Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-CA  3:20-cr-01215
Case Name:   USA v. Romero et al
  Press Releases:
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – June 11, 2020

SAN DIEGO – Former Calexico City Councilman David Romero and Bruno Suarez-Soto, a former commissioner on the city’s Economic Development and Financial Advisory Commission, pleaded guilty in federal court today to corruption charges, admitting that they accepted cash bribes in exchange for promises of official action by the city.

The defendants entered their pleas before U.S. Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal, who set sentencing for September 4, 2020 before District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo. Romero and Suarez-Soto were allowed to remain free on $10,000 personal appearance bonds secured by their own signatures.

According to their plea agreements, Romero and Soto accepted $35,000 in cash bribes from an undercover FBI agent who they believed represented investors seeking to open a cannabis dispensary in Calexico. In return, Romero and Soto guaranteed the rapid issuance of a city permit for the dispensary, and to revoke or hinder other applicants if necessary to ensure that the bribe payer’s application was successful. Both men admitted they had taken bribes from others in the past. Referring to this $35,000 payment, they told the undercover agent, “This isn’t our first rodeo.”

In addition to being a councilman, Romero served as Calexico’s Mayor Pro Tem, meaning he was set to become Mayor in July 2020. Soto recently resigned from the City commission responsible for promoting business and community growth and coordinating with prospective developers to help them invest in the City of Calexico.  Romero resigned his position with the City of Calexico as part of his plea agreement, effective Monday, June 8.

“David Romero was about to become the highest-ranking public official in the city of Calexico, but he and his partner-in-crime sold their power and influence to the highest bidder in a secret pay-to-play scheme,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “They are the ones who will pay now.”

“The corruption, lies, and greed of Romero and Suarez-Soto were uncovered by FBI Agents working in our Imperial Valley Office,” said  Omer Meisel, Acting FBI Special Agent in Charge of the San Diego Division and Imperial County Resident Agency.  “The community in Imperial Valley has a right to leaders who put the public's interest first and serve the community honorably. The FBI is committed to investigating those who violate their position of trust.”

According to their plea agreements, during a December 19, 2019 meeting at a restaurant in Calexico with the undercover FBI agent, Romero and Soto agreed to fast-track the agent’s purported application for a cannabis dispensary permit and guaranteed its rapid issuance in exchange for a $35,000 bribe. The defendants also offered to delay permit applications by competitors.

Toward the conclusion of the December 19, 2019 meeting, when the undercover agent asked if Romero and Soto might later ask for more than the $35,000 payment, Romero assured him that they would not, per court filings. “This is done. Set and sealed,” Romero said.  Romero explained that he and Soto would require the money to be paid up front, however, because they had done similar work for other people, and those people had not paid the agreed-upon fee after the favors had been rendered. Romero and Soto agreed to accept payment of the $35,000 from the agent in two installments, however: half up front, and half “when it’s a for sure thing.” 

At this meeting the undercover agent asked whether the payment of $35,000 would “get us in front of the line” of applicants.  Soto answered, “Hell yeah,” according to court records.  Romero added that he “didn’t want to say it in front of everybody, but it will.”

On January 9, 2020, Romero and Soto attended a second meeting with the undercover agent at a restaurant in El Centro, California.  During the meeting, according to court filings, Romero reminded the undercover agent how difficult it was to work with the City of Calexico, and how fortunate it was that the agent was working with Romero. Soto later added that in return for the bribe, Romero would cut through “so much bullshit [red] tape that exists” with the City.

During a discussion of the approval process for the permit application referenced in court records, Romero explained that the people who have to approve the undercover agent’s license were “my best friends at the entire City Hall.”  When asked if the “best friends” had already signed off on the plan, Romero responded “Fuck, yeah!” and laughed.

