the IRS including all unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest.
3. Defendant Bijan Moossazadeh
Bijan Moossazadeh began participating in the tax evasion scheme with Rabbi Goldstein as early as 2012. As he admitted in his plea agreement, between 2012 and 2018 he pretended to “donate” a total of around $290,000 to Chabad of Poway. But instead of using the money for charitable purposes, Goldstein secretly funneled back 90 percent of the funds to Moossazadeh. Even so, Goldstein generated fraudulent donation receipt letters for Moossazadeh, so he could fraudulently verify that the money was indeed a “gift to charity.” Moossazadeh fraudulently reduced his tax liability—or intended to, before he learned of this investigation in 2018—by more than $91,500.
Goldstein concealed his repayments by giving Moossazadeh large cash payments that would be difficult to trace. And he communicated in code when he had cash available, referring to his cash supplies as “challah” and his supplier as “the baker.” In 2016, for example, Goldstein texted Moossazadeh to tell him he had cash: “I got a call from the Baker today he’s preparing for Friday how many Chalah do you need?” Moossazadeh answered, “22”—by which he meant, $22,000. The next day, Goldstein followed up: “Good morning[.] The baker came in earlier and has today 22 challa ready for pickup[.] Let me know what time?” Moossazadeh met Rabbi Goldstein at the Chabad on March 16, 2016, where he delivered a $22,000 check made payable to the Chabad (with “Contribution” written in the memo line), and in exchange Goldstein gave him $20,000 in cash (keeping the remaining $2,000). Goldstein also gave Moossazadeh a fraudulent donation receipt thanking Defendant for his “generous tax deductible donation.”
They followed a similar pattern in 2018, when Goldstein again used coded text messages to alert Moossazadeh that he did not have cash ready and available: “Just got a call the baker is not baking challah this Friday-will be back next Friday and have the full order.” A week later, Goldstein followed up: “Cook just finished . [] Come and pickup[.]” Moossazadeh admitted in his plea agreement that he met Goldstein at the Chabad the next day and delivered a check for $33,000, made payable to the Chabad (again with “Contribution” written in the memo line). In exchange, Goldstein gave Moossazadeh $30,000 in cash (keeping the remaining $3,000), along with another fraudulent donation receipt.
In August 2018—just at the time that court documents show Goldstein had offered to launder cash proceeds for an individual who he only later discovered was an undercover federal agent--—Rabbi Goldstein let Moossazadeh know he had more cash available. He texted Moossazadeh: “I have a new baker who can bake many more challah almost unlimited[.] Let Joe [SHEMIRANI] know that a new baker came to town and to let me know how many challah to bake ? Can do as many as you need .. unlimited[.]” But just a few months later in October 2018, Moossazadeh learned that Rabbi Goldstein was under investigation. He did not attempt to deduct any of his 2018 purported donations to the Chabad.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford presided over Moossazadeh’s arraignment and guilty plea on July 13, 2020. He is scheduled for sentencing on October 19, 2020, at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to make full restitution to the IRS including all unpaid taxes, penalties (including a 75 percent fraud penalty), and interest.
4. Defendant Yousef Shemirani
Yousef Shemirani admitted in his plea agreement that he participated in the tax scheme from 2011 to 2016, and in total he pretended to “donate” $137,650 to Rabbi Goldstein and the Chabad of Poway. In return, Goldstein secretly funneled approximately 90 percent of the “donations” back to Shemirani, keeping 10 percent (around $13,765). Shemirani’s participation in the scheme resulted in a tax loss to the IRS of more than $39,000.
As with Moossazadeh, Rabbi Goldstein used coded language to discuss the scheme with Shemirani, and he concealed his return of the “donations” by returning Shemirani’s payments in large amounts of cash. As Shemirani admitted in his plea agreement, Goldstein texted him in June 2015 to alert him that he would have cash available: “The baker will be back in July and will have all the Chalah you need :)” In July 2015, he followed up: “I just got a call from the Baker he may be in this Friday do you still need Chalah?” A year later, Goldstein continued the disguise, alerting Shemirani: “The Baker came today and actually be a nice amount of fresh Chalah – you can come by today and pick it up.”
Shemirani heard from Rabbi Goldstein again on October 20, 2018, when Goldstein appeared unannounced at Shemirani’s door. As Shemirani admitted, Goldstein warned that he was under investigation and that his home and office had been searched by federal agents. He alerted Shemirani that the next time they saw each other, Goldstein might be “wearing a wire.” Shemirani understood this was a warning, and he took steps to amend his fraudulent tax returns in response.
Shemirani was arraigned and entered a guilty plea on July 13, 2020, before U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford. His sentencing is scheduled on October 19, 2020, at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to make full restitution to the IRS including all unpaid taxes, penalties (including a 75 percent fraud penalty), and interest.
5. Defendant Boris Shkoller
Boris Shkoller admitted that from 2015 to 2016, he “donated” $122,000 to Chabad of Poway and secretly received 90 percent—or $109,800—back from Goldstein. Shkoller used Alexander Avergoon as a conduit to make the payments and receive the kickbacks. Avergoon also passed along fraudulent and backdated donation receipt letters that fraudulently verified Shkoller’s “generous tax deductible donation[s].” Shkoller admitted that he filed fraudulent tax returns for both years, resulting in tax losses to the IRS of more than $36,000.
Shkoller was arraigned and pleaded guilty today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford. His sentencing is scheduled on October 19, 2020 at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to pay $53,772 in restitution to the IRS for his tax underpayment, penalties, and interest.
U.S. Attorney Brewer commended the excellent work of prosecutors Emily Allen, Andrew Young and Oleksandra Johnson as well as case agents from the FBI and IRS.
DEFENDANTS AND SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Yisroel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR1916-BAS Age: 58 Poway
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Alexander Avergoon, Case Number 19CR2955-BAS Age: 44 San Diego
Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 1343
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of Title 18, USC 1028A
Maximum Penalty: Two years minimum consecutive term in prison
Money Laundering, in violation of Title 18, USC 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Bruce Baker, Case Number 20CR1912-BAS Age: 74 La Jolla
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and file false tax returns, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Bijan Moossazadeh, Case Number 20CR1893-BAS Age: 63 San Diego
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Yousef Shemirani, Case Number 20CR1895-BAS Age: 74 Poway
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Boris Shkoller, Case Number 20CR1913-BAS Age: 83 Del Mar
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
INVESTIGATING AGENCIES: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service
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
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Emily W. Allen (619) 546-9738, Oleksandra Johnson (619) 546-9769, and Randy Grossman (619) 546-6761
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – September 14, 2020
SAN DIEGO – Mendel Goldstein, the owner of a videography business based in Brooklyn, New York, pleaded guilty in federal court today to tax evasion charges relating to a long-running conspiracy with his brother, Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein.
Until around 2018, Yisroel Goldstein was the director and head rabbi at Chabad of Poway, a tax-exempt organization that the brothers used to divert Mendel Goldstein’s income and conceal more than $700,000 in earnings from the IRS. They hid the money by depositing it into Chabad accounts, then secretly funneling it back to Mendel Goldstein by writing checks to fictitious names like “Mr. Green,” “Mr. Gold,” or “Mr. Fish.”
According to his plea agreement, beginning in 2012, Mendel Goldstein agreed with his brother Yisroel Goldstein that Mendel Goldstein could deposit his freelance videography income directly into bank accounts owned by Chabad of Poway. This allowed Mendel Goldstein to avoid reporting his entire income to the IRS. In return, the brothers agreed that Yisroel Goldstein would keep 10 percent of Mendel Goldstein’s income as his fee—amounting to about $70,000. Mendel Goldstein saved approximately $155,881 in taxes he should have paid to the IRS.
As Mendel Goldstein admitted today, the conspiracy operated for several years until December 2018. At that time, Yisroel Goldstein discovered that he was under investigation for tax evasion and other crimes. He warned Mendel Goldstein about the investigation and encouraged him to conceal his tax evasion by filing delinquent tax returns.
In July 2020, Yisroel Goldstein, along with five other associates, pleaded guilty to fraud charges, admitting that he participated in a complex, years-long, multi-million dollar tax-evasion scheme and other financial deceptions involving theft of public money. Among the schemes he admitted as part of his guilty plea, Yisroel Goldstein outlined the tax avoidance conspiracy he operated with Mendel Goldstein. Yisroel Goldstein has agreed to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. He is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant on April 26, 2021.
“People who cheat on their taxes are cheating all honest taxpayers,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “We will not tolerate the exploitation of non-profit and religious organizations to line the perpetrators’ pockets at society’s expense.”
“The law clearly states that income is subject to tax and must be reported, from whatever source derived, including compensation for services,” said Ryan L. Korner, Special Agent in Charge of IRS Criminal Investigation. “Mr. Mendel Goldstein admitted that he broke the law by hiding over $700,000 in income and willfully evading his taxes for over six years. His tax crime is made even more egregious because he exploited the tax-exempt status of Chabad of Poway to cheat the United States. Today’s guilty plea demonstrates that the IRS will diligently continue our important enforcement efforts despite the ongoing challenges posed by Covid-19. We will work alongside our law enforcement partners in a collective effort to enforce the law and ensure the public trust.”
“This investigation uncovered a conspiracy of crimes involving fraud, deception and evasion that used the cloak of a tax-exempt religious organization, the Chabad of Poway, for personal financial benefit,” said Suzanne Turner, Special Agent in Charge of FBI's San Diego Field Office. “The FBI takes seriously the harm that financial crimes have on our country. We are all expected to follow the rule of law, and the FBI is charged with enforcing these laws. Today, Mendel Goldstein has been reminded of this important lesson, as he acknowledged with his guilty plea.”
Judge Bashant presided over today’s arraignment and guilty plea. Mendel Goldstein is next scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on December 14, 2020 at 9 a.m.
NEW DEFENDANT AND SUMMARY OF NEW CHARGES
Mendel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR2772-BAS Age: 63 Brooklyn, NY
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
PREVIOUSLY CHARGED DEFENDANTS AND SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Yisroel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR1916-BAS Age: 58 Poway
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Alexander Avergoon, Case Number 19CR2955-BAS Age: 44 San Diego
Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 1343
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of Title 18, USC 1028A
Maximum Penalty: Two years minimum consecutive term in prison
Money Laundering, in violation of Title 18, USC 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Bruce Baker, Case Number 20CR1912-BAS Age: 74 La Jolla
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and file false tax returns, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Bijan Moossazadeh, Case Number 20CR1893-BAS Age: 63 San Diego
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Yousef Shemirani, Case Number 20CR1895-BAS Age: 74 Poway
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Boris Shkoller, Case Number 20CR1913-BAS Age: 83 Del Mar
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
INVESTIGATING AGENCIES
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service
For Further Information, Contact:
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Emily W. Allen (619) 546-9738,Andrew Young (619) 546-7981, and Oleksandra Johnson (619) 546-9769
SAN DIEGO – Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, former director at Chabad of Poway, and five of his associates pleaded guilty in federal court today and Monday to fraud charges, admitting that they participated in a complex, years-long, multi-million dollar tax-evasion scheme and other financial deceptions involving theft of public money.
According to his plea agreement, while Rabbi Goldstein was director of the Poway synagogue, he received at least $6.2 million in phony contributions to the Chabad and affiliated charities and secretly refunded up to 90 percent of the donations to the “donors.” After Rabbi Goldstein provided these donors with fake receipts, they illegally claimed huge tax deductions for these nonexistent donations, and the rabbi kept about 10 percent – more than half a million dollars over the course of the fraud - for himself. Tax losses to the IRS were more than $1.5 million. At least 20 taxpayers were involved in this and related tax-evasion schemes.
This case was under investigation for more than two years before Rabbi Goldstein was shot and wounded during the April 27, 2019 attack on worshippers at the Chabad. In that case, federal civil rights and hate crimes charges are pending against John T. Earnest of Rancho Peñasquitos.
The rabbi was aware of the investigation at the time of the shooting. FBI and IRS agents had searched his home in October of 2018, and he began cooperating with the investigation shortly after that time.
According to his plea agreement, Rabbi Goldstein has agreed to cooperate with ongoing investigations of uncharged co-conspirators and to forfeit $1 million in proceeds and pay restitution of $2.5 million.
“This case has brought us all a great deal of anguish because of the attack on Chabad of Poway,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “But whatever a defendant’s dire personal circumstances, or stature in the community, we will always seek justice, first and foremost. We cannot, and will not, sweep serious criminal conduct under the rug. We cannot look the other way because a perpetrator of crime has suddenly become a victim of crime.”
“This case shows the FBI’s dedication to untangling the web of fraud in a complex, multi-million dollar charitable donation scheme that violated the trust of the Chabad of Poway and defrauded the United States government," said FBI San Diego Acting Special Agent-in-Charge Omer Meisel. “The FBI is committed to holding those accountable who use their position and stature in the community as a disguise to commit fraud. All the defendants in this case, including Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, have admitted their guilt in these fraudulent schemes and will no longer be able to use deceit and lies to cheat those who were intended to receive charitable funds and taxpayer dollars.”
“The Chabad of Poway, which has served its community for decades, was used by Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein and the five co-defendants to evade over $1.5 million in taxes over the last 8 years,” said Ryan L. Korner, Special Agent in Charge of the IRS’s Criminal Investigation Division. “The Chabad was further victimized in April 2019 when a shooter attacked its worshippers, and we recognize the pain that terrible event has caused for the Chabad, Rabbi Goldstein, and the community. Ultimately, the financial fraud schemes uncovered during this multi-year, multi-defendant investigation were egregious and IRS Criminal Investigation has a responsibility to bring to justice those who exploit and manipulate non-profit and religious organizations in order to benefit themselves. The IRS is responsible for protecting honest taxpayers and serving the public by ensuring the integrity of our tax system, which funds our nation’s critical infrastructures and vital programs, including supporting our citizens and small businesses during the ongoing pandemic. The hard work of our Special Agents will not stop despite the ongoing challenges posed by Covid-19. We will continue to work alongside our law enforcement partners, and this week’s six guilty pleas demonstrate our collective efforts to continue to enforce the law and ensure the public trust.”
Five others who participated in the scheme with Rabbi Goldstein also entered guilty pleas in federal court this week, admitting that they knowingly participated by concealing their donations through the Chabad and making false deductions on their tax forms, or by recruiting new taxpayers to participate in the scheme. One taxpayer, defendant Bruce Baker, admitted that he began participating in this scheme with Rabbi Goldstein in the 1980s, and made millions of dollars in fictitious donations over the years.
Rabbi Goldstein admitted today that in one instance in late 2017, he attempted to disguise the source of more than $1.1 million in fraudulent donations by purchasing gold coins worth approximately $1 million. He then delivered the gold to the phony donor.
CLICK HERE - Press Presentation Graphics
There were many schemes within the broader tax-fraud and kickback scheme, dating back to 2010 or earlier and continuing through 2018.
Rabbi Goldstein admitted he defrauded three different Fortune 500 companies by tricking them into matching supposed charitable donations of their employees. Working with the employees, Rabbi Goldstein fabricated fake receipts and then secretly returned their fake “donations.” This allowed the employees to claim tax deductions for the completely fabricated donations, and allowed Rabbi Goldstein to collect the companies’ matching funds—including some that matched double their employees’ donations. Rabbi Goldstein helped to orchestrate this scheme with at least six taxpayer-employees and two other associates who helped recruit new donors or conceal the true recipient of the funds. In total, Rabbi Goldstein defrauded the companies out of at least $134,000, and helped the taxpayer-employees to claim nearly as much in fictitious tax-deductible charitable contributions to the IRS.
Rabbi Goldstein admitted that he also helped an individual conceal more than $700,000 in income by allowing the individual to use Chabad bank accounts to deposit his income, thereby hiding it from the IRS. As his cut, Rabbi Goldstein kept 10 percent of this individual’s income—more than $70,000.
Separate and apart from the tax evasion scheme, Rabbi Goldstein and defendant Alexander Avergoon, who also pleaded guilty today, used false information and fabricated invoices and other records to pretend to be eligible for emergency funds, grants or donations, and private loans. These frauds on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), and private foundations resulted in losses to these programs of at least $875,000. Rabbi Goldstein and Avergoon have agreed to pay restitution to recoup these losses and reimburse these programs.
The rabbi also admitted in his plea agreement that he defrauded San Diego County courts by falsely certifying that co-conspirators and associates had performed volunteer work at the Chabad or its affiliated entities, so that those associates could submit fake reports to the courts that they had fulfilled sentencing requirements for criminal offenses showing dozens or even hundreds of community service hours. Finally, Rabbi Goldstein admitted that, along with Avergoon, he fraudulently obtained loans from banks and mortgage lending businesses by submitting false information in loan applications that they verified for one another.
