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
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
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
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
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. 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
EL CENTRO – Fourteen indictments were unsealed in federal court today charging 47 alleged members of an Imperial Valley-based, Sinaloa Cartel-linked fentanyl-and-methamphetamine distribution network with drug trafficking, firearms and money laundering offenses.
In a coordinated takedown this morning, more than 400 federal, state, and local law enforcement officials arrested 36 defendants and executed 25 search warrants in Imperial County, San Diego, Fresno, Los Angeles, Phoenix and Salem, Oregon. As of this afternoon, the search continues for 11 fugitives.
Including seizures today and throughout the long-term investigation, authorities have confiscated more than four kilograms of fentanyl, which amounts to about two million potentially fatal doses; more than 324 kilograms (over 714 pounds) of methamphetamine; significant quantities of cocaine and heroin; and 52 firearms, including handguns and rifles.
The investigation also resulted in the arrest of Alexander Grindley for alleged methamphetamine trafficking while employed as a U.S. Border Patrol agent, and multiple spin-off investigations in this district and others.
Crimes charged in the indictments include drug trafficking, money laundering and gun-related offenses. Court documents indicated the defendants were operating throughout the Imperial Valley—in Brawley, El Centro, Westmoreland, Imperial, Calexico, Niland, Holtville, Calipatria—and in Mexicali, Mexico.
“With this takedown, the Justice Department has dealt yet another blow to the Sinaloa Cartel and its associates,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “I am grateful to the more than 400 law enforcement officers whose work in this operation resulted in dozens of arrests, charges against 47 defendants, and the seizure of firearms, meth, cocaine, heroin, and two million potentially lethal doses of fentanyl. We will continue to be relentless in our fight to protect American communities from the cartels.”
“This investigation tore apart a drug trafficking network responsible for supplying dealers in communities across the region,” said U.S. Attorney Tara McGrath. “But there is still much work to be done. If you’re a parent, and today’s price of fentanyl terrifies you, talk to your kids about the dangers of drug use. If you’re an addict, and your dealer was arrested today, seek treatment. And if you’re a dealer but your supplier was arrested today, look out – we are coming for you next.”
“The Department of Homeland Security and our federal, state and local partners are unrelenting in our work to keep deadly fentanyl off our streets and bring those who traffic in it to justice,” said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas. “The indictments unsealed today are the direct result of our multipronged and coordinated law enforcement approach – one that utilizes all of our government’s resources and capabilities. Together, we are preventing fentanyl and other deadly drugs from being produced, distributed, or consumed, and saving countless lives.”
“Today’s coordinated operation, involving, over 400 federal, state, and local law enforcement officials, marks a decisive blow against an Imperial Valley-based, Sinaloa Cartel-linked distribution network and significantly disrupts the flow of dangerous drugs into our communities,” said Katrina W. Berger, Executive Associate Director for Homeland Security Investigations. “This operation is a testament to the power of law enforcement collaboration and our unwavering commitment to bringing these criminals to justice.”
“Today, the El Centro Border Patrol Sector teamed with allied law enforcement agencies to support both Homeland Security Investigations and the United States Attorney’s Office of San Diego in this operation,” said El Centro Sector Chief Gregory Bovino. “Our successful collaboration should be a reminder to criminal organizations in the Imperial Valley and elsewhere that justice will be served.”
“This operation shows what can be accomplished when there is collaboration between federal and local law enforcement agencies,” said Imperial County District Attorney George Marquez. “The Imperial County District Attorney’s office will continue to work together with our partners to bring to justice those that harm or are a danger to our community.”
According to the indictments and search warrants, the defendants belonged to various trafficking organizations that were part of an extensive network supplying all of Imperial County and beyond with dangerous drugs.
According to court records, on June 30, 2021, agents seized two pounds of methamphetamine and a cache of ghost guns and ammunition, including: 15 lower receivers, three upper receivers, multiple barrels and stocks, 18 magazines, 40 Luger 9mm rounds and approximately 400 rounds of .223 Red Army ammunition, which are made in Russia. None of the firearms or firearm parts had any identifying serial numbers or markings. They were all ghost guns. Wiretap intercepts showed that defendant Cory Gershen supplied other members of the organization with ghost guns in exchange for methamphetamine. The investigation also revealed the assault rifles (depicted below) were destined for the organization’s source of supply in Mexico.
Multiple AR-style firearms, parts, pistols, magazines, unfinished firearm parts used to create ghost guns, and a cache of Russian made ammunition.
On June 30, 2021, agents seized additional ghost guns, ammunition and methamphetamine from another member of the same drug trafficking organization. Specifically, agents seized two AR-style ghost guns and a Colt .380 semiautomatic handgun and additional Russian rifle ammunition from defendant Guadalupe Molina-Flores, one of the alleged members of the trafficking organization. According to a search warrant, after seizing the firearms, agents searched Molina-Flores’ residence and found 309.4 grams (0.68 pounds) of methamphetamine.
Two more AR-style rifles, a pistol, magazines, and Russian made ammunition. Notably, these were exchanged for drugs.
Fentanyl continues to be a prolific killer. Imperial County experienced 24 opioid-related overdose deaths in 2022, the most recent full year of data available from the California Department of Public Health. The annual mortality rate for 2022 was 13.57 deaths per 100,000 residents—an increase of 41 percent over 2021.
The investigation revealed that the price per fentanyl pill has plummeted. For example, in June 2021, targets of the investigation were obtaining fentanyl pills in Imperial Valley at approximately $1.65 to $1.75 per pill. By December 2021, the prices being discussed had dropped to approximately $1.25 per pill. By May 2024, the same pills were being sold at only 45 cents per pill—less than one-third of the price three years earlier. The precipitous drop in price reflects the increased supply and availability of fentanyl being smuggled into the United States and the close ties between targets of this investigation and their Sinaloa Cartel supplier of fentanyl pills.
This prosecution is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) investigation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.
*An indictment, complaint or information in a search warrant is not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
DEFENDANT Case Number 24cr0455-CAB
Maria Isabel Ferrat 34 Brawley, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1))
Maximum Penalties: Twenty years in prison and a $1 million fine.
DEFENDANTS Case Number 24cr0456-CAB
*Guadalupe Molina-Flores, AKA “Lupe” 43 Westmoreland, CA
Stephanie Joann Hernandez, AKA “JoJo” 42 El Centro, CA
*Emmanuel Becerra, AKA “E-Man” 36 Westmorland, CA
Jeremy Clayton Harris, Sr. 44 El Centro, CA
Jack Daniel Myers 41 Westmorland, CA
Cory Gershen 36 Jacumba, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine, Fentanyl and Heroin (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846)
Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1))
Felon in Possession of Ammunition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1))
Using, Carrying or Possession of Firearm in Commission of a Drug Trafficking Crime
(18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(i))
Maximum Penalties: For conspiracy charge and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine charges: Life in prison with a mandatory minimum of 10 years and a $10 million fine. For felon in possession of ammunition charge: Ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine. For using, carrying or possession of firearm in commission of a drug trafficking crime: Five years in prison mandatory consecutive to the related drug trafficking offense and $250,000 fine.