According to admissions in the plea agreements and documents filed in court, at the conclusion of the January 9, 2020 meeting, in the parking lot outside the restaurant, with Romero looking on, the undercover agent handed Soto $17,500 in cash and explained that he divided the first installment of the bribe into two envelopes: one with $8,800 and another with $8,700. The agent asked whether “we’re good,” and Romero responded, “Trust me” and added, “In my line of business, I can’t fuck up.  Which means he [Soto] can’t fuck up.”

The defendants accepted the second installment, $17,500 in cash, during a third meeting on January 30 in a parking lot outside a restaurant in El Centro, per the plea agreements. Both men also admitted to creating a shell corporation to launder the proceeds of their bribery scheme.

The charges filed in the case also allege that both men lied to the FBI when interviewed by agents at the conclusion of the January 30 meeting.  Romero falsely denied being part of any agreement with the undercover agent, and denied that anyone had made any “guarantees” to the agent.  Similarly, Soto falsely denied making any “guarantees” to the undercover agent and denied receiving any prior payments from the agent. 

U.S. Attorney Brewer praised Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicholas Pilchak, DOJ Public Integrity Section trial attorney Joshua Rothstein and FBI agents for working hard to achieve justice in this matter.

The case against Romero and Suarez-Soto is a public corruption investigation being conducted by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Any member of the public who has information related to this or any other public corruption matter in Imperial County or San Diego is encouraged to provide information to the FBI’s email tip line at tips.fbi.gov or to contact their local FBI Field Office. In Imperial County, the FBI can be reached 24 hours a day at 858-320-1800 or 1-877-NO-BRIBE (662-7423).

DEFENDANTS                                            Case Number 20cr1215                                           

Calexico City Councilman David Romero                 Age: 36                       Residence: Calexico, CA

Calexico City Commissioner Bruno Suarez-Soto      Age: 28                       Residence: Calexico, CA

SUMMARY OF CHARGES

Conspiracy to Commit Federal Program Bribery, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections

371 and 666 (a) (1) (B)

Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison; $250,000 fine.

AGENCY

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Assistant U. S. Attorney Nicholas Pilchak (619) 546-9709

NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – May 21, 2020

EL CENTRO – Calexico City Councilman and Mayor Pro Tem David Romero, along with Bruno Suarez-Soto, a commissioner on the city’s Economic Development and Financial Advisory Commission, were charged in federal court today with accepting cash bribes in exchange for promises of official action by the city.

The defendants were arraigned today via video teleconference before U.S. Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal. They were released on $10,000 personal appearance bonds secured by their own signatures. The next court date is July 2, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo.

According to a charging document, Romero and Soto accepted $35,000 in cash bribes from an undercover FBI agent who they believed represented investors seeking to open a cannabis dispensary in Calexico. In return, Romero and Soto “guaranteed” the rapid issuance of a city permit for the dispensary, and to revoke or hinder other applicants if necessary to ensure that the bribe payer’s application was successful. Moreover, both men admitted they had taken bribes from others in the past, according to the charging document. Referring to this $35,000 payment, it is alleged they told the undercover agent, “This isn’t our first rodeo.”

In addition to being a Councilman, Romero serves as Calexico’s Mayor Pro Tem, meaning he was set to become Mayor in July 2020. Soto was recently appointed to the City commission responsible for promoting business and community growth and coordinating with prospective developers to help them invest in the City of Calexico.

“Public officials must act with honesty and integrity when doing the public’s business,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “If civic leaders won’t uphold these standards, we will. We allege that these defendants traded on their positions of trust, selling the integrity of government in exchange for thousands of dollars. We will vigorously enforce the law whenever a public official puts his own greed ahead of the interests of his constituents.”

“Public corruption remains the FBI's top criminal priority.  As such, the FBI in San Diego and Imperial County has a robust public corruption program that is dedicated to uncovering criminal conduct of public officials,” said Acting FBI SAC Omer Meisel.  “The investigation of Mr. Romero and Mr. Suarez-Soto serves as another example of the FBI's commitment toward accountability for those serving the public and holding positions of trust.”