“Sadly, the facts of this case show a willful, devious effort to deceive on the part of a trusted community leader,” Brewer said. “Evading taxes causes harm not just to the government, but also to one’s fellow citizens, who are forced to bear a heavier burden. Members of the Chabad of Poway are also victims of this crime, for those fake donations certainly did not benefit their congregation.
“There is no doubt that Rabbi Goldstein was the victim of a heinous hate crime that terrorized him and Chabad congregants,” Brewer said. “This is a mitigating factor, but this is no excuse. We acknowledge the rabbi’s cooperation and his community leadership in the wake of the shooting. But this illegal conduct had been going on for many years, and it cannot be ignored.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford presided over today’s arraignment and guilty plea. Rabbi Goldstein is next scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on October 19, 2020 at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant.
The five related guilty pleas involve a series of fraud and tax evasion schemes by Rabbi Goldstein’s co‑defendants:
1. Defendant Alexander Avergoon
Avergoon admitted that from 2010 to 2015, he recruited at least nine taxpayers who made more than $275,000 in fraudulent “donations” to the Chabad, then used Avergoon as a conduit to secretly return 90 percent of the money to the purported “donors.” He also admitted that he joined Rabbi Goldstein in the grant fraud scam in which they obtained hundreds of thousands of dollars in misappropriated grant funds.
As part of the government benefits fraud scheme, Avergoon used shell companies, including “Imagination Construction Company,” to create fictitious and backdated invoices for services like carpet installation, repairs to the Chabad of Poway’s HVAC system, and replacing damaged books and other supplies—even though Avergoon had never performed these services. In some cases, Avergoon would give Goldstein several fake bids from different shell companies, so that Rabbi Goldstein could trick the grant program administrators into believing he had complied with their competitive bidding requirements. Avergoon and Goldstein pretended that the government grant funds would be used for facilities upgrades, security systems, and community programs. But in reality, the money often went straight to Goldstein’s and Avergoon’s pockets; other times they used portions of it to pay contractors who had in fact charged much lower prices than reflected on Avergoon’s phony paperwork.
Apart from his fraudulent partnership with Rabbi Goldstein, Avergoon also admitted to participating in separate real estate Ponzi schemes from 2010 to 2016, in which he cheated retirement investors out of a total of $12 million. Avergoon was a San Diego-based real estate agent, and he used his industry knowledge and reputation to target trusting victims who would invest in what they thought was the purchase of rental property. Avergoon promised monthly dividends that would be paid from rental income. He created written investment materials like prospectus and projected income and expenses calculations, designed to give investors the false impression that their money would be safely tucked away in passive-income retirement investments. But in truth, instead of using investors’ money to buy rental properties as he promised, Avergoon spent the money himself and just pretended that he had purchased the apartment buildings and office space he advertised. In true Ponzi fashion, for a time, Avergoon made the promised dividend payments—but rather than using rent income, he funded those payments using new investor money.
Avergoon deceived more than a dozen unwitting investors, and convinced them to part with at least $5 million. When an investor would ask to cash out, he encouraged them to re-invest, and at one point he pretended to “roll over” their retirement investments to purchase a multi-million dollar commercial building. In reality, he bought that building with a loan, not with investor money, and again diverted their money to his own personal use. He created fake partnership agreements, false purchase documents and deeds, and other fictitious records, and forged the signatures of his investors to conceal the fraud—then laundered the proceeds in order to disguise the true source and ownership of the money.
Avergoon did not stop there. He convinced investors to part with another $5 million or more by pretending to use their money to fund short-term, low-risk loans supposedly secured by the borrowers’ high-end San Diego homes. But in reality, there were no “borrowers”—Avergoon used his real estate connections to identify homes he could pose as collateral, and he simply doctored up fake loan agreements and forged the borrowers’ signatures. In some cases, the individuals he claimed were the borrowers did not even own the homes that were purportedly used as collateral. Avergoon made fake loan agreements, Deeds of Trust, mortgage Notes, and other official-looking documents, and he even created fake notary stamps and San Diego County Recorder’s Office markings to make the paperwork appear legitimate. Once again, Avergoon used new investor money to make occasional payments to his victims, to make it appear that the “loans” were performing. But in truth, he diverted the money to his own use and the “investments” were worthless.
Avergoon was indicted in August 2019 and apprehended in Latvia. He was extradited to the United States in November 2019 and has remained in custody since his extradition and initial appearance in federal court in San Diego. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major presided over his change of plea hearing today. Avergoon is next scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on October 19, 2020 at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant.
2. Defendant Bruce Baker
Bruce Baker pleaded guilty to conspiring with Rabbi Goldstein to defraud the IRS and file false tax returns beginning as early as the mid-1980s. For three decades, Baker admitted that he used fabricated records from Goldstein to fraudulently reduce his tax liabilities by pretending he was eligible for tax deductions for millions of dollars in nonexistent “gifts to charity” he reportedly made to the Chabad. In reality, Goldstein secretly returned 90 percent of Baker’s donations, and kept a 10 percent fee.
This part of the scheme was especially complex and intricate. Rather than simply paying cash or returning Baker’s money in direct payments, Goldstein would pay Baker’s creditors, make large purchases on his behalf, give money to Baker’s relatives, or pay off bills on behalf of his family. To disguise the repayments, Rabbi Goldstein delivered the money in clandestine ways by, for example, paying:
around $200,000 to Baker’s business partner to buy the partner’s share of their business assets on Baker’s behalf;
more than $420,000 in tuition and fees for Baker’s son to attend dental school and a post-doctoral residency in dentistry;
at least $90,000 to a construction company for Baker’s benefit, another $200,000 directly to a building contractor working for Baker and $129,000 to a home builder, and more than $300,000 to Baker’s account at a construction and building supply company; and
$200,000 from the proceeds of the sale of Goldstein’s property paid directly to Baker’s son.
Over the years, Baker admitted that he “donated” at least $2.6 million to Chabad of Poway, with at least $2.4 million secretly funneled back from Goldstein to Baker. In total, Baker’s and Goldstein’s scheme cost the IRS around $644,000 in tax losses.
Separate from his dealings with Rabbi Goldstein, Baker also admitted that he engaged in a similar tax evasion scheme with the director of a separate religious congregation and community organization in San Diego. In 2006, that individual offered Baker and his family an arrangement where they would pretend to make an “in-kind” donation to the religious organization of an ancient Iranian Torah—although no such Torah existed and the “in-kind” donation was a hoax. This other director provided Baker with a fraudulent appraisal that valued the Torah at $1.2 million. Baker and his family used the fake paperwork to claim exorbitant tax deductions, and gave the co-conspirator a 10 percent fee—or $120,000—in return. On top of that, the director charged Baker $20,000 for the fake appraisal.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford presided over Baker’s arraignment and guilty plea on July 13, 2020. Baker is scheduled for sentencing on October 19, 2020, at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to make full restitution to the IRS including all unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest.
3. Defendant Bijan Moossazadeh
Bijan Moossazadeh began participating in the tax evasion scheme with Rabbi Goldstein as early as 2012. As he admitted in his plea agreement, between 2012 and 2018 he pretended to “donate” a total of around $290,000 to Chabad of Poway. But instead of using the money for charitable purposes, Goldstein secretly funneled back 90 percent of the funds to Moossazadeh. Even so, Goldstein generated fraudulent donation receipt letters for Moossazadeh, so he could fraudulently verify that the money was indeed a “gift to charity.” Moossazadeh fraudulently reduced his tax liability—or intended to, before he learned of this investigation in 2018—by more than $91,500.
Goldstein concealed his repayments by giving Moossazadeh large cash payments that would be difficult to trace. And he communicated in code when he had cash available, referring to his cash supplies as “challah” and his supplier as “the baker.” In 2016, for example, Goldstein texted Moossazadeh to tell him he had cash: “I got a call from the Baker today he’s preparing for Friday how many Chalah do you need?” Moossazadeh answered, “22”—by which he meant, $22,000. The next day, Goldstein followed up: “Good morning[.] The baker came in earlier and has today 22 challa ready for pickup[.] Let me know what time?” Moossazadeh met Rabbi Goldstein at the Chabad on March 16, 2016, where he delivered a $22,000 check made payable to the Chabad (with “Contribution” written in the memo line), and in exchange Goldstein gave him $20,000 in cash (keeping the remaining $2,000). Goldstein also gave Moossazadeh a fraudulent donation receipt thanking Defendant for his “generous tax deductible donation.”
They followed a similar pattern in 2018, when Goldstein again used coded text messages to alert Moossazadeh that he did not have cash ready and available: “Just got a call the baker is not baking challah this Friday-will be back next Friday and have the full order.” A week later, Goldstein followed up: “Cook just finished . [] Come and pickup[.]” Moossazadeh admitted in his plea agreement that he met Goldstein at the Chabad the next day and delivered a check for $33,000, made payable to the Chabad (again with “Contribution” written in the memo line). In exchange, Goldstein gave Moossazadeh $30,000 in cash (keeping the remaining $3,000), along with another fraudulent donation receipt.
In August 2018—just at the time that court documents show Goldstein had offered to launder cash proceeds for an individual who he only later discovered was an undercover federal agent--—Rabbi Goldstein let Moossazadeh know he had more cash available. He texted Moossazadeh: “I have a new baker who can bake many more challah almost unlimited[.] Let Joe [SHEMIRANI] know that a new baker came to town and to let me know how many challah to bake ? Can do as many as you need .. unlimited[.]” But just a few months later in October 2018, Moossazadeh learned that Rabbi Goldstein was under investigation. He did not attempt to deduct any of his 2018 purported donations to the Chabad.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford presided over Moossazadeh’s arraignment and guilty plea on July 13, 2020. He is scheduled for sentencing on October 19, 2020, at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to make full restitution to the IRS including all unpaid taxes, penalties (including a 75 percent fraud penalty), and interest.
4. Defendant Yousef Shemirani
Yousef Shemirani admitted in his plea agreement that he participated in the tax scheme from 2011 to 2016, and in total he pretended to “donate” $137,650 to Rabbi Goldstein and the Chabad of Poway. In return, Goldstein secretly funneled approximately 90 percent of the “donations” back to Shemirani, keeping 10 percent (around $13,765). Shemirani’s participation in the scheme resulted in a tax loss to the IRS of more than $39,000.
As with Moossazadeh, Rabbi Goldstein used coded language to discuss the scheme with Shemirani, and he concealed his return of the “donations” by returning Shemirani’s payments in large amounts of cash. As Shemirani admitted in his plea agreement, Goldstein texted him in June 2015 to alert him that he would have cash available: “The baker will be back in July and will have all the Chalah you need :)” In July 2015, he followed up: “I just got a call from the Baker he may be in this Friday do you still need Chalah?” A year later, Goldstein continued the disguise, alerting Shemirani: “The Baker came today and actually be a nice amount of fresh Chalah – you can come by today and pick it up.”
Shemirani heard from Rabbi Goldstein again on October 20, 2018, when Goldstein appeared unannounced at Shemirani’s door. As Shemirani admitted, Goldstein warned that he was under investigation and that his home and office had been searched by federal agents. He alerted Shemirani that the next time they saw each other, Goldstein might be “wearing a wire.” Shemirani understood this was a warning, and he took steps to amend his fraudulent tax returns in response.
Shemirani was arraigned and entered a guilty plea on July 13, 2020, before U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford. His sentencing is scheduled on October 19, 2020, at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to make full restitution to the IRS including all unpaid taxes, penalties (including a 75 percent fraud penalty), and interest.
5. Defendant Boris Shkoller
Boris Shkoller admitted that from 2015 to 2016, he “donated” $122,000 to Chabad of Poway and secretly received 90 percent—or $109,800—back from Goldstein. Shkoller used Alexander Avergoon as a conduit to make the payments and receive the kickbacks. Avergoon also passed along fraudulent and backdated donation receipt letters that fraudulently verified Shkoller’s “generous tax deductible donation[s].” Shkoller admitted that he filed fraudulent tax returns for both years, resulting in tax losses to the IRS of more than $36,000.
Shkoller was arraigned and pleaded guilty today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford. His sentencing is scheduled on October 19, 2020 at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to pay $53,772 in restitution to the IRS for his tax underpayment, penalties, and interest.
U.S. Attorney Brewer commended the excellent work of prosecutors Emily Allen, Andrew Young and Oleksandra Johnson as well as case agents from the FBI and IRS.
DEFENDANTS AND SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Yisroel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR1916-BAS Age: 58 Poway
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Alexander Avergoon, Case Number 19CR2955-BAS Age: 44 San Diego
Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 1343
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of Title 18, USC 1028A
Maximum Penalty: Two years minimum consecutive term in prison
Money Laundering, in violation of Title 18, USC 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Bruce Baker, Case Number 20CR1912-BAS Age: 74 La Jolla
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and file false tax returns, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Bijan Moossazadeh, Case Number 20CR1893-BAS Age: 63 San Diego
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Yousef Shemirani, Case Number 20CR1895-BAS Age: 74 Poway
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Boris Shkoller, Case Number 20CR1913-BAS Age: 83 Del Mar
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
INVESTIGATING AGENCIES: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service
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
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Emily W. Allen (619) 546-9738, Oleksandra Johnson (619) 546-9769, and Randy Grossman (619) 546-6761
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – September 14, 2020
SAN DIEGO – Mendel Goldstein, the owner of a videography business based in Brooklyn, New York, pleaded guilty in federal court today to tax evasion charges relating to a long-running conspiracy with his brother, Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein.
Until around 2018, Yisroel Goldstein was the director and head rabbi at Chabad of Poway, a tax-exempt organization that the brothers used to divert Mendel Goldstein’s income and conceal more than $700,000 in earnings from the IRS. They hid the money by depositing it into Chabad accounts, then secretly funneling it back to Mendel Goldstein by writing checks to fictitious names like “Mr. Green,” “Mr. Gold,” or “Mr. Fish.”
According to his plea agreement, beginning in 2012, Mendel Goldstein agreed with his brother Yisroel Goldstein that Mendel Goldstein could deposit his freelance videography income directly into bank accounts owned by Chabad of Poway. This allowed Mendel Goldstein to avoid reporting his entire income to the IRS. In return, the brothers agreed that Yisroel Goldstein would keep 10 percent of Mendel Goldstein’s income as his fee—amounting to about $70,000. Mendel Goldstein saved approximately $155,881 in taxes he should have paid to the IRS.
As Mendel Goldstein admitted today, the conspiracy operated for several years until December 2018. At that time, Yisroel Goldstein discovered that he was under investigation for tax evasion and other crimes. He warned Mendel Goldstein about the investigation and encouraged him to conceal his tax evasion by filing delinquent tax returns.
In July 2020, Yisroel Goldstein, along with five other associates, pleaded guilty to fraud charges, admitting that he participated in a complex, years-long, multi-million dollar tax-evasion scheme and other financial deceptions involving theft of public money. Among the schemes he admitted as part of his guilty plea, Yisroel Goldstein outlined the tax avoidance conspiracy he operated with Mendel Goldstein. Yisroel Goldstein has agreed to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. He is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant on April 26, 2021.
“People who cheat on their taxes are cheating all honest taxpayers,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “We will not tolerate the exploitation of non-profit and religious organizations to line the perpetrators’ pockets at society’s expense.”
“The law clearly states that income is subject to tax and must be reported, from whatever source derived, including compensation for services,” said Ryan L. Korner, Special Agent in Charge of IRS Criminal Investigation. “Mr. Mendel Goldstein admitted that he broke the law by hiding over $700,000 in income and willfully evading his taxes for over six years. His tax crime is made even more egregious because he exploited the tax-exempt status of Chabad of Poway to cheat the United States. Today’s guilty plea demonstrates that the IRS will diligently continue our important enforcement efforts despite the ongoing challenges posed by Covid-19. We will work alongside our law enforcement partners in a collective effort to enforce the law and ensure the public trust.”
“This investigation uncovered a conspiracy of crimes involving fraud, deception and evasion that used the cloak of a tax-exempt religious organization, the Chabad of Poway, for personal financial benefit,” said Suzanne Turner, Special Agent in Charge of FBI's San Diego Field Office. “The FBI takes seriously the harm that financial crimes have on our country. We are all expected to follow the rule of law, and the FBI is charged with enforcing these laws. Today, Mendel Goldstein has been reminded of this important lesson, as he acknowledged with his guilty plea.”
Judge Bashant presided over today’s arraignment and guilty plea. Mendel Goldstein is next scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on December 14, 2020 at 9 a.m.
NEW DEFENDANT AND SUMMARY OF NEW CHARGES
Mendel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR2772-BAS Age: 63 Brooklyn, NY
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
PREVIOUSLY CHARGED DEFENDANTS AND SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Yisroel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR1916-BAS Age: 58 Poway
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Alexander Avergoon, Case Number 19CR2955-BAS Age: 44 San Diego
Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 1343
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of Title 18, USC 1028A
Maximum Penalty: Two years minimum consecutive term in prison
Money Laundering, in violation of Title 18, USC 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Bruce Baker, Case Number 20CR1912-BAS Age: 74 La Jolla
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and file false tax returns, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Bijan Moossazadeh, Case Number 20CR1893-BAS Age: 63 San Diego
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Yousef Shemirani, Case Number 20CR1895-BAS Age: 74 Poway
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Boris Shkoller, Case Number 20CR1913-BAS Age: 83 Del Mar
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
INVESTIGATING AGENCIES
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service
For Further Information, Contact:
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Emily W. Allen (619) 546-9738,Andrew Young (619) 546-7981, and Oleksandra Johnson (619) 546-9769
SAN DIEGO – Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, former director at Chabad of Poway, and five of his associates pleaded guilty in federal court today and Monday to fraud charges, admitting that they participated in a complex, years-long, multi-million dollar tax-evasion scheme and other financial deceptions involving theft of public money.
According to his plea agreement, while Rabbi Goldstein was director of the Poway synagogue, he received at least $6.2 million in phony contributions to the Chabad and affiliated charities and secretly refunded up to 90 percent of the donations to the “donors.” After Rabbi Goldstein provided these donors with fake receipts, they illegally claimed huge tax deductions for these nonexistent donations, and the rabbi kept about 10 percent – more than half a million dollars over the course of the fraud - for himself. Tax losses to the IRS were more than $1.5 million. At least 20 taxpayers were involved in this and related tax-evasion schemes.
This case was under investigation for more than two years before Rabbi Goldstein was shot and wounded during the April 27, 2019 attack on worshippers at the Chabad. In that case, federal civil rights and hate crimes charges are pending against John T. Earnest of Rancho Peñasquitos.
The rabbi was aware of the investigation at the time of the shooting. FBI and IRS agents had searched his home in October of 2018, and he began cooperating with the investigation shortly after that time.
According to his plea agreement, Rabbi Goldstein has agreed to cooperate with ongoing investigations of uncharged co-conspirators and to forfeit $1 million in proceeds and pay restitution of $2.5 million.
“This case has brought us all a great deal of anguish because of the attack on Chabad of Poway,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “But whatever a defendant’s dire personal circumstances, or stature in the community, we will always seek justice, first and foremost. We cannot, and will not, sweep serious criminal conduct under the rug. We cannot look the other way because a perpetrator of crime has suddenly become a victim of crime.”
“This case shows the FBI’s dedication to untangling the web of fraud in a complex, multi-million dollar charitable donation scheme that violated the trust of the Chabad of Poway and defrauded the United States government," said FBI San Diego Acting Special Agent-in-Charge Omer Meisel. “The FBI is committed to holding those accountable who use their position and stature in the community as a disguise to commit fraud. All the defendants in this case, including Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, have admitted their guilt in these fraudulent schemes and will no longer be able to use deceit and lies to cheat those who were intended to receive charitable funds and taxpayer dollars.”
“The Chabad of Poway, which has served its community for decades, was used by Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein and the five co-defendants to evade over $1.5 million in taxes over the last 8 years,” said Ryan L. Korner, Special Agent in Charge of the IRS’s Criminal Investigation Division. “The Chabad was further victimized in April 2019 when a shooter attacked its worshippers, and we recognize the pain that terrible event has caused for the Chabad, Rabbi Goldstein, and the community. Ultimately, the financial fraud schemes uncovered during this multi-year, multi-defendant investigation were egregious and IRS Criminal Investigation has a responsibility to bring to justice those who exploit and manipulate non-profit and religious organizations in order to benefit themselves. The IRS is responsible for protecting honest taxpayers and serving the public by ensuring the integrity of our tax system, which funds our nation’s critical infrastructures and vital programs, including supporting our citizens and small businesses during the ongoing pandemic. The hard work of our Special Agents will not stop despite the ongoing challenges posed by Covid-19. We will continue to work alongside our law enforcement partners, and this week’s six guilty pleas demonstrate our collective efforts to continue to enforce the law and ensure the public trust.”
Five others who participated in the scheme with Rabbi Goldstein also entered guilty pleas in federal court this week, admitting that they knowingly participated by concealing their donations through the Chabad and making false deductions on their tax forms, or by recruiting new taxpayers to participate in the scheme. One taxpayer, defendant Bruce Baker, admitted that he began participating in this scheme with Rabbi Goldstein in the 1980s, and made millions of dollars in fictitious donations over the years.
Rabbi Goldstein admitted today that in one instance in late 2017, he attempted to disguise the source of more than $1.1 million in fraudulent donations by purchasing gold coins worth approximately $1 million. He then delivered the gold to the phony donor.
CLICK HERE - Press Presentation Graphics
There were many schemes within the broader tax-fraud and kickback scheme, dating back to 2010 or earlier and continuing through 2018.
Rabbi Goldstein admitted he defrauded three different Fortune 500 companies by tricking them into matching supposed charitable donations of their employees. Working with the employees, Rabbi Goldstein fabricated fake receipts and then secretly returned their fake “donations.” This allowed the employees to claim tax deductions for the completely fabricated donations, and allowed Rabbi Goldstein to collect the companies’ matching funds—including some that matched double their employees’ donations. Rabbi Goldstein helped to orchestrate this scheme with at least six taxpayer-employees and two other associates who helped recruit new donors or conceal the true recipient of the funds. In total, Rabbi Goldstein defrauded the companies out of at least $134,000, and helped the taxpayer-employees to claim nearly as much in fictitious tax-deductible charitable contributions to the IRS.
Rabbi Goldstein admitted that he also helped an individual conceal more than $700,000 in income by allowing the individual to use Chabad bank accounts to deposit his income, thereby hiding it from the IRS. As his cut, Rabbi Goldstein kept 10 percent of this individual’s income—more than $70,000.
Separate and apart from the tax evasion scheme, Rabbi Goldstein and defendant Alexander Avergoon, who also pleaded guilty today, used false information and fabricated invoices and other records to pretend to be eligible for emergency funds, grants or donations, and private loans. These frauds on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), and private foundations resulted in losses to these programs of at least $875,000. Rabbi Goldstein and Avergoon have agreed to pay restitution to recoup these losses and reimburse these programs.
The rabbi also admitted in his plea agreement that he defrauded San Diego County courts by falsely certifying that co-conspirators and associates had performed volunteer work at the Chabad or its affiliated entities, so that those associates could submit fake reports to the courts that they had fulfilled sentencing requirements for criminal offenses showing dozens or even hundreds of community service hours. Finally, Rabbi Goldstein admitted that, along with Avergoon, he fraudulently obtained loans from banks and mortgage lending businesses by submitting false information in loan applications that they verified for one another.
“Sadly, the facts of this case show a willful, devious effort to deceive on the part of a trusted community leader,” Brewer said. “Evading taxes causes harm not just to the government, but also to one’s fellow citizens, who are forced to bear a heavier burden. Members of the Chabad of Poway are also victims of this crime, for those fake donations certainly did not benefit their congregation.
“There is no doubt that Rabbi Goldstein was the victim of a heinous hate crime that terrorized him and Chabad congregants,” Brewer said. “This is a mitigating factor, but this is no excuse. We acknowledge the rabbi’s cooperation and his community leadership in the wake of the shooting. But this illegal conduct had been going on for many years, and it cannot be ignored.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford presided over today’s arraignment and guilty plea. Rabbi Goldstein is next scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on October 19, 2020 at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant.
The five related guilty pleas involve a series of fraud and tax evasion schemes by Rabbi Goldstein’s co‑defendants:
1. Defendant Alexander Avergoon
Avergoon admitted that from 2010 to 2015, he recruited at least nine taxpayers who made more than $275,000 in fraudulent “donations” to the Chabad, then used Avergoon as a conduit to secretly return 90 percent of the money to the purported “donors.” He also admitted that he joined Rabbi Goldstein in the grant fraud scam in which they obtained hundreds of thousands of dollars in misappropriated grant funds.
As part of the government benefits fraud scheme, Avergoon used shell companies, including “Imagination Construction Company,” to create fictitious and backdated invoices for services like carpet installation, repairs to the Chabad of Poway’s HVAC system, and replacing damaged books and other supplies—even though Avergoon had never performed these services. In some cases, Avergoon would give Goldstein several fake bids from different shell companies, so that Rabbi Goldstein could trick the grant program administrators into believing he had complied with their competitive bidding requirements. Avergoon and Goldstein pretended that the government grant funds would be used for facilities upgrades, security systems, and community programs. But in reality, the money often went straight to Goldstein’s and Avergoon’s pockets; other times they used portions of it to pay contractors who had in fact charged much lower prices than reflected on Avergoon’s phony paperwork.
Apart from his fraudulent partnership with Rabbi Goldstein, Avergoon also admitted to participating in separate real estate Ponzi schemes from 2010 to 2016, in which he cheated retirement investors out of a total of $12 million. Avergoon was a San Diego-based real estate agent, and he used his industry knowledge and reputation to target trusting victims who would invest in what they thought was the purchase of rental property. Avergoon promised monthly dividends that would be paid from rental income. He created written investment materials like prospectus and projected income and expenses calculations, designed to give investors the false impression that their money would be safely tucked away in passive-income retirement investments. But in truth, instead of using investors’ money to buy rental properties as he promised, Avergoon spent the money himself and just pretended that he had purchased the apartment buildings and office space he advertised. In true Ponzi fashion, for a time, Avergoon made the promised dividend payments—but rather than using rent income, he funded those payments using new investor money.
Avergoon deceived more than a dozen unwitting investors, and convinced them to part with at least $5 million. When an investor would ask to cash out, he encouraged them to re-invest, and at one point he pretended to “roll over” their retirement investments to purchase a multi-million dollar commercial building. In reality, he bought that building with a loan, not with investor money, and again diverted their money to his own personal use. He created fake partnership agreements, false purchase documents and deeds, and other fictitious records, and forged the signatures of his investors to conceal the fraud—then laundered the proceeds in order to disguise the true source and ownership of the money.
Avergoon did not stop there. He convinced investors to part with another $5 million or more by pretending to use their money to fund short-term, low-risk loans supposedly secured by the borrowers’ high-end San Diego homes. But in reality, there were no “borrowers”—Avergoon used his real estate connections to identify homes he could pose as collateral, and he simply doctored up fake loan agreements and forged the borrowers’ signatures. In some cases, the individuals he claimed were the borrowers did not even own the homes that were purportedly used as collateral. Avergoon made fake loan agreements, Deeds of Trust, mortgage Notes, and other official-looking documents, and he even created fake notary stamps and San Diego County Recorder’s Office markings to make the paperwork appear legitimate. Once again, Avergoon used new investor money to make occasional payments to his victims, to make it appear that the “loans” were performing. But in truth, he diverted the money to his own use and the “investments” were worthless.
Avergoon was indicted in August 2019 and apprehended in Latvia. He was extradited to the United States in November 2019 and has remained in custody since his extradition and initial appearance in federal court in San Diego. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major presided over his change of plea hearing today. Avergoon is next scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on October 19, 2020 at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant.
2. Defendant Bruce Baker
Bruce Baker pleaded guilty to conspiring with Rabbi Goldstein to defraud the IRS and file false tax returns beginning as early as the mid-1980s. For three decades, Baker admitted that he used fabricated records from Goldstein to fraudulently reduce his tax liabilities by pretending he was eligible for tax deductions for millions of dollars in nonexistent “gifts to charity” he reportedly made to the Chabad. In reality, Goldstein secretly returned 90 percent of Baker’s donations, and kept a 10 percent fee.
This part of the scheme was especially complex and intricate. Rather than simply paying cash or returning Baker’s money in direct payments, Goldstein would pay Baker’s creditors, make large purchases on his behalf, give money to Baker’s relatives, or pay off bills on behalf of his family. To disguise the repayments, Rabbi Goldstein delivered the money in clandestine ways by, for example, paying:
around $200,000 to Baker’s business partner to buy the partner’s share of their business assets on Baker’s behalf;
more than $420,000 in tuition and fees for Baker’s son to attend dental school and a post-doctoral residency in dentistry;
at least $90,000 to a construction company for Baker’s benefit, another $200,000 directly to a building contractor working for Baker and $129,000 to a home builder, and more than $300,000 to Baker’s account at a construction and building supply company; and
$200,000 from the proceeds of the sale of Goldstein’s property paid directly to Baker’s son.
Over the years, Baker admitted that he “donated” at least $2.6 million to Chabad of Poway, with at least $2.4 million secretly funneled back from Goldstein to Baker. In total, Baker’s and Goldstein’s scheme cost the IRS around $644,000 in tax losses.
Separate from his dealings with Rabbi Goldstein, Baker also admitted that he engaged in a similar tax evasion scheme with the director of a separate religious congregation and community organization in San Diego. In 2006, that individual offered Baker and his family an arrangement where they would pretend to make an “in-kind” donation to the religious organization of an ancient Iranian Torah—although no such Torah existed and the “in-kind” donation was a hoax. This other director provided Baker with a fraudulent appraisal that valued the Torah at $1.2 million. Baker and his family used the fake paperwork to claim exorbitant tax deductions, and gave the co-conspirator a 10 percent fee—or $120,000—in return. On top of that, the director charged Baker $20,000 for the fake appraisal.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford presided over Baker’s arraignment and guilty plea on July 13, 2020. Baker is scheduled for sentencing on October 19, 2020, at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to make full restitution to the IRS including all unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest.
3. Defendant Bijan Moossazadeh
Bijan Moossazadeh began participating in the tax evasion scheme with Rabbi Goldstein as early as 2012. As he admitted in his plea agreement, between 2012 and 2018 he pretended to “donate” a total of around $290,000 to Chabad of Poway. But instead of using the money for charitable purposes, Goldstein secretly funneled back 90 percent of the funds to Moossazadeh. Even so, Goldstein generated fraudulent donation receipt letters for Moossazadeh, so he could fraudulently verify that the money was indeed a “gift to charity.” Moossazadeh fraudulently reduced his tax liability—or intended to, before he learned of this investigation in 2018—by more than $91,500.
Goldstein concealed his repayments by giving Moossazadeh large cash payments that would be difficult to trace. And he communicated in code when he had cash available, referring to his cash supplies as “challah” and his supplier as “the baker.” In 2016, for example, Goldstein texted Moossazadeh to tell him he had cash: “I got a call from the Baker today he’s preparing for Friday how many Chalah do you need?” Moossazadeh answered, “22”—by which he meant, $22,000. The next day, Goldstein followed up: “Good morning[.] The baker came in earlier and has today 22 challa ready for pickup[.] Let me know what time?” Moossazadeh met Rabbi Goldstein at the Chabad on March 16, 2016, where he delivered a $22,000 check made payable to the Chabad (with “Contribution” written in the memo line), and in exchange Goldstein gave him $20,000 in cash (keeping the remaining $2,000). Goldstein also gave Moossazadeh a fraudulent donation receipt thanking Defendant for his “generous tax deductible donation.”
They followed a similar pattern in 2018, when Goldstein again used coded text messages to alert Moossazadeh that he did not have cash ready and available: “Just got a call the baker is not baking challah this Friday-will be back next Friday and have the full order.” A week later, Goldstein followed up: “Cook just finished . [] Come and pickup[.]” Moossazadeh admitted in his plea agreement that he met Goldstein at the Chabad the next day and delivered a check for $33,000, made payable to the Chabad (again with “Contribution” written in the memo line). In exchange, Goldstein gave Moossazadeh $30,000 in cash (keeping the remaining $3,000), along with another fraudulent donation receipt.
In August 2018—just at the time that court documents show Goldstein had offered to launder cash proceeds for an individual who he only later discovered was an undercover federal agent--—Rabbi Goldstein let Moossazadeh know he had more cash available. He texted Moossazadeh: “I have a new baker who can bake many more challah almost unlimited[.] Let Joe [SHEMIRANI] know that a new baker came to town and to let me know how many challah to bake ? Can do as many as you need .. unlimited[.]” But just a few months later in October 2018, Moossazadeh learned that Rabbi Goldstein was under investigation. He did not attempt to deduct any of his 2018 purported donations to the Chabad.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford presided over Moossazadeh’s arraignment and guilty plea on July 13, 2020. He is scheduled for sentencing on October 19, 2020, at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to make full restitution to the IRS including all unpaid taxes, penalties (including a 75 percent fraud penalty), and interest.
4. Defendant Yousef Shemirani
Yousef Shemirani admitted in his plea agreement that he participated in the tax scheme from 2011 to 2016, and in total he pretended to “donate” $137,650 to Rabbi Goldstein and the Chabad of Poway. In return, Goldstein secretly funneled approximately 90 percent of the “donations” back to Shemirani, keeping 10 percent (around $13,765). Shemirani’s participation in the scheme resulted in a tax loss to the IRS of more than $39,000.