DEFENDANTS Case Number 24cr0504-CAB
Eduardo Mendoza, AKA “Casper” 31 Niland, CA
Francisco Javier Mendoza, AKA “Pancho” 33 Niland, CA
Carlos Cezar Mendoza 36 Yuma, AZ
Christopher John Coffman 59 Brawley, CA
Daniel Estevan Mendoza 30 Brawley, CA
Tyran Malik Sullivan 40 Brawley, CA
Katelyn Singh 32 Holtville, CA
Cynthia Diaz 35 Imperial, CA
Robert Leroy Humble 49 Brawley, CA
Terry Kyle Christiansen 52 Imperial, CA
Melvin Betha 25 Niland, CA
*Dylan Gutierrez 24 Calexico, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine and Fentanyl (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846)
Maximum Penalties: Life in prison with a mandatory minimum of 10 years and a $10 million fine.
DEFENDANT Case Number 24cr0849-CAB
*Maricela Selk 47 Brawley, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846)
Maximum Penalties: Life in prison with a mandatory minimum of 10 years and a $10 million fine.
DEFENDANT Case Number 24cr0854-CAB
Christopher Landon Bustin 40 Chula Vista, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846)
Felon in Possession of Firearm and Ammunition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1))
Maximum Penalties: For possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine charges: Life in prison with a mandatory minimum of 10 years and a $10 million fine. For felon in possession charge: Ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine
DEFENDANT Case Number 24cr0855-CAB
Ernie David Davila 43 Holtville, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1))
Maximum Penalties: Life in prison with a mandatory minimum of 10 years and a $10 million fine.
DEFENDANT Case Number 24cr0856-CAB
*Karla Franco 42 Los Angeles, CA
Frederick Joseph McKenna, AKA “Downer” 32 Pico Rivera, CA
Gabino Mora 31 Pico Rivera, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846)
Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1))
Maximum Penalties: Life in prison with a mandatory minimum of 10 years and a $10 million fine.
DEFENDANT Case Number 24cr0857-CAB
Alexander Bennet Grindley 53 Brawley, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1))
Maximum Penalties: Twenty years in prison and a $1 million fine.
DEFENDANT Case Number 24cr0858-CAB
Robert Thomas Isaac, AKA “RT” 48 Brawley, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine, Heroin and Fentanyl (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846)
Maximum Penalties: Life in prison with a mandatory minimum of 10 years and a $10 million fine.
DEFENDANT Case Number 24cr0909-TWR
*Bryan Ayala Alvarez, AKA “Pingo” 41 Brawley, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846)
Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1))
Maximum Penalties: Life in prison with a mandatory minimum of 10 years and a $10 million fine.
DEFENDANT Case Number 24cr0910-CAB
*Alfred Aldapa Juarez, Jr. 32 Brawley, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1))
Maximum Penalties: Life in prison with a mandatory minimum of 10 years and a $10 million fine.
DEFENDANT Case Number 24cr0911-CAB
*Pedro Alberto Rioseco, AKA “Pete” 42 Calexico, CA
Jesus Antonio Escoto-Troncozo, AKA “Chocho” 45 El Centro, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846)
Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1))
Felon in Possession of Firearm and Ammunition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1))
Using, Carrying or Possession of Firearm in Commission of a Drug Trafficking Crime
(18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(i))
Maximum Penalties: For conspiracy charge and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine charges: Life in prison with a mandatory minimum of 10 years and a $10 million fine. For felon in possession of ammunition charge: Ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine. For using, carrying or possession of firearm in commission of a drug trafficking crime: Five years in prison mandatory consecutive to the related drug trafficking offense and $250,000 fine.
DEFENDANTS Case Number 24cr00093-RSH
Sergio Reyes-Green 32 Brawley, CA
James Wade Hanks 53 Brawley, CA
Jesus Fernardo Romero, AKA “Chuy” 28 (In Custody)
Yomayra Patricia Penuelas 37 El Cajon, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Conspiracy to Import Methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, 963)
Importation of Methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960)
Aiding and Abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2)
Conspiracy to Launder Money (21 U.S.C. § 1956(h), 1956(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B))
Maximum Penalties: For methamphetamine charges: Life in prison with a mandatory minimum of 10 years and a $10 million fine. For the money laundering charges: Twenty years in prison and a fine of $500,000 or twice the amount of criminal derived property, whichever is greater.
DEFENDANTS Case Number 24cr00094-RSH
Mario Alberto Urena, AKA “Vaca” 34 Brawley, CA
Pablo Enrique Trejo, AKA “Bolas” 45 Calexico, CA
*Carlos Felipe Ruedas-Celaya 45 Calexico, CA
Estevan Ramirez Gonzalez 26 Phoenix, AZ
*Francisco Javier Ramirez-Garcia, AKA “Pitufo” 56 Calexico, CA
*Javier Jacquez 48 Calexico, CA
Araceli Rangel-Torres 28 Mexicali, Mexico
Miguel Angel Flores 31 Fresno, CA
Carlos Valencia Mendoza 29 Mexicali, Mexico
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Conspiracy to Distribute Fentanyl (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846)
Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846)
Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846)
Possession with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1))
Aiding and Abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2)
Conspiracy to Launder Money (21 U.S.C. § 1956(h), 1956(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B))
Maximum Penalties:
For conspiracy charges: Life in prison with a mandatory minimum of 10 years and a $10 million fine.
For the possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine charges (except Count 3): Life in prison with a mandatary minimum of 10 years and a $10 million fine.
For the possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine charge in Count 3: Forty years in prison with a mandatory minimum of five years and a $5 million fine.
For the money laundering charges: Twenty years in prison and a fine of $500,000 or twice the amount of criminal derived property, whichever is greater.
*Fugitives
AGENCIES
Homeland Security Investigations
Drug Enforcement Administration
Department of Justice, Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces
Department of Justice Office of Enforcement Operations
United States Border Patrol
U.S. Customs and Border Protection - Office of Field Operations
U.S. Customs and Border Protection - Air and Marine Operations
ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives
United States Postal Inspection Service
DHS Office of Inspector General
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
California Highway Patrol
Brawley Police Department
El Centro Police Department
Calexico Police Department
Imperial County Sheriff’s Office
Imperial County District Attorney’s Office
Imperial County Probation Department
Imperial Police Department
Westmorland Police Department
Calipatria Police Department
Imperial Valley - Law Enforcement Coordination Center
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. 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
Assistant U. S. Attorney Sabrina Feve (619) 546-6786
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – May 11, 2018
SAN DIEGO – Joseph Daniel Saucedo of Vista was sentenced in federal court today to 235 months in custody and 20 years of supervised release for attempting to manipulate two children, ages 11 and 16, into sending sexually explicit photographs of themselves, and then threatening to expose them if they refused to continue.
According to the plea agreement, Saucedo posed as a teenage girl, “Amy Jennings,” and began communicating on-line with an 11-year-old Canadian boy. At first the two had normal conversations about everyday life. But then Saucedo, pretending to be “Amy,” sent naked pictures of young girls and asked the boy to communicate with her “friend,” Saucedo, in return. When the boy refused, “Amy” posted a photograph of his house, told the boy she knew where he lived, and threatened to shame him into communicating with Saucedo.
The boy ultimately relented and texted Saucedo, who then communicated with the boy using FaceTime and displayed his naked front torso. The boy hung up on Saucedo but the calls and threats continued until, finally, on January 25, 2016, the boy received a message from “Amy,” which included a video of a young boy masturbating. “Amy” threatened to leak the video and claim it was the Canadian boy if the boy did not send naked pictures of himself to Saucedo.
