Score:   0.9237
Docket Number:   SD-FL  0:18-cr-60193
Case Name:   USA v. Quinonez-Mejia
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xhgt3pFh2RDK1mdGeidb0sxc21DBmiFONKEXiYXLHsE
  Last Updated: 2025-03-11 09:09:43 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: 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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-FL  0:18-mj-06323
Case Name:   USA v. Quinonez-Mejia
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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.9237
Docket Number:   SD-FL  1:17-cr-20802
Case Name:   USA v. Quinonez Reyes et al
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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-FL  1:17-mj-03498
Case Name:   United States v. Quinonez Reyes
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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.9237
Docket Number:   SD-FL  1:17-cr-20803
Case Name:   USA v. Segovia Quinonez et al
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qdwZ9IOEQz7599lkSJ9xyNTL_MwdHvi7asfoZrG0YCk
  Last Updated: 2025-03-11 04:33:01 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: 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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-FL  1:17-mj-03500
Case Name:   United States v. Segovia Quinonez
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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL2Nlby1jZm8tcHJlc2lkZW50LWFuZC1vd25lci1zb2Jlci1ob21lcy1uZXR3b3JrLXNlcmVuaXR5LXJhbmNoLXJlY292ZXJ5LXNlbnRlbmNlZA
  Press Releases:
Miami, Fl. -- Today, a federal district judge in Ft. Lauderdale sentenced defendant Sebastian Ahmed, 42, of Delray Beach, Florida, to a term of 210 months’ imprisonment and restitution in the amount of $ 4,231,288 following his conviction after a six-week jury trial of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, five counts of health care fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and eleven counts of money laundering. 

Ariana Fajardo Orshan, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, George L. Piro, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Omar Perez Aybar, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services-Office of Inspector General made the announcement.

As part of the scheme, the conspirators exploited vulnerable drug addicts, the majority of whom were 18 to 26 years ago; falsified paperwork; and entered into various kickback arrangements, all in order to receive millions of dollars of falsely and fraudulently obtained funds for their own personal use and benefit.  As demonstrated by the trial record, of all the conspirators, no one profited more than Sebastian Ahmed, who netted more than $2.8 million in less than three years. 

The government established at trial that Sebastian Ahmed was the CEO, president and CFO of the two substance abuse treatment centers: Jacob’s Well and Medí MD; and the medical health clinic, Arnica Health, all of which he operated under the umbrella of Serenity Treatment Center, Serenity Living, and “Serenity Ranch Recovery” in Davie, Florida.  Ahmed operated the three clinics from in or around June 2016 through May 2019.  He employed his brother, Ali a/k/a “Al” Ahmed as the COO.  Testimony revealed that Al Ahmed had previously declared bankruptcy having been found liable in a civil suit brought by his former employer, Kaplan University, for stealing confidential lead information from Kaplan. 

 

The government emphasized  at trial that defendant  (1) engaged in illegal billing to private insurance plans through Jacob’s Well prior to the clinic being certified by DCF in February 9, 2017; (2) provided unlawful inducements to the approximately 500 patients consisting of free airline travel, housing, vapes, manicures, cash, and failure to collect patient responsibilities for co-pays and deductibles; and (3) billed for medically unnecessary therapeutic services consisting of therapy and urine analyses, the former having not been provided but billed by defendant’s substance abuse clinics.  The patients were also permitted to reside in co-ed housing in which destructive sexual relationships, not conducive to real addiction treatment, formed – sometimes between the staff and patients, according to the testimony and evidence.

According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, the patients consisted of young adults in their twenties who primarily were addicted to opioids and other drugs of abuse.  Many of the patients were permitted to remain on their parents’ private insurance plans up to age 26.

The patients resided in a series of so-called sober homes maintained by defendant in Davie, Southwest Ranches, Hollywood and Pompano.  None of these homes were certified by DCF as approved community housing for persons engaged in a substance abuse treatment program.

Former Serenity employees including co-defendants Mauren Morel and Hector Alvarez, both  Clinical Social Workers in the State of Florida,  testified that they prepared fake progress notes to support fraudulent billing for daily group therapy sessions that patients did not attend.  They testified that they did so at the defendant’s direction, and that claims were even submitted for dates when patients were not physically present.

Government expert witness Dr. Kelly Clark was a board certified addiction medicine specialist and clinical psychiatrist.  She focused her career on issues of addictive disease.  She testified that the manner in which Serenity’s medical providers prescribed buprenorphine and benzodiazepines to a drug abusing population was medically inappropriate and potentially dangerous.  Patient-witnesses and the parent of a former patient likewise testified that Serenity caused their addictions to intensify rather than improve, and that multiple patients suffered overdoses and relapses that went unaddressed by the staff at Serenity.  Indeed, the record showed that Sebastian Ahmed failed to report a single overdose incident to DCF as required by law, and that multiple patients were cycled back and forth between detox centers and Serenity without apparent improvement in their condition.  Evidence that Serenity permitted and even procured addictive drugs for its patients was presented at trial, and medical records introduced as trial exhibits revealed that the doctors did not check the expensive urine screens that were being ordered until well after patients’ discharge.  These urine screens revealed repeat positives for, among other drugs, methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and prescription narcotics.

From June 2016 through May 2019, the government attributed approximately $38 million in fraudulent billing submitted by defendant’s clinics which resulted in the reimbursement of over $6 million in payments.

Co-conspirators and former co-defendants Ali a/k/a Al Ahmed, the defendant’s brother; and Hector Alvarez and Mauren Morel, the clinical directors at two of the facilities, were also charged and pled guilty in connection with the fraud.  Ali a/k/a Al Ahmed, who served as a Chief Operating Officer and co-owner of the facilities, was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.  Hector Alvarez and Mauren Morel, both of whom testified at trial against Sebastian Ahmed, each received sentences of 32 months’ imprisonment.  These three former co-defendants were sentenced by United States District Judge Federico A. Moreno prior to the trial.

Ms. Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of FBI and HHS-OIG. Support for the investigation was also provided by the Drug Enforcement Administration, Davie Police Department, Broward Sheriff’s Office, Palm Beach Sober Homes Task Force, and the Florida Department of Children and Families.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Christopher J. Clark and Lisa H. Miller.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Nicole Grosnoff and Peter Laserna are handling the asset forfeiture component of the case.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

###

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL3R3by1mb3JtZXItb3duZXJzLXNvdXRoLWZsb3JpZGEtdGVjaC1zdXBwb3J0LXNjYW0tc2VudGVuY2VkLWxlbmd0aHktcHJpc29uLXRlcm1z
  Press Releases:
EAST ST. LOUIS, ILL. – Two former owners of a fraudulent tech support business known as Client Care Experts, LLC (“Client Care”) are going to prison for a long time. Yesterday, in federal district court in East St. Louis, Illinois, Michael Austin Seward, 32, of Deerfield Beach, Florida, and Kevin James McCormick, 47, of Hollywood, Florida, were sentenced to prison terms of 113 months and 132 months respectively. Both men previously pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

Seward was the founder and chief executive officer of Client Care, while McCormick served as another high-level executive for the Boynton Beach, Florida company, which was formerly known as First Choice Tech Support. For about 15 months, Seward and McCormick also operated a similar tech support business called ABC Repair Tech (ABC), located in Costa Rica.

According to court documents, the defendants purchased pop-up advertisements that appeared suddenly on a person’s computer screen. The pop-ups were made to look like system warnings and falsely informed the victims that serious problems, such as viruses or malware, had been detected on their computers. Often, the pop-ups caused the person’s internet browser to freeze up and stop responding. The pop-ups also typically warned the victims not to shut down their computers or else they would lose all their data. Instead, the ads directed them to call a toll-free number, where they were connected to sales representatives who continued the fraud.

The sales representatives convinced the victims to grant them remote access to their computers, where normal computer functions and routine processes were highlighted as evidence of serious computer problems. Victims were never told that the pop-ups that had hijacked their computers were just advertisements purchased by the tech support company, or that in most instances they could make the pop-ups go away simply by rebooting their computers. Instead, they were sold remote “tune-ups” for $250 and anti-virus protection software for another $400. If victims balked at the steep prices, the sales representatives would offer them discounts, such as senior citizen and veterans discounts.

From 2013 to 2016, the two companies – Client Care and ABC – combined to defraud more than 40,000 people. Victims were located in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, several U.S. territories, all 10 Canadian provinces, the United Kingdom, and several other foreign countries. At least 57 victims of the scams were residents of the Southern District of Illinois, representing 22 of the district’s 38 counties, including St. Clair and Madison. All told, the two companies took in over $25 million.

As part of their sentence, the court ordered both Seward and McCormick to pay over $11.5 million in restitution to the victims of their fraud scheme.

“As the court observed, there is a growing gap between our ever-increasing reliance on technology and the average person’s understanding of how that technology works,” said U.S. Attorney Weinhoeft. “These men took advantage of that gap to line their own pockets. What’s even more disturbing is that many of the victims were senior citizens. Following Attorney General Barr’s Elder Justice Initiative, we want would-be scammers to know that if they reach out and defraud people in southern Illinois, we’re going to haul them into federal court in this district and hold them accountable for their crimes.”

Over the past three years, 17 other employees of Client Care and ABC have also pleaded guilty to federal fraud violations in the Southern District of Illinois:

Joseph Ralph Aievoli, IV, 26, of Boynton Beach, FL – Salesperson at Client Care

Cory Steven Bachman, 26, of Boynton Beach, FL – Salesperson at Client Care

Andrew Douglas Broad, 27, of Boynton Beach, FL – Director of Training at Client Care

Ryan Stocker Carr, 24, of Mount Laurel, NJ – Team Leader at Client Care

Joshua Dennis Cortez, 38, of Lake Worth, FL – Director of Training at Client Care

Erica Marie Crowell, 30, of Maple Shade, NJ – Salesperson at Client Care

Nicholas James Davidson, 27, of Boynton Beach, FL – Salesperson at Client Care

Patrick M. Dougherty, 36, of Boynton Beach, FL – Salesperson at Client Care

Tatum Elyse Espenshade, 27, of West Palm Beach, FL – Salesperson at Client Care

Eric M. Iannaccone, 33, of Monroe Township, NJ – Sales Manager at Client Care

Michael Cary Lawing, 34, of Lincolnton, NC – CEO of ABC

Anthony Vincent Ludena, 30, of Boca Raton, FL – Salesperson at Client Care

Robert Thomas McCart, 33, of Boynton Beach, FL – Team Leader at Client Care

Timothy James Miller, II, 28, of Schwenksville, PA – Salesperson at Client Care

Jonathan Matthew Richardson, 28, of Lake Worth, FL – Salesperson at Client Care

Kyle Evan Swinson, 27, of Boynton Beach, FL – Team Leader at ABC/Client Care

Grant Clark Wasik, 36, of Oakland Park, FL – Vice President and Sales Manager of Client Care

All 17 of those defendants have already been sentenced, as follows:



Date





Defendant





Prison Sentence





Restitution





Mar. 8, 2018





Ryan Carr





12 months + 1 day





$20,384.36





May 7, 2018





Joshua Cortez





18 months





$3,034.00





June 8, 2018





Patrick Dougherty





12 months + 1 day





$240,966.94





June 14, 2018





Anthony Ludena





12 months + 1 day





$176,692.26





June 29, 2018





Nicholas Davidson





5 years probation





$181,808.40





July 26, 2018





Timothy Miller





5 years probation

200 hours community service





$127,042.06





Aug. 3, 2018





Tatum Espenshade





1 day + 18 months home detention





$132,683.68





Sept. 11, 2018





Andrew Broad





12 months + 1 day





$55,238.28





Sept. 20, 2018





Jonathan Richardson





12 months + 1 day





$78,638.99





Oct. 4, 2018





Corey Bachman





1 day + 400 hours community service





$156,806.25





Oct. 8, 2019





Grant Wasik





125 months





$10,619,430.95





Oct. 10, 2019





Joseph Aievoli





1 day + 200 hours community service





$106,355.82





Oct. 15, 2019





Michael Lawing





18 months





$266,501.94





Oct. 23, 2019





Eric Iannaccone





12 months + 1 day





(pending)





Dec. 10, 2019





Robert McCart





Time served

100 hours community service





none





Dec. 10, 2019





Kyle Swinson





1 day + 400 hours community service





$7,589.31





Jan. 8, 2020





Erica Crowell





Time served

12 months home detention





$123,815.60



 

These cases were part of an investigation by the St. Louis Field Office of the Chicago Division of the United States Postal Inspection Service. The cases were prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Scott A. Verseman, Ranley R. Killian, and Nathan D. Stump. The Florida Attorney General’s Office raided Client Care in June 2016 and has been cooperating with the federal investigation, in addition to bringing its own civil enforcement action against the fraudulent company under Florida state law.

The Federal Trade Commission has been working for some time to shut down illegal tech support scams. For more information about the FTC’s “2019 Tech Support Takedown,” please visit https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2019/03/ftcs-tech-support-takedown-2019.

Some consumers who were victimized by ABC or Client Care / First Choice Tech Support have received additional fraudulent calls. These calls typically come from companies claiming either (a) that the technical support the victims purchased has been transferred to them and additional funds are now needed; or (b) that they can help the victims obtain a refund. Victims should be advised that no companies have been authorized to provide them with any tech support services on behalf of ABC or CLIENT CARE / First Choice Tech Support, or to provide them with a refund for any previous purchases.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL21pY2hhZWwtbWlja2V5LW11bmRheS1jb252aWN0ZWQtY29uc3BpcmFjeS1jb21taXQtbWFpbC1mcmF1ZC1hbmQtbWFpbC1mcmF1ZA
  Press Releases:
A Miami jury convicted North Miami resident Michael “Mickey” Munday of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and mail fraud after a four-day trial.

 

Benjamin G. Greenberg, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Brian Swain, Special Agent in Charge, United States Secret Service (USSS), and Rick Maglione, Chief, Fort Lauderdale Police Department, made the announcement. 

 

Munday, 72, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349, and five counts of mail fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341.  He faces a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment for each count.  Sentencing is scheduled for March 29, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. before U.S. District Court Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr.  Nine other co-defendants were indicted and pled guilty in connection with the same scheme. 

 

The evidence presented at trial established that Munday obtained vehicles from throughout the country using various fraudulent methods.  These methods included, among other things, convincing people who were behind on their car payments to turn over their vehicles to him in exchange for cash, illegally repossessing vehicles, and covertly transporting stolen cars from other states to Florida.  In order to evade detection by law enforcement, Munday and his co-conspirators used several towing and repossession companies as fronts for their illegal activity.  