As with Moossazadeh, Rabbi Goldstein used coded language to discuss the scheme with Shemirani, and he concealed his return of the “donations” by returning Shemirani’s payments in large amounts of cash. As Shemirani admitted in his plea agreement, Goldstein texted him in June 2015 to alert him that he would have cash available: “The baker will be back in July and will have all the Chalah you need :)” In July 2015, he followed up: “I just got a call from the Baker he may be in this Friday do you still need Chalah?” A year later, Goldstein continued the disguise, alerting Shemirani: “The Baker came today and actually be a nice amount of fresh Chalah – you can come by today and pick it up.”
Shemirani heard from Rabbi Goldstein again on October 20, 2018, when Goldstein appeared unannounced at Shemirani’s door. As Shemirani admitted, Goldstein warned that he was under investigation and that his home and office had been searched by federal agents. He alerted Shemirani that the next time they saw each other, Goldstein might be “wearing a wire.” Shemirani understood this was a warning, and he took steps to amend his fraudulent tax returns in response.
Shemirani was arraigned and entered a guilty plea on July 13, 2020, before U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford. His sentencing is scheduled on October 19, 2020, at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to make full restitution to the IRS including all unpaid taxes, penalties (including a 75 percent fraud penalty), and interest.
5. Defendant Boris Shkoller
Boris Shkoller admitted that from 2015 to 2016, he “donated” $122,000 to Chabad of Poway and secretly received 90 percent—or $109,800—back from Goldstein. Shkoller used Alexander Avergoon as a conduit to make the payments and receive the kickbacks. Avergoon also passed along fraudulent and backdated donation receipt letters that fraudulently verified Shkoller’s “generous tax deductible donation[s].” Shkoller admitted that he filed fraudulent tax returns for both years, resulting in tax losses to the IRS of more than $36,000.
Shkoller was arraigned and pleaded guilty today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford. His sentencing is scheduled on October 19, 2020 at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to pay $53,772 in restitution to the IRS for his tax underpayment, penalties, and interest.
U.S. Attorney Brewer commended the excellent work of prosecutors Emily Allen, Andrew Young and Oleksandra Johnson as well as case agents from the FBI and IRS.
DEFENDANTS AND SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Yisroel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR1916-BAS Age: 58 Poway
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Alexander Avergoon, Case Number 19CR2955-BAS Age: 44 San Diego
Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 1343
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of Title 18, USC 1028A
Maximum Penalty: Two years minimum consecutive term in prison
Money Laundering, in violation of Title 18, USC 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Bruce Baker, Case Number 20CR1912-BAS Age: 74 La Jolla
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and file false tax returns, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Bijan Moossazadeh, Case Number 20CR1893-BAS Age: 63 San Diego
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Yousef Shemirani, Case Number 20CR1895-BAS Age: 74 Poway
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Boris Shkoller, Case Number 20CR1913-BAS Age: 83 Del Mar
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
INVESTIGATING AGENCIES: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service
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
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Emily W. Allen (619) 546-9738, Oleksandra Johnson (619) 546-9769, and Randy Grossman (619) 546-6761
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – September 14, 2020
SAN DIEGO – Mendel Goldstein, the owner of a videography business based in Brooklyn, New York, pleaded guilty in federal court today to tax evasion charges relating to a long-running conspiracy with his brother, Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein.
Until around 2018, Yisroel Goldstein was the director and head rabbi at Chabad of Poway, a tax-exempt organization that the brothers used to divert Mendel Goldstein’s income and conceal more than $700,000 in earnings from the IRS. They hid the money by depositing it into Chabad accounts, then secretly funneling it back to Mendel Goldstein by writing checks to fictitious names like “Mr. Green,” “Mr. Gold,” or “Mr. Fish.”
According to his plea agreement, beginning in 2012, Mendel Goldstein agreed with his brother Yisroel Goldstein that Mendel Goldstein could deposit his freelance videography income directly into bank accounts owned by Chabad of Poway. This allowed Mendel Goldstein to avoid reporting his entire income to the IRS. In return, the brothers agreed that Yisroel Goldstein would keep 10 percent of Mendel Goldstein’s income as his fee—amounting to about $70,000. Mendel Goldstein saved approximately $155,881 in taxes he should have paid to the IRS.
As Mendel Goldstein admitted today, the conspiracy operated for several years until December 2018. At that time, Yisroel Goldstein discovered that he was under investigation for tax evasion and other crimes. He warned Mendel Goldstein about the investigation and encouraged him to conceal his tax evasion by filing delinquent tax returns.
In July 2020, Yisroel Goldstein, along with five other associates, pleaded guilty to fraud charges, admitting that he participated in a complex, years-long, multi-million dollar tax-evasion scheme and other financial deceptions involving theft of public money. Among the schemes he admitted as part of his guilty plea, Yisroel Goldstein outlined the tax avoidance conspiracy he operated with Mendel Goldstein. Yisroel Goldstein has agreed to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. He is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant on April 26, 2021.
“People who cheat on their taxes are cheating all honest taxpayers,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “We will not tolerate the exploitation of non-profit and religious organizations to line the perpetrators’ pockets at society’s expense.”
“The law clearly states that income is subject to tax and must be reported, from whatever source derived, including compensation for services,” said Ryan L. Korner, Special Agent in Charge of IRS Criminal Investigation. “Mr. Mendel Goldstein admitted that he broke the law by hiding over $700,000 in income and willfully evading his taxes for over six years. His tax crime is made even more egregious because he exploited the tax-exempt status of Chabad of Poway to cheat the United States. Today’s guilty plea demonstrates that the IRS will diligently continue our important enforcement efforts despite the ongoing challenges posed by Covid-19. We will work alongside our law enforcement partners in a collective effort to enforce the law and ensure the public trust.”
“This investigation uncovered a conspiracy of crimes involving fraud, deception and evasion that used the cloak of a tax-exempt religious organization, the Chabad of Poway, for personal financial benefit,” said Suzanne Turner, Special Agent in Charge of FBI's San Diego Field Office. “The FBI takes seriously the harm that financial crimes have on our country. We are all expected to follow the rule of law, and the FBI is charged with enforcing these laws. Today, Mendel Goldstein has been reminded of this important lesson, as he acknowledged with his guilty plea.”
Judge Bashant presided over today’s arraignment and guilty plea. Mendel Goldstein is next scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on December 14, 2020 at 9 a.m.
NEW DEFENDANT AND SUMMARY OF NEW CHARGES
Mendel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR2772-BAS Age: 63 Brooklyn, NY
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
PREVIOUSLY CHARGED DEFENDANTS AND SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Yisroel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR1916-BAS Age: 58 Poway
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Alexander Avergoon, Case Number 19CR2955-BAS Age: 44 San Diego
Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 1343
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of Title 18, USC 1028A
Maximum Penalty: Two years minimum consecutive term in prison
Money Laundering, in violation of Title 18, USC 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Bruce Baker, Case Number 20CR1912-BAS Age: 74 La Jolla
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and file false tax returns, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Bijan Moossazadeh, Case Number 20CR1893-BAS Age: 63 San Diego
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Yousef Shemirani, Case Number 20CR1895-BAS Age: 74 Poway
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Boris Shkoller, Case Number 20CR1913-BAS Age: 83 Del Mar
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
INVESTIGATING AGENCIES
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service
For Further Information, Contact:
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Emily W. Allen (619) 546-9738,Andrew Young (619) 546-7981, and Oleksandra Johnson (619) 546-9769
SAN DIEGO – Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, former director at Chabad of Poway, and five of his associates pleaded guilty in federal court today and Monday to fraud charges, admitting that they participated in a complex, years-long, multi-million dollar tax-evasion scheme and other financial deceptions involving theft of public money.
According to his plea agreement, while Rabbi Goldstein was director of the Poway synagogue, he received at least $6.2 million in phony contributions to the Chabad and affiliated charities and secretly refunded up to 90 percent of the donations to the “donors.” After Rabbi Goldstein provided these donors with fake receipts, they illegally claimed huge tax deductions for these nonexistent donations, and the rabbi kept about 10 percent – more than half a million dollars over the course of the fraud - for himself. Tax losses to the IRS were more than $1.5 million. At least 20 taxpayers were involved in this and related tax-evasion schemes.
This case was under investigation for more than two years before Rabbi Goldstein was shot and wounded during the April 27, 2019 attack on worshippers at the Chabad. In that case, federal civil rights and hate crimes charges are pending against John T. Earnest of Rancho Peñasquitos.
The rabbi was aware of the investigation at the time of the shooting. FBI and IRS agents had searched his home in October of 2018, and he began cooperating with the investigation shortly after that time.
According to his plea agreement, Rabbi Goldstein has agreed to cooperate with ongoing investigations of uncharged co-conspirators and to forfeit $1 million in proceeds and pay restitution of $2.5 million.
“This case has brought us all a great deal of anguish because of the attack on Chabad of Poway,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “But whatever a defendant’s dire personal circumstances, or stature in the community, we will always seek justice, first and foremost. We cannot, and will not, sweep serious criminal conduct under the rug. We cannot look the other way because a perpetrator of crime has suddenly become a victim of crime.”
“This case shows the FBI’s dedication to untangling the web of fraud in a complex, multi-million dollar charitable donation scheme that violated the trust of the Chabad of Poway and defrauded the United States government," said FBI San Diego Acting Special Agent-in-Charge Omer Meisel. “The FBI is committed to holding those accountable who use their position and stature in the community as a disguise to commit fraud. All the defendants in this case, including Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, have admitted their guilt in these fraudulent schemes and will no longer be able to use deceit and lies to cheat those who were intended to receive charitable funds and taxpayer dollars.”
“The Chabad of Poway, which has served its community for decades, was used by Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein and the five co-defendants to evade over $1.5 million in taxes over the last 8 years,” said Ryan L. Korner, Special Agent in Charge of the IRS’s Criminal Investigation Division. “The Chabad was further victimized in April 2019 when a shooter attacked its worshippers, and we recognize the pain that terrible event has caused for the Chabad, Rabbi Goldstein, and the community. Ultimately, the financial fraud schemes uncovered during this multi-year, multi-defendant investigation were egregious and IRS Criminal Investigation has a responsibility to bring to justice those who exploit and manipulate non-profit and religious organizations in order to benefit themselves. The IRS is responsible for protecting honest taxpayers and serving the public by ensuring the integrity of our tax system, which funds our nation’s critical infrastructures and vital programs, including supporting our citizens and small businesses during the ongoing pandemic. The hard work of our Special Agents will not stop despite the ongoing challenges posed by Covid-19. We will continue to work alongside our law enforcement partners, and this week’s six guilty pleas demonstrate our collective efforts to continue to enforce the law and ensure the public trust.”
Five others who participated in the scheme with Rabbi Goldstein also entered guilty pleas in federal court this week, admitting that they knowingly participated by concealing their donations through the Chabad and making false deductions on their tax forms, or by recruiting new taxpayers to participate in the scheme. One taxpayer, defendant Bruce Baker, admitted that he began participating in this scheme with Rabbi Goldstein in the 1980s, and made millions of dollars in fictitious donations over the years.
Rabbi Goldstein admitted today that in one instance in late 2017, he attempted to disguise the source of more than $1.1 million in fraudulent donations by purchasing gold coins worth approximately $1 million. He then delivered the gold to the phony donor.
CLICK HERE - Press Presentation Graphics
There were many schemes within the broader tax-fraud and kickback scheme, dating back to 2010 or earlier and continuing through 2018.
Rabbi Goldstein admitted he defrauded three different Fortune 500 companies by tricking them into matching supposed charitable donations of their employees. Working with the employees, Rabbi Goldstein fabricated fake receipts and then secretly returned their fake “donations.” This allowed the employees to claim tax deductions for the completely fabricated donations, and allowed Rabbi Goldstein to collect the companies’ matching funds—including some that matched double their employees’ donations. Rabbi Goldstein helped to orchestrate this scheme with at least six taxpayer-employees and two other associates who helped recruit new donors or conceal the true recipient of the funds. In total, Rabbi Goldstein defrauded the companies out of at least $134,000, and helped the taxpayer-employees to claim nearly as much in fictitious tax-deductible charitable contributions to the IRS.
Rabbi Goldstein admitted that he also helped an individual conceal more than $700,000 in income by allowing the individual to use Chabad bank accounts to deposit his income, thereby hiding it from the IRS. As his cut, Rabbi Goldstein kept 10 percent of this individual’s income—more than $70,000.
Separate and apart from the tax evasion scheme, Rabbi Goldstein and defendant Alexander Avergoon, who also pleaded guilty today, used false information and fabricated invoices and other records to pretend to be eligible for emergency funds, grants or donations, and private loans. These frauds on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), and private foundations resulted in losses to these programs of at least $875,000. Rabbi Goldstein and Avergoon have agreed to pay restitution to recoup these losses and reimburse these programs.
The rabbi also admitted in his plea agreement that he defrauded San Diego County courts by falsely certifying that co-conspirators and associates had performed volunteer work at the Chabad or its affiliated entities, so that those associates could submit fake reports to the courts that they had fulfilled sentencing requirements for criminal offenses showing dozens or even hundreds of community service hours. Finally, Rabbi Goldstein admitted that, along with Avergoon, he fraudulently obtained loans from banks and mortgage lending businesses by submitting false information in loan applications that they verified for one another.
“Sadly, the facts of this case show a willful, devious effort to deceive on the part of a trusted community leader,” Brewer said. “Evading taxes causes harm not just to the government, but also to one’s fellow citizens, who are forced to bear a heavier burden. Members of the Chabad of Poway are also victims of this crime, for those fake donations certainly did not benefit their congregation.
“There is no doubt that Rabbi Goldstein was the victim of a heinous hate crime that terrorized him and Chabad congregants,” Brewer said. “This is a mitigating factor, but this is no excuse. We acknowledge the rabbi’s cooperation and his community leadership in the wake of the shooting. But this illegal conduct had been going on for many years, and it cannot be ignored.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford presided over today’s arraignment and guilty plea. Rabbi Goldstein is next scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on October 19, 2020 at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant.
The five related guilty pleas involve a series of fraud and tax evasion schemes by Rabbi Goldstein’s co‑defendants:
1. Defendant Alexander Avergoon
Avergoon admitted that from 2010 to 2015, he recruited at least nine taxpayers who made more than $275,000 in fraudulent “donations” to the Chabad, then used Avergoon as a conduit to secretly return 90 percent of the money to the purported “donors.” He also admitted that he joined Rabbi Goldstein in the grant fraud scam in which they obtained hundreds of thousands of dollars in misappropriated grant funds.
As part of the government benefits fraud scheme, Avergoon used shell companies, including “Imagination Construction Company,” to create fictitious and backdated invoices for services like carpet installation, repairs to the Chabad of Poway’s HVAC system, and replacing damaged books and other supplies—even though Avergoon had never performed these services. In some cases, Avergoon would give Goldstein several fake bids from different shell companies, so that Rabbi Goldstein could trick the grant program administrators into believing he had complied with their competitive bidding requirements. Avergoon and Goldstein pretended that the government grant funds would be used for facilities upgrades, security systems, and community programs. But in reality, the money often went straight to Goldstein’s and Avergoon’s pockets; other times they used portions of it to pay contractors who had in fact charged much lower prices than reflected on Avergoon’s phony paperwork.
Apart from his fraudulent partnership with Rabbi Goldstein, Avergoon also admitted to participating in separate real estate Ponzi schemes from 2010 to 2016, in which he cheated retirement investors out of a total of $12 million. Avergoon was a San Diego-based real estate agent, and he used his industry knowledge and reputation to target trusting victims who would invest in what they thought was the purchase of rental property. Avergoon promised monthly dividends that would be paid from rental income. He created written investment materials like prospectus and projected income and expenses calculations, designed to give investors the false impression that their money would be safely tucked away in passive-income retirement investments. But in truth, instead of using investors’ money to buy rental properties as he promised, Avergoon spent the money himself and just pretended that he had purchased the apartment buildings and office space he advertised. In true Ponzi fashion, for a time, Avergoon made the promised dividend payments—but rather than using rent income, he funded those payments using new investor money.
Avergoon deceived more than a dozen unwitting investors, and convinced them to part with at least $5 million. When an investor would ask to cash out, he encouraged them to re-invest, and at one point he pretended to “roll over” their retirement investments to purchase a multi-million dollar commercial building. In reality, he bought that building with a loan, not with investor money, and again diverted their money to his own personal use. He created fake partnership agreements, false purchase documents and deeds, and other fictitious records, and forged the signatures of his investors to conceal the fraud—then laundered the proceeds in order to disguise the true source and ownership of the money.