Additional investigation revealed that Saucedo had been in communication with other young children, successfully soliciting sexually graphic images from them. For example, in August 2015, Saucedo struck up a conversation with a 16-year-old girl in Florida through Instagram. This time, Saucedo pretended to be a modeling agent looking for “bikini and nude models” adding “obviously the pay is great.” When the Florida girl told Saucedo that she was only 16 and would have to check with her parents, he volunteered that they could just “make a portfolio” at no cost to her, and “then we can talk to your parents.” She demurred again, telling Saucedo that she had “never been comfortable in my skin.” He promised to “help with that hun if you want we can FaceTime so nothing is saved.”
She continued to refuse his overtures until Saucedo, under the guise of “Amy Jennings,” threatened to blackmail the girl. The girl turned to Saucedo for help with “Amy.” Although he initially claimed no knowledge of Amy Jennings and insisted his modeling business was legitimate, he quickly agreed to help the girl, for a price: nude pictures of herself. He even asked her to “[w]rite my name on a paper or hand so I know it’s a new one.” She acquiesced and sent him pictures of her breasts with “Joe” written across her chest.
Saucedo demanded that the girl continue sending him naked photographs, or “Amy” would post compromising pictures of the girl. The girl volunteered that she was “looking into Kik’s legal system” to handle the threatening “Amy” posts. Within seconds, Saucedo responded, “Na I’ll pay her I don’t want you to get in trouble.” Saucedo no doubt feared that alerting Kik to “Amy Jennings” could have compromised his illegal activities. Saucedo told the girl that he had paid “Amy Jennings” $2,000. As a thank you, the girl agreed to a sexually explicit FaceTime chat with Saucedo. She also sent additional photographs of herself naked with “Joe” written on her breasts and above her vagina, again at his request.
Saucedo continued to hound the girl for almost a year, from August 2015 to June 2016, requesting more naked photographs. He even sent her a photo of stacks of money to elicit more naked photographs. She sent him one more photograph in October 2015, but then stopped responding.
Through search warrants for Saucedo’s cell phones, investigators identified an additional eight minor victims whom Saucedo harassed and manipulated. His youngest victim was 13 at the time of the offense. This victim told Saucedo her age and he nonetheless continued to solicit nude photos from her, including pressuring her to take naked photos of herself while she was at school. Saucedo also directed a 14 year-old victim to sodomize herself and to penetrate herself with a hair brush and threatened her when she protested, including ignoring her warning that his requests made her contemplate suicide. Saucedo’s indifference to his victims’ apparent suffering included disregarding multiple victims’ warnings that his contacts and demands were triggering suicidal thoughts.
At the sentencing hearing, the government acknowledged and thanked the family of the 11 year-old victim. Their vigilance and willingness to report Saucedo’s conduct, coupled with the investigative follow-up efforts of the Calgary Policy Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, led Canadian authorities to refer the matter to San Diego’s Electronic Crimes Working Group, which ultimately identified and arrested Saucedo. Only following Saucedo’s arrest did law enforcement learn of his additional nine victims. Victims, family members, and friends are encouraged to report similar threats and contacts to law enforcement now and in the future.
“This case highlights the importance of strong international partnerships to target these heinous crimes,” said U.S. Attorney Adam L. Braverman. “Thank you to our Canadian colleagues, and most especially to the brave victims everywhere who step forward to report abusive conduct. Their courage is a critical part of detecting and stopping similar abuse now and in the future.”
“Saucedo's sentencing is a another great example of our collaboration with our law enforcement partners and our commitment to keeping our children safe,” said David Shaw, Special Agent in Charge for HSI San Diego. “Dangerous child predators should not have the privilege to be a part of our communities without being held accountable and going through the criminal justice process.”
DEFENDANT Case Number: 17-CR-00095-JLS
Joseph Daniel Saucedo Age: 26 Vista, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Counts One and Two
Attempted Receipt and Receipt of Images of Minors Engaged in Sexually Explicit Conduct, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2252(a)(2)
Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebecca S. Kanter (619) 546-7304
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – June 9, 2020
SAN DIEGO – A husband and wife pleaded guilty today in federal court to using a charity to defraud donors and to evade taxes.
Geraldine and Clayton Hill appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez to admit that they used On Your Feet, Inc. (“OYF”), a.k.a. Family Resource Center (“FRC”), a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit organization that operated in Spring Valley, California, to defraud donors and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). FRC/OYF claimed to provide “assistance to low income families and individuals in need to better their living conditions and quality of life.” According to documents filed in court today, beginning at least as early as March 2009, the Hills conspired to fraudulently obtain charitable donations of clothing and other items from multiple companies by falsely promising and certifying that they would not to sell the merchandise for profit.
The Hills admitted today to violating those promises by knowingly reselling donated merchandise and using the proceeds from the sale of donated items to financially support themselves, their family members and other associates. Forever 21, Feed the Children, Brooks and Goods360 were among the defrauded companies. The Hills tricked these companies such as Forever 21, Feed the Children, Brooks and Goods360 into donating millions of dollars of goods to OYC/FRC through their fraud. Based on the false representations, Feed the Children and Forever 21 – just two of the Hills multiple victims – donated over $16 million in goods between 2010 and 2017.
The Hills admitted today that between 2011 and 2016, they personally received proceeds from the fraud totaling over $1.3 million and paid no income taxes.
In soliciting donations from Forever 21, the Hills falsely claimed in their marketing materials that “[t]he merchandise is never sold by On Your Feet Incorporated . . . Every individual receiving a donation is required to register and sign a form saying none of the merchandise will be resold.” The Hills also falsely represented to Forever 21 that the “[m]ajority of the [OYF/FRC] personnel are volunteer members and are all required to sign a consent form stating that merchandise may not be taken or sold.” In an email on May 20, 2015, to Forever 21, Geraldine Hill falsely claimed that the “routine for processing donated items” included “cutting [the] inside label in half” and “defacing [the] inside label with permanent marker,” and further claimed that “we’ve never had a problem with any donations we have received that companies have been so kind to donate.”
In fact, Geraldine Hill knew at the time she sent that email to Forever 21 that the statement was false because at least as early as May 30, 2012, Goods360 had alerted Geraldine Hill that Disney no longer wanted their donations to go to OYF/FRC because the donated goods were appearing at local flea markets and being sold. For example, in June 2015, Forever 21 donated to OYF/FRC approximately 161 pallets of clothing, which was valued by Forever 21 at $2.9 million (cost)/$5.6 million (retail). Immediately upon receiving the pallets from Forever 21, the Hills sold donated goods to an operator of for-profit discount retailers. In September 2016, the Hills solicited additional donations from Forever 21 by promising to use them for a “Christmas Giveaway,” causing Forever 21 to donate another 16 pallets of clothing on October 27, 2016, which the Hills acknowledged in a letter to Forever 21 that the donated goods had a retail value of $314,371. Immediately upon receiving the pallets from Forever 21 in October 2016, the Hills sold the donated goods to the same for-profit discount retailer.
Instead of paying income taxes, the Hills spent nearly $380,000 of the fraudulent proceeds on personal expenses including luxury retail purchases, vacations, entertainment, and vehicles, in addition to spending more than $322,000 in cash.
In order to conceal their income from the IRS and obstruct the IRS’s ability to monitor the charity’s tax-exempt status, the Hills filed false charitable tax returns. The charity’s tax returns falsely claimed that OYF received less than $25,000 in gross receipts in tax year 2009, and less than $50,000 in tax years 2011-2015. As a result of the Hills’ fraudulent concealment of their income, they caused an estimated U.S. individual income tax loss for 2013-2014 of $50,933.