 

After Munday and his co-conspirators obtained the vehicles, the automobiles were then hidden from owners, banks and lienholders at a number of locations, including at Munday’s North Miami residence.  While the vehicles were hidden, another co-conspirator prepared and sent, via U.S. mail, false and fraudulent lien notices claiming thousands of dollars in nonexistent tow services to the vehicle owners and true lienholders.  Sham auctions were then held at a strip mall, some of which were facilitated by Munday.  Of the more than 150 cars involved in the scheme, only one car appeared at an “auction,” and there were never any customers.  After the sham auction was held, the conspirators then cleaned the respective car titles by falsely and fraudulently removing the legitimate owners and lienholders from the title.  The cars were then sold to a co-conspirator in the automotive wholesale business at prices below market value and resold for a profit to local dealerships.  Overall, banks suffered more than $1.7 million in loss as a result of the scheme. 

 

During the trial, videos and social media postings were introduced showing Munday bragging about his past experience as a drug smuggler, explaining the effectiveness of tow companies as fronts for smuggling, proclaiming himself the “UPS of the smuggling industry,” and advertising himself as a master of evading law enforcement.

 

Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USSS and the Fort Lauderdale Police Department.  The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Joshua S. Rothstein and Anne P. McNamara.

 

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.           

 

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-FL  0:19-cr-60200
Case Name:   USA v. Ahmed et al
  Press Releases:
Fort Lauderdale, Florida -- Sebastian Ahmed, 42, of Delray Beach, Florida, has been convicted of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, five counts of health care fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and eleven counts of money laundering.  As part of the scheme, the conspirators exploited vulnerable drug addicts, the majority of whom were 18 to 26 years ago; falsified paperwork; and entered into various kickback arrangements, all in order to receive millions of dollars of falsely and fraudulently obtained funds for their own personal use and benefit.  As demonstrated by the trial record, of all the conspirators, no one profited more than Sebastian Ahmed, who netted more than $2.8 million in less than three years. 

On Monday, March 23, 2020, following a six-week jury trial, Ahmed was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, ten counts of health care fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and eleven counts of money laundering, in case number 19-cr-60200-MORENO(COHN)(s). 

Sentencing is scheduled for August 6, 2020 before United States District Judge James I. Cohn in Fort Lauderdale.  As to the health care fraud and wire fraud conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy counts, the defendant faces a statutory maximum of 20 years as to each count.  As to each of the health care fraud and money laundering counts, the defendant faces an additional maximum statutory sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

Ariana Fajardo Orshan, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, George L. Piro, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Omar Perez Aybar, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services-Office of Inspector General made the announcement.

The government’s theory of prosecution advanced in opening statement and closing arguments was that Sebastian Ahmed was the CEO, president and CFO of the two substance abuse treatment centers: Jacob’s Well and Medí MD; and the medical health clinic, Arnica Health, all of which he operated under the umbrella of Serenity Treatment Center, Serenity Living, and “Serenity Ranch Recovery” in Davie, Florida.  Ahmed operated the three clinics from in or around June 2016 through May 2019.  He employed his brother, Al a/k/a “Ali” Ahmed as the COO.  Testimony revealed that Al Ahmed had previously declared bankruptcy having been found liable in a civil suit brought by his former employer, Kaplan University, for stealing confidential lead information from Kaplan. 

The government emphasized  at trial that defendant  (1) engaged in illegal billing to private insurance plans through Jacob’s Well prior to the clinic being certified by DCF in February 9, 2017; (2) provided unlawful inducements to the approximately 500 patients consisting of free airline travel, housing, vapes, manicures, cash, and failure to collect patient responsibilities for co-pays and deductibles; and (3) billed for medically unnecessary therapeutic services consisting of therapy and urine analyses, the former having not been provided but billed by defendant’s substance abuse clinics.  The patients were also permitted to reside in co-ed housing in which destructive sexual relationships, not conducive to real addiction treatment, formed – sometimes between the staff and patients, according to the testimony and evidence.

According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, the patients consisted of young adults in their twenties who primarily were addicted to opioids and other drugs of abuse.  Many of the patients were permitted to remain on their parents’ private insurance plans up to age 26.

The patients resided in a series of so-called sober homes maintained by defendant in Davie, Southwest Ranches, Hollywood and Pompano.  None of these homes were certified by DCF as approved community housing for persons engaged in a substance abuse treatment program.

Former Serenity employees including co-defendants Mauren Morel and Hector Alvarez, both  Clinical Social Workers in the State of Florida,  testified that they prepared fake progress notes to support fraudulent billing for daily group therapy sessions that patients did not attend.  They testified that they did so at the defendant’s direction, and that claims were even submitted for dates when patients were not physically present.

Government expert witness Dr. Kelly Clark was a board certified addiction medicine specialist and clinical psychiatrist.  She focused her career on issues of addictive disease.  She testified that the manner in which Serenity’s medical providers prescribed buprenorphine and benzodiazepines to a drug abusing population was medically inappropriate and potentially dangerous.  Patient-witnesses and the parent of a former patient likewise testified that Serenity caused their addictions to intensify rather than improve, and that multiple patients suffered overdoses and relapses that went unaddressed by the staff at Serenity.  Indeed, the record showed that Sebastian Ahmed failed to report a single overdose incident to DCF as required by law, and that multiple patients were cycled back and forth between detox centers and Serenity without apparent improvement in their condition.  Evidence that Serenity permitted and even procured addictive drugs for its patients was presented at trial, and medical records introduced as trial exhibits revealed that the doctors did not check the expensive urine screens that were being ordered until well after patients’ discharge.  These urine screens revealed repeat positives for, among other drugs, methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and prescription narcotics.

From June 2016 through May 2019, the government attributed approximately $38 million in fraudulent billing submitted by defendant’s clinics which resulted in the reimbursement of over $6 million in payments.

            Co-conspirators and former co-defendants Al a/k/a Ali Ahmed, the defendant’s brother; and Hector Alvarez and Mauren Morel, the clinical directors at two of the facilities, were also charged and pled guilty in connection with the fraud.  Al a/k/a Ali Ahmed, who served as a Chief Operating Officer and co-owner of the facilities, was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.  Hector Alvarez and Mauren Morel, both of whom testified at trial against Sebastian Ahmed, each received sentences of 32 months’ imprisonment.  These three former co-defendants were sentenced by United States District Judge Federico A. Moreno prior to the trial.

Ms. Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of FBI and HHS-OIG. Support for the investigation was also provided by the Drug Enforcement Administration, Davie Police Department, Broward Sheriff’s Office, Palm Beach Sober Homes Task Force, and the Florida Department of Children and Families.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Christopher J. Clark and Lisa H. Miller.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Nicole Grosnoff and Peter Laserna are handling the asset forfeiture component of the case.

            Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Sober Homes Co-Owner Sentenced to Ten Years in Prison

MIAMI, FL – Three former co-owners and clinical directors of a group of purported substance abuse treatment centers and sober homes were sentenced to prison today for their roles in a conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud that resulted in an actual loss of more than $3.8 million, and through which the conspirators sought to obtain more than $21 million.

U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan for the Southern District of Florida, Special Agent in Charge George L. Piro of the FBI’s Miami Field Office, and Special Agent in Charge Omar Pérez Aybar of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG) made the announcement. 

Ali Ahmed, 38, Hector Efrain Alvarez, 49, and Mauren Morel, 45, all of Broward and Palm Beach Counties, previously pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud (Case No. 19cr60200).  U.S. District Judge Federico A. Moreno of the Southern District of Florida sentenced Ahmed to 120 months in prison, Alvarez to 32 months in prison and Morel to 32 months in prison.  In addition, the defendants were ordered to forfeit certain property and pay forfeiture money judgments, as well as to pay restitution.  Specifically, Ahmed owes $4,204,336 in restitution; Alvarez owes $3,884,035; and Maurel owes $320,301 in restitution.

In recent years, South Florida has become the locus for drug and alcohol addicts seeking assistance in an effort to become and remain sober.  Substance abuse treatment centers that assist such persons undergoing detoxification from an intoxicating or addictive substance are regulated under state and federal law.  These substance abuse treatment centers, or detox centers, offer a continuum of care including, from most intensive to least intensive, as follows: inpatient detox, Partial Hospitalization Programs (PHP’s), Intensive Outpatient Programs (IOP’s), and Outpatient Programs (OP’s).  Persons undergoing treatment on an out-patient basis, whether in PHP, IOP, or OP, typically elect to live in a “recovery residence,” also known as a “sober home” or “halfway house,” with other persons who are also in treatment and committed to a drug and alcohol-free lifestyle.

Jacob’s Well, Inc. (Jacob’s Well) was a Florida corporation, located at 7950 SW 30th Street, Suite 202, Davie, Florida.  Jacob’s Well was a substance abuse treatment center licensed with the Florida Department of Children and Families that purportedly provided private insurance beneficiaries with substance abuse treatments and services.

Medi MD, LLC. (Medi MD) was a Florida corporation, located at 7950 SW 30th Street, Suite 200, Davie, Florida.  Medi MD was a substance abuse treatment center licensed with the Florida Department of Children and Families that purportedly provided private insurance beneficiaries with substance abuse treatments and services.

Arnica Health was a Florida corporation, located at 7950 SW 30th Street, Suite 202, Davie, Florida.  Arnica Health was a purported medical treatment center co-located with the purported substance abuse treatment centers.  Together with Medi MD and Jacob’s Well, Arnica Health operated as a part of Serenity Living and was affiliated with sober homes known as Serenity Ranch.

Ali Ahmed was Treasurer of Jacob’s Well, Director of Operations for Medi MD, and co-owner of Jacob’s Well, Medi MD, and Arnica Health. 

Sebastian Ahmed was the CEO and co-owner of Jacob’s Well, Medi MD, and Arnica Health.

Hector Efrain Alvarez was Clinical Director of Medi MD.

Mauren Morel was Clinical Director and co-owner of Jacob’s Well. 

Medi MD, Jacob’s Well, and Arnica Health together operated as Serenity Ranch/Serenity Living.  

According to court documents, from June 2016 through April 2019, Ali Ahmed, Sebastian Ahmed, and Mauren Morel, submitted and caused others to submit, via interstate wire communications, approximately $1,693,276 in claims which falsely and fraudulently represented that various health care benefits, primarily substance abuse PHP, IOP, and OP services, were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and provided by Jacob’s Well to insurance beneficiaries of Aetna, BCBS, Cigna and UHC.  As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, Aetna, BCBS, Cigna, and UHC made payments to the corporate bank accounts of Jacob’s Well in the approximate amount of $320,301.

Furthermore, during the same approximate time period, Ali Ahmed, Sebastian Ahmed, and Hector Efrain Alvarez submitted and caused others to submit, via interstate wire communications, approximately $21,899,439 in claims which falsely and fraudulently represented that various health care benefits, primarily substance abuse PHP, IOP, and OP services, were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and provided by Medi MD to insurance beneficiaries of Aetna, BCBS, Cigna, Humana and UHC.  As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, Aetna, BCBS, Cigna, Humana and UHC made payments to the corporate bank accounts of Medi MD in the approximate amount of $3,884,035.

Ali Ahmed, Sebastian Ahmed, Hector Efrain Alvarez, and Mauren Morel used the proceeds of the health care fraud for their personal use and benefit, the use and benefit of others and to further the fraud scheme.

As set forth in Court documents, the scheme involved not only financial exploitation but also sexual exploitation of vulnerable, drug-addicted patients, whom were attracted and induced to attend Serenity Ranch facilities with free flights, free housing, vapes, clothing, spa days, benzodiazepine medications, and even drugs.  Indeed, the evidence showed that patients were permitted to keep using drugs, and even provided drugs – including heroin and cocaine – by conspirators such as Ali Ahmed.  Ali Ahmed also engaged in sexual relationships with patients and, as a result of the destabilizing environment at the facilities, many patients did not get the treatment that they so desperately needed.

Co-defendant Sebastian Ahmed, the former CEO of Jacob’s Well, Medi MD, and Arnica, who was charged in the same indictment, has pleaded not guilty and is set for trial on February 18, 2020, before Senior U.S. District Judge James I. Cohn.  He is presumed innocent of the charges.

The FBI and HHS-OIG investigated the case, with assistance from the Davie Police Department, Broward County Sheriff's Office and U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Christopher J. Clark and Lisa H. Miller are prosecuting the case, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Nicole Grosnoff and Peter A. Laserna are handling the asset forfeiture issues related to this matter.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

MIAMI – Three former co-owners and clinical directors of a group of purported substance abuse treatment centers and sober homes pleaded guilty yesterday for their roles in a conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud that resulted in an actual loss of more than $3.8 million, and through which the conspirators sought to obtain more than $21 million.

U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan for the Southern District of Florida, Special Agent in Charge George L. Piro of the FBI’s Miami Field Office, and Special Agent in Charge Omar Pérez Aybar of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG) made the announcement. 

Ali Ahmed, 38, Hector Efrain Alvarez, 49, and Mauren Morel, 45, all of Broward and Palm Beach Counties, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Federico A. Moreno of the Southern District of Florida, to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud.  The defendants are scheduled to be sentenced on Jan. 21, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. (Case No. 19cr60200)

As alleged in the indictment, in recent years, South Florida has become the locus for drug and alcohol addicts seeking assistance in an effort to become and remain sober.  Substance abuse treatment centers that assist such persons undergoing detoxification from an intoxicating or addictive substance are regulated under state and federal law.  These substance abuse treatment centers, or detox centers, offer a continuum of care including, from most intensive to least intensive, as follows: inpatient detox, Partial Hospitalization Programs (PHP’s), Intensive Outpatient Programs (IOP’s), and Outpatient Programs (OP’s).  Persons undergoing treatment on an out-patient basis, whether in PHP, IOP, or OP, typically elect to live in a “recovery residence,” also known as a “sober home” or “halfway house,” with other persons who are also in treatment and committed to a drug and alcohol-free lifestyle.

Jacob’s Well, Inc. (Jacob’s Well) was a Florida corporation, located at 7950 SW 30th Street, Suite 202, Davie, Florida.  Jacob’s Well was a substance abuse treatment center licensed with the Florida Department of Children and Families that purportedly provided private insurance beneficiaries with substance abuse treatments and services.

Medi MD, LLC. (Medi MD) was a Florida corporation, located at 7950 SW 30th Street, Suite 200, Davie, Florida.  Medi MD was a substance abuse treatment center licensed with the Florida Department of Children and Families that purportedly provided private insurance beneficiaries with substance abuse treatments and services.

Arnica Health was a Florida corporation, located at 7950 SW 30th Street, Suite 202, Davie, Florida.  Arnica Health was a purported medical treatment center co-located with the purported substance abuse treatment centers.  Together with Medi MD and Jacob’s Well, Arnica Health operated as a part of Serenity Living and was affiliated with sober homes known as Serenity Ranch.

Ali Ahmed was Treasurer of Jacob’s Well, Director of Operations for Medi MD, and co-owner of Jacob’s Well, Medi MD, and Arnica Health. 

Sebastian Ahmed was the CEO and co-owner of Jacob’s Well, Medi MD, and Arnica Health.

Hector Efrain Alvarez was Clinical Director of Medi MD.

Mauren Morel was Clinical Director and co-owner of Jacob’s Well.   

            According to court documents, from June 2016 through April 2019, Ali Ahmed, Sebastian Ahmed, and Mauren Morel, submitted and caused others to submit, via interstate wire communications, approximately $1,693,276 in claims which falsely and fraudulently represented that various health care benefits, primarily substance abuse PHP, IOP, and OP services, were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and provided by Jacob’s Well to insurance beneficiaries of Aetna, BCBS, Cigna and UHC.  As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, Aetna, BCBS, Cigna, and UHC made payments to the corporate bank accounts of Jacob’s Well in the approximate amount of $320,301.

            Furthermore, during the same approximate time period, Ali Ahmed, Sebastian Ahmed, and Hector Efrain Alvarez submitted and caused others to submit, via interstate wire communications, approximately $21,899,439 in claims which falsely and fraudulently represented that various health care benefits, primarily substance abuse PHP, IOP, and OP services, were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and provided by Medi MD to insurance beneficiaries of Aetna, BCBS, Cigna, Humana and UHC.  As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, Aetna, BCBS, Cigna, Humana and UHC made payments to the corporate bank accounts of Medi MD in the approximate amount of $3,884,035.

            Ali Ahmed, Sebastian Ahmed, Hector Efrain Alvarez, and Mauren Morel used the proceeds of the health care fraud for their personal use and benefit, the use and benefit of others and to further the fraud scheme.

            Co-defendant Sebastian Ahmed, the former CEO of Jacob’s Well, Medi MD, and Arnica, who was charged in the same indictment, has pleaded not guilty and is set for trial in this matter to begin on Nov. 25, 2019, before Judge Moreno.  He is presumed innocent of the charges.

The FBI and HHS-OIG investigated the case, with assistance from the Davie Police Department, Broward County Sheriff's Office and U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Christopher J. Clark and Lisa H. Miller are prosecuting the case, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Nicole Grosnoff and Peter A. Laserna are handling the asset forfeiture issues related to this matter.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Nf-GF0aOYDNtHQsYUhCh7n2OQ4tGc2GewR6azxJyx0M
  Last Updated: 2025-03-21 05:31:34 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL2ZvdXItcGVydXZpYW5zLXNlbnRlbmNlZC1vdmVyc2VlaW5nLXNwYW5pc2gtc3BlYWtpbmctY2FsbC1jZW50ZXJzLXRocmVhdGVuZWQtYW5k
  Press Releases:
Four residents of Lima, Peru, charged with overseeing a series of call centers that threatened and extorted Spanish-speaking victims in the United States, have been sentenced to prison, the Department of Justice and U.S. Postal Inspection Service announced.

Jesus Gutierrez Rojas, 37, Alexandra Podesta Bengoa, 38, Virgilio Polo Davila, 43, and Omar Portocarrero Caceres, 39, were extradited from Peru in April.  Each pleaded guilty to extortion and has now been sentenced to prison by U.S. District Court Judge Roy K. Altman in Fort Lauderdale.  As part of his guilty plea, Gutierrez admitted that he oversaw a series of affiliated call centers in Peru that falsely told Spanish-speaking victims across the United States that they had incurred debts and would suffer various consequences for failure to pay off the debts that they did not, in fact, owe.  As part of their guilty pleas, Podesta, Polo, and Portocarrero admitted that they managed and supervised three of these affiliated call centers that used extortion to obtain money from vulnerable U.S. consumers. 

Yesterday, Judge Altman sentenced Gutierrez to 51 months in federal prison for his role overseeing the affiliated call centers and sentenced Podesta and Polo to 46 months imprisonment.  Judge Altman sentenced Portocarrero to 46 months in federal prison on July 24.  Each defendant was also ordered to serve three years’ supervised release following their terms of incarceration and to make restitution payments to the victims of their scheme. 

“The Department of Justice is committed to identifying and prosecuting foreign-based fraud schemes that target and extort U.S. consumers,” said Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division. “Today’s prison sentences reflect that those who unlawfully take advantage of U.S. consumers by phone cannot escape justice by placing their calls from abroad.  The Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch will continue to work hand-in-hand with our Transnational Elder Fraud Strike Force partners to bring to justice international fraudsters who prey on vulnerable U.S. consumers.” 

As part of their guilty pleas, Podesta, Polo, and Portocarrero each admitted that their Peruvian call centers contacted U.S. consumers, many of whom were elderly and vulnerable, using Internet-based calls.  Falsely claiming to be attorneys and government representatives, Podesta, Polo, Portocarrero, and their employees falsely told victims that they failed to pay for or receive a delivery of products and threatened them into paying fraudulent settlements for nonexistent debts.  The callers falsely threatened victims with lawsuits, negative marks on their credit reports, imprisonment, or immigration consequences if they did not immediately pay for the purportedly delivered products and “settlement fees.”  Many victims made monetary payments based on these baseless extortionate threats.  

Gutierrez was the general manager of a larger company where he worked in partnership with Podesta, Polo, Portocarrero, and others to facilitate their extortion scheme. The defendants’ associates in Miami collected the payments from thousands of victims across the U.S. 

“The reach of our U.S. justice system is long,” said U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Ariana Fajardo Orshan. “The sentences imposed demonstrate that we are committed to prosecuting those individuals who threaten U.S. consumers no matter where they are located.”

“The U.S. Postal Inspection Service will continue to aggressively pursue and bring to justice international criminal enterprises that prey on our most vulnerable citizens by fraudulently using the U.S. Mail to further their schemes,” said Acting Miami Division Postal Inspector in Charge Lesley Allison.

At Portocarrero’s July 24 sentencing, Judge Altman said that the brazen, large-scale nature of the defendants’ scheme was “shocking.”  Judge Altman noted that the defendants exploited “the most vulnerable people in our country” and said that their offense conduct was “terribly disgraceful.”   

With yesterday’s three sentencings by Judge Altman, all five defendants who have been charged in connection with this large-scale extortion scheme have now been sentenced to terms of imprisonment.   

Trial Attorney Phil Toomajian of the Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch is prosecuting the case.  The U.S. Postal Inspection investigated the case.  The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs secured the extradition of the defendants, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of Florida, the Diplomatic Security Service, and the Peruvian National Police provided critical assistance.

Since President Trump signed the bipartisan Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act (EAPPA) into law, the Department of Justice has participated in hundreds of enforcement actions in criminal and civil cases that targeted or disproportionately affected seniors. In particular, this past March the Department announced the largest elder fraud enforcement action in American history, charging more than 260 defendants in a nationwide elder fraud sweep.  The Department has likewise conducted hundreds of trainings and outreach sessions across the country since the passage of the Act.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL3NvdXRoLWZsb3JpZGEtZmVkZXJhbGx5LWxpY2Vuc2VkLWd1bi1zaG9wLW93bmVyLWFuZC1lbXBsb3llZS1jaGFyZ2VkLWlsbGVnYWwtc2FsZQ
  Press Releases:
Miami, Florida -- Miami federal prosecutors have charged the owner of a South Florida federally licensed gun shop, along with another of the shop’s operators, with various federal firearms crimes relating to illegal cash sales of unregistered machine guns, silencers, and other devices.

Defendant Manuel Reguiera, 50, owns Miami Gun Shops, Inc, a federally licensed firearms store, and operates it with Defendant Anderson Rabel, 38.  According to the criminal complaint affidavit, on different dates from November 2021 to January 2022, defendants stored, sold and, in some cases, assembled fully automatic short-barreled rifles, AR-style pistols, and silencers. None of the rifles, pistols, or silencers had serial numbers, the weapons were all sold for cash, and code words were used when speaking about the illegal firearms over the telephone, says the affidavit.  It is alleged that in connection with these weapons sales, Reguiera and Rabel failed to complete federally required paperwork, failed to initiate background checks on the buyer, and even failed to check the buyer’s identification, all of which federal law requires.

The criminal complaint affidavit also alleges that Reguiera sold “switch” devices.  When installed, a switch allows a firearm to expel more than one bullet by a single pull of the trigger, turning the weapon into a fully automatic machine gun.

Reguiera and Rabel made their initial federal court appearances today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisette Reid, who sits in  Miami.  Reguiera and Rabel are each charged with possession of an unregistered firearm; unlawful transfer of a firearm; and conspiring to do the following: possession of an unregistered firearm, unlawful transfer of a firearm, failure to keep proper records as required by federal laws, and failure to conduct required background checks. They each face up to ten years’ imprisonment, if convicted.

Juan Antonio Gonzalez, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Christopher Robinson, Acting Special Agent in Charge, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Miami Field Division; Marshal Gadyaces S. Serralta,  U.S. Marshal for the Southern District of Florida; Manuel A. Morales, Interim Chief of Police, City of Miami Police Department; Alfredo “Freddy” Ramirez III, Director, Miami Dade Police Department (MDPD); and George Fuente, Acting Chief of Police, Hialeah Police Department announced the charges.

ATF Miami, SDFL U.S. Marshals Service, City of Miami PD, Miami-Dade PD, and City of Hialeah PD investigated the case.  A City of Miami Police Department Gang Intelligence Unit led to the investigation and arrests being announced today.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Karla Albite is prosecuting the case.

This case stems from Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program that brings together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and make our neighborhoods safer for everyone.  In 2017, PSN was reinvigorated as part of the Department’s renewed focus on targeting violent criminals, directing all U.S. Attorney’s Offices to work in partnership with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement and the local community to develop effective, locally-based strategies to reduce violent crime.

The case is also part of the Miami-Dade Chiefs of Police Operation Community Shield Initiative.

A criminal complaint contains mere allegations.  Defendants are innocent unless and until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov, under case number 22-mj-02120.

Click here for a picture of the AR-style pistols.

Click here for a picture of the short-barreled rifles.

###

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL2Zvcm1lci1taWFtaS1kYWRlLWNvdW50eS1yZXNpZGVudC1zZW50ZW5jZWQtcHJpc29uLXJ1bm5pbmctcG9uemktc2NoZW1l
  Press Releases:
MIAMI – Former Miami-Dade County resident Judith Dianne Paris-Pinder, 49, has been sentenced to 48 months in prison for defrauding more than 500 people out of $2.4 million through a Ponzi investment fraud scheme.

A Ponzi scheme is a form of fraud where belief is created in a nonexistent venture by paying strong returns to initial investors using money paid in by later investors.

According to facts admitted during her guilty plea, Paris-Pinder was president of Pinder Associates Inc. and from November 2019 to August 2021 she obtained money from investors by lying to them. She told them she worked with or for lawyers who represented litigation plaintiffs. She told investors these plaintiffs had settled claims and were just awaiting payouts from insurance companies.

Paris-Pinder told investors she was looking for “hard money lenders” to finance payments to the attorneys’ clients. Investor funds would be used to loan plaintiffs a portion of their settlement amounts and in exchange the plaintiffs would provide their full settlement money to Paris-Pinder. Then, once the settlement checks were received from the insurance companies, Paris-Pinder supposedly would distribute to investors their initial contributions plus any returns–which could be as high as 50 percent. 

According to her plea, the entire investment was a scam. Paris-Pinder did not work for or with lawyers with litigation clients and there were no settlement agreements. It is alleged that Paris-Pinder kept the Ponzi scheme going by using money from new investors to pay existing investors and that she raised approximately $4.6 million causing $2.4 million in investor losses. 

In addition to prison time, Paris-Pinder will have three years of supervised release, 200 hours of community service, and must pay $2.4 million in restitution. 

U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Markenzy Lapointe; acting Special Agent in Charge Chad Yarbrough, FBI, Miami Field Office; and Florida Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) Commissioner Russell C. Weigel III made the announcement.

FBI, Miami Field Office, and OFR investigated this case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric E. Morales prosecuted it.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov under case number 22-CR-20452. 

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL2ZvdXItZXh0cmFkaXRlZC1wZXJ1LW9wZXJhdGluZy1zcGFuaXNoLXNwZWFraW5nLWNhbGwtY2VudGVycy1leHRvcnRlZC11cy1jb25zdW1lcnM
  Press Releases:
Four Peruvian residents have been extradited to the United States, where they stand accused of operating a large-scale extortion scheme from 2012 through 2015, the Justice Department and U.S. Postal Inspection Service today announced.

Jesus Gerardo Gutierrez Rojas, 37, Maria de Guadalupe Alexandra Podesta Bengoa, 38, Virgilio Ignacio Polo Davila, 43, and Omar Alfredo Portocarrero Caceres, 39, face federal charges in Miami. Peruvian authorities arrested the four in late 2017, based upon a U.S. indictment. All four remained incarcerated in Peru since the time of their arrest. Peru approved their extradition to the U.S. on Jan. 18, 2019.

“The Department of Justice will pursue criminals who target and extort U.S. consumers, wherever they are,” said Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt for the Department of Justice’s Civil Division. “Those who extort U.S. consumers by phone cannot escape justice by placing their calls from abroad. I thank the Republic of Peru for extraditing these individuals to face charges in U.S. courts.” 

“Individuals who defraud American consumers will be brought to justice, no matter where they are located,” said U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan for the Southern District of Florida. “Protecting the elderly and vulnerable members of our community from extortion schemes, such as this one, is a top priority of this Office and the Department of Justice, and I thank the U.S. Postal Inspection Service for their unwavering commitment to rid the U.S. mail system of these schemes. This is a reminder to our community to be wary of those individuals who threaten imprisonment, a negative credit score or a change in immigration status; please report those threats immediately.”

“The U.S. Postal Inspection Service will continue to aggressively investigate and pursue those who threaten U.S. consumers and extort them of their hard earned money, regardless of what country they operate from,” said U.S. Postal Inspector in Charge Antonio J. Gomez. “The U.S. Postal Inspection Service appreciates the continued partnership with the Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch in pursuing South American call center operators who victimize consumers through the U.S. mail.”

Podesta, Polo, and Portocarrero allegedly managed and operated Peruvian call centers that placed calls to Spanish-speaking consumers across the United States while lying and threatening them into paying fraudulent settlements for nonexistent debts. Many of the consumer victims were elderly. Gutierrez was allegedly the general manager of a larger company where he worked in partnership with Podesta, Polo, and Portocarrero to facilitate their extortion scheme. The defendants’ associates in Miami collected the payments and sometimes shipped packages to victims in the U.S.