Avergoon did not stop there. He convinced investors to part with another $5 million or more by pretending to use their money to fund short-term, low-risk loans supposedly secured by the borrowers’ high-end San Diego homes. But in reality, there were no “borrowers”—Avergoon used his real estate connections to identify homes he could pose as collateral, and he simply doctored up fake loan agreements and forged the borrowers’ signatures. In some cases, the individuals he claimed were the borrowers did not even own the homes that were purportedly used as collateral. Avergoon made fake loan agreements, Deeds of Trust, mortgage Notes, and other official-looking documents, and he even created fake notary stamps and San Diego County Recorder’s Office markings to make the paperwork appear legitimate. Once again, Avergoon used new investor money to make occasional payments to his victims, to make it appear that the “loans” were performing. But in truth, he diverted the money to his own use and the “investments” were worthless.
Avergoon was indicted in August 2019 and apprehended in Latvia. He was extradited to the United States in November 2019 and has remained in custody since his extradition and initial appearance in federal court in San Diego. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major presided over his change of plea hearing today. Avergoon is next scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on October 19, 2020 at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant.
2. Defendant Bruce Baker
Bruce Baker pleaded guilty to conspiring with Rabbi Goldstein to defraud the IRS and file false tax returns beginning as early as the mid-1980s. For three decades, Baker admitted that he used fabricated records from Goldstein to fraudulently reduce his tax liabilities by pretending he was eligible for tax deductions for millions of dollars in nonexistent “gifts to charity” he reportedly made to the Chabad. In reality, Goldstein secretly returned 90 percent of Baker’s donations, and kept a 10 percent fee.
This part of the scheme was especially complex and intricate. Rather than simply paying cash or returning Baker’s money in direct payments, Goldstein would pay Baker’s creditors, make large purchases on his behalf, give money to Baker’s relatives, or pay off bills on behalf of his family. To disguise the repayments, Rabbi Goldstein delivered the money in clandestine ways by, for example, paying:
around $200,000 to Baker’s business partner to buy the partner’s share of their business assets on Baker’s behalf;
more than $420,000 in tuition and fees for Baker’s son to attend dental school and a post-doctoral residency in dentistry;
at least $90,000 to a construction company for Baker’s benefit, another $200,000 directly to a building contractor working for Baker and $129,000 to a home builder, and more than $300,000 to Baker’s account at a construction and building supply company; and
$200,000 from the proceeds of the sale of Goldstein’s property paid directly to Baker’s son.
Over the years, Baker admitted that he “donated” at least $2.6 million to Chabad of Poway, with at least $2.4 million secretly funneled back from Goldstein to Baker. In total, Baker’s and Goldstein’s scheme cost the IRS around $644,000 in tax losses.
Separate from his dealings with Rabbi Goldstein, Baker also admitted that he engaged in a similar tax evasion scheme with the director of a separate religious congregation and community organization in San Diego. In 2006, that individual offered Baker and his family an arrangement where they would pretend to make an “in-kind” donation to the religious organization of an ancient Iranian Torah—although no such Torah existed and the “in-kind” donation was a hoax. This other director provided Baker with a fraudulent appraisal that valued the Torah at $1.2 million. Baker and his family used the fake paperwork to claim exorbitant tax deductions, and gave the co-conspirator a 10 percent fee—or $120,000—in return. On top of that, the director charged Baker $20,000 for the fake appraisal.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford presided over Baker’s arraignment and guilty plea on July 13, 2020. Baker is scheduled for sentencing on October 19, 2020, at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to make full restitution to the IRS including all unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest.
3. Defendant Bijan Moossazadeh
Bijan Moossazadeh began participating in the tax evasion scheme with Rabbi Goldstein as early as 2012. As he admitted in his plea agreement, between 2012 and 2018 he pretended to “donate” a total of around $290,000 to Chabad of Poway. But instead of using the money for charitable purposes, Goldstein secretly funneled back 90 percent of the funds to Moossazadeh. Even so, Goldstein generated fraudulent donation receipt letters for Moossazadeh, so he could fraudulently verify that the money was indeed a “gift to charity.” Moossazadeh fraudulently reduced his tax liability—or intended to, before he learned of this investigation in 2018—by more than $91,500.
Goldstein concealed his repayments by giving Moossazadeh large cash payments that would be difficult to trace. And he communicated in code when he had cash available, referring to his cash supplies as “challah” and his supplier as “the baker.” In 2016, for example, Goldstein texted Moossazadeh to tell him he had cash: “I got a call from the Baker today he’s preparing for Friday how many Chalah do you need?” Moossazadeh answered, “22”—by which he meant, $22,000. The next day, Goldstein followed up: “Good morning[.] The baker came in earlier and has today 22 challa ready for pickup[.] Let me know what time?” Moossazadeh met Rabbi Goldstein at the Chabad on March 16, 2016, where he delivered a $22,000 check made payable to the Chabad (with “Contribution” written in the memo line), and in exchange Goldstein gave him $20,000 in cash (keeping the remaining $2,000). Goldstein also gave Moossazadeh a fraudulent donation receipt thanking Defendant for his “generous tax deductible donation.”
They followed a similar pattern in 2018, when Goldstein again used coded text messages to alert Moossazadeh that he did not have cash ready and available: “Just got a call the baker is not baking challah this Friday-will be back next Friday and have the full order.” A week later, Goldstein followed up: “Cook just finished . [] Come and pickup[.]” Moossazadeh admitted in his plea agreement that he met Goldstein at the Chabad the next day and delivered a check for $33,000, made payable to the Chabad (again with “Contribution” written in the memo line). In exchange, Goldstein gave Moossazadeh $30,000 in cash (keeping the remaining $3,000), along with another fraudulent donation receipt.
In August 2018—just at the time that court documents show Goldstein had offered to launder cash proceeds for an individual who he only later discovered was an undercover federal agent--—Rabbi Goldstein let Moossazadeh know he had more cash available. He texted Moossazadeh: “I have a new baker who can bake many more challah almost unlimited[.] Let Joe [SHEMIRANI] know that a new baker came to town and to let me know how many challah to bake ? Can do as many as you need .. unlimited[.]” But just a few months later in October 2018, Moossazadeh learned that Rabbi Goldstein was under investigation. He did not attempt to deduct any of his 2018 purported donations to the Chabad.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford presided over Moossazadeh’s arraignment and guilty plea on July 13, 2020. He is scheduled for sentencing on October 19, 2020, at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to make full restitution to the IRS including all unpaid taxes, penalties (including a 75 percent fraud penalty), and interest.
4. Defendant Yousef Shemirani
Yousef Shemirani admitted in his plea agreement that he participated in the tax scheme from 2011 to 2016, and in total he pretended to “donate” $137,650 to Rabbi Goldstein and the Chabad of Poway. In return, Goldstein secretly funneled approximately 90 percent of the “donations” back to Shemirani, keeping 10 percent (around $13,765). Shemirani’s participation in the scheme resulted in a tax loss to the IRS of more than $39,000.
As with Moossazadeh, Rabbi Goldstein used coded language to discuss the scheme with Shemirani, and he concealed his return of the “donations” by returning Shemirani’s payments in large amounts of cash. As Shemirani admitted in his plea agreement, Goldstein texted him in June 2015 to alert him that he would have cash available: “The baker will be back in July and will have all the Chalah you need :)” In July 2015, he followed up: “I just got a call from the Baker he may be in this Friday do you still need Chalah?” A year later, Goldstein continued the disguise, alerting Shemirani: “The Baker came today and actually be a nice amount of fresh Chalah – you can come by today and pick it up.”
Shemirani heard from Rabbi Goldstein again on October 20, 2018, when Goldstein appeared unannounced at Shemirani’s door. As Shemirani admitted, Goldstein warned that he was under investigation and that his home and office had been searched by federal agents. He alerted Shemirani that the next time they saw each other, Goldstein might be “wearing a wire.” Shemirani understood this was a warning, and he took steps to amend his fraudulent tax returns in response.
Shemirani was arraigned and entered a guilty plea on July 13, 2020, before U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford. His sentencing is scheduled on October 19, 2020, at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to make full restitution to the IRS including all unpaid taxes, penalties (including a 75 percent fraud penalty), and interest.
5. Defendant Boris Shkoller
Boris Shkoller admitted that from 2015 to 2016, he “donated” $122,000 to Chabad of Poway and secretly received 90 percent—or $109,800—back from Goldstein. Shkoller used Alexander Avergoon as a conduit to make the payments and receive the kickbacks. Avergoon also passed along fraudulent and backdated donation receipt letters that fraudulently verified Shkoller’s “generous tax deductible donation[s].” Shkoller admitted that he filed fraudulent tax returns for both years, resulting in tax losses to the IRS of more than $36,000.
Shkoller was arraigned and pleaded guilty today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford. His sentencing is scheduled on October 19, 2020 at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to pay $53,772 in restitution to the IRS for his tax underpayment, penalties, and interest.
U.S. Attorney Brewer commended the excellent work of prosecutors Emily Allen, Andrew Young and Oleksandra Johnson as well as case agents from the FBI and IRS.
DEFENDANTS AND SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Yisroel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR1916-BAS Age: 58 Poway
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Alexander Avergoon, Case Number 19CR2955-BAS Age: 44 San Diego
Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 1343
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of Title 18, USC 1028A
Maximum Penalty: Two years minimum consecutive term in prison
Money Laundering, in violation of Title 18, USC 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Bruce Baker, Case Number 20CR1912-BAS Age: 74 La Jolla
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and file false tax returns, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Bijan Moossazadeh, Case Number 20CR1893-BAS Age: 63 San Diego
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Yousef Shemirani, Case Number 20CR1895-BAS Age: 74 Poway
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Boris Shkoller, Case Number 20CR1913-BAS Age: 83 Del Mar
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
INVESTIGATING AGENCIES: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service
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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the probation sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total probation time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and probation was imposed
Format: N4
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
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Emily W. Allen (619) 546-9738, Oleksandra Johnson (619) 546-9769, and Randy Grossman (619) 546-6761
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – September 14, 2020
SAN DIEGO – Mendel Goldstein, the owner of a videography business based in Brooklyn, New York, pleaded guilty in federal court today to tax evasion charges relating to a long-running conspiracy with his brother, Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein.
Until around 2018, Yisroel Goldstein was the director and head rabbi at Chabad of Poway, a tax-exempt organization that the brothers used to divert Mendel Goldstein’s income and conceal more than $700,000 in earnings from the IRS. They hid the money by depositing it into Chabad accounts, then secretly funneling it back to Mendel Goldstein by writing checks to fictitious names like “Mr. Green,” “Mr. Gold,” or “Mr. Fish.”
According to his plea agreement, beginning in 2012, Mendel Goldstein agreed with his brother Yisroel Goldstein that Mendel Goldstein could deposit his freelance videography income directly into bank accounts owned by Chabad of Poway. This allowed Mendel Goldstein to avoid reporting his entire income to the IRS. In return, the brothers agreed that Yisroel Goldstein would keep 10 percent of Mendel Goldstein’s income as his fee—amounting to about $70,000. Mendel Goldstein saved approximately $155,881 in taxes he should have paid to the IRS.
As Mendel Goldstein admitted today, the conspiracy operated for several years until December 2018. At that time, Yisroel Goldstein discovered that he was under investigation for tax evasion and other crimes. He warned Mendel Goldstein about the investigation and encouraged him to conceal his tax evasion by filing delinquent tax returns.
In July 2020, Yisroel Goldstein, along with five other associates, pleaded guilty to fraud charges, admitting that he participated in a complex, years-long, multi-million dollar tax-evasion scheme and other financial deceptions involving theft of public money. Among the schemes he admitted as part of his guilty plea, Yisroel Goldstein outlined the tax avoidance conspiracy he operated with Mendel Goldstein. Yisroel Goldstein has agreed to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. He is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant on April 26, 2021.
“People who cheat on their taxes are cheating all honest taxpayers,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “We will not tolerate the exploitation of non-profit and religious organizations to line the perpetrators’ pockets at society’s expense.”
“The law clearly states that income is subject to tax and must be reported, from whatever source derived, including compensation for services,” said Ryan L. Korner, Special Agent in Charge of IRS Criminal Investigation. “Mr. Mendel Goldstein admitted that he broke the law by hiding over $700,000 in income and willfully evading his taxes for over six years. His tax crime is made even more egregious because he exploited the tax-exempt status of Chabad of Poway to cheat the United States. Today’s guilty plea demonstrates that the IRS will diligently continue our important enforcement efforts despite the ongoing challenges posed by Covid-19. We will work alongside our law enforcement partners in a collective effort to enforce the law and ensure the public trust.”
“This investigation uncovered a conspiracy of crimes involving fraud, deception and evasion that used the cloak of a tax-exempt religious organization, the Chabad of Poway, for personal financial benefit,” said Suzanne Turner, Special Agent in Charge of FBI's San Diego Field Office. “The FBI takes seriously the harm that financial crimes have on our country. We are all expected to follow the rule of law, and the FBI is charged with enforcing these laws. Today, Mendel Goldstein has been reminded of this important lesson, as he acknowledged with his guilty plea.”
Judge Bashant presided over today’s arraignment and guilty plea. Mendel Goldstein is next scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on December 14, 2020 at 9 a.m.
NEW DEFENDANT AND SUMMARY OF NEW CHARGES
Mendel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR2772-BAS Age: 63 Brooklyn, NY
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
PREVIOUSLY CHARGED DEFENDANTS AND SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Yisroel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR1916-BAS Age: 58 Poway
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Alexander Avergoon, Case Number 19CR2955-BAS Age: 44 San Diego
Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 1343
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of Title 18, USC 1028A
Maximum Penalty: Two years minimum consecutive term in prison
Money Laundering, in violation of Title 18, USC 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Bruce Baker, Case Number 20CR1912-BAS Age: 74 La Jolla
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and file false tax returns, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Bijan Moossazadeh, Case Number 20CR1893-BAS Age: 63 San Diego
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Yousef Shemirani, Case Number 20CR1895-BAS Age: 74 Poway
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Boris Shkoller, Case Number 20CR1913-BAS Age: 83 Del Mar
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
INVESTIGATING AGENCIES
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service
For Further Information, Contact:
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Emily W. Allen (619) 546-9738,Andrew Young (619) 546-7981, and Oleksandra Johnson (619) 546-9769
SAN DIEGO – Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, former director at Chabad of Poway, and five of his associates pleaded guilty in federal court today and Monday to fraud charges, admitting that they participated in a complex, years-long, multi-million dollar tax-evasion scheme and other financial deceptions involving theft of public money.
According to his plea agreement, while Rabbi Goldstein was director of the Poway synagogue, he received at least $6.2 million in phony contributions to the Chabad and affiliated charities and secretly refunded up to 90 percent of the donations to the “donors.” After Rabbi Goldstein provided these donors with fake receipts, they illegally claimed huge tax deductions for these nonexistent donations, and the rabbi kept about 10 percent – more than half a million dollars over the course of the fraud - for himself. Tax losses to the IRS were more than $1.5 million. At least 20 taxpayers were involved in this and related tax-evasion schemes.
This case was under investigation for more than two years before Rabbi Goldstein was shot and wounded during the April 27, 2019 attack on worshippers at the Chabad. In that case, federal civil rights and hate crimes charges are pending against John T. Earnest of Rancho Peñasquitos.
The rabbi was aware of the investigation at the time of the shooting. FBI and IRS agents had searched his home in October of 2018, and he began cooperating with the investigation shortly after that time.
According to his plea agreement, Rabbi Goldstein has agreed to cooperate with ongoing investigations of uncharged co-conspirators and to forfeit $1 million in proceeds and pay restitution of $2.5 million.
“This case has brought us all a great deal of anguish because of the attack on Chabad of Poway,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “But whatever a defendant’s dire personal circumstances, or stature in the community, we will always seek justice, first and foremost. We cannot, and will not, sweep serious criminal conduct under the rug. We cannot look the other way because a perpetrator of crime has suddenly become a victim of crime.”
“This case shows the FBI’s dedication to untangling the web of fraud in a complex, multi-million dollar charitable donation scheme that violated the trust of the Chabad of Poway and defrauded the United States government," said FBI San Diego Acting Special Agent-in-Charge Omer Meisel. “The FBI is committed to holding those accountable who use their position and stature in the community as a disguise to commit fraud. All the defendants in this case, including Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, have admitted their guilt in these fraudulent schemes and will no longer be able to use deceit and lies to cheat those who were intended to receive charitable funds and taxpayer dollars.”