The charges allege that during a December 19, 2019 meeting at a restaurant in Calexico with the undercover FBI agent, Romero and Soto agreed to fast-track the agent’s purported application for a cannabis dispensary permit and guaranteed its rapid issuance in exchange for a $35,000 bribe. The defendants also offered to delay permit applications by competitors, court records said.

The charging document further alleges that toward the conclusion of the December 19, 2019 meeting, when the undercover agent asked if Romero and Soto might later ask for more than the $35,000 payment, Romero assured him that they would not. “This is done. Set and sealed,” Romero allegedly said.  Romero explained that he and Soto would require the money to be paid up front, however, because they had done similar work for other people, and those people had not paid the agreed-upon fee after the favors had been rendered.  Soto later added, “This isn’t our first rodeo.” Romero and Soto agreed to accept payment of the $35,000 from the agent in two installments, however: half up front, and half “when it’s a for sure thing.” 

According to court filings, at this meeting the undercover agent asked whether the payment of $35,000 would “get us in front of the line” of applicants.  Soto answered, “Hell yeah.”  Romero added that he “didn’t want to say it in front of everybody, but it will.”

On January 9, 2020, Romero and Soto attended a second meeting with the undercover agent at a restaurant in El Centro, California.  During the meeting, according to court records, Romero reminded the undercover agent how difficult it was to work with the City of Calexico, and how fortunate it was that the agent was working with Romero. Soto later added that in return for the bribe, Romero would cut through “so much bullshit [red] tape that exists” with the City.

During a discussion of the approval process for the permit application referenced in court records, Romero explained that the people who have to approve the undercover agent’s license were “my best friends at the entire City Hall.”  When asked if the “best friends” had already signed off on the plan, Romero responded “Fuck, yeah!” and laughed.

Court filings reveal that at the conclusion of the January 9, 2020 meeting, in the parking lot outside the restaurant, with Romero looking on, the undercover agent handed Soto $17,500 in cash and explained that he divided the first installment of the bribe into two envelopes: one with $8,800 and another with $8,700. The agent asked whether “we’re good,” and Romero responded, “Trust me” and added, “In my line of business, I can’t fuck up.  Which means he [Soto] can’t fuck up.”

According to the charging documents, the defendants accepted the second installment, $17,500 in cash, during a third meeting on January 30 in a parking lot outside a restaurant in El Centro.  Court documents further allege both men also admitted to creating a shell corporation to launder the proceeds of their bribery scheme.

The charging document also alleges that both men lied to the FBI when interviewed by agents at the conclusion of the January 30 meeting.  According to court filings, Romero falsely denied being part of any agreement with the undercover agent, and denied that anyone had made any “guarantees” to the agent.  Similarly, Soto falsely denied making any “guarantees” to the undercover agent and denied receiving any prior payments from the agent. 

U.S. Attorney Brewer praised Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicholas Pilchak, DOJ Public Integrity Section trial attorney Joshua Rothstein and FBI agents for working hard to achieve justice in this matter.

The case against Romero and Suarez-Soto is a public corruption investigation being conducted by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Any member of the public who has information related to this or any other public corruption matter in Imperial County or San Diego is encouraged to provide information to the FBI’s email tip line at tips.fbi.gov or to contact their local FBI Field Office. In Imperial County, the FBI can be reached 24 hours a day at 858-320-1800 or 1-877-NO-BRIBE (662-7423).

DEFENDANTS                                            Case Number 20cr1215                                           

Calexico City Councilman David Romero                 Age: 36                       Residence: Calexico, CA

Calexico City Commissioner Bruno Suarez-Soto      Age: 28                       Residence: Calexico, CA

SUMMARY OF CHARGES

Conspiracy to Commit Federal Program Bribery, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections

371 and 666 (a) (1) (B)

Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison; $250,000 fine.

AGENCY

Federal Bureau of Investigation

 

 

 

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18lY5-fXzvqdzPdD13Ujvet3HJQBmLe4gRrh5iApbHrM
  Last Updated: 2024-04-16 15:00:37 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E