According to the allegations in the indictment, Podesta, Polo, Portocarrero, and their employees in Peru used Internet-based telephone calls and claimed to be attorneys and government representatives to threaten victims in the United States. The callers falsely claimed that victims failed to pay for or receive a delivery of products. The callers also falsely claimed that victims would be sued and that the companies would obtain large monetary judgements against them. Some victims were also threatened with negative marks on their credit reports, imprisonment, or immigration status. The callers said these threatened consequences could be avoided if the victims immediately paid “settlement fees.” Many victims made monetary payments based on these baseless threats. 

A 34-count federal indictment was filed against the defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Dec. 6, 2016, and was unsealed upon the defendants’ extradition to the U.S. The defendants are approved to face 12 extortion counts pending against them. An indictment merely alleges that crimes have been committed. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Phil Toomajian of the Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch. The Postal Inspection Service investigated the case. The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs, the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of Florida, the Diplomatic Security Service, and the Peruvian National Police provided critical assistance.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL2RvY3Rvci1jb252aWN0ZWQtdHJpYWwtdW5sYXdmdWxseS1kaXNwZW5zaW5nLWNvbnRyb2xsZWQtc3Vic3RhbmNlcw
  Press Releases:
MIAMI – On Jan. 12, a Miami federal court jury convicted a doctor of conspiracy to unlawfully dispense and distribute controlled substances, and six counts of unlawfully dispensing controlled substances. The conviction followed a seven-day trial before U.S. District Judge James I. Cohn.

Under federal law, a physician is authorized to dispense (prescribe) controlled substances only when there is a legitimate medical basis for doing so, and the dispensing is consistent with accepted standards of professional medical practice.

According to court documents and evidence introduced at trial, Osmin Morales, 72, of Weston, Florida, established a purported pain management clinic in which he issued prescriptions for controlled substances, principally oxycodone, morphine, and alprazolam (a tranquilizer commonly known by its brand name, Xanax) to most patients who sought them, without any appropriate medical basis. On many occasions, Doctor Morales issued prescriptions for controlled substances without examining the patients, often when he was not even present in the clinic. Morales also often pre-wrote many prescriptions for controlled substances and provided them to his office managers to hand out for cash payments of $250 to regular patients, with the purpose of unlawfully maximizing the clinic’s profits.

Some of Morales’s former patients testified during trial that they had often obtained prescriptions for oxycodone, morphine, and alprazolam from the office staff without seeing Morales. One patient’s mother testified that she had begged Morales to stop prescribing narcotics to her daughter, because she was becoming dysfunctional, but he continued prescribing them.

Medical records from Morales’s office described a number of medical examinations he had purportedly conducted of patients which described the patients’ symptoms and included Morales’s diagnoses for which he prescribed opioids to them. However, official records from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) confirmed that on many of the dates for those purported examinations, Morales had been out of the country. A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent testified that Florida’s prescription drug monitoring program showed that during the time of the indictment, Morales had prescribed opioids to more than a thousand patients, most often the maximum available doses. The DEA agent also researched numerous patients by name and found that nearly one-third of them had criminal records relating to drug dealing.

A pain medicine expert witness testified that none of the patient medical records he had examined contained any proper medical basis for the use of opioids, such as oxycodone or morphine, nor any basis for the use of benzodiazepines, such as alprazolam. The pain medicine expert also testified that the combination of opioids and benzodiazepines that Morales regularly prescribed, both of which are central nervous system depressants, created an enhanced risk of overdose and death.

A former member of the Morales’s office staff testified that she had collected approximately $4,000 per day, in cash, from patients to whom Morales provided controlled substance prescriptions. On most of those days, Morales had not been present at the clinic.

Morales is scheduled to be sentenced on April 17. He faces up to 20 years in prison for the conspiracy count and the same for each of the additional counts of unlawful dispensing.

U.S. Attorney Markenzy Lapointe for the Southern District of Florida and Special Agent in Charge Deanne L. Reuter of the DEA, Miami Field Division, announced the conviction.

DEA Miami Field Division investigated the case with assistance from CBP. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Frank Tamen and Theodore Joseph O’Brien are prosecuting the case.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Emily Stone and Mitchell Hyman are handling asset forfeiture.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov, under case number 22-cr-20255.

###

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1ubS9wci90ZXhhcy1tYW4tcGxlYWRzLWd1aWx0eS1hdHRlbXB0ZWQtbXVyZGVyLWZlZGVyYWwtb2ZmaWNlcg
  Press Releases:
ALBUQUERQUE – Alexander M.M. Uballez, United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, Jason T. Stevens, Acting Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations - El Paso, and Raul Bujanda, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Albuquerque Field Office, announced today that Roberto Esquivel pled guilty to one count each of attempted murder of an officer of the United States, aggravated assault of an officer of the United States with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and conspiracy to transport illegal aliens. Esquivel, 25, of El Paso, Texas, will remain in custody pending sentencing, which has not been scheduled.

A federal grand jury indicted Esquivel on April 19, 2023. In his plea agreement, Esquivel admitted that on Jan. 5, 2023, he agreed with other persons to transport five illegal aliens who had unlawfully come to the United States. Esquivel was to pick up the aliens in El Paso, Texas, and transport them to Deming, New Mexico. After picking up the aliens, Esquivel was driving on New Mexico State Road 146 when he was pulled over by a Border Patrol Agent. As the agent was approaching Esquivel’s vehicle to conduct an immigration inspection, Esquivel removed a gun from the center console and placed it under his right leg. When it became apparent to the agent that Esquivel was transporting aliens, he asked Esquivel to exit the vehicle. Instead, Esquivel partially opened the door and began shooting, hitting the agent twice in the torso-area. After shooting the agent, Esquivel sped off. While fleeing, Esquivel lost control of the vehicle and rolled it multiple times. Esquivel ran from the crash scene and threw the gun in the desert, where it was subsequently recovered by law enforcement officers.

The Border Patrol Agent survived the shooting due in large part to the bullets striking his ballistic vest. None of the illegal aliens were seriously injured in the rollover.

Per the terms of his plea agreement, Esquivel is facing 19 years in prison.

Homeland Security Investigations and the Las Cruces Resident Agency of the FBI Albuquerque Field Office investigated this case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher S. McNair is prosecuting the case.





View the Information









View the Plea Agreement





# # #

24-46

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL2Zvcm1lci1icm93YXJkLWNvdW50eS1yZXNpZGVudC1jb252aWN0ZWQtaWRlbnRpdHktdGhlZnQtaG90ZWwtZnJhdWQtc2NoZW1l
  Press Releases:
Following a three-day trial before U.S. District Judge Federico A. Moreno, a jury convicted a former Broward County resident of access device fraud and identity theft.

Benjamin G. Greenberg, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Kelly R. Jackson, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI), and Brian Swain, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Secret Service (USSS), made the announcement.

Halima Ouedraogo, 36, most recently of Kirkland, Washington, was convicted of one count of access device fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1029(a)(2), one count of possession of fifteen or more unauthorized access devices, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1029(a)(3), and ten counts of aggravated identity theft, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(a)(1). Ouedraogo faces up to ten years in prison for each access device fraud charge, and a possible mandatory two year term in prison for each of the ten aggravated identity theft charges. Sentencing is scheduled for November 9, 2017, before U.S. District Judge Moreno.

The evidence at trial established that on August 4, 2015, the defendant Ouedraogo checked into a Fort Lauderdale hotel using the credit card account number and other personal information of someone who did not know the defendant, and did not authorize her to possess or use it. Ouedraogo stayed at the hotel for three weeks, where she ordered several meals, movies, and other incidentals, running up an overall tab of more than $5,000.

 

When management inquired into the bill after charges on the stolen card began to be declined, the defendant left without paying and checked in to another nearby hotel, again using another victim’s name, credit card account number, and other personal information. She was located and arrested later that morning. In her possession were several hundred names, dates of birth, social security numbers, bank account numbers, driver’s licenses, checkbooks, tax documents, bank cards, vehicle registrations, student identifications and additional personal information belonging to other people, none of whom authorized Ouedraogo to have or use it.

 

Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of IRS-CI, USSS and the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Anne P. McNamara and Frederic Shadley

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL2Jyb3dhcmQtcmVzaWRlbnQtc2VudGVuY2VkLXN0b2xlbi1pZGVudGl0eS10YXgtcmVmdW5kLWZyYXVkLXNjaGVtZQ
  Press Releases:
A Broward resident was sentenced to 24 months and one day in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $87,562 in restitution.

 

Benjamin G. Greenberg, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Kelly R. Jackson, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI); and Brian Swain, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Secret Service (USSS), Miami Field Office; made the announcement.

 

Woodley Louis-Jacques, 31, of Tamarac, pled guilty to one count of using unauthorized access devices and one count of aggravated identity theft, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1029(a)(2) and 1028A.

 

According to court documents, in 2014 a bank noticed suspicious activity occurring at the drive through ATM at one of its branches. Excessive withdrawals were occurring with the same cards. An individual covered the camera with what appeared to be sticky notes, and then spent long periods of time inserting multiple cards into the machine to withdraw cash. The bank records showed approximately 204 transactions (on 45 different days) and approximately $66,880, in withdrawals from 41 different cards from February 2014 to September 2014.

 

ATM videos and photos show that Louis-Jacques was the person utilizing the ATM in approximately 24 of these instances, which accounted for over 100 different transactions using approximately 26 different cards.  Louis-Jacques often withdrew funds from some of the same cards multiple times on each ATM visit. The cards were prepaid cards that allow low to moderate-income families the opportunity to load their tax refunds onto these prepaid cards.

 

Ninety-nine (99) tax returns were filed requesting refunds totaling $378,688, where the refund was directed onto the cards. The tax returns were filed using the same IRS Electronic Filing Identification Number (EFIN), and the EFIN was registered to Louis-Jacques. Law enforcement interviewed some of the victims whose identities were used for the filing of federal tax returns that directed associated tax refunds to the prepaid cards. None of these individuals knew Louis-Jacques or authorized this activity.

 

On August 1, 2014, Louis-Jacques was the passenger in a vehicle stopped by law enforcement in Georgia for travelling at a high rate of speed. During a vehicle search, law enforcement found multiple phones, a laptop, a black wallet with Louis-Jacques’s identification card and a prepaid card issued in another individual’s name. Behind the glove box was a folder containing numerous printed screenshots of personal identifying information (approximately 200 names and social security numbers) that appeared to be a customer list from tax software.

 

After the defendant was arrested on September 21, 2017, he admitted his participation in the scheme and that he was the only one who filed taxes from that EFIN.

 

Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of IRS-CI and the USSS.  The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Cynthia R. Wood.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL2tleS13ZXN0LW1hbi1zZW50ZW5jZWQtZmVkZXJhbC1wcmlzb24tcmVzaXN0aW5nLWNvYXN0LWd1YXJkLW9mZmljZXJzLW5lYXItc291dGgtYmVhY2g
  Press Releases:
MIAMI – On Dec. 4, Jeremie Calo, of Key West, Fla., was sentenced to federal prison for resisting and evading the U.S. Coast Guard’s rescue attempts for several hours. According to the court filings in support of Calo’s plea, the Coast Guard approached a small vessel with six persons onboard, including Calo, just south of South Beach in Biscayne Bay, Fla, in August of 2022. None of the vessel occupants were wearing life jackets. Due to the small boat’s location and the occupants’ failure to wear life jackets, the Coast Guard officers ordered the passengers to disembark and board a Coast Guard vessel to be taken back to a sailboat for everyone’s safety. Calo was the sole occupant who refused to comply with the Coast Guard officers’ rescue attempts. As a result, the Coast Guard officers had to forcibly remove Calo from the small boat and put him onto the Coast Guard boat for safety. Shortly thereafter, Calo jumped off the Coast Guard boat and into the bay. Calo then spent more than two hours swimming around in the bay, evading and resisting rescue attempts from the Coast Guard and other law enforcement agencies. For example, Calo physically resisted being assisted back into the Coast Guard boat by slapping away the hands of an assisting officer. Chief U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga sentenced Calo to three months in prison, to be followed by one year of supervised release, including seven months of home detention, and a $2,000 fine.U.S. Attorney Markenzy Lapointe for the Southern District of Florida and Special Agent in Charge Matt Margelot for the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS), Miami Office, made the announcement.CGIS investigated this matter. Coral Gables Police Department, Miami-Dade Fire Rescue, Miami Beach Police Department, and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission assisted. Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosenfeld prosecuted the case.Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov under case number 24-cr-20263.###
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL293bmVyLWZvcmVpZ24tY3VycmVuY3ktdHJhZGluZy1maXJtLXBsZWFkcy1ndWlsdHktcnVubmluZy1wb256aS1zY2hlbWU
  Press Releases:
MIAMI – Henry Abdo, 47, of Lebanon, pled guilty in federal court to orchestrating an over $6 million investment fraud (Ponzi) scheme run through his company, Titanium Capital LLC (“Titanium”). According to court records, Abdo’s company, Titanium, purported to operate a sophisticated foreign-exchange platform that guaranteed fixed returns for investors. In reality, Titanium had no such platform, and Abdo used investor funds to pay off earlier investors and finance his personal lifestyle.Beginning in July 2014, Abdo falsely claimed that Titanium was a “zero-risk” investment fund that generated profits from fees on foreign currency transactions. Abdo further deceived investors by claiming Titanium was part of a multibillion-dollar holding company, had developed proprietary software, and was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In addition to fraudulent investment claims, court records reveal that Abdo attempted to bolster his credibility by falsely associating himself with various charitable and educational organizations. None of these claims were true.Court documents indicate that Abdo solicited investments through in-person meetings, emails, video conferences, and phone calls. Abdo directed potential investors to websites and promotional materials that falsely depicted Titanium as a legitimate enterprise. In truth, Titanium operated as a classic Ponzi scheme, using funds from new investors to pay earlier investors while diverting large sums of money for Abdo’s personal use, including international travel and other expenses.After soliciting millions from over 200 investors, Abdo’s scheme unraveled.  Many victims were financially devastated. Several victims reported losing retirement accounts and personal savings that they had relied on for basic living expenses, such as food and medication.On Jan. 13, 2025, during a hearing before U.S. District Court Judge William P. Dimitrouleas, Abdo pled guilty to wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.  Abdo faces up to 20 years in prison. The court will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.U.S. Attorney Markenzy Lapointe for the Southern District of Florida and Special Agent in Charge Jeffrey B. Veltri of the FBI, Miami Field Office, made the announcement.FBI Miami’s Palm Beach Resident Agency investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jonathan Bailyn and Justin Chapman prosecuted this case.Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov under case number 23-cr-80209.###
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL2Zvcm1lci1icm93YXJkLWNvdW50eS1yZXNpZGVudC1zZW50ZW5jZWQtbW9yZS0xMS15ZWFycy1wcmlzb24taWRlbnRpdHktdGhlZnQtaG90ZWw
  Press Releases:
Halima Ouedraogo, 36, most recently of Kirkland, Washington, was sentenced on November 9, 2017, in Miami by U.S. District Court Judge Federico Moreno to 11 years and 11 months in prison in connection with an extensive identity theft and access device fraud scheme.  In a previous three-day trial, a jury convicted Ouedraogo of one count of access device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1029(a)(2), one count of possession of fifteen or more unauthorized access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1029(a)(3), and ten counts of aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1028A(a)(1). 

Benjamin G. Greenberg, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Kelly R. Jackson, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI), and Brian Swain, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Secret Service (USSS), made the announcement.

The evidence at trial established that Ouedraogo, who previously resided in Miramar and Pembroke Pines, systematically used other peoples’ identities to exploit an electronic reservation and check-in system used by certain hotel chains at the time.  For example, on August 4, 2015, Ouedraogo checked in to a Fort Lauderdale hotel using the credit card account number and other personal information of someone who did not know her, and did not authorize her to possess or use it.  Ouedraogo stayed at the hotel for three weeks, where she ordered several meals, movies, and other incidentals, running up an overall tab of more than $5,000. 

 

When charges on the stolen credit card began to be declined, Ouedraogo left without paying and checked into another nearby hotel, again using another victim’s name, credit card account number, and other personal information.  Ouedraogo was located and arrested later that morning while in possession of more than 1500 names, dates of birth, social security numbers, bank account numbers, driver’s licenses, checkbooks, tax documents, bank cards, vehicle registrations, student identifications and additional personal information belonging to other people.  None of the victims authorized Ouedraogo to have or use their identifications.   Also found in Ouedraogo’s possession were numerous other hotel key cards, receipts, and folios. 

 

Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of IRS-CI, USSS and the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Anne P. McNamara and Frederic Shadley.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL25vcnRoLW1pYW1pLXJlc2lkZW50LXNlbnRlbmNlZC10d2VsdmUteWVhcnMtcHJpc29uLTE4LW1pbGxpb24tYXV0b21vYmlsZS1mcmF1ZC1zY2hlbWU
  Press Releases:
Following his conviction at trial, a North Miami resident was sentenced today to 12 years in prison for his participation in an elaborate automobile fraud scheme that netted over $1.8 million.

Benjamin G. Greenberg, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Brian Swain, Special Agent in Charge, United States Secret Service (USSS), and Rick Maglione, Chief, Fort Lauderdale Police Department made the announcement. 

Michael “Mickey” Munday, 72, of North Miami, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. to 144 months in prison.

On January 17, 2018, Munday was convicted at trial of one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349, and five counts of mail fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341.  Nine other co-defendants were indicted and plead guilty in connection with the same scheme.  

The evidence presented at trial established that Munday obtained vehicles from throughout the country using various fraudulent methods.  These methods included, among other things, convincing people who were behind on their car payments to turn over their vehicles to him in exchange for cash, illegally repossessing vehicles, and covertly transporting stolen cars from other states to Florida.  In order to evade detection by law enforcement, Munday and his co-conspirators used several towing and repossession companies as fronts for their illegal activity. 

After Munday and his co-conspirators obtained the vehicles, the automobiles were then hidden from owners, banks and lienholders at a number of locations, including at Munday’s North Miami residence.  While the vehicles were hidden, another co-conspirator prepared and sent, via U.S. mail, false and fraudulent lien notices claiming thousands of dollars in nonexistent tow services to the vehicle owners and true lienholders.  Sham auctions were then held at a strip mall, some of which were facilitated by Munday.  Of the more than 150 cars involved in the scheme, only one car appeared at an “auction,” and there were never any customers.  After the sham auction was held, the conspirators then cleaned the respective car titles by falsely and fraudulently removing the legitimate owners and lienholders from the title.  The cars were then sold to a co-conspirator in the automotive wholesale business at prices below market value and resold for a profit to local dealerships.  Overall, banks suffered more than $1.7 million in loss as a result of the scheme.

During the trial, videos and social media postings were introduced showing Munday bragging about his past experience as a drug smuggler, explaining the effectiveness of tow companies as fronts for smuggling, proclaiming himself the “UPS of the smuggling industry,” and advertising himself as a master of evading law enforcement.

Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USSS and the Fort Lauderdale Police Department.  This case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Joshua S. Rothstein and Anne P. McNamara.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL2NydWlzZS1saW5lLW9yZGVyZWQtcGF5LTQwLW1pbGxpb24taWxsZWdhbC1kdW1waW5nLW9pbC1jb250YW1pbmF0ZWQtd2FzdGUtYW5k
  Press Releases:
Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. (Princess) was sentenced to pay a $40 million penalty – the largest-ever for crimes involving deliberate vessel pollution – related to illegal dumping overboard of oil contaminated waste and falsification of official logs in order to conceal the discharges, announced Acting U.S. Attorney Benjamin G. Greenberg for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, Florida and Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey H. Wood for the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. The sentence was imposed today by U.S. District Judge Patricia A. Seitz in Miami.

Judge Seitz also ordered that $1 million be awarded to a British engineer, who first reported the illegal discharges to the British Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), which in turn provided the evidence to the U.S. Coast Guard. The newly hired engineer on the Caribbean Princess reported that a so-called “magic pipe” had been used on Aug. 23, 2013, to illegally discharge oily waste off the coast of England without the use of required pollution prevention equipment. The evidence gathered by the whistleblower, including photographs of the magic pipe, led to an inspection of the cruise ship both in England and then when it reached New York on Sept. 14, 2013. During each of the separate inspections certain crew members concealed the illegal activity by lying to the authorities in accordance with orders they had received from Caribbean Princess engineering officers.

The sentence imposed by Judge Seitz also requires that Princess remain on probation for a period of five years during which time all of the related Carnival cruise ship companies trading in the U.S. will be required to implement an environmental compliance plan that includes independent audits by an outside company and oversight by a court appointed monitor. As a result of the government’s investigation, Princess has already taken various corrective actions, including upgrading the oily water separators and oil content monitors on every ship in its fleet and instituting many new policies.

According to papers filed in court, the Caribbean Princess had been making illegal discharges through bypass equipment since 2005, one year after the ship began operations. The August 2013 discharge approximately 23-miles off the coast of England involved approximately 4,227 gallons within the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone. At the same time as the discharge, engineers ran clean seawater through the ship’s monitoring equipment in order to conceal the criminal conduct and create a false digital record for a legitimate discharge.

The case against Princess included illegal practices which were found to have taken place on five Princess ships – Caribbean Princess, Star Princess, Grand Princess, Coral Princess and Golden Princess. One practice was to open a salt water valve when bilge waste was being processed by the oily water separator and oil content monitor. The purpose was to prevent the oil content monitor from going into alarm mode and stopping the overboard discharge. This was done routinely on the Caribbean Princess in 2012 and 2013. The second practice involved discharges of oily bilge water originating from the overflow of graywater tanks into the machinery space bilges. This waste was pumped back into the graywater system rather than being processed as oily bilge waste, and then pumped overboard anytime the ship was more than four nautical miles from land. As a result, discharges within U.S. waters were likely. None of the discharges were recorded in the oil record books that are required to be maintained on board the ships.

“Today’s large criminal penalty makes it clear that businesses that operate in our oceans will be held accountable for violating their obligation to safeguard the marine environment,” stated Acting U.S. Attorney Greenberg. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida and our maritime partners are committed to ensuring that all vessel operators adhere to recognized standards in order to protect our open seas and coasts. We will continue to use the U.S. courts to pursue those who circumvent the law for their own personal gain.”

“These violations of law were serious, longstanding and designed to conceal illegal discharges,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Wood. “The sentence in this case should ensure that these crimes do not take place in the future and should also send a strong message to others that illegally polluting U.S. waters will not be tolerated.”

“Without the courageous act of a junior crewmember to alert authorities to these criminal behaviors of deliberately dumping oil at sea, the global environmental damage caused by the Princess fleet could have been much worse,” said Rear Admiral Scott Buschman, Commander of the U.S. Coast Guard Seventh District. “The selflessness of this individual exposed five different ships that embraced a culture of shortcuts and I am pleased at this outcome.”

As set forth in papers filed in court, Princess admitted to the following:

After suspecting that the authorities had been informed, senior ship engineers dismantled the bypass pipe and instructed crew members to lie.

Following the MCA’s inquiry, the chief engineer held a sham meeting in the engine control room to pretend to look into the allegations while holding up a sign stating: “LA is listening.” The engineers present understood that anything said might be heard by those at the company’s headquarters in Los Angeles, California, because the engine control room contained a recording device intended to monitor conversations in the event of an incident.

A perceived motive for the crimes was financial – the chief engineer that ordered the dumping off the coast of England told subordinate engineers that it cost too much to properly offload the waste in port and that the shore-side superintendent who he reported to would not want to pay the expense.

Graywater tanks overflowed into the bilges on a routine basis and were pumped back into the graywater system and then improperly discharged overboard when they were required to be treated as oil contaminated bilge waste. The overflows took place when internal floats in the graywater collection tanks got stuck due to large amounts of fat, grease and food particles from the galley that drained into the graywater system. Graywater tanks overflowed at least once a month and, at times, as frequently as once per week. Princess had no written procedures or training for how internal gray water spills were supposed to be cleaned up and the problem remained uncorrected for many years.

 

Ten million of the $40 million criminal penalty imposed by the court is earmarked for community service projects to benefit the maritime environment; $3 million of the community service payments will go to environmental projects in South Florida; $1 million will go for projects to benefit the marine environment in United Kingdom waters. Additionally, $1 million of the criminal penalty will be deposited in the Abandon Seafarer's Fund, a fund established to provide a mechanism for the U.S. Coast Guard to offer humanitarian relief and support of seafarers who are abandoned in the United States and are witnesses to maritime-related crimes.

The investigation was conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service with assistance from the U.S. Coast Guard 7th District Legal Office, U.S. Coast Guard’s Office of Maritime and International Law and U.S. Coast Guard Office of Investigations and Analysis. In announcing the case, Acting U.S. Attorney Benjamin G. Greenberg and Acting Assistant Attorney General Wood expressed their appreciation to the U.S. Coast Guard and to the U.K.’s MCA. The case is being prosecuted by Thomas Watts-FitzGerald, Deputy Chief, Economic & Environmental Crimes Section for the Southern District of Florida, Richard A. Udell, Senior Litigation Counsel with the Environmental Crimes Section of the Department of Justice and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Lieutenant Commander Brendan Sullivan, U.S. Coast Guard.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-FL  1:18-cr-20668
Case Name:   USA v. Javat et al
  Press Releases:
Ariana Fajardo Orshan, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and Justin Green, Special Agent in Charge, Miami Field Office, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Office of Criminal Investigations (FDA-OCI), announced the convictions of five defendants for various offenses relating to a global fraud scheme that relied upon false claims about the United States military and the Government of Afghanistan. 

            Six individuals were charged for their involvement in the global fraud scheme (Case No. 18-20668-CR-DMM).  Byramji Javat, a citizen of Pakistan and Chairman of the Dubai-based Uniworld Group, pleaded guilty on August 19, 2019, to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section1349.  Javat faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, plus potential restitution and a fine of up to $250,000.  Sunil Chopra and William Armando, both residents of California, each pleaded guilty on August 19, 2019, to one count of conspiracy to obtain pre-retail medical products worth $5,000 or more by fraud or deception, in violation of Title18, United States Code, Section 670(a)(6).  They face a maximum statutory penalty of 15 years in prison.  Emanuel Daskos, pleaded guilty on July 16, 2019, to also violating Title 18, United States Code, Section 670(a)(6).   Luis Soto, a customs broker residing in Miami, Florida, was convicted by a  trial jury on August 23, 2019, of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to obtain pre-retail medical products worth $5,000 or more by fraud or deception, two counts of wire fraud contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, and two counts of obtaining pre-retail medical products by fraud or deception, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 670(a)(1).   The defendants have not yet been sentenced.  One defendant, James Sipprell, a resident of Georgia, is awaiting trial and is presumed innocent.         

According to the superseding indictment, between 2014 and 2017, Javat orchestrated a fraud scheme to purchase FDA-regulated products including medical devices from manufacturers in the United States at deeply discounted prices by lying to them about the destination and purpose of the goods.  Javat represented that he was a large supplier of medical and food products to United States troops in Afghanistan, and sought deep discounts from the manufacturers by claiming that he could provide their goods to American troops in Afghanistan or to the Afghan people.  In truth, Javat wanted to obtain these products at prices not generally offered in the United States in order to sell those products himself in this country – not abroad, and not to the military – at a significant profit.    

To execute this scheme, the conspirators insisted that products be packaged for the United States market, falsely claiming to the manufacturers that this was required by the U.S. military, the Afghan government, or the “Buy American Act.”   When the products nonetheless had stickers or other packaging on them stating that the items were for export only, the conspirators secretly removed those labels.  After acquiring the products, Javat and the co-conspirators arranged for the diversion of the products to various locations in the United States.  To conceal this activity, the conspirators typically shipped the products abroad and then had them immediately shipped back to the United States, or provided the victims with fraudulent shipping documentation showing that the products were exported when actually they had never left this country.

Javat admitted the allegations of the superseding indictment during his guilty plea.  During Soto’s trial, the government proved these allegations to the jury and presented additional evidence about the defendants’ scheme.  For example, the conspirators often represented that they were purchasing items on behalf of the Afghanistan Reconstruction and Development Services (“ARDS”), which at one time was an agency of the Afghan Government funded in part by the United States.  That agency ceased to exist after 2014, yet the conspirators provided victims with fake documents supposedly from ARDS imposing extravagant demands that in reality only suited the conspirators’ needs.  In 2016, Uniworld prepared an internal Powerpoint presentation expressly informing its staff that they had to be “good at lying.”  Finally, because these goods were moving outside normal channels, they often were mishandled; for example, according to the conspirators’ own emails at the time, the defendants disregarded temperature requirements when transshipping over-the-counter pain medicines, one of the defendants kept a shipment of diabetic test strips that required refrigeration in his car trunk overnight and another shipment of medical products became covered in bird droppings.  The products involved in Javat’s scheme included surgical instruments, professional dental care devices, bandages, and aspirin.

The evidence at trial demonstrated that Soto knew about Javat’s fraud scheme yet knowingly helped him by supplying paperwork to federal agencies including the FDA to facilitate the re-entry of the diverted products into the United States through the Port of Miami or Miami International Airport.  Chopra, Armando and Daskos also knowingly furthered the scheme by helping to transport the products and remove export labels.

U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FDA-OCI.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys David Turken and John Shipley.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/185MBqxWtbc2sojEfEPe7Y-EKww3-8xpY7Cui4kUdEz0
  Last Updated: 2025-03-11 09:38:32 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL2FsbGVnZWQtaGVhbHRoLWNhcmUtZnJhdWRzdGVyLW9yZGVyZWQtZGV0YWluZWQtcGVuZGluZy10cmlhbC1hZnRlci1iZWluZy1hcnJlc3RlZC1qZXQ
  Press Releases:
Miami, Florida – Yesterday, a federal judge in Miami ordered that a Hialeah resident who allegedly submitted more than $4 million in fraudulent health care claims to Medicare be detained pending trial, after the defendant was arrested on board a jet ski headed south from Key West toward Cuba.

According to allegations in the criminal complaint, from February through April, 54-year-old Ernesto Cruz Graveran owned Xiko Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation which purported to provide durable medical equipment (“DME”) to eligible Medicare beneficiaries.  The complaint alleges that Xiko, in only a two-month period in 2022, submitted approximately $4.2 million in fraudulent health care claims to Medicare for DME that Xiko never provided, and that Medicare beneficiaries never requested.  As a result, Medicare paid Xiko over $2.1 million.  For example, according to the claims that Xiko submitted to Medicare, one physician purportedly prescribed DME from Xiko for approximately 145 Medicare beneficiaries, and Xiko billed Medicare over $1 million for DME referred by this one physician.  But, according to the complaint, none of those 145 beneficiaries were in fact patients of that physician, and that physician never prescribed any of the billed-for DME.

The government alleged in court that the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers located Graveran aboard a broken-down jet ski in the waters south of Key West, headed in the direction of Cuba, roughly 90 miles away. Graveran was aboard the jet ski along with one other individual, who was known to law enforcement to be an alien smuggler.  The jet ski was outfitted with a special fuel cell to allow for long trips, and within the compartments of the jet ski, law enforcement discovered a trove of food and water bottles. 

U.S. Magistrate Judge Alicia Otazo-Reyes agreed with the government that Graveran should not be released on bond, and the Court ordered that Graveran remained detained at the Federal Detention Center in Miami until his trial. 

Juan Antonio Gonzalez, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Omar Perez Aybar, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), Miami Region; and Anthony Salisbury, Special Agent in Charge, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Miami Field Office, announced the charges.  

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael B. Homer is prosecuting this case.  

A complaint is a charging instrument containing allegations.  A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov, under case number 22-mj-02982.

###

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL2xlYmFuZXNlLW5hdGlvbmFsLXNlbnRlbmNlZC1mb3VydGVlbi15ZWFycy1wcmlzb24tcnVubmluZy1wb256aS1zY2hlbWU
  Press Releases:
Note: See the factual proffer here.MIAMI – On May 8, 2025, Henry Abdo, 48, of Lebanon, was sentenced to 168 months in prison and ordered to pay a $300,000 fine and $375,479 in restitution by United States District Court Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.Abdo pled guilty in federal court to orchestrating a fraudulent scheme that solicited over $6 million from investors under false pretenses. According to court records, Abdo’s company, Titanium Capital LLC, purported to operate a foreign exchange platform that guaranteed fixed returns for investors. In reality, Titanium Capital had no such platform, and Abdo used investor funds to pay off earlier investors and finance his personal lifestyle.Beginning in July 2014, Abdo falsely claimed that Titanium Capital was a “zero-risk” investment fund that generated profits from fees on foreign currency transactions. Abdo further deceived investors by claiming Titanium Capital was part of a multibillion-dollar holding company, had developed proprietary software, and was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. None of these claims were true.Court documents indicate that Abdo solicited investments through in-person meetings, emails, video conferences, and phone calls. Abdo directed potential investors to websites and promotional materials that falsely depicted Titanium Capital as a legitimate enterprise. In truth, Titanium operated as a classic Ponzi scheme, using funds from new investors to pay earlier investors while diverting large sums of money for Abdo’s personal use, including international travel and other expenses.In addition to fraudulent investment claims, court records reveal that Abdo attempted to bolster his credibility by falsely associating himself with various charitable and educational organizations. Abdo also falsely claimed that Titanium Capital’s profits were donated to assist the blind and handicapped.After soliciting millions from over 200 investors, Abdo’s scheme unraveled. Many victims were financially devastated. Several victims reported losing retirement accounts and personal savings that they had relied on for basic living expenses, such as food and medication.U.S. Attorney Hayden P. O’Byrne for the Southern District of Florida and acting Special Agent in Charge Brett Skiles of the FBI, Miami Field Office, made the announcement. FBI Miami’s Palm Beach Resident Agency investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Bailyn and Justin Chapman in West Palm Beach, Florida, prosecuted it.  Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov, under case number 23-cr-80209.###
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-FL  1:19-cr-20368
Case Name:   USA v. Govantes et al
  Press Releases:
Yamel Guevara Tamayo, 36, of Miami, was sentenced Friday, December 20, 2019 to 63 months in prison for his role in serving as a money mule, and recruiter of more than 15 additional money mules, in an international money laundering operation for business email compromise (BEC) and other cyber-schemes.

Ariana Fajardo Orshan, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, George L. Piro, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office, and Brian Swain, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Secret Service (USSS), Miami Field Office, made the announcement.

Tamayo previously pled guilty before U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro to conspiracy to commit money laundering.  In addition to the prison sentence, U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro ordered Tamayo to serve three years of supervised release and pay $700,474.97 in restitution.

According to the court record, from November 2016 through June 2019, Tamayo, together with co-conspirators Roda Taher a/k/a “Rezi,” and others participated in a scheme to help steal more than $1.5 million dollars from individual and corporate victims, which proceeds were later laundered. The scheme involved recruiting “money mules,” including Tamayo, who allowed their respective names and personal identifying information to be used by co-conspirators to incorporate a sham business through the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, under such mule’s name.  As part of the scheme, a mule would then open bank accounts at multiple banks in the name of his or her shell company.  Several mules, including Tamayo, later recruited and managed new money mules.  To date, more than 200 money mules and money mule recruiters have been identified as part of this international money laundering network.

A related cyberattack aspect of the scheme involved the creation, by co-conspirators, of email addresses that mimicked, but differed slightly from, legitimate email addresses of supervisory employees at various companies. The conspirators used these deceptive email addresses to send emails that appeared to be requests for payment of legitimate invoices or debts owed by the victims. The victims were deceived into transferring funds by wire into the bank accounts opened by the money mules and controlled by Tamayo and the co-conspirators.  After the victims complied with the fraudulent wiring instructions, Tamayo, under the direction of other conspirators, quickly debited thousands of dollars from the accounts through in-person withdrawals, ATM withdrawals, and debit card purchases. Tamayo and co-conspirators also rapidly transferred victims’ funds to foreign bank accounts that co-conspirators controlled as soon as the funds came in.  Tamayo and other co-conspirators kept a fraction of the proceeds as payment after doing so.

Tamayo’s role expanded over time.  He ultimately recruited more than fifteen individuals to participate as mules in the money laundering scheme, serving as their manager and directing them to open new accounts.  His involvement in the scheme lasted until in or around June 2019.  In total, Tamayo and his mules intended to launder more than $1.4 million dollars, and succeeded in laundering more than $700,000 before banks were able to freeze and claw back some of the funds due to suspected fraud.

U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI and USSS in this matter.  This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Lisa H. Miller.

In related cases in this District, more than thirty members of the money laundering network have been prosecuted and convicted.  See United States v. Roda Taher, et al., 17-cr-60223-UU; United States v. Luis Pujols, et al., 17-cr-20702-JEM; United States v. Cynthia Rodriguez, et al., 17-cr-20748-JEM; United States v. Eliot Pereira, et al., 18-cr-20170-MGC; and United States v. Gustavo Gomez, et al., 18-CR-20415-UU; and United States v. Alfredo Veloso, et al., 18-20759-CR-KMW.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Dwayne E. Williams and Lisa H. Miller prosecuted those cases.

The Justice Department’s efforts to confront the growing threat of cyber-enabled financial fraud led to the formation of the BEC Counteraction Group (BCG), which assists U.S. Attorney’s Offices and the Department with the coordination of BEC cases and the centralization of related expertise.  The BCG facilitates communication and coordination between federal prosecutors, serves as a bridge between federal prosecutors and federal agents, centralizes and manages institutional knowledge and training, and participates in efforts to educate the public about protecting themselves and their organizations from BEC scams.

The BCG draws upon the expertise of the following sections within the Department’s Criminal Division: the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, which regularly investigates and prosecutes cases involving computer crimes, including network intrusions; the Fraud Section, which manages complex litigation involving sophisticated fraud schemes; the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section, which brings experience in seizing assets obtained through criminal activity; the Office of International Affairs, which plays a central role in securing international evidence and extradition; and the Organized Crime and Gang Section, which contributes strategic guidance in prosecuting complex transnational criminal cases.

This case was part of the Department of Justice’s Operation reWired, which followed “Operation Wire Wire,” the first coordinated enforcement action targeting hundreds of BEC scammers.  That effort, announced in June 2018, resulted in the arrest of 74 individuals, the seizure of nearly $2.4 million, and the disruption and recovery of approximately $14 million in fraudulent wire transfers.

Victims are encouraged to file a complaint online with the IC3 at bec.ic3.gov. The IC3 staff reviews complaints, looking for patterns or other indicators of significant criminal activity, and refers investigative packages of complaints to the appropriate law enforcement authorities in a particular city or region. The FBI provides a variety of resources relating to BEC through the IC3, which can be reached at www.ic3.gov. For more information on BEC scams, visit: https://www.ic3.gov/media/2019/190910.aspx.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

74 Alleged Fraudsters Arrested in the United States

WASHINGTON – Federal authorities announced today a significant coordinated effort to disrupt Business Email Compromise (BEC) schemes that are designed to intercept and hijack wire transfers from businesses and individuals, including many senior citizens.  Operation reWired, a coordinated law enforcement effort by the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of the Treasury, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the U.S. Department of State, was conducted over a four-month period, resulting in 281 arrests in the United States and overseas, including 167 in Nigeria, 18 in Turkey and 15 in Ghana.  Arrests were also made in France, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, and the United Kingdom (UK).  The operation also resulted in the seizure of nearly $3.7 million.

BEC, also known as “cyber-enabled financial fraud,” is a sophisticated scam often targeting employees with access to company finances and businesses working with foreign suppliers and/or businesses that regularly perform wire transfer payments.  The same criminal organizations that perpetrate BEC also exploit individual victims, often real estate purchasers, the elderly, and others, by convincing them to make wire transfers to bank accounts controlled by the criminals. This is often accomplished by impersonating a key employee or business partner after obtaining access to that person’s email account or sometimes done through romance and lottery scams.  BEC scams may involve fraudulent requests for checks rather than wire transfers; they may target sensitive information such as personally identifiable information (PII) or employee tax records instead of, or in addition to, money; and they may not involve an actual “compromise” of an email account or computer network.  Foreign citizens perpetrate many BEC scams.  Those individuals are often members of transnational criminal organizations, which originated in Nigeria but have spread throughout the world.

“The Department of Justice has increased efforts in taking aggressive enforcement action against fraudsters who are targeting American citizens and their businesses in business email compromise schemes and other cyber-enabled financial crimes,” said Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen.  “In this latest four-month operation, we have arrested 74 people in the United States and 207 others have been arrested overseas for alleged financial fraud.  The coordinated efforts with our domestic and international law enforcement partners around the world has made these most recent actions more successful.  I want to thank the FBI, more than two dozen U.S. Attorney’s Offices, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Homeland Security Investigations, IRS Criminal Investigation, U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service, our partners in Nigeria, Ghana, Turkey, France, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, and the UK, and our state and local law enforcement partners for all of their hard work to combat these fraud schemes and protect the hard-earned assets of our citizens.  Anyone who engages in deceptive practices like this should know they will not go undetected and will be held accountable.”

“The FBI is working every day to disrupt and dismantle the criminal enterprises that target our businesses and our citizens,” said FBI Director Christopher A. Wray.  “Cooperation is the backbone to effective law enforcement; without it, we aren’t as strong or as agile as we need to be.  Through Operation reWired, we’re sending a clear message to the criminals who orchestrate these BEC schemes: We’ll keep coming after you, no matter where you are.  And to the public, we’ll keep doing whatever we can to protect you.  Reporting incidents of BEC and other internet-enabled crimes to the IC3 brings us one step closer to the perpetrators.”

“The Secret Service has taken a multi-layered approach to combating Business Email Compromise schemes through our Global Investigative Operations Center (GIOC),” said U.S. Secret Service Director James M. Murray.  “Domestically, the GIOC assists Secret Service Field Offices and other law enforcement partners with analysis and investigative tactics to enhance the impact of local BEC investigations.  Internationally, the GIOC targets and identifies transnational organized crime networks that perpetrate these cyber-enabled financial fraud schemes.  Through this approach, the Secret Service continues to strive to protect the citizens of the United States and our financial infrastructure from these complex crimes.”

“Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), together with its law enforcement partners, has proven once again, that cyber-enabled financial fraud will not be tolerated in the United States,” said Acting Director Matthew T. Albence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  “Operation reWired sends a clear message to criminals, that no matter how or where crimes are committed, we will do everything within our means to dismantle criminal enterprises that seek to manipulate U.S. institutions and taxpayers.”

“The consequences of this type of fraud scheme are far reaching, affecting not only people in the United States, but also across the world,” said Chief Postal Inspector Gary Barksdale.  “This investigation is just another example of how effective law enforcement agencies can be when they join forces.  By working together, we can keep our communities and our vulnerable populations safe from financial exploitation.  The U.S. Postal Inspection Service is proud to be at the forefront of the fight against fraud and Postal Inspectors will continue to adapt to the ever changing landscape to stop the scammers and protect our customers.”

“In unraveling this complex, nationwide identity theft and tax fraud scheme, we discovered that the conspirators stole more than 250,000 identities and filed more than 10,000 fraudulent tax returns, attempting to receive more than $91 million in refunds,” said Chief Don Fort of IRS Criminal Investigation.  “We will continue to work with our international, federal and state partners to pursue all those responsible for perpetrating this fraud, preying on innocent victims and attempting to cheat the U.S. out of millions of dollars.”