Although the Hills had no legitimate payroll through OYF, they falsified pay stubs purporting to show salaries paid and taxes withheld in order to advance other fraudulent schemes. For example, they falsified pay stubs claiming that defendant Clayton Hill earned over $100,000 salary (even though OYF had never issued paystubs or W2s, and Hill was not claiming income in any tax filing) and used the false pay stubs for a rental application to rent a home that cost $6,000 per month.
U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer expressed his appreciation to Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebecca Kanter, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman and Trial Attorney Valerie Preiss of the Justice Department’s Tax Division for supporting this prosecution.
“I am committed to using the resources of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of California to aggressively pursue fraudsters and tax cheats,” said Brewer. “The conduct by Geraldine and Clayton Hill is particularly offensive because they used the benefits afforded by the 501(c)(3) status of their charity to defraud donors and conceal their profits. By abusing the generosity of companies and individuals who put their faith in the promises made by the Hills, the Defendants threatened to undermine the trust and integrity underpinning charitable giving.”
“Geraldine Hill and Clayton Hill exploited the public trust and charitable giving by using their charity to solicit over $16 million in goods from hardworking businesses and falsely promising to donate those goods to assist low income families and individuals in need,” said Ryan L. Korner, Special Agent in Charge of the IRS Criminal Investigation division. “Instead, the Hills resold the goods and profited over $1.34 million which they spent on vehicles, vacations, and entertainment, as well as personal expenses for their family members. The Hills concealed their fraud by filing false tax returns on behalf of the charity and failing to report their illicit income to the IRS. Their guilty pleas are evidence of the hard work of IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agents to bring to justice those that defraud businesses in the name of charity, and who benefit themselves instead of serving those most in need.”
“While fraud is always wrong, the theft of charitable donations that were to be used to help San Diego’s low income families is particularly disheartening,” said Acting FBI Special Agent in Charge Omer Meisel. “This type of fraud and deceit for personal gain simply cannot be tolerated. The FBI is committed to ensuring that white collar predators don’t prevent those less fortunate from receiving all the benefits that generous donors provide to seemingly legitimate non-profit organizations.”
Sentencing is scheduled for August 28, 2020 before U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw. At sentencing, the Hills face a maximum sentence of five years in prison for each mail fraud conspiracy and tax evasion charge. The Hills also face a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties.
DEFENDANTS Case Number 20CR0783-DMS
Geraldine Hill Age: 59 Bonita, CA
Clayton Hill Age: 58 Bonita, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 371
Maximum penalty: Five years’ imprisonment and $250,000 fine
Tax Evasion – Title 26, U.S.C., Section 7201
Maximum penalty: Five years’ imprisonment and $250,000 fine
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
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 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. 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.
Assistant U. S. Attorney Valerie H. Chu, (619) 546-6750
SAN DIEGO – Dr. Marco Antonio Chavez was sentenced to 21 months in custody and ordered to pay restitution of $783,764.37 for defrauding TRICARE, the health care benefits program for military service members and their dependents.
According to court documents, Chavez was a physician licensed by the State of California Medical Board. Chavez provided psychiatry services, including therapy and prescription medications for children and adults diagnosed with ADHD and depression, for San Diego patients whose health care was covered by TRICARE. Chavez defrauded TRICARE by using the personal information of these patients to create and submit false and fraudulent claims for nonexistent appointments when he did not actually treat those patients. And he routinely selected the billing code for the highest-level (and highest-reimbursement) patient visit for these fabricated appointments, to maximize the fraudulent reimbursements he received from TRICARE. He swindled more than $783,000 from the taxpayer-funded health care program, and used these ill-gotten gains to buy himself luxuries including a red 2016 Jaguar and thousands of dollars’ worth of David Yurman jewelry.
Beginning in April 2013, Chavez became a network provider for TRICARE under contract with United Health Care Military & Veterans, West. That August, Chavez became eligible to submit claims directly to TRICARE through XPressClaim (“XPC”), a web-based system. Chavez used that access to help his scheme to defraud TRICARE, using his unique personal security key code to avoid review by other billing staff. He then caused the payments to be electronically transferred into an account that was in his name, which he controlled.
For example, Patient A was taken by his/her mother to see Chavez on just three occasions: December 2, 2013, December 16, 2013, and January 13, 2014. Records indicate that Chavez billed and was paid by TRICARE for 80 dates of service for Patient A, including for 21 dates before Patient A’s initial visit on December 2, 2013. On each of the three dates that correspond to dates when Patient A actually saw Chavez, the claim was submitted to TRICARE via the billing system used by administrative staff in Chavez’s clinic. But for the remaining 77 dates of service billed to TRICARE for Patient A, in which the patient did not actually see Chavez, the XPC code was used—indicating it was Chavez himself who submitted those fraudulent claims directly.
Similarly, Patient B was taken by his/her father to see Chavez on five occasions between May 2014 and August 2014. Records indicate that Chavez billed and was paid by TRICARE for 76 dates of service for Patient B. Each of the remaining 71 dates of service billed to TRICARE for Patient B, when the patient did not actually see Chavez, contained the XPC code, again indicating they were submitted by Chavez directly using XPressClaim.
Chavez tried to deflect attention and avoid detection of his fraudulent billing through a variety of deceptive means. For example, he notified patients that they might see entries on their Explanation of Benefit (“EOB”) forms from TRICARE that they would not recognize. This was an attempt to prevent patients from complaining to TRICARE and drawing attention to the false bills. In reality, Chavez knew that the reason the patients would not recognize the entries on their EOBs was because they had not actually occurred – Chavez had simply made them up.
When the TRICARE contractor conducted an audit and requested certain of Chavez’s patient files, Chavez falsely claimed that he had already sent the files, when he knew those files did not exist and could not have been sent. Chavez also misrepresented that a member of the office staff had stolen his TRICARE checks and deposited them without his permission.
Over the course of his scheme, Chavez submitted approximately $928,800 in false and fraudulent claims to TRICARE via XPC, and was paid $783,764.37 on those claims by TRICARE.
Separately, records of the State of California reflect that Chavez’s medical license was suspended in May 2018, upon the finding of an administrative judge that Chavez had treated patients while under the influence of a narcotic or alcohol.
The United States argued in its sentencing papers that Chavez exploited his privileged position as a physician, and his access to patients’ data, to commit his crime. Patients went to Chavez seeking psychiatric treatment for a variety of issues, and trusted him with some of the most troubling and sensitive aspects of their lives. Unbeknownst to them, Chavez saw the patients as his own personal piggy bank: billing opportunities to feed his lifestyle. What is more, Chavez took advantage of TRICARE—a program built upon reliance and trust. Chavez, as a medical provider, easily submitted claims under his name for services he claimed he provided, and got federal funds paid directly into his bank account.
“Through flagrant fraudulent billing, Dr. Chavez stole a quarter of a million dollars from TRICARE and spent it on luxury items, including a Jaguar and designer jewelry. But neither the citizens of this district nor the Department of Justice will stand for defrauding the government,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “Anyone who uses TRICARE as a path to unjust enrichment will pay a heavy price, as we are 100 percent committed to protecting vital government health programs for our military and veterans.”
“Dr. Marco Chavez stole more than $780,000 from the TRICARE program which serves our veterans, military members and their families. This deliberate targeting of a healthcare program which solely aids our military troops and their families is appalling,” said Acting FBI Special Agent in Charge Omer Meisel. “When medical professionals violate their oath to honest patient care for personal greed, it significantly damages the trust required within our health care system. In order to protect the integrity of the healthcare system and government programs like TRICARE that serve our military members, the FBI is committed to rooting out fraud within the healthcare industry. We urge anyone with information about suspected healthcare fraud to contact their local FBI Field Office.”