“The Chabad of Poway, which has served its community for decades, was used by Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein and the five co-defendants to evade over $1.5 million in taxes over the last 8 years,” said Ryan L. Korner, Special Agent in Charge of the IRS’s Criminal Investigation Division. “The Chabad was further victimized in April 2019 when a shooter attacked its worshippers, and we recognize the pain that terrible event has caused for the Chabad, Rabbi Goldstein, and the community. Ultimately, the financial fraud schemes uncovered during this multi-year, multi-defendant investigation were egregious and IRS Criminal Investigation has a responsibility to bring to justice those who exploit and manipulate non-profit and religious organizations in order to benefit themselves. The IRS is responsible for protecting honest taxpayers and serving the public by ensuring the integrity of our tax system, which funds our nation’s critical infrastructures and vital programs, including supporting our citizens and small businesses during the ongoing pandemic. The hard work of our Special Agents will not stop despite the ongoing challenges posed by Covid-19. We will continue to work alongside our law enforcement partners, and this week’s six guilty pleas demonstrate our collective efforts to continue to enforce the law and ensure the public trust.”
Five others who participated in the scheme with Rabbi Goldstein also entered guilty pleas in federal court this week, admitting that they knowingly participated by concealing their donations through the Chabad and making false deductions on their tax forms, or by recruiting new taxpayers to participate in the scheme. One taxpayer, defendant Bruce Baker, admitted that he began participating in this scheme with Rabbi Goldstein in the 1980s, and made millions of dollars in fictitious donations over the years.
Rabbi Goldstein admitted today that in one instance in late 2017, he attempted to disguise the source of more than $1.1 million in fraudulent donations by purchasing gold coins worth approximately $1 million. He then delivered the gold to the phony donor.
CLICK HERE - Press Presentation Graphics
There were many schemes within the broader tax-fraud and kickback scheme, dating back to 2010 or earlier and continuing through 2018.
Rabbi Goldstein admitted he defrauded three different Fortune 500 companies by tricking them into matching supposed charitable donations of their employees. Working with the employees, Rabbi Goldstein fabricated fake receipts and then secretly returned their fake “donations.” This allowed the employees to claim tax deductions for the completely fabricated donations, and allowed Rabbi Goldstein to collect the companies’ matching funds—including some that matched double their employees’ donations. Rabbi Goldstein helped to orchestrate this scheme with at least six taxpayer-employees and two other associates who helped recruit new donors or conceal the true recipient of the funds. In total, Rabbi Goldstein defrauded the companies out of at least $134,000, and helped the taxpayer-employees to claim nearly as much in fictitious tax-deductible charitable contributions to the IRS.
Rabbi Goldstein admitted that he also helped an individual conceal more than $700,000 in income by allowing the individual to use Chabad bank accounts to deposit his income, thereby hiding it from the IRS. As his cut, Rabbi Goldstein kept 10 percent of this individual’s income—more than $70,000.
Separate and apart from the tax evasion scheme, Rabbi Goldstein and defendant Alexander Avergoon, who also pleaded guilty today, used false information and fabricated invoices and other records to pretend to be eligible for emergency funds, grants or donations, and private loans. These frauds on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), and private foundations resulted in losses to these programs of at least $875,000. Rabbi Goldstein and Avergoon have agreed to pay restitution to recoup these losses and reimburse these programs.
The rabbi also admitted in his plea agreement that he defrauded San Diego County courts by falsely certifying that co-conspirators and associates had performed volunteer work at the Chabad or its affiliated entities, so that those associates could submit fake reports to the courts that they had fulfilled sentencing requirements for criminal offenses showing dozens or even hundreds of community service hours. Finally, Rabbi Goldstein admitted that, along with Avergoon, he fraudulently obtained loans from banks and mortgage lending businesses by submitting false information in loan applications that they verified for one another.
“Sadly, the facts of this case show a willful, devious effort to deceive on the part of a trusted community leader,” Brewer said. “Evading taxes causes harm not just to the government, but also to one’s fellow citizens, who are forced to bear a heavier burden. Members of the Chabad of Poway are also victims of this crime, for those fake donations certainly did not benefit their congregation.
“There is no doubt that Rabbi Goldstein was the victim of a heinous hate crime that terrorized him and Chabad congregants,” Brewer said. “This is a mitigating factor, but this is no excuse. We acknowledge the rabbi’s cooperation and his community leadership in the wake of the shooting. But this illegal conduct had been going on for many years, and it cannot be ignored.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford presided over today’s arraignment and guilty plea. Rabbi Goldstein is next scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on October 19, 2020 at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant.
The five related guilty pleas involve a series of fraud and tax evasion schemes by Rabbi Goldstein’s co‑defendants:
1. Defendant Alexander Avergoon
Avergoon admitted that from 2010 to 2015, he recruited at least nine taxpayers who made more than $275,000 in fraudulent “donations” to the Chabad, then used Avergoon as a conduit to secretly return 90 percent of the money to the purported “donors.” He also admitted that he joined Rabbi Goldstein in the grant fraud scam in which they obtained hundreds of thousands of dollars in misappropriated grant funds.
As part of the government benefits fraud scheme, Avergoon used shell companies, including “Imagination Construction Company,” to create fictitious and backdated invoices for services like carpet installation, repairs to the Chabad of Poway’s HVAC system, and replacing damaged books and other supplies—even though Avergoon had never performed these services. In some cases, Avergoon would give Goldstein several fake bids from different shell companies, so that Rabbi Goldstein could trick the grant program administrators into believing he had complied with their competitive bidding requirements. Avergoon and Goldstein pretended that the government grant funds would be used for facilities upgrades, security systems, and community programs. But in reality, the money often went straight to Goldstein’s and Avergoon’s pockets; other times they used portions of it to pay contractors who had in fact charged much lower prices than reflected on Avergoon’s phony paperwork.
Apart from his fraudulent partnership with Rabbi Goldstein, Avergoon also admitted to participating in separate real estate Ponzi schemes from 2010 to 2016, in which he cheated retirement investors out of a total of $12 million. Avergoon was a San Diego-based real estate agent, and he used his industry knowledge and reputation to target trusting victims who would invest in what they thought was the purchase of rental property. Avergoon promised monthly dividends that would be paid from rental income. He created written investment materials like prospectus and projected income and expenses calculations, designed to give investors the false impression that their money would be safely tucked away in passive-income retirement investments. But in truth, instead of using investors’ money to buy rental properties as he promised, Avergoon spent the money himself and just pretended that he had purchased the apartment buildings and office space he advertised. In true Ponzi fashion, for a time, Avergoon made the promised dividend payments—but rather than using rent income, he funded those payments using new investor money.
Avergoon deceived more than a dozen unwitting investors, and convinced them to part with at least $5 million. When an investor would ask to cash out, he encouraged them to re-invest, and at one point he pretended to “roll over” their retirement investments to purchase a multi-million dollar commercial building. In reality, he bought that building with a loan, not with investor money, and again diverted their money to his own personal use. He created fake partnership agreements, false purchase documents and deeds, and other fictitious records, and forged the signatures of his investors to conceal the fraud—then laundered the proceeds in order to disguise the true source and ownership of the money.
Avergoon did not stop there. He convinced investors to part with another $5 million or more by pretending to use their money to fund short-term, low-risk loans supposedly secured by the borrowers’ high-end San Diego homes. But in reality, there were no “borrowers”—Avergoon used his real estate connections to identify homes he could pose as collateral, and he simply doctored up fake loan agreements and forged the borrowers’ signatures. In some cases, the individuals he claimed were the borrowers did not even own the homes that were purportedly used as collateral. Avergoon made fake loan agreements, Deeds of Trust, mortgage Notes, and other official-looking documents, and he even created fake notary stamps and San Diego County Recorder’s Office markings to make the paperwork appear legitimate. Once again, Avergoon used new investor money to make occasional payments to his victims, to make it appear that the “loans” were performing. But in truth, he diverted the money to his own use and the “investments” were worthless.
Avergoon was indicted in August 2019 and apprehended in Latvia. He was extradited to the United States in November 2019 and has remained in custody since his extradition and initial appearance in federal court in San Diego. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major presided over his change of plea hearing today. Avergoon is next scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on October 19, 2020 at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant.
2. Defendant Bruce Baker
Bruce Baker pleaded guilty to conspiring with Rabbi Goldstein to defraud the IRS and file false tax returns beginning as early as the mid-1980s. For three decades, Baker admitted that he used fabricated records from Goldstein to fraudulently reduce his tax liabilities by pretending he was eligible for tax deductions for millions of dollars in nonexistent “gifts to charity” he reportedly made to the Chabad. In reality, Goldstein secretly returned 90 percent of Baker’s donations, and kept a 10 percent fee.
This part of the scheme was especially complex and intricate. Rather than simply paying cash or returning Baker’s money in direct payments, Goldstein would pay Baker’s creditors, make large purchases on his behalf, give money to Baker’s relatives, or pay off bills on behalf of his family. To disguise the repayments, Rabbi Goldstein delivered the money in clandestine ways by, for example, paying:
around $200,000 to Baker’s business partner to buy the partner’s share of their business assets on Baker’s behalf;
more than $420,000 in tuition and fees for Baker’s son to attend dental school and a post-doctoral residency in dentistry;
at least $90,000 to a construction company for Baker’s benefit, another $200,000 directly to a building contractor working for Baker and $129,000 to a home builder, and more than $300,000 to Baker’s account at a construction and building supply company; and
$200,000 from the proceeds of the sale of Goldstein’s property paid directly to Baker’s son.
Over the years, Baker admitted that he “donated” at least $2.6 million to Chabad of Poway, with at least $2.4 million secretly funneled back from Goldstein to Baker. In total, Baker’s and Goldstein’s scheme cost the IRS around $644,000 in tax losses.
Separate from his dealings with Rabbi Goldstein, Baker also admitted that he engaged in a similar tax evasion scheme with the director of a separate religious congregation and community organization in San Diego. In 2006, that individual offered Baker and his family an arrangement where they would pretend to make an “in-kind” donation to the religious organization of an ancient Iranian Torah—although no such Torah existed and the “in-kind” donation was a hoax. This other director provided Baker with a fraudulent appraisal that valued the Torah at $1.2 million. Baker and his family used the fake paperwork to claim exorbitant tax deductions, and gave the co-conspirator a 10 percent fee—or $120,000—in return. On top of that, the director charged Baker $20,000 for the fake appraisal.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford presided over Baker’s arraignment and guilty plea on July 13, 2020. Baker is scheduled for sentencing on October 19, 2020, at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to make full restitution to the IRS including all unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest.
3. Defendant Bijan Moossazadeh
Bijan Moossazadeh began participating in the tax evasion scheme with Rabbi Goldstein as early as 2012. As he admitted in his plea agreement, between 2012 and 2018 he pretended to “donate” a total of around $290,000 to Chabad of Poway. But instead of using the money for charitable purposes, Goldstein secretly funneled back 90 percent of the funds to Moossazadeh. Even so, Goldstein generated fraudulent donation receipt letters for Moossazadeh, so he could fraudulently verify that the money was indeed a “gift to charity.” Moossazadeh fraudulently reduced his tax liability—or intended to, before he learned of this investigation in 2018—by more than $91,500.
Goldstein concealed his repayments by giving Moossazadeh large cash payments that would be difficult to trace. And he communicated in code when he had cash available, referring to his cash supplies as “challah” and his supplier as “the baker.” In 2016, for example, Goldstein texted Moossazadeh to tell him he had cash: “I got a call from the Baker today he’s preparing for Friday how many Chalah do you need?” Moossazadeh answered, “22”—by which he meant, $22,000. The next day, Goldstein followed up: “Good morning[.] The baker came in earlier and has today 22 challa ready for pickup[.] Let me know what time?” Moossazadeh met Rabbi Goldstein at the Chabad on March 16, 2016, where he delivered a $22,000 check made payable to the Chabad (with “Contribution” written in the memo line), and in exchange Goldstein gave him $20,000 in cash (keeping the remaining $2,000). Goldstein also gave Moossazadeh a fraudulent donation receipt thanking Defendant for his “generous tax deductible donation.”
They followed a similar pattern in 2018, when Goldstein again used coded text messages to alert Moossazadeh that he did not have cash ready and available: “Just got a call the baker is not baking challah this Friday-will be back next Friday and have the full order.” A week later, Goldstein followed up: “Cook just finished . [] Come and pickup[.]” Moossazadeh admitted in his plea agreement that he met Goldstein at the Chabad the next day and delivered a check for $33,000, made payable to the Chabad (again with “Contribution” written in the memo line). In exchange, Goldstein gave Moossazadeh $30,000 in cash (keeping the remaining $3,000), along with another fraudulent donation receipt.
In August 2018—just at the time that court documents show Goldstein had offered to launder cash proceeds for an individual who he only later discovered was an undercover federal agent--—Rabbi Goldstein let Moossazadeh know he had more cash available. He texted Moossazadeh: “I have a new baker who can bake many more challah almost unlimited[.] Let Joe [SHEMIRANI] know that a new baker came to town and to let me know how many challah to bake ? Can do as many as you need .. unlimited[.]” But just a few months later in October 2018, Moossazadeh learned that Rabbi Goldstein was under investigation. He did not attempt to deduct any of his 2018 purported donations to the Chabad.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford presided over Moossazadeh’s arraignment and guilty plea on July 13, 2020. He is scheduled for sentencing on October 19, 2020, at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to make full restitution to the IRS including all unpaid taxes, penalties (including a 75 percent fraud penalty), and interest.
4. Defendant Yousef Shemirani
Yousef Shemirani admitted in his plea agreement that he participated in the tax scheme from 2011 to 2016, and in total he pretended to “donate” $137,650 to Rabbi Goldstein and the Chabad of Poway. In return, Goldstein secretly funneled approximately 90 percent of the “donations” back to Shemirani, keeping 10 percent (around $13,765). Shemirani’s participation in the scheme resulted in a tax loss to the IRS of more than $39,000.
As with Moossazadeh, Rabbi Goldstein used coded language to discuss the scheme with Shemirani, and he concealed his return of the “donations” by returning Shemirani’s payments in large amounts of cash. As Shemirani admitted in his plea agreement, Goldstein texted him in June 2015 to alert him that he would have cash available: “The baker will be back in July and will have all the Chalah you need :)” In July 2015, he followed up: “I just got a call from the Baker he may be in this Friday do you still need Chalah?” A year later, Goldstein continued the disguise, alerting Shemirani: “The Baker came today and actually be a nice amount of fresh Chalah – you can come by today and pick it up.”
Shemirani heard from Rabbi Goldstein again on October 20, 2018, when Goldstein appeared unannounced at Shemirani’s door. As Shemirani admitted, Goldstein warned that he was under investigation and that his home and office had been searched by federal agents. He alerted Shemirani that the next time they saw each other, Goldstein might be “wearing a wire.” Shemirani understood this was a warning, and he took steps to amend his fraudulent tax returns in response.
Shemirani was arraigned and entered a guilty plea on July 13, 2020, before U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford. His sentencing is scheduled on October 19, 2020, at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to make full restitution to the IRS including all unpaid taxes, penalties (including a 75 percent fraud penalty), and interest.
5. Defendant Boris Shkoller
Boris Shkoller admitted that from 2015 to 2016, he “donated” $122,000 to Chabad of Poway and secretly received 90 percent—or $109,800—back from Goldstein. Shkoller used Alexander Avergoon as a conduit to make the payments and receive the kickbacks. Avergoon also passed along fraudulent and backdated donation receipt letters that fraudulently verified Shkoller’s “generous tax deductible donation[s].” Shkoller admitted that he filed fraudulent tax returns for both years, resulting in tax losses to the IRS of more than $36,000.
Shkoller was arraigned and pleaded guilty today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford. His sentencing is scheduled on October 19, 2020 at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant. He has agreed to pay $53,772 in restitution to the IRS for his tax underpayment, penalties, and interest.
U.S. Attorney Brewer commended the excellent work of prosecutors Emily Allen, Andrew Young and Oleksandra Johnson as well as case agents from the FBI and IRS.
DEFENDANTS AND SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Yisroel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR1916-BAS Age: 58 Poway
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Alexander Avergoon, Case Number 19CR2955-BAS Age: 44 San Diego
Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 1343
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of Title 18, USC 1028A
Maximum Penalty: Two years minimum consecutive term in prison
Money Laundering, in violation of Title 18, USC 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Bruce Baker, Case Number 20CR1912-BAS Age: 74 La Jolla
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and file false tax returns, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Bijan Moossazadeh, Case Number 20CR1893-BAS Age: 63 San Diego
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Yousef Shemirani, Case Number 20CR1895-BAS Age: 74 Poway
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Boris Shkoller, Case Number 20CR1913-BAS Age: 83 Del Mar
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
INVESTIGATING AGENCIES: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service
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
SAN DIEGO, CA – Adam L. Braverman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of California, responded today to a recent report reflecting that the number of hate crime incidents reported to the FBI in 2017 increased approximately 17 percent nationwide and 15 percent in San Diego.
According to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program’s annual Hate Crimes Statistics report, law enforcement agencies reported double-digit increases nationally in hate incidents in 2017 compared to 2016. Compiling data from a newly increased number of reporting agencies nationwide, the UCR statistics also show a consistent increase in reported incidents in San Diego. In 2016, 35 reports of hate incidents were reported in San Diego, including 16 incidents motivated by race, ethnicity, or ancestry, and 7 incidents motivated by religion. In 2017, 41 incidents were reported, with race incidents increasing to 17 and incidents motivated by religion climbing to 12. Twelve incidents motivated by sexual orientation or gender were reported in both 2016 and 2017.
Outside of the city, the number of reported incidents in San Diego County slightly decreased from 18 (13 motivated by race, ethnicity, or ancestry; 1 motivated by religion; 4 motivated by sexual orientation) in 2016 to 14 (7 motivated by race, ethnicity, or ancestry; none motivated by religion; 7 motivated by sexual orientation) in 2017. No information was provided to the FBI regarding reported incidents in Imperial County.
“Hatred and violence on the basis of race, religion and sexual orientation have no place in our nation,” said U.S. Attorney Adam Braverman. “The United States has been a ‘shining city upon a hill’ because Americans appreciate that diversity makes us stronger as a people. Today, we mark the 155th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address and are reminded that we still have unfinished work. We will neither tolerate nor accept the actions of those who seek to weaken our bonds. We remain steadfast in our commitment to prosecuting those that commit crimes motivated by hate.”
“Bringing justice to victims of hate crimes is a priority for me,” District Attorney Summer Stephan said. “Hate crimes are particularly hurtful in that they target vulnerable people who have historically suffered from prejudice and they cause a ripple effect of fear and anguish within entire communities around the victim. Through our hate crimes prosecutors and victim advocates, we stand ready to support and protect victims of hate crimes and to hold their abusers accountable.”
U.S. Attorney Braverman announced the second San Diego Regional Hate Crimes Coalition’s (SDRHCC) “Stop the Hate” Community Forum, scheduled for Wednesday, November 28, 2018, at 6:00 p.m. in Balboa Park’s Santa Fe Conference Room. Earlier this year, the SDRHCC hosted the first “Stop the Hate” Community Forum at the El Cajon Police Department and plans to host additional forums in the coming months. The SDRHCC, which began in 1997, is a coalition of non-governmental organizations, community-based groups, and law enforcement agencies that coordinate outreach, education, and responses regarding hate crimes and hate incidents in the San Diego area. The forum will include panels of prosecutors explaining legal rights and resources, community leaders discussing hate incidents and bullying, and victim-witness coordinators from state and federal agencies providing information for victims of hate incidents and crimes.
In addition to United States Attorney Braverman and John Brown, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI San Diego Field Office, speakers at the Community Forum will include representatives from the Anti-Defamation League, Border Angels, Islamic Center of San Diego, San Diego District Attorney’s Office, San Diego City Attorney’s Office, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The forum is open to the public. Plenty of free parking is available. Press availability will begin at 5:30.
SAN DIEGO – Kenneth Tenorio of National City was sentenced in federal court today to 106 months in prison for transporting two female teens from San Diego to Phoenix, Arizona and El Paso, Texas, for the purpose of prostitution.
U.S. District Court Judge Cathy Bencivengo admonished the defendant for his treatment of victims, saying: “You just took advantage of their vulnerabilities to put money in your pocket.” She noted the maximum sentence of 120 months was appropriate but gave Tenorio credit for the time he spent in custody in Texas on local charges prior to the federal proceedings.
According to court records, Tenorio’s conduct spanned multiple states and involved multiple victims, including juveniles. The defendant exploited women and minors who had been removed from their homes and placed in the foster care system as part of his overall scheme to profit from their commercial sex work.
Tenorio pleaded guilty on August 8, 2023, admitting that he transported two of his victims from California to Arizona and Texas for the purpose of offering them for commercial sex for his own financial gain. The defendant used his Megapersonals account – a dating website that is frequently used to solicit prostitution – to post commercial sex advertisements featuring the two victims wearing lingerie. The defendant expected his victims to provide him with a portion of the proceeds they earned from engaging in commercial sex acts in these various locations.
According to his plea agreement, beginning in September 2020, the defendant also trafficked a 15-year-old minor identified as JF1. The defendant knew JF1 was a minor and nonetheless sent text messages to JF1 for the purpose of recruiting and enticing her to engage in prostitution.
The plea agreement reflects that in October 2020, JF1 stayed with the defendant at his residence in National City, California, and he used a false California identification to post online commercial sex advertisements featuring her. He also instructed her on how to engage in prostitution on “the blade” – a slang term that refers to an area of town where prostitutes/sex workers solicit sex-buyers – and informed her that he would provide protection for a fee. The defendant admitted that JF1 worked “the blade” for him a number of times in October 2020, and each time, he drove her there and picked her up, collecting a portion of the illicit proceeds she earned.
“Sex trafficking is a deplorable crime that impacts victims for a lifetime,” said U.S. Attorney Tara McGrath. “This sentence brings justice to the victims and the community is safer with this defendant off the streets. People being exploited are often overlooked and isolated. If you suspect someone is in an unsafe situation or they are being controlled by a “pimp,” romantic partner, manager or employer, or anyone who monitors their movements, their spending and/or their communications, please report it to law enforcement. If we know about it, we can offer help.”
“This lengthy sentence serves as an appropriate punishment for the defendant’s role in exploiting multiple victims for the sole purpose of financial gain, including preying upon a minor,” said Chad Plantz, special agent in charge for HSI San Diego. “Now behind bars, this man cannot participate in the lowest form of humanity – placing our most vulnerable population in harm’s way. HSI and our partnered agencies are committed to aggressively targeting those who continually victimize people for profit.”
“Predators like Mr. Tenorio take advantage of vulnerable people and underage victims. They alternate locations, thinking law enforcement won’t catch on. But that’s not true, and the results of this case as well as this substantial sentence should be a warning to other criminals,” said Chula Vista Police Chief Roxana Kennedy. “I’m proud of our detectives for playing a key role in the initiation and follow up of this investigation. The Chula Vista Police Department remains dedicated to working with all of our law enforcement partners and community organizations to combat sex trafficking and hold those who participate in these unconscionable acts accountable.”
January is National Human Trafficking Prevention Month, a time to raise awareness and educate the public about how to identify and prevent this crime. Indicators that someone is being trafficked include frequent running away; sudden separation or isolation from friends and loved ones; changes in behavior, appearance, and attire; new friend groups; unexplained new or multiple cell phones; and secrecy with phones and social media.
If you believe you may know someone who is in trouble, held in a forced work situation, or being exploited, please contact Homeland Security Investigations at 1-866-347-2423, the FBI, your local police department, the sheriff, or the National Human Trafficking Hotline at 1-888-373-7888.
“We can all do our part to protect the most vulnerable among us,” McGrath said. “Working together, we can find more of the people in need, offer them support, and deliver justice to those who would trade freedom for profit.”
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jill S. Streja.
DEFENDANTS Case Number 22cr2746-CAB
Kenneth Tenorio 54 National City, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Transportation for Purposes of Prostitution – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2421
Maximum penalty: Ten years in prison and $250,000 fine
AGENCIES
The investigation was led by Homeland Security Investigations, the Chula Vista Police Department, and the San Diego Human Trafficking Task Force, a regional, multi-agency effort led by the California Department of Justice dedicated to supporting survivors and holding traffickers accountable. The task force is comprised of numerous federal, state, and local agencies, as well as the Southwest Border High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program. The investigation was also supported by the San Diego District Attorney’s Office.
Anyone who has information about human trafficking should report that information to the National Human Trafficking Hotline toll-free at 1-888-373-7888, which is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. For more information about human trafficking, please visit www.humantraffickinghotline.org.
Assistant U. S. Attorney Michelle L. Wasserman (619) 546-8431
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – November 13, 2019
SAN DIEGO – Nimesh Shah, owner of Blue Star Learning, a technical training school located in San Diego, pleaded guilty today to defrauding the Department of Veterans Affairs out of more than $29 million in Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits.
The Post-9/11 G.I. Bill provides veterans and other eligible individuals with assistance for education-related expenses such as tuition and housing. The VA pays tuition and fees directly to the school where the veteran is enrolled, and if the veteran is enrolled on more than a half-time basis, the VA additionally provides a monthly housing allowance directly to the veteran, as well as money for books, supplies, equipment and other expenses.
In order to receive and maintain approval to receive funds from the VA under the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill, Blue Star Learning was required to have at least 15% non-veterans for each course for which the VA was paying educational benefits under the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, a rule called the “85/15 Rule.” Blue Star Learning was forbidden to engage in any erroneous or misleading advertising.
According to Shah’s plea agreement, from March 2016 to June 2019, he devised a scheme to defraud the VA with regards to Post 9/11 G.I. Bill benefits. Specifically, although Shah knew that close to 100 percent of students at Blue Star Learning were veterans receiving VA educational assistance, Shah repeatedly misrepresented to the California State Approving Agency for Veterans Education (CSAAVE) and the VA that Blue Star Learning was in compliance with the 85/15 Rule. In order to deceive CSAAVE and the VA, Shah created, and directed at least three other employees at Blue Star Learning to create, fake student files for the purported non-veterans in each program. Shah additionally emailed the VA 48 fraudulent enrollment agreements for fictitious people he represented were non-veteran students at Blue Star Learning, complete with fraudulent dates of birth, social security numbers, addresses, phone numbers and emails for each fraudulent non-veteran student.
Blue Star Learning additionally had to provide vocational attainment data to CSAAVE on a yearly basis, as part of a required yearly approval process. According to Shah’s plea agreement, Shah knew that the vast majority of Blue Star Learning graduates did not obtain jobs in the fields in which they were purportedly receiving training, and that the employment statistics on Blue Star Learning’s website were fraudulent.
Shah nonetheless submitted fraudulent spreadsheets to CSAAVE claiming that all of the Blue Star Learning students listed were employed in the informational technology field. On these spreadsheets, Shah provided fraudulent phone numbers, email addresses, employers, and employer contact information for each student. Shah hired individuals to create the fraudulent email addresses for the Blue Star Learning students, and directed these individuals to answer emails received at the fraudulent email addresses pretending to be satisfied Blue Star Learning graduates working in the information technology field. Shah additionally created 30 fictitious companies that he listed as the employers on the fraudulent spreadsheets, and hired individuals to create fraudulent email addresses and domain names for each fictitious company. Shah directed a Blue Star Learning employee to purchase 30 cellular telephones, one for each fictitious employer, and had employees of Blue Star Learning create voicemails on each cellular telephone so that it would appear that the fraudulent businesses were legitimate if CSAAVE called to check.
“These funds were meant to provide educational benefits to veterans who served our country, not line the pockets of unscrupulous opportunists,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “This defendant crafted an elaborate scheme to fleece the government and taxpayers, but this case put a stop to this significant fraud.” Brewer thanked prosecutor Michelle Wasserman and federal agents for excellent work on this case.
As a result of Shah’s fraud, the VA issued over $11 million in tuition payments to Blue Star Learning, and over $18 million in housing allowances and stipends. In total, the VA lost $29,350,999. Shah’s wife, Nidhi Shah, pleaded guilty at the same time to one count of False Statement, as a result of lies she told to agents at the time of her interview.
DEFENDANT Case Number 19CR4551-JAH; 19CR4550-JAH
Nimesh Shah Age: 36 San Diego, CA
Nidhi Shah Age: 34 San Diego, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Nimesh Shah: Wire Fraud – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1343
Maximum penalty: Twenty years’ imprisonment and $250,000 fine
Nidhi Shah: False Statement – Title 18 U.S.C., Section 1001
Maximum penalty: Five years’ imprisonment, and $250,000 fine
AGENCY
Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General
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
Assistant U. S. Attorney Michelle L. Wasserman (619) 546-8431
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – November 13, 2019
SAN DIEGO – Nimesh Shah, owner of Blue Star Learning, a technical training school located in San Diego, pleaded guilty today to defrauding the Department of Veterans Affairs out of more than $29 million in Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits.
The Post-9/11 G.I. Bill provides veterans and other eligible individuals with assistance for education-related expenses such as tuition and housing. The VA pays tuition and fees directly to the school where the veteran is enrolled, and if the veteran is enrolled on more than a half-time basis, the VA additionally provides a monthly housing allowance directly to the veteran, as well as money for books, supplies, equipment and other expenses.
In order to receive and maintain approval to receive funds from the VA under the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill, Blue Star Learning was required to have at least 15% non-veterans for each course for which the VA was paying educational benefits under the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, a rule called the “85/15 Rule.” Blue Star Learning was forbidden to engage in any erroneous or misleading advertising.
According to Shah’s plea agreement, from March 2016 to June 2019, he devised a scheme to defraud the VA with regards to Post 9/11 G.I. Bill benefits. Specifically, although Shah knew that close to 100 percent of students at Blue Star Learning were veterans receiving VA educational assistance, Shah repeatedly misrepresented to the California State Approving Agency for Veterans Education (CSAAVE) and the VA that Blue Star Learning was in compliance with the 85/15 Rule. In order to deceive CSAAVE and the VA, Shah created, and directed at least three other employees at Blue Star Learning to create, fake student files for the purported non-veterans in each program. Shah additionally emailed the VA 48 fraudulent enrollment agreements for fictitious people he represented were non-veteran students at Blue Star Learning, complete with fraudulent dates of birth, social security numbers, addresses, phone numbers and emails for each fraudulent non-veteran student.
Blue Star Learning additionally had to provide vocational attainment data to CSAAVE on a yearly basis, as part of a required yearly approval process. According to Shah’s plea agreement, Shah knew that the vast majority of Blue Star Learning graduates did not obtain jobs in the fields in which they were purportedly receiving training, and that the employment statistics on Blue Star Learning’s website were fraudulent.
Shah nonetheless submitted fraudulent spreadsheets to CSAAVE claiming that all of the Blue Star Learning students listed were employed in the informational technology field. On these spreadsheets, Shah provided fraudulent phone numbers, email addresses, employers, and employer contact information for each student. Shah hired individuals to create the fraudulent email addresses for the Blue Star Learning students, and directed these individuals to answer emails received at the fraudulent email addresses pretending to be satisfied Blue Star Learning graduates working in the information technology field. Shah additionally created 30 fictitious companies that he listed as the employers on the fraudulent spreadsheets, and hired individuals to create fraudulent email addresses and domain names for each fictitious company. Shah directed a Blue Star Learning employee to purchase 30 cellular telephones, one for each fictitious employer, and had employees of Blue Star Learning create voicemails on each cellular telephone so that it would appear that the fraudulent businesses were legitimate if CSAAVE called to check.
“These funds were meant to provide educational benefits to veterans who served our country, not line the pockets of unscrupulous opportunists,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “This defendant crafted an elaborate scheme to fleece the government and taxpayers, but this case put a stop to this significant fraud.” Brewer thanked prosecutor Michelle Wasserman and federal agents for excellent work on this case.
As a result of Shah’s fraud, the VA issued over $11 million in tuition payments to Blue Star Learning, and over $18 million in housing allowances and stipends. In total, the VA lost $29,350,999. Shah’s wife, Nidhi Shah, pleaded guilty at the same time to one count of False Statement, as a result of lies she told to agents at the time of her interview.
DEFENDANT Case Number 19CR4551-JAH; 19CR4550-JAH
Nimesh Shah Age: 36 San Diego, CA
Nidhi Shah Age: 34 San Diego, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Nimesh Shah: Wire Fraud – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1343
Maximum penalty: Twenty years’ imprisonment and $250,000 fine
Nidhi Shah: False Statement – Title 18 U.S.C., Section 1001
Maximum penalty: Five years’ imprisonment, and $250,000 fine
AGENCY
Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General
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
Assistant U. S. Attorney Melanie K. Pierson (619) 546-7976
SAN DIEGO – Integral Hygienic Solutions, Inc, dba TruClean, a La Mesa-based sanitation company, pleaded guilty in federal court today to defrauding customers by falsely claiming that its antimicrobial cleaning product was tested and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The company had claimed that its antimicrobial product, TruClean 365, eliminates bacteria and viruses, including Covid-19, on treated surfaces for one year with a single application. The company also claimed that its product had been submitted to the antimicrobials division at the EPA for testing and that the EPA had validated their claim of one year of effectiveness through “rigorous testing.”
At the beginning of the pandemic in early 2020, the defendants put TruClean’s own labels on bottles of chemical products purchased from a chemical company on the East Coast. Ray Louis Smith Jr., Ramont Joseph Smith, and TruClean then marketed, sold, and distributed the newly re-labeled products as providing year-long protection against infection from viruses, including the virus that causes Covid-19, on its social media pages and its website.
Products represented to kill viruses in the environment are regulated by the EPA as pesticides. None of the products sold under the TruClean name was registered as a pesticide by the EPA, as required by law. Pesticides that are unregistered may not be sold or distributed in the United States. In pleading guilty, the company admitted that it sold over $800,000 worth of the unregistered pesticides.
"The defendants tried to gain commercial advantage during the pandemic by falsely claiming that the federal government had tested and validated their product,” said U.S. Attorney Randy S. Grossman. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to investigating and prosecuting criminal cases to assist in protecting the public from frauds such as this.” Grossman thanked the prosecution team and investigating agencies for their excellent work on this case.
“The defendants in this case knowingly persisted in their false assertions that their pesticide application provided protection against COVID-19,” said Special Agent in Charge Scot Adair of EPA’s criminal program in California. “As this case demonstrates, EPA and its law enforcement partners are committed to holding responsible parties accountable for false claims that put entire communities at risk.”
“This case demonstrates the EPA Office of Inspector General’s commitment to investigate crimes that undermine the integrity of EPA programs and defraud consumers,” said Special Agent in Charge Garrett J. Westfall of the U.S. EPA OIG. “Our investigative team and law enforcement partners held the subjects accountable by quickly uncovering the potential harm to health and safety and by exposing the false claims promoted by TruClean 365.”
“Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) along with our government partners are committed to protecting the American public against criminal networks attempting to illegally sell products that could endanger lives of U.S. consumers for financial gain,” said HSI San Diego Special Agent in Charge Chad Plantz. “We remain vigilant and will use our broad legal authorities to disrupt and dismantle criminal networks seeking to exploit and benefit from the COVID-19 pandemic.”
This case was prosecuted jointly by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Crimes Section.
Sentencing is set for Feb 24, 2023, before U.S. District Judge Todd Robinson.
DEFENDANTS
Case Number 22cr2607-TWR
Integral Hygienic Solutions, Inc.
Incorporated: 2020
Sheridan, WY
Ray Louis Smith, Jr.
San Diego, California
Ramont Joseph Smith
San Diego, California
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Count 1 (Integral Hygienic Solutions, Inc. only)
Wire Fraud – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1343
Maximum penalty: Five years of probation for a corporation and/or a fine of $500,000, or twice the unlawful gain or loss
Count 2 (all defendants)
Unlawful Sale/Distribution of Pesticides – Title 7, U.S C., Sections 136j and 136l
Maximum penalty: One year in custody and/or a fine of $100,000
AGENCIES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Criminal Investigation Division and Office of Inspector General; Homeland Security Investigations; California Department of Toxic Substances Control
On May 17, 2021, the Attorney General established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force to marshal the resources of the Department of Justice in partnership with agencies across government to enhance efforts to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud. The Task Force bolsters efforts to investigate and prosecute the most culpable domestic and international criminal actors and assists agencies tasked with administering relief programs to prevent fraud by, among other methods, augmenting and incorporating existing coordination mechanisms, identifying resources and techniques to uncover fraudulent actors and their schemes, and sharing and harnessing information and insights gained from prior enforcement efforts. For more information on the Department’s response to the pandemic, please visit https://www.justice.gov/coronavirus.
Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud (NCDF) Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alessandra P. Serano (619) 546-8104 and Connie V. Wu (619) 546-8592
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – February 22, 2017
SAN DIEGO, CA – Luther Gene Ray, aka “Pumpkin,” was sentenced in federal court today to 40 years in prison for sex trafficking a 16-year-old minor female by force in 2014.
Ray was found guilty after jury trial in December 2015 for one count of sex trafficking of a minor by force, fraud or coercion and one count increased penalties for sex offenders.
The victim was a runaway girl. She met Ray at a local retail store within 30 days of his release from federal prison. Ray had previously been convicted of the same crime in Los Angeles back in 2007 and thus, was required to register as a sex offender. Ray served just 8 years on the prior offense and was on supervised release during the time. Ray lured the victim to work as a prostitute as a way to make money for herself.
The evidence at trial demonstrated that the victim received none of the money she earned through prostitution while Ray received thousands of dollars from the victim as well as at least three other women working as prostitutes for Ray. Ray used social media such as Facebook to brag about his lifestyle. The victim testified that Ray assaulted her - and other women in front of her - if they even looked at another man who might be a pimp. Law enforcement was alerted to Ray’s illicit activities after the victim called police while in juvenile hall.
As a result of Ray’s status as a sex offender, U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez was required to impose an additional 10 years in custody. In imposing the 40-year sentence, Judge Benitez said the sentence will send a message that sexually exploiting women and girls through violence will not be tolerated.
“This defendant terrorized and traumatized his 16-year-old victim, and now he will pay a very serious price for his crimes,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Alana Robinson. “We will continue to work tirelessly with our law enforcement partners to detect and prosecute persons who engage in sex trafficking, a form of modern day slavery”.
FBI Special Agent in Charge Eric S. Birnbaum stated: “The sentence imposed on this defendant is a genuine reflection of both the horrific victimization suffered by these young girls and the terrible impact that this type of criminal behavior has on the life and the well-being of our communities. The FBI, along with our law enforcement partners, will continue to pursue the perpetrators of this type of heinous conduct with all of the resources available to us.”
DEFENDANT Criminal Case No. 15CR0498-BEN
Luther Gene Ray aka “Pumpkin” Age: 33 Hemet, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Count 1: Sex Trafficking by Force, Fraud or Coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1591
Maximum Penalties: Life in prison, mandatory minimum 15 years per count
Count 2: Increased Penalties for Registered Sex Offenders, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2260A
Maximum Penalties: Ten years in prison consecutive
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Valerie Chu (619) 546-6750 and Michelle L. Wasserman (619) 546-8431
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – April 13, 2022
SAN DIEGO – Elliot Adler, an attorney and founding partner of a boutique San Diego law firm, pleaded guilty in federal court today to conspiring with former Chabad of Poway Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein to commit tax fraud.
According to his plea agreement, Adler admitted that beginning at least as early as 2010 and continuing through October 2018, he participated in a so-called “90/10” tax scheme with Rabbi Goldstein. Specifically, Adler gave money to Rabbi Goldstein that purported to be a donation to Chabad of Poway. Goldstein then secretly funneled ninety percent of the funds back to Adler, keeping ten percent of the funds as his fee. None of the donated funds was actually given to the Chabad as a charitable donation.
Adler then falsely claimed that the fraudulent donations were tax-deductible on his tax returns, allowing him to reduce his personal income tax liability by approximately $500,000 (cumulatively) for tax years 2011 through 2017.
To accomplish the scheme, Adler and Goldstein communicated using coded language. Goldstein would refer to cash as “challah,” the source of the cash as “the baker,” and would invite co-conspirators to “wrap tefillin” when he proposed meeting to receive checks or deliver cash. For example, on Thursday, January 7, 2016, Goldstein texted Adler, “Good morning I got the challah[.] What time?” That same day, Adler replied via text message, “Monday morning 8am at shul or today before 12pm if you can come to my office.” Goldstein then replied, “Monday @8 is fine.” On Monday, January 11, 2016, Goldstein deposited a check from Adler for $30,000 payable to Chabad of Poway.
On or about December 29, 2017, Goldstein deposited two sequentially numbered checks from Adler, one for $180,000 and the other for $980,000. On Friday, January 5, 2018, Goldstein sent Adler a coded text message proposing that they “get together and wrap teffilin.” A few days later, on January 10, 2018, Goldstein wired approximately $1million to a wholesale and retail jeweler to purchase 246 Suisse Fortuna 1 oz. rectangular gold ingots, 246 Canadian Maple Leaf 1 oz. gold coins, and 246 American Eagle 1 oz. gold coins. On January 17, 2018, Goldstein sent another coded message to Adler asking him, “[w]hen can you come [i]n for a teffilin wrap? I’m ready for you.” Goldstein delivered the gold to Adler the next day. Adler nonetheless claimed on his 2017 tax returns that he had donated over $1 million to charity, fraudulently reducing his 2017 tax liability by approximately $447,000.
Adler and Goldstein took additional steps to conceal their scheme from authorities. On or about October 18, 2018, Goldstein told Adler that he was under investigation by the IRS and that he had been the subject of an undercover operation relating to tax evasion. Goldstein asked for Adler’s help to prove, falsely, that Goldstein, and not Adler, was in possession of the gold coins purchased with Adler’s purported donation. In the early hours of October 19, 2018, Adler arrived at Goldstein’s residence and returned the gold coins.
In July 2020, Rabbi Goldstein pleaded guilty to fraud charges, admitting that he participated in a complex, years-long, multi-million-dollar tax-evasion scheme and other financial deceptions involving theft of public money. Rabbi Goldstein’s plea agreement outlined the fraud scheme with Adler.
Adler is the eleventh individual to plead guilty to crimes discovered in this investigation. Two additional individuals agreed to deferred prosecution agreements as a result of the investigation.
“Elliot Adler conspired to commit a $500,000 tax fraud through phony religious donations,” said U.S. Attorney Randy S. Grossman. “Tax fraud is a serious crime that directly impacts our communities, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to working with the IRS, FBI and our other law enforcement partners to bring those responsible to justice.” Grossman thanked the prosecution team and agents for their hard work on this case.
“This defendant was part of an elaborate, years-long financial scheme to fraudulently claim charitable contributions in an effort to avoid paying taxes,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Stacey Moy. “The FBI and our federal partners will continue to vigorously pursue those who abuse tax laws for their own financial gain - which also diminishes the public’s trust in charitable giving and hurts the organizations who rely on such donations.”
“For years, Mr. Adler shirked his duty to pay his fair share and then he doubled-down in a failed attempt to cover up his million-dollar tax fraud with Rabbi Goldstein,” said Special Agent in Charge Ryan L. Korner of IRS Criminal Investigation’s Los Angeles Field Office. “Tax revenue funds our critical infrastructure, our national defense and pays for social programs like health care, education and social security. A one percent increase or decrease in tax compliance equates to approximately $35 billion in tax revenue used to serve the American public. IRS Criminal Investigation is committed to rooting out tax schemes and working with our law enforcement partners to bring financial fraudsters to justice.”
Adler is next scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on July 11, 2022, before Judge Cynthia Ann Bashant.
SUMMARY OF CHARGES Case Number 22cr0821
Elliott Adler Age: 45 San Diego, CA
Conspiracy to Commit Tax Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
PREVIOUSLY CHARGED DEFENDANTS AND SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Yisroel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR1916-BAS Age: 58 Poway
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Alexander Avergoon, Case Number 19CR2955-BAS Age: 44 San Diego
Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 1343
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of Title 18, USC 1028A
Maximum Penalty: Two years minimum consecutive term in prison
Money Laundering, in violation of Title 18, USC 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Bruce Baker, Case Number 20CR1912-BAS Age: 74 La Jolla
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and file false tax returns, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Bijan Moossazadeh, Case Number 20CR1893-BAS Age: 63 San Diego
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Yousef Shemirani, Case Number 20CR1895-BAS Age: 74 Poway
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Boris Shkoller, Case Number 20CR1913-BAS Age: 83 Del Mar
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Mendel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR2772-BAS Age: 63 Brooklyn, NY
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Stuart Weinstock, Case Number 21CR0042-BAS Age: 64 Escondido, CA
Filing False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, U.S.C. §7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Jason Ellis, Case Number 21CR2200-BAS Age: 42 Poway, CA
Filing False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, U.S.C. §7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Yehuda Hadjadj, Case Number 22CR148-BAS Age: 47 La Jolla, CA
Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Rotem Cooper, Case Number 20CR3968-BAS Age: 54 San Diego
Deferred Prosecution Agreement
Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Igor Shtilkind, Case Number 20CR3955-BAS Age: 55 San Diego
Deferred Prosecution Agreement
Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Michelle L. Wasserman (619) 546-8431 and Valerie Chu (619) 546-6750
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – January 26, 2022
SAN DIEGO – Rabbi Yehuda Hadjadj, director of Chabad at the University of California, San Diego, pleaded guilty in federal court today to conspiring with former Chabad of Poway Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein and at least three other individuals to defraud Qualcomm’s corporate matching program.
Beginning no later than August 2010 and continuing through late 2017, Hadjadj fraudulently obtained funds from Qualcomm’s corporate matching program for Chabad at UCSD, by inducing at least three donors to make sham donations to Friendship Circle, a non-sectarian organization run at the time by Rabbi Goldstein. Chabad at UCSD was not eligible to receive corporate matching funds from Qualcomm, as the corporate matching program excluded sectarian or denominational religious groups from its eligible donation recipients. To conceal the true recipient of the matched funds, Hadjadj told the donors to write checks to Friendship Circle. At the time, or shortly after the donor wrote the check, Hadjadj returned all or most of the donation in cash. The donors would nonetheless request that Qualcomm match the sham donation. After Qualcomm matched the sham donations to Friendship Circle, Rabbi Goldstein funneled approximately two thirds of the matched funds back to Hadjadj, keeping one third for himself.
According to Hadjadj’s plea agreement, on September 26, 2017, a donor wrote a check for $4,900 to Friendship Circle. Shortly thereafter Hadjadj visited the donor’s home and gave him $4,400 in cash. The donor nonetheless requested that Qualcomm match the $4,900 sham donation. In total, Hadjadj met with this donor eleven times to give him cash in exchange for sham matched donations to Friendship Circle. Hadjadj recruited at least two additional donors to engage in this scheme. Hadjadj fraudulently obtained approximately $40,000 for Chabad at UCSD over the course of the scheme.
In July 2020, Rabbi Goldstein pleaded guilty to fraud charges, admitting that he participated in a complex, years-long, multi-million-dollar tax-evasion scheme and other financial deceptions involving theft of public money. Rabbi Goldstein’s plea agreement outlined the fraud scheme with Hadjadj.
Hadjadj is the tenth individual to plead guilty to crimes discovered in this investigation. Two additional individuals agreed to deferred prosecution agreements as a result of the investigation.
“Rabbi Hadjadj violated his position of trust within our community and took advantage of a corporate program meant to encourage employee charitable donations,” said U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman. “Fraud has no place in fundraising, and those who use lies and dishonesty to obtain money, whether for themselves or for an organization, will be held to account for their crimes.” Grossman thanked the prosecution team and FBI and IRS agents for their excellent work on this case.
“The defendant abused his status and connections to help facilitate a years-long fraud scheme,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Suzanne Turner. “The FBI is proud to work with our federal partners at the Internal Revenue Service to root out these schemes which not only defraud the companies who participate in corporate matching programs, but also diminish the public’s trust in the validity of charitable contributions.”
“Rabbi Hadjadj conspired with Rabbi Goldstein to cheat Qualcomm, and even recruited others who trusted him to commit fraud,” said IRS Criminal Investigation, Special Agent in Charge Ryan L. Korner. “IRS Special Agents will do everything in our power to uncover financial deceptions, and we are committed to working with our law enforcement partners to ensure that justice is served against all who choose to place their own greed ahead of the welfare of our businesses and the community.”
Rabbi Hadjadj is next scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on April 18, 2022, at 9 a.m. before Judge Cynthia Ann Bashant.
SUMMARY OF CHARGES Case Number 22CR148-BAS
Yehuda Hadjadj Age:47 La Jolla, CA
Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
PREVIOUSLY CHARGED DEFENDANTS AND SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Yisroel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR1916-BAS Age: 58 Poway
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Alexander Avergoon, Case Number 19CR2955-BAS Age: 44 San Diego
Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 1343
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of Title 18, USC 1028A
Maximum Penalty: Two years minimum consecutive term in prison
Money Laundering, in violation of Title 18, USC 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
Maximum Penalty: Twenty years in prison
Bruce Baker, Case Number 20CR1912-BAS Age: 74 La Jolla
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and file false tax returns, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Bijan Moossazadeh, Case Number 20CR1893-BAS Age: 63 San Diego
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Yousef Shemirani, Case Number 20CR1895-BAS Age: 74 Poway
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Boris Shkoller, Case Number 20CR1913-BAS Age: 83 Del Mar
Filing a False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, USC 7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Mendel Goldstein, Case Number 20CR2772-BAS Age: 63 Brooklyn, NY
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison
Stuart Weinstock, Case Number 21CR0042-BAS Age: 64 Escondido, CA
Filing False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, U.S.C. §7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Jason Ellis, Case Number 21CR2200-BAS Age: 42 Poway, CA
Filing False Tax Return, in violation of Title 26, U.S.C. §7206(1)
Maximum Penalty: Three years in prison
Rotem Cooper, Case Number 20CR3968-BAS Age: 54 San Diego
Deferred Prosecution Agreement
Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
Igor Shtilkind, Case Number 20CR3955-BAS Age: 55 San Diego
Deferred Prosecution Agreement
Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC 371