“The investigation of these crimes crossed international borders,” said Director Todd J. Brown of the U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service (DSS).  “Today’s charges are another successful example of our commitment to working together with both foreign colleagues abroad as well as local, state and federal law enforcement partners here at home in the pursuit of those who commit cyber-related financial crimes.”

A number of cases involved international criminal organizations that defrauded small to large sized businesses, while others involved individual victims who transferred high dollar funds or sensitive records in the course of business.  The devastating effects these cases have on victims and victim companies affect not only the individual business but also the global economy.  According to the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), nearly $1.3 billion in loss was reported in 2018 from BEC and its variant, Email Account Compromise (EAC), nearly twice as much as was reported the prior year.  BEC and EAC are prevalent scams and the Justice Department along with our partners will continue to aggressively pursue and prosecute the perpetrators, including money mules, regardless of where they are located. 

Money mules may be witting or unwitting accomplices who receive ill-gotten funds from the victims and then transfer the funds as directed by the fraudsters.  The money is wired or sent by check to the money mule who then deposits it in his or her own bank account.  Usually the mules keep a fraction for “their trouble” and then wire the money as directed by the fraudster.  The fraudsters enlist and manipulate the money mules through romance scams or “work-at-home” scams, though some money mules are knowing co-conspirators who launder the ill-gotten gains for profit.   

BEC scams are related to, and often conducted together with, other forms of fraud such as:

“Romance scams,” where victims are lulled into believing they are in a legitimate relationship, and are tricked into sending or laundering money under the guise of assisting the paramour with an international business transaction, a U.S. visit, or some other cover story;

“Employment opportunities scams,” where victims are convinced to provide their PII to apply for work-from-home jobs, and, once “hired” and “overpaid” by a bad check, to wire the overpayment to the “employer’s” bank before the check bounces;

“Fraudulent online vehicle sales scams,” where victims are convinced they are purchasing a nonexistent vehicle and must pay for it by sending the codes of prepaid gift cards in the amount of the agreed upon sale price to the “seller;”

“Rental scams,” where a scammer agrees to rent a property, sends a bad check in excess of the agreed upon deposit, and requests the overpayment be returned via wire before the check bounces; and

“Lottery scams,” where victims are convinced they won an international lottery but must pay fees or taxes before receiving the payout.

Starting in May 2019, this coordinated enforcement action targeted hundreds of BEC scammers.  Law enforcement agents executed over 214 domestic actions including arrests, money mule warning letters, and asset seizures and repatriations totaling nearly $3.7 million.  Local and state law enforcement partners on FBI task forces across the country, with the assistance of multiple District Attorney’s Offices, also arrested alleged money mules for their role in defrauding victims. 

Among those arrested on federal charges in BEC schemes include:

Following an investigation led by the FBI’s Chicago Division, Brittney Stokes, 27, of Country Club Hills, Illinois, and Kenneth Ninalowo, 40, of Chicago, Illinois, were charged in the Northern District of Illinois with laundering over $1.5 million from proceeds of BEC scams.  According to the indictment, a community college and an energy company were defrauded into sending approximately $5 million to fraudulent bank accounts controlled by the scammers.  Banks were able to freeze approximately $3.6 million of the $5 million defrauded in the two schemes.  Law enforcement officials seized a 2019 Range Rover Velar S from Stokes and approximately $175,909 from Stokes and Ninalowo. 

As a result of a joint investigation by the FBI, HSI, and DSS, Opeyemi Adeoso, 44, of Dallas, Texas, and Benjamin Ifebajo, 45, of Richardson, Texas, were arrested and charged in the Northern District of Texas with bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy.  Adeoso and Ifebajo are alleged to have received and laundered at least $3.4 million.  In furtherance of their scheme, they are alleged to have assumed 12 fictitious identities and defrauded 37 victims from across the United States.

As part of a larger investigation by the FBI and the USSS in Miami, Yamel Guevara Tamayo, 36, of Miami, Florida, and Yumeydi Govantes, 39, of Miami, Florida, were charged in the Southern District of Florida with laundering more than $950,000 of proceeds of BEC scams.  The two individuals were also responsible for recruiting approximately 18 other individuals to serve as money mules, who laundered proceeds of BEC scams for an international money laundering network.  The victims of the BEC scams included title companies, corporations, and individuals.  The individuals were indicted June 18, 2019 and arrested June 20, 2019.  The change of plea for both individuals is scheduled for Sept. 16.

In an investigation by FBI Atlanta, two individuals were charged in the Northern District of Georgia for their involvement in a Nigeria-based BEC scheme that began with a $3.5 million transfer of funds fraudulently misdirected from a Georgia-based health care provider to accounts across the United States.  Two Nigerian nationals, Emmanuel Igomu, 35, of Atlanta, Georgia, and Jude Balogun, 29, of San Francisco, California, have been arrested on charges of aiding and abetting wire fraud for their part in receiving and transmitting monies derived from the BEC. 

Following an investigation by the FBI, Cyril Ashu, 34, of Austell, Georgia; Ifeanyi Eke, 32, of Sandy Springs, Georgia; Joshua Ikejimba, 24, of Houston, Texas; and Chinedu Ironuah, 32, of Houston, Texas, were charged in the Southern District of New York with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of wire fraud for their involvement in a Nigeria-based BEC scheme that impacted hundreds of victims in the United States, with losses in excess of $10 million. 

An indictment is merely an allegation and the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

The cases were investigated by the FBI, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), IRS Criminal Investigation and U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service.  U.S. Attorney’s Offices in the Districts of Arizona; Central, Eastern and Southern California; Colorado; Delaware; Southern Florida; Northern Georgia; Northern Illinois; Kansas; Eastern Louisiana; Massachusetts; Nebraska; Nevada; Southern New York; Middle North Carolina; Northern Ohio; Oregon; Northern, Western and Southern Texas; Western Tennessee; Eastern Virginia; Eastern Washington, and elsewhere have ongoing investigations some of which have resulted in arrests in Nigeria.  The Justice Department’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section, and Office of International Affairs of the Criminal Division provided assistance.  District Attorney’s Offices of Harris County, Texas; Fort Bend County, Texas; and Washington County, Arkansas are handling state prosecutions.  Additionally, private sector partners and the Nigerian Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Ghana Police Service (GPS) and Economic and Organized Crime Office (EOCO), Turkish National Police (TNP) Cyber Department, Direction Centrale de la Police aux Frontieres (PAF) of France, Squadra Mobile Di Caserta and Italian National Police, National Police Agency of Japan, Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department (TPMD), Royal Malaysian Police, Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) of Kenya and the National Crime Agency (NCA), North Wales Police, Metropolitan Police Service and Hertfordshire Constabulary of the UK provided significant assistance.  

This operation serves as a model for international cooperation against specific threats that endanger the financial well-being of each member country’s residents. Deputy Attorney General Rosen expressed gratitude for the outstanding efforts of the participating countries, including law enforcement actions that were coordinated and executed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in Nigeria to curb business email compromise schemes that defraud businesses and individuals alike.

The Justice Department’s efforts to confront the growing threat of cyber-enabled financial fraud led to the formation of the BEC Counteraction Group (BCG), which assists U.S. Attorney’s Offices and the Department with the coordination of BEC cases and the centralization of related expertise.  The BCG facilitates communication and coordination between federal prosecutors, serves as a bridge between federal prosecutors and federal agents, centralizes and manages institutional knowledge and training, and participates in efforts to educate the public about protecting themselves and their organizations from BEC scams.

The BCG draws upon the expertise of the following sections within the Department’s Criminal Division: the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, which regularly investigates and prosecutes cases involving computer crimes, including network intrusions; the Fraud Section, which manages complex litigation involving sophisticated fraud schemes; the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section, which brings experience in seizing assets obtained through criminal activity; the Office of International Affairs, which plays a central role in securing international evidence and extradition; and the Organized Crime and Gang Section, which contributes strategic guidance in prosecuting complex transnational criminal cases.

Operation reWired was funded and coordinated by the FBI and the Justice Department’s International Organized Crime Intelligence and Operations Center (IOC-2) and follows “Operation Wire Wire,” the first coordinated enforcement action targeting hundreds of BEC scammers.  That effort, announced in June 2018, resulted in the arrest of 74 individuals, the seizure of nearly $2.4 million, and the disruption and recovery of approximately $14 million in fraudulent wire transfers.

Victims are encouraged to file a complaint online with the IC3 at bec.ic3.gov.  The IC3 staff reviews complaints, looking for patterns or other indicators of significant criminal activity, and refers investigative packages of complaints to the appropriate law enforcement authorities in a particular city or region. The FBI provides a variety of resources relating to BEC through the IC3, which can be reached at www.ic3.gov. For more information on BEC scams, visit: https://www.ic3.gov/media/2019/190910.aspx.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-OFwgfqhiPci3WdAtLqL_2hVVPp_tA1RcjBbuC-3lh0
  Last Updated: 2025-03-21 05:02:19 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The 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
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1jZGlsL3ByL2Zvcm1lci1jaGFtcGFpZ24taWxsaW5vaXMtcGFzdG9yLXNlbnRlbmNlZC0xMC1tb250aHMtaW1wcmlzb25tZW50LW1pc2FwcGx5aW5nLWZlZGVyYWw
  Press Releases:
URBANA, Ill. – A Champaign, Illinois, man, Lekevie C. Johnson, formerly of the 2000 block of Clayton Boulevard, was sentenced on April 10, 2023, to 10 months of imprisonment and ordered to pay $59,358.90 restitution following his December 2022 guilty pleas to financial crimes including federal program misapplication, student loan misapplication, and false statement in bankruptcy.

Johnson was formerly the pastor of Mount Calvary Missionary Baptist Church, previously known as Jericho Missionary Baptist Church, on Bloomington Road in Champaign, Illinois. Johnson also served for years as the head football coach at Centennial High School in Champaign. Between 2012 and 2019, Johnson operated a not-for-profit corporation, Life Line Champaign, Inc., which received federal grant funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, through the City of Champaign, to provide summer enrichment programs for low-income students in the Garden Hills neighborhood. Johnson previously admitted misapplying $25,700.74 of HUD program grant funds for his own benefit, including by making numerous ATM cash withdrawals at various casinos.

Johnson also admitted that he had obtained federal student loans between 2017 and 2019 to attend Liberty University’s online Master of Arts program. Prior to receiving the loans, Johnson certified that he would use the loans only for authorized educational expenses. Nonetheless, Johnson used $31,291.62 of the loans for various non-educational expenses, including to gamble at casinos.

Finally, Johnson admitted to committing bankruptcy fraud. On January 31, 2020, Johnson and his wife filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the Central District of Illinois. In his petition, Johnson claimed that he received only $42,900 from his church in 2019, even though he received tens of thousands of additional monies from the church that year. On March 5, 2020, Johnson testified under oath at a bankruptcy hearing that he had disclosed all the payments he received from the church and had no control over the church’s finances. In fact, Johnson controlled the church’s finances and had received tens of thousands of dollars in payments from the church that he had not disclosed in bankruptcy.

In sentencing Johnson to 10 months of imprisonment and ordering full restitution to both HUD and the U.S. Department of Education, United States District Judge Michael M. Mihm found that, although Johnson suffered from a gambling addiction, his crimes were the result of his voluntary choices and hurt many people, including the disadvantaged children in the Garden Hills neighborhood who did not benefit as intended from the federal grant.

Judge Mihm ordered Johnson to report to the federal Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his sentence on June 6, 2023. After pleading guilty to these offenses, Johnson left Champaign and relocated to the Dallas, Texas, area.

“Abuse of the bankruptcy system by making false statements, utilizing federal program monies for gambling purposes, and concealing those acts strikes at the very core of the integrity of the bankruptcy system and undermines public confidence in that system,” stated Nancy J. Gargula, United States Trustee for Indiana, Central and Southern Illinois (Region 10).  “Today’s sentencing sends a strong message that these actions will not be tolerated. I am grateful to U.S. Attorney Harris and our law enforcement partners for their strong commitment to combating fraud and abuse in bankruptcy cases.”

The case investigation was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Springfield Field Office; Department of Housing and Urban Development—Office of Inspector General; and the Department of Education – Office of Inspector General in collaboration with the Central District of Illinois Bankruptcy Fraud Working Group coordinated by the United States Trustee for Central and Southern Illinois and Indiana (Region 10). The bankruptcy fraud charge was referred for criminal prosecution by the United States Trustee for Region 10. The U.S. Trustee Program is the component of the Justice Department that protects the integrity of the bankruptcy system by overseeing case administration and litigating to enforce the bankruptcy laws. Region 10 is headquartered in Indianapolis, with additional offices in Peoria, Illinois, and South Bend, Indiana. Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorney Eugene L. Miller represented the government in the prosecution.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL2ZpdmUtaW5kaXZpZHVhbHMtc2VudGVuY2VkLWZlZGVyYWxseS1wYXJ0aWNpcGF0aW5nLWdsb2JhbC1mcmF1ZC1zY2hlbWU
  Press Releases:
MIAMI, FL - Ariana Fajardo Orshan, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and Justin Green, Special Agent in Charge, Miami Field Office, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Office of Criminal Investigations (FDA-OCI) announced that five defendants were sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks for their respective involvement in a global fraud scheme based upon false claims about the United States military and the Government of Afghanistan. 

Six individuals were charged for their involvement in the global fraud scheme (Case No. 18-20668-CR-DMM).  Four individuals previously pled guilty, one was convicted at trial and charges are pending against a final defendant.

Byramji Javat, a citizen of Pakistan and Chairman of the Dubai-based Uniworld Group, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.  The Court sentenced Javat to 120 months in prison after finding him responsible for a fraud loss of approximately $60 million during the period of the conspiracy.  The court also imposed a $150,000 fine and ordered Javat to pay forfeiture and restitution, in amounts to be determined at a future hearing.

Luis Soto, a customs broker residing in Miami, was convicted by a trial jury of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to obtain pre-retail medical products worth $5,000 or more by fraud or deception, two counts of wire and two counts of obtaining pre-retail medical products by fraud or deception.  The Court sentenced Soto to 72 months in prison and ordered him to forfeit $100,000.  Sunil Chopra and William Armando, both residents of California, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to obtain pre-retail medical products worth $5,000 or more by fraud or deception and were sentenced to 36 and 18 months in prison, respectively.  Emanuel Daskos, of Hallandale Beach, Florida, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to obtain pre-retail medical products worth $5,000 or more by fraud or deception and was sentenced to 2 years of probation.  He was also ordered to pay a $20,000 fine, $501,304 in restitution, and forfeit $18,536.  One defendant, James Sipprell, a resident of Georgia, is awaiting trial and is presumed innocent.         