“Dr. Chavez’ conduct is a particularly egregious example of fraud against the TRICARE program in that his greed clearly took priority over his patients’ trust and well-being,” said Bryan D. Denny, Special Agent in Charge of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Western Field Office. “The doctor's sentencing should serve notice to other unscrupulous healthcare providers that any unprincipled actions that corrupt the integrity of the TRICARE program and ultimately degrade the quality of health care provided to military service members and their families will be vigorously investigated by DCIS and its law enforcement partners.”
U.S. Attorney Brewer commended Assistant U.S. Attorney Valerie Chu and the FBI and DCIS agents for their exemplary work on this case.
DEFENDANT Case Number 18cr2930-L
Marco Antonio Chavez Age: 40 Brownsville, Texas
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Health Care Fraud – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1347
Maximum penalty: Ten years in prison and $250,000 fine
Assistant U. S. Attorney Melanie K. Pierson (619) 546-7976
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – July 9, 2021
SAN DIEGO – A San Diego-based effort to block the smuggling of dangerous Mexican pesticides into the United States has resulted in the prosecution of more than 50 defendants for environmental crimes and the seizure of nearly 1,000 containers of illegal Mexican pesticides so far.
The Border Pesticide Initiative group was formed at the end of 2019 and includes the U.S. Attorney’s Office; the U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Crimes Section; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Homeland Security Investigations; the California Department of Toxic Substances Control; and the San Diego City Attorney’s Office.
The initiative began in response to complaints that law enforcement officers were being injured during the eradication of illegal marijuana cultivation sites on public lands by exposure to powerful Mexican pesticides not permitted in the United States.
Of the more than 50 defendants who have been charged federally, 14 were convicted of felonies and 26 were convicted of misdemeanors. The defendants have been ordered to pay more than $60,000 in restitution to cover the cost of disposing of the pesticides. Eight cases have also been filed by the San Diego City Attorney’s Office under California law for possession of pesticides found at the border.
The pesticides imported by these defendants were labeled in Spanish and did not bear any registration number showing that the products were approved by the EPA, as required by law for pesticides intended for use in the United States. The lawful importation of pesticides requires a Notice of Arrival to be filed in advance with the EPA to allow for inspection, which none of the defendants provided.
The pesticides most frequently encountered in these cases are those containing the active ingredients of carborfuran and methamidophos, which are cancelled pesticides not permitted to be sold or distributed in the United States. Carbofuran, sold in Mexico under the trade names Furadan and Qufuran, is classified by the EPA as Toxicity Category I, the highest toxicity category, based upon its lethal potency from absorption by ingestion, contact with skin, and inhalation, and has been cancelled in the United States since 2011.
Methamidophos, sold in Mexico under the trade names Metaldane 600, Tamaron or Monitor, is one of the most acutely toxic organophosphate pesticides and is similar to a class of chemicals that were originally manufactured as chemical warfare nerve agents. Methamidophos was cancelled in the United States in 2009. The application of these chemicals on public lands has been documented to pollute streams and soils and kill wildlife. Moreover, cannabis users are also at risk from exposure to pesticide residues. During the smoking of cannabis, pesticides are transferred directly into the blood stream, increasing the potential for exposure.[1] In one study, the pesticide transfer rate of carbofuran into cannabis smoke from glass pipes was as high as 70 percent of the initial concentration in the plant.
Two of the felony convictions noted above were the result of verdicts rendered by trial juries. On July 9, 2021, Veronica Perez of Hemet, California, was sentenced to 60 days in following a guilty verdict by a federal jury in San Diego in November 2020 related to the charge of smuggling unregistered pesticides into the United States. Perez concealed twenty containers of zinc phosphide (sold under the Mexican trade name Fosfuro de Zinc) in her purse and failed to declare the items at the border when she attempted to cross into the United States from Mexico on July 11, 2019. Consumption of a single zinc phosphide pellet can be lethal to a small bird or mammal.[2] Ingestion of seven drops to one teaspoon of zinc phosphide would likely kill a 150-pound person.[3] Perez also had Qufuran and Metaldane in her vehicle.
On May 26, 2021, Selene Elizabeth Barraza of Visalia, California, was convicted by a federal jury in San Diego of smuggling 25 containers of illegal Mexican pesticides and fertilizer, including Metaldane, and Furadan, into the United States from Mexico. On February 26, 2020, Barraza failed to declare the pesticide containers when she attempted to enter the United States with the pesticides concealed under the middle row seats in her vehicle. Barraza is scheduled to be sentenced on August 20, 2021.
On June 18, 2021, Felix Gutierrez Valencia was sentenced to 90 days in custody, ordered to pay a fine of $2,500 and restitution of $8,807 for the cost of disposal of the pesticides he smuggled, and also ordered to perform 100 hours of community service during his three years of supervised release. Gutierrez had smuggled 48 containers of various pesticides, including Furadan, Monitor and Rodentox (which contains zinc phosphide). Gutierrez had concealed some of the pesticides in cereal boxes and boxes of cookies. While his case was pending, Gutierrez offered another individual $40/bottle to smuggle pesticides. That person was caught at the border with another 38 containers of pesticides, including Furadan.
On March 26, 2021, Beatriz Santillan was sentenced to 70 days in prison and ordered to pay $20,079 restitution after pleading guilty to smuggling 56 containers of seven different types of illegal Mexican pesticides, including Qufuran, Metaldane and zinc phosphide (under the Mexican trade name Rodentox) into the United States from Mexico. Santillan was in possession of receipts showing three prior purchases of similar pesticides, and a search of her phone revealed chats with associates regarding the tending and cultivation of marijuana plants, including the use of the pesticides.
On April 27, 2021, Saul Flores Banuelos was sentenced to 60 days in prison and $1,200 restitution after pleading guilty to smuggling Qufuran, alcohol and medications into the United States from Mexico.
“All of these law enforcement agencies have come together to protect people, wildlife and the environment from extremely dangerous pesticides, and the result has been an overwhelming success,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman. “But this effort has also been a sobering reminder that trafficking in pesticides is a prolific problem. Those who commit these crimes care about profit, not people, so this ongoing enforcement action should force them to rethink their priorities.” Grossman commended the exemplary work of prosecutor Melanie Pierson, who specializes in cases related to environmental protection, and Environment and Natural Resources Division Trial Attorney Stephen Da Ponte, as well as the federal and state agencies participating in the initiative, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Homeland Security Investigations (HSI); the California Department of Toxic Substances Control; the U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Crimes Section; and the San Diego City Attorney’s Office.
“This initiative demonstrates our commitment to protecting public lands, human health, and the environment through continued enforcement of the laws regulating the importation, sale, and distribution of dangerous pesticides,” said Jean E. Williams, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division. “The Department of Justice will continue to work closely with our federal agency and state partners to ensure that those who import and use these prohibited chemicals are held fully accountable for their crimes.”
“The significant number of individuals arrested throughout this multi-agency initiative highlights the pervasiveness and dangers of illegal substances being smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border,” said Cardell T. Morant, Special Agent in Charge of HSI San Diego. “The chemicals banned from importation into the U.S. are highly toxic and hazardous to humans, wildlife and the environment. These smugglers often use the banned chemicals for cultivating cannabis. What’s most disturbing is that some of the chemicals can be transferred directly into the bloodstream of cannabis users, so it’s important that HSI and all the partner agencies participating in this initiative continue to prevent these toxic chemicals from being smuggled into the U.S.”