According to the superseding indictment, between 2014 and 2017, Javat orchestrated a fraud scheme to purchase FDA-regulated products including medical devices from manufacturers in the United States at deeply discounted prices by lying to them about the destination and purpose of the goods.  Javat represented that he was a large supplier of medical and food products to United States troops in Afghanistan, and sought deep discounts from the manufacturers by claiming that he could provide their goods to American troops in Afghanistan or to the Afghan people.  In truth, Javat wanted to obtain these products at prices not generally offered in the United States in order to sell those products himself in this country – not abroad, and not to the military – at a significant profit.    

To execute this scheme, the conspirators insisted that products be packaged for the United States market, falsely claiming to the manufacturers that this was required by the U.S. military, the Afghan government, or the “Buy American Act.”   When the products nonetheless had stickers or other packaging on them stating that the items were for export only, the conspirators secretly removed those labels.  After acquiring the products, Javat and the co-conspirators arranged for the diversion of the products to various locations in the United States.  To conceal this activity, the conspirators typically shipped the products abroad and then had them immediately shipped back to the United States, or provided the victims with fraudulent shipping documentation showing that the products were exported when actually they had never left this country.

Javat admitted the allegations of the superseding indictment during his guilty plea.  During Soto’s trial, the government proved these allegations to the jury and presented additional evidence about the defendants’ scheme.  For example, the conspirators often represented that they were purchasing items on behalf of the Afghanistan Reconstruction and Development Services (“ARDS”), which at one time was an agency of the Afghan Government funded in part by the United States.  That agency ceased to exist after 2014, yet the conspirators provided victims with fake documents supposedly from ARDS imposing extravagant demands that in reality only suited the conspirators’ needs.  In 2016, Uniworld prepared an internal Powerpoint presentation expressly informing its staff that they had to be “good at lying.”  Finally, because these goods were moving outside normal channels, they often were mishandled; for example, according to the conspirators’ own emails at the time, the defendants disregarded temperature requirements when transshipping over-the-counter pain medicines, one of the defendants kept a shipment of diabetic test strips that required refrigeration in his car trunk overnight and another shipment of medical products became covered in bird droppings.  The products involved in Javat’s scheme included surgical instruments, professional dental care devices, bandages, and aspirin.

The evidence at Soto’s trial demonstrated that Soto knew about Javat’s fraud scheme yet knowingly helped him by supplying paperwork to federal agencies including the FDA to facilitate the re-entry of the diverted products into the United States through the Port of Miami or Miami International Airport.  Chopra, Armando and Daskos also knowingly furthered the scheme by helping to transport the products and remove export labels.

U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FDA-OCI.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys David Turken and John Shipley.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-FL  0:19-cr-60202
Case Name:   USA v. Woessner
  Press Releases:
     U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan for the Southern District of Florida and Special Agent in Charge George L. Piro of the FBI’s Miami Field Office announced that Port Everglades employees, William Woessner, 68, of Margate, Florida, David Moore, 43, of Pompano Beach, Florida, and Rajindra Lallharry, 60, of Coral Springs, Florida, and business owner Bryan Zascavage, 57, of Pompano, Florida, were sentenced to prison today for their involvement in a fraud scheme. The defendants had each previously pled guilty to participating in a conspiracy to commit fraud concerning programs receiving federal funds.

     According to the court record, including the factual statements in support of the defendants’ guilty pleas, Woessner, Moore, and Lallharry were issued purchase cards or P-cards, which were to be used to buy business related goods and services for Port Everglades. Instead, they utilized the P-cards to engage in schemes to illegally profit from the use of the cards. Zascavage operated a business, Z & Z, Inc., that provided goods and services to the Port. Woessner and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Woessner would direct Zascavage to purchase certain goods. Woessner would pay for the goods using his Port Everglades P-card, but the goods were not sent to Port Everglades. Instead, Woessner utilized the goods at his plumbing company. In addition, Moore and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for goods ordered by Moore utilizing his Port Everglades P-card. None of the goods would be sent to the Port.  Instead, Zascavage and Moore would split the illegally obtained funds. Further, John McGahee and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for services ordered by McGahee utilizing his Port Everglades P-card. The services ordered by McGahee would not be performed by Zascavage or his company. Zascavage and McGahee would split the illegally obtained funds.

     Lallharry’s family owned five separate companies. Lallharry would utilize his P-card to make direct payments to each of the family-owned companies for goods to allegedly be utilized by the Port. The goods were not delivered to the Port. The illegally obtained funds were utilized by Lallharry and his family to pay personal expenses, including approximately $101,790.85 to pay monthly expenses due the Chapter 13 trustee overseeing Lallharry’s bankruptcy.

     Lallharry was sentenced by U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas to 21 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $206,297.74 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60205). After his sentencing, Lallharry was remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service to begin serving his sentence of imprisonment. Woessner was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman to 21 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $153,685.88 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60202). Zascavage was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Ursula M. Ungaro to 12 months and 1 day in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $205,706.90 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60203). Moore was sentenced by Judge Ungaro to 3 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $34,768.86 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60206).

McGahee  is scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 18, 2019 (Case No. 19cr60204).

     U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI in connection with this matter. She also thanked the Broward County Sheriff's Office - Public Corruption Unit, Office of the Broward County Auditors, and Port Everglades Department - Port Director's Office for their assistance with the investigation. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey N. Kaplan.

     Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov

Four Port Everglades employees, William Woessner, 68, of Margate, Florida, David Moore, 43, of Pompano Beach, Florida, John McGahee, 43, of Davie, Florida, and Rajindra Lallharry, 60, of Coral Springs, Florida, and business owner Bryan Zascavage, 57, of Pompano, Florida, were each charged in an one-count Information with Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.         

            Ariana Fajardo Orshan, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and George L. Piro, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office, made the announcement.      

As set forth in the charging documents, Woessner, Moore, McGahee, and Lallharry were employees of Port Everglades (U.S. v. Moore, Case No. 19-60206-Ungaro; U.S. v. Woeesner, Case No. 19-60202-Altman; U.S. v. McGahee, Case No. 19-60204-Smith; and U.S. v. Lallharry, Case No. 19-60205-Dimitrouleas).  They were issued purchase cards or P-cards, which were to be used to buy goods and services for Port Everglades.  Instead, they utilized the P-cards to engage in schemes to illegally profit from the use of the cards.

            Zascavage operated a business, Z & Z, Inc., that provided goods and services to the Port (U.S. v. Zascavage, Case No. 19-60203-Ungaro).  Woessner and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Woessner would direct Zascavage to purchase certain goods.  Woessner would pay for the goods using his Port Everglades P-card, but the goods were not sent to Port Everglades.  Instead, Woessner utilized the goods at his plumbing company. 

            Moore and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for goods ordered by Moore utilizing his Port Everglades P-card.  None of the goods would be sent to the Port.  Zascavage and Moore would split the illegally obtained funds.

            McGahee and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for services ordered by McGahee utilizing his Port Everglades P-card.   The services ordered by McGahee would not be performed by Zascavage or his company.   Zascavage and McGahee would split the illegally obtained funds.

            Lallharry’s family owned five separate companies.  Lallharry would utilize his P-card to make direct payments to each of the family-owned companies for goods to allegedly be utilized by the Port.  The goods were not delivered to the Port.  The illegally obtained funds were utilized by Lallharry and his family to pay personal expenses, including approximately $101,790.85 to pay monthly expenses due the Chapter 13 trustee overseeing Lallharry’s bankruptcy.

            Woessner, Moore, McGahee, Lallharry, and Zascavage each face a statutory maximum term of 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine of the greater of $250,000 or twice the amount of the gross gain or the gross loss.

An Information is only an accusation and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. 

            U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI in connection with this matter. She also thanked the Broward County Sheriff's Office - Public Corruption Unit, Office of the Broward County Auditors, and Port Everglades Department - Port Director's Office for their assistance with the investigation. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey N. Kaplan.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yG1GJ2v1K9drZkvvXi_4zw6pEzeNjQZmoUM271mvvSU
  Last Updated: 2025-03-21 05:31:42 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
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-FL  0:19-cr-60203
Case Name:   USA v. Zascavage
  Press Releases:
     U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan for the Southern District of Florida and Special Agent in Charge George L. Piro of the FBI’s Miami Field Office announced that Port Everglades employees, William Woessner, 68, of Margate, Florida, David Moore, 43, of Pompano Beach, Florida, and Rajindra Lallharry, 60, of Coral Springs, Florida, and business owner Bryan Zascavage, 57, of Pompano, Florida, were sentenced to prison today for their involvement in a fraud scheme. The defendants had each previously pled guilty to participating in a conspiracy to commit fraud concerning programs receiving federal funds.

     According to the court record, including the factual statements in support of the defendants’ guilty pleas, Woessner, Moore, and Lallharry were issued purchase cards or P-cards, which were to be used to buy business related goods and services for Port Everglades. Instead, they utilized the P-cards to engage in schemes to illegally profit from the use of the cards. Zascavage operated a business, Z & Z, Inc., that provided goods and services to the Port. Woessner and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Woessner would direct Zascavage to purchase certain goods. Woessner would pay for the goods using his Port Everglades P-card, but the goods were not sent to Port Everglades. Instead, Woessner utilized the goods at his plumbing company. In addition, Moore and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for goods ordered by Moore utilizing his Port Everglades P-card. None of the goods would be sent to the Port.  Instead, Zascavage and Moore would split the illegally obtained funds. Further, John McGahee and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for services ordered by McGahee utilizing his Port Everglades P-card. The services ordered by McGahee would not be performed by Zascavage or his company. Zascavage and McGahee would split the illegally obtained funds.

     Lallharry’s family owned five separate companies. Lallharry would utilize his P-card to make direct payments to each of the family-owned companies for goods to allegedly be utilized by the Port. The goods were not delivered to the Port. The illegally obtained funds were utilized by Lallharry and his family to pay personal expenses, including approximately $101,790.85 to pay monthly expenses due the Chapter 13 trustee overseeing Lallharry’s bankruptcy.

     Lallharry was sentenced by U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas to 21 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $206,297.74 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60205). After his sentencing, Lallharry was remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service to begin serving his sentence of imprisonment. Woessner was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman to 21 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $153,685.88 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60202). Zascavage was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Ursula M. Ungaro to 12 months and 1 day in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $205,706.90 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60203). Moore was sentenced by Judge Ungaro to 3 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $34,768.86 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60206).

McGahee  is scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 18, 2019 (Case No. 19cr60204).

     U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI in connection with this matter. She also thanked the Broward County Sheriff's Office - Public Corruption Unit, Office of the Broward County Auditors, and Port Everglades Department - Port Director's Office for their assistance with the investigation. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey N. Kaplan.

     Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov

Four Port Everglades employees, William Woessner, 68, of Margate, Florida, David Moore, 43, of Pompano Beach, Florida, John McGahee, 43, of Davie, Florida, and Rajindra Lallharry, 60, of Coral Springs, Florida, and business owner Bryan Zascavage, 57, of Pompano, Florida, were each charged in an one-count Information with Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.         

            Ariana Fajardo Orshan, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and George L. Piro, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office, made the announcement.      

As set forth in the charging documents, Woessner, Moore, McGahee, and Lallharry were employees of Port Everglades (U.S. v. Moore, Case No. 19-60206-Ungaro; U.S. v. Woeesner, Case No. 19-60202-Altman; U.S. v. McGahee, Case No. 19-60204-Smith; and U.S. v. Lallharry, Case No. 19-60205-Dimitrouleas).  They were issued purchase cards or P-cards, which were to be used to buy goods and services for Port Everglades.  Instead, they utilized the P-cards to engage in schemes to illegally profit from the use of the cards.

            Zascavage operated a business, Z & Z, Inc., that provided goods and services to the Port (U.S. v. Zascavage, Case No. 19-60203-Ungaro).  Woessner and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Woessner would direct Zascavage to purchase certain goods.  Woessner would pay for the goods using his Port Everglades P-card, but the goods were not sent to Port Everglades.  Instead, Woessner utilized the goods at his plumbing company. 

            Moore and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for goods ordered by Moore utilizing his Port Everglades P-card.  None of the goods would be sent to the Port.  Zascavage and Moore would split the illegally obtained funds.

            McGahee and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for services ordered by McGahee utilizing his Port Everglades P-card.   The services ordered by McGahee would not be performed by Zascavage or his company.   Zascavage and McGahee would split the illegally obtained funds.

            Lallharry’s family owned five separate companies.  Lallharry would utilize his P-card to make direct payments to each of the family-owned companies for goods to allegedly be utilized by the Port.  The goods were not delivered to the Port.  The illegally obtained funds were utilized by Lallharry and his family to pay personal expenses, including approximately $101,790.85 to pay monthly expenses due the Chapter 13 trustee overseeing Lallharry’s bankruptcy.

            Woessner, Moore, McGahee, Lallharry, and Zascavage each face a statutory maximum term of 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine of the greater of $250,000 or twice the amount of the gross gain or the gross loss.

An Information is only an accusation and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. 

            U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI in connection with this matter. She also thanked the Broward County Sheriff's Office - Public Corruption Unit, Office of the Broward County Auditors, and Port Everglades Department - Port Director's Office for their assistance with the investigation. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey N. Kaplan.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uKUcIyPY1oQyHzAVDNJhzsArTs5UuXrgDz73t8Dr2S8
  Last Updated: 2025-03-21 05:31:49 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
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-FL  0:19-cr-60204
Case Name:   USA v. McGahee
  Press Releases:
     U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan for the Southern District of Florida and Special Agent in Charge George L. Piro of the FBI’s Miami Field Office announced that Port Everglades employees, William Woessner, 68, of Margate, Florida, David Moore, 43, of Pompano Beach, Florida, and Rajindra Lallharry, 60, of Coral Springs, Florida, and business owner Bryan Zascavage, 57, of Pompano, Florida, were sentenced to prison today for their involvement in a fraud scheme. The defendants had each previously pled guilty to participating in a conspiracy to commit fraud concerning programs receiving federal funds.

     According to the court record, including the factual statements in support of the defendants’ guilty pleas, Woessner, Moore, and Lallharry were issued purchase cards or P-cards, which were to be used to buy business related goods and services for Port Everglades. Instead, they utilized the P-cards to engage in schemes to illegally profit from the use of the cards. Zascavage operated a business, Z & Z, Inc., that provided goods and services to the Port. Woessner and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Woessner would direct Zascavage to purchase certain goods. Woessner would pay for the goods using his Port Everglades P-card, but the goods were not sent to Port Everglades. Instead, Woessner utilized the goods at his plumbing company. In addition, Moore and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for goods ordered by Moore utilizing his Port Everglades P-card. None of the goods would be sent to the Port.  Instead, Zascavage