“The results of these recent prosecutions clearly demonstrate that individuals intentionally violating pesticide and smuggling laws will be held responsible for their crimes.” said Scot Adair, Special Agent in Charge of the EPA’s criminal enforcement program in California. “EPA will continue to work diligently on the Border Pesticide Initiative with our law enforcement partners. We are committed to holding responsible parties accountable for actions that put entire communities at risk.”
“This is an example of what can be accomplished when multiple agencies work together for a common goal to protect human health and the environment,” said Hansen Pang, Chief Investigator for the Office of Criminal Investigations of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.
“Protecting our region from environmental toxins is an office priority,” San Diego City Attorney Mara W. Elliott said. “As part of the Border Pesticide Initiative, the City Attorney’s Office works closely with the U.S. Attorney and other law enforcement agencies to protect Californians from exposure to lethal chemicals and hold accountable those who illegally traffic these dangerous substances.”
DEFENDANTS Case Numbers
Veronica Perez Age: 40 Hemet, CA 20cr0869-DMS
Selene Barraza Age: 34 Visalia, CA 20cr1442-DMS
Beatriz Santillan Age: 29 Menifee, CA 20cr2178-GPC
Saul Flores Banuelos Age: 56 Apple Valley, CA 20cr2179-JLS
Felix Gutierrez Valencia Age: 40 Perris, CA 20cr2058-JLS
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Smuggling – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 545
Maximum penalty: Twenty years in prison and $250,000 fine
AGENCIES
Homeland Security Investigations; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Criminal Investigation Division; California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Office of Criminal Investigations
[1] Leung, M.C.K., M.H. Silva, A.J. Palumbo, P.N. Lohstroh, S.E. Koshlukova, S.F. DuTeaux. 2019. Adverse outcome pathway of developmental neurotoxicity resulting from prenatal exposures to cannabis contaminated with organophosphate pesticide residues. Reproductive Toxicology. 85: 12-18.
[2] EPA. 2004. Potential Risks of Nine Rodenticides to Birds and Nontarget Mammals: A Comparative Approach; Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 2004.
[3] NOAA CAMEO Chemicals, version 2.7.1 rev 1. Zinc Phosphide Chemical Datasheet. National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration.
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
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Joseph Green (619) 546-6955 and Alexandra F. Foster (619) 546-6735
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – January 21, 2021
SAN DIEGO – Cameraman Theodore Wilfred Gyi, aka Teddy, pleaded guilty today to conspiring with the operators of the adult websites GirlsDoPorn and GirlsDoToys to fraudulently coerce young women to appear in sex videos.
Gyi pleaded guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt to Conspiracy to Commit Sex Trafficking by Force, Fraud and Coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Gyi, the second of six defendants to plead guilty, admitted that he worked from 2015 to 2017 as a camera operator for the GirlsDoPorn and GirlsDoToys adult websites, which were run by co-defendants Michael James Pratt and Matthew Isaac Wolfe.
Gyi admitted in his plea agreement that at the start of his employment he was instructed by Matthew Wolfe that, if any of the young female models asked, he should tell them that the videos would not be posted on the internet. Gyi admitted that over the course of his employment, he became aware that Matthew Wolfe and Michael Pratt were posting many of the sex videos that he filmed on GirlsDoPorn and GirlsDoToys, where they were publicly available to all willing purchasers. Nonetheless, Gyi continued to lie and personally assured the young women he filmed that the videos would not be posted publicly. To help convince them that the sex videos would not be posted on the internet, Gyi told some that he believed on-line pornography was “cheap.” Gyi also admitted that he was aware that Pratt, Wolfe, co-defendant Ruben Andre Garcia, and others were falsely assuring the women that if they agreed to appear in a video, the video would not be posted on the internet. Garcia pled guilty on December 17, 2020, to one count of Sex Trafficking by Force, Fraud and Coercion, and one count of Conspiracy to Sex Trafficking by Force, Fraud, and Coercion.
Gyi admitted that he filmed approximately 120 videos for GirlsDoPorn and GirlsDoToys.
“There is a high price to be paid by those who fraudulently exploit young women and forever alter their lives for profit,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “Our prosecutors will leave no stone unturned in our effort to stop the tragedy of human trafficking and bring justice and restorative resources to its victims.” U.S. Attorney Brewer commended the excellent work of Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph Green and Alexandra F. Foster, as well as FBI agents and members of the San Diego Human Trafficking Task Force, for their continuing effort to investigate and prosecute this important case.
FBI Special Agent in Charge Suzanne Turner said, “Today’s plea underscores the FBI’s commitment to aggressively pursuing anyone who seeks to profit from the exploitation of young women. Theodore Gyi’s actions, in support of the GirlsDoPorn conspiracy, caused significant emotional pain and distress to the victims they targeted. This conviction is another step forward in the pursuit of justice for sex trafficking victims and the FBI’s role in holding perpetrators accountable for their crimes.”
Gyi is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino on April 9, 2021 at 9 a.m. The next hearing in the ongoing case is January 22, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
Any additional victims of the alleged crime are encouraged to call the San Diego FBI at 858-320-1800.
The FBI is offering a reward of up to $10,000 for information leading to the arrest of Michael James Pratt. Individuals with information about Pratt should contact their local FBI office or the nearest American Embassy or Consulate.
*Pleaded guilty to a Superseding Information charging Conspiracy to Commit Sex Trafficking by Force, Fraud and Coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.
Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison, $250,000 fine, a special assessment of $100.
CO-DEFENDANTS
Michael James Pratt Age: 36 Fugitive
Matthew Isaac Wolfe Age 37 San Diego, CA
Ruben Andre Garcia Age: 31 San Diego, CA**
**Pleaded guilty to Counts 1 and 7
Valorie Moser Age: 37 San Diego, CA
Amberlyn Dee Nored Age: 27 San Diego, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Count 1 (charging all defendants)
Conspiracy to Commit Sex Trafficking by Force, Fraud and Coercion, 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c)
Maximum Penalty: Life in prison, $250,000 fine, and a special assessment of $5,000 under 18 U.S.C. § 3014.
Count 2 (Pratt)
Production of Child Pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e)
Minimum penalty: Fifteen years in prison; Maximum penalty: 30 years in custody, $250,000 fine, and a special assessment of $5,000 under 18 U.S.C. § 3014.
Count 3 (Pratt)
Sex Trafficking of a Minor by Force, Fraud and Coercion, 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1) and (2)
Minimum penalty: Fifteen years in prison; Maximum penalty: life in custody, $250,000 fine, and a special assessment of $5,000 under 18 U.S.C. § 3014.
Sex Trafficking by Force, Fraud and Coercion, 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and (b)(1)
Minimum penalty: Fifteen years in prison; Maximum penalty: life in custody, $250,000 fine, and a special assessment of $5,000 under 18 U.S.C. § 3014.
INVESTIGATING AGENCY
Federal Bureau of Investigation – San Diego Field Office
San Diego Human Trafficking Task Force
*The charges and allegations contained in an indictment or complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.
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
Assistant U. S. Attorney Mark Conover (619) 546-6763
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – August 4, 2022
SAN DIEGO – Chris Benavides, former finance director at La Jolla Music Society, was sentenced in federal court today to 30 months in prison for embezzling more than $650,000 from the non-profit over a 10-year period. Benavides was also ordered to pay a minimum of $650,000 in restitution.
Benavides oversaw the budgeting process and human resources. Over the years he regularly claimed that many staff salary increases were not possible due to budgetary constraints. However, during that same period, Benavides was stealing for himself an average of about $65,000 per year.
Forensic review revealed that over the years Benavides’ theft became more and more sophisticated. He regularly planned his theft in advance of each fiscal year, budgeting for the amount that he would take over the next 12 months and imbedding those expenses in various budget lines. This ensured that none of the expense lines would show conspicuous variances when reviewed by other staff, board members or auditors. It was also discovered he regularly signed or forged checks for his personal benefit and made false entries in the books to hide what he was doing.
“Mr. Benavides exploited his position of trust with the La Jolla Music Society by stealing month after month for over a decade,” said U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman. “His greed and deception have had a lasting impact on this non-profit. Today, he has been held to account for his crimes.” Grossman thanked the prosecution team and FBI agents for their excellent work on this case.
“La Jolla Music Society trusted their Director of Finance to safeguard the non-profit’s funds, but Benavides had a different plan,” said Special Agent in Charge Stacey Moy of the FBI’s San Diego Field Office. “Instead, the defendant strategically calculated year over year to systematically steal from his employer, selfishly lining his own pockets. Today’s sentencing sends a clear message to Benavides that he will be held accountable for his crimes, but more than that, it provides justice for the victims, so they can hopefully begin to move forward into a new chapter.”
DEFENDANT Case Number 22cr3042-CAB
Chris Benavides Age: 52 San Diego
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Wire Fraud – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1343
Maximum penalty: Twenty years in prison and $250,000 fine, or twice the gain/loss, whichever is greater
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. 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 Carling Donovan (619) 546-4343
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – April 13, 2021
SAN DIEGO – Liberty Gutierrez pleaded guilty today to conspiring to launder the proceeds of a bribery scheme involving a former employee of the Naval Information Warfare Center in San Diego, California, and various defense contractors.
According to Gutierrez’s plea agreement, the Naval Information Warfare Center employee, identified in court documents as “Individual-1,” solicited and accepted things of value from various defense contractors, including three defense contractors identified in her plea agreement as Contractor-1, Contractor-2, and Contractor-3.
Among these gifts were jobs for friends and family, tickets to premier sporting events, and expensive dinners. Gutierrez further admitted that Individual-1 solicited jobs for Gutierrez from these contractors. Although Gutierrez was employed full-time at a real estate and mortgage company in San Diego from April 2015 to February 2021, Individual-1 nonetheless obtained “full-time” jobs for Gutierrez at Contractor-1 from approximately October 2015 to September 2018; Contractor-2 from approximately April 2017 to July 2019; and Contractor-3 from approximately October 2018 to December 2019.
As part of her plea agreement, Gutierrez admitted to doing only minimal work at each of these jobs, and then falsely billing her time as if she were working full time on a government contract. Each of the contractors then passed along Gutierrez’s fraudulent labor charges to the United States Government for payment. Gutierrez further admitted that she agreed to give Individual-1 half of her salary from Contractor-2, or approximately $2,000 every month, in cash, some of which Individual-1 stashed in his golf bag. In total, Gutierrez kicked back over $60,000 in cash to Individual-1 under this arrangement. As part of the conspiracy, Individual-1 additionally secured a job for his wife at Contractor-1 in approximately January 2017.
As alleged in the Information, in exchange for these and other gifts, Individual-1, who was certified as a Contracting Officer Representative as part of his job at Naval Information Warfare Center, used his position to steer millions of dollars of contracts to his favored contractors. For example, Individual-1 ensured that Contractor-1 was awarded a $3 million “Other Transaction Authority,” a federal procurement vehicle, at the same time he was soliciting a job for Gutierrez from Contractor-1.
Similarly, Individual-1 ensured that Contractor-2 was awarded a $300 million ceiling task order, while working with an executive vice-president at Contractor-2 to create the “job” for Gutierrez at the company. After Gutierrez was employed by Contractor-1, Contractor-2, and Contractor-3, Individual-1 continued to ensure that the companies received lucrative Department of Defense contracts and subcontracts. As further alleged in the Information, Individual-1 knew that Gutierrez’s labor charges for each of the contractors was false, but nonetheless approved invoices containing the fraudulent charges.
Gutierrez admitted that as part of the conspiracy she received $593,210.09 in salary payments from Contractor-1, Contractor-2, and Contractor-3, which were intended to promote the bribery scheme and conceal and disguise the nature, source, and ownership of the proceeds of the bribery.
“Bribery and public corruption have no place in government contracting, and will be aggressively investigated and prosecuted,” said Acting United States Attorney Randy S. Grossman. Grossman praised federal prosecutors Michelle Wasserman and Carling Donovan, as well as agents and investigators from Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Small Business Administration – Office of Inspector General, Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation, Department of Health and Human Services – Office of Inspector General, Naval Audit Service and Defense Contract Audit Agency for their outstanding work on this case.
Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) Special Agent in Charge Bryan Denny, Western Field Office, stated “This case offers an especially egregious example of corruption and the abuse of a position of public trust. The DCIS is committed to working with our law enforcement partners and the Department of Justice to ensure that all such crimes are discovered and fully prosecuted.”
“This should serve as a warning that those who seek to defraud the Department of the Navy will always be uncovered and brought to justice,” said NCIS Economic Crimes Field Office Special Agent in Charge Eric Maddox. “Ms. Gutierrez’s deliberate actions to perpetuate this scheme by accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars meant to support Department of Defense contracts wasted American taxpayer money, damaged the integrity of the procurement process, and squandered valuable investigative resources that could have been directed elsewhere. NCIS and our investigative partners remain committed to rooting out fraud that threatens the readiness of the warfighter.”
“Conspiring to fraudulently use government programs for personal gain will not be tolerated,” said SBA OIG’s Western Region Special Agent in Charge Weston King. “OIG will aggressively root out fraud to protect the integrity of these programs. I want to thank the U.S. Attorney’s Office and our law enforcement partners for their dedication and commitment to seeing justice served.”
Derrick Franklin, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations, Special Investigations Branch, stated, “We will continue to support our law enforcement partners in this investigation to preserve the integrity of government contracts.”
“Ms. Gutierrez and her co-conspirators exploited illegal avenues to benefit themselves with taxpayer dollars meant for military programs,” said IRS Criminal Investigation, Special Agent in Charge Ryan L. Korner. “They cheated honest, hardworking contractors out of jobs with their corruption. Our special agents will use their financial expertise to trace the proceeds of bribery back to these criminals, and we are proud to work alongside our law enforcement partners in that effort.”
If you have information regarding fraud, waste, or abuse relating to Department of Defense personnel or operations, please contact the DoD Hotline at 800-424-9098.
DEFENDANT Case Number
Liberty Gutierrez Age: 61 San Diego, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1956(h)
Maximum penalty: Twenty years in prison and $500,000 fine or twice the value of the property involved in the transaction, whichever is greater
AGENCY
Defense Criminal Investigative Service
Naval Criminal Investigative Service
Small Business Administration – Office of Inspector General
Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation
Department of Health and Human Services – Office of Inspector General
SAN DIEGO – Constantin Sandu of Romania, a suspected organized crime figure, was arrested and charged in a federal complaint today with masterminding a scheme to steal more than $5 million in California unemployment insurance benefits intended to help workers impacted by the pandemic.
According to the complaint, Sandu conspired with 214 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.
“According to the complaint, this defendant presided over a vast network of international swindlers to exploit a program meant to help struggling California workers survive the pandemic,” said U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman. “The pandemic may be waning, but we are still aggressively investigating allegations of COVID relief fraud. The scheme alleged in this case diverted millions of dollars from those who truly needed it.”
Grossman thanked the prosecution team and the investigating agencies for their excellent work on this case.
Sandu was arrested by FBI San Diego on March 1, 2023, at the Imperial Beach Border Patrol Station. He is scheduled to make his first appearance in federal court this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard at 2 p.m.
“FBI San Diego would like to thank our local, state, and federal law enforcement partners for addressing this problem in a unified effort,” said Special Agent in Charge Stacey Moy of the FBI San Diego Field Office. “These benefits were offered with the intention of helping struggling families stay afloat and were a critical lifeline for many. Sandu’s alleged greed diverted those funds for his own personal gain. The FBI and our partners will continue to identify those who commit pandemic-related fraud and hold them accountable for their crimes.”
“The San Diego Police Department is committed to investigating and solving crimes committed by organized crime rings. The arrest of Constantin “Bobi” Sandu is the culmination of a yearlong investigation by Economic Crimes Unit detectives and multiple law enforcement partners. We will continue to collaborate with these partners to arrest the over 200 suspects involved in this investigation.”
“IRS Criminal Investigation and our law enforcement partners will continue to investigate individuals and organizations who target relief programs as a way to steal funds from critical programs,” said Special Agent in Charge Tyler Hatcher of the Los Angeles Field Office. “It is especially egregious when criminal organizations think they can profit off of the United States and steal funds that are intended to aid citizens during times of need. IRS-CI is committed to aggressively investigating these crimes and bringing those criminal organizations to justice.”
The complaint said that beginning in fall of 2020 and continuing until late summer of 2022, Sandu and hundreds of unnamed co-conspirators 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 in the various W2’s 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 unnamed co-conspirators to fraudulently obtain no less than $5,207,687.00 in California Unemployment Insurance benefits.
*The charges and allegations contained in an indictment or complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.
DEFENDANT Case Number: 23-mj-00697-AHG
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; U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) Criminal Forfeitures; Title 28, U.S.C. § 2461(c) Civil Forfeitures
Maximum penalty: Thirty years in prison, $1 million fine
AGENCIES
Federal Bureau of Investigation
San Diego Police Department Economic Crimes Unit
Internal Revenue Service
California Employment Development Department Investigative Division
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Department of Labor Office of Investigator General
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Timothy F. Salel and Jonathan Shapiro 619-546-8225
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – August 16, 2021
SAN DIEGO – Grey Zamudio, a San Diego resident who has expressed racist and violent extremist sentiments on social media, was sentenced in federal court today to 24 months in custody for possessing a short barrel rifle and two silencers, none of which was registered as required by law.
Zamudio pleaded guilty on December 1, 2020, to all three counts of possession of an unregistered rifle with a barrel of less than 16 inches and two unregistered silencers in violation of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Act.
As the government noted at Zamudio’s detention hearing in this matter, “There are really no legitimate uses for silencers, other than to kill people. They are not used in hunting. They are not used for recreation purposes.”
The government’s sentencing memorandum notes that the circumstances of Zamudio’s crimes underscore the danger that he continues to pose to the public. The memo said Zamudio is motivated by a violent ideology and appears eager to commit acts of violence against Black people, liberals and others. The FBI was alerted to Zamudio by a tipster who viewed his social media posts, which included statements about “the need for ‘vigilante militias’” and “to crush the liberal terrorists” and that Zamudio was “ready to die” for his beliefs. These statements, together with the allegation that Zamudio had multiple firearms, were apparently so alarming that they led the tipster to share this information with the FBI, which then led to further investigation, including court authorization to search Zamudio’s telephone.
“This defendant has demonstrated a very troubling violent ideology, an intent to harm people, a lack of remorse, and a willingness to illegally possess firearms,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman. “For these reasons, he continues to pose a threat to public safety.” Grossman commended the work of prosecutors Timothy F. Salel and Jonathan I. Shapiro as well as the Joint Terrorism Task Force, including FBI and ATF agents and San Diego Police Department detectives and officers who worked on this matter. Grossman also urged anyone with information about similar threats made on social media to report it to authorities.
According to the complaint, on August 1, 2020, agents executed federal court-authorized search warrants on Zamudio’s apartment and truck. During the search of the apartment, agents seized two silencers and the short barrel rifle. As the FBI executed the court-authorized search, the San Diego Police Department served Zamudio with a California State Gun Violence Restraining Order (“GVRO”) based on recent threats of violence in numerous social media posts by Zamudio. Pursuant to the GVRO, the San Diego Police Department (SDPD) seized another rifle (in addition to the short barrel rifle seized by the agents), two pistols, a large number of magazines, and several hundred to several thousand rounds of ammunition.
The sentencing memo said Zamudio’s text messages provide a window into his motivations and intentions. In one text dated June 5, 2020, Zamudio apparently boasted about getting ’to pull my Glock on a n**** (racial epithet) last Thurs...” On July 30, 2020, two days before his arrest in this matter, Zamudio posted a screenshot of a Tweet in which he stated, “They trying to dox me lol. I’m really hoping to get to kill someone finally.’” A couple of weeks earlier, on June 13, 2020, the Zamudio texted, “Tomorrow they gunna riot in la mesa again, wanna join the Patriots an smash on some BLM?”
The review of the Zamudio’s phone led to the prosecution of Cody Richard Griggers, now a former deputy sheriff in Georgia. Zamudio and Griggers exchanged messages on a Facebook group. In one exchange, Griggers indicated his desire to use his status as a law enforcement officer to get flashbangs and entry charges, and Zamudio responded, “’yeah I’ll pay big money for bang and boom . . . I’m ready to terrorize la.”
Violent ideology and illegal firearms are a dangerous combination. According to the sentencing memo, in a January 19, 2019, response to texts about how to improve the country, Zamudio wrote, “Assassinate the bad politians (sic), i feel as though we are protected under the Constitution to do so.”
“Mr. Zamudio's violent, threatening posts on social media led to serious concern for the safety of those who wished to exercise their first amendment right of peaceful protest, and I'm proud we were able to intervene so quickly,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Suzanne Turner. “Thanks to a tip from the public, the San Diego FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force mitigated the threat within 72 hours. The FBI and our law enforcement partners will use all available tools to detect and disrupt threats which put our communities in danger. This case demonstrates the importance of the public immediately reporting any suspicious activity or threats they encounter to enable law enforcement to act quickly.”
“This investigation is a great example of cooperation between law enforcement agencies to keep our communities safe,” said San Diego Police Chief David Nisleit. “I want to thank the officers, detectives, and agents who worked together on this case to prevent a potential act of gun violence.”
SUMMARY OF CHARGES Case Number 20CR2451
Grey Zamudio Age: 33
Title 26, United States Code, Sections 5861(d), 5845(a)(3), 5845(a)(7), and 5871 – Receipt and Possession of Firearms (One Short Barrel Rifle and Two Silencers) in Violation of the National Firearms
Registration and Transfer Act
Maximum Penalty: Ten years in prison, $250,000 fine
INVESTIGATING AGENCIES
Joint Terrorism Task Force
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
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
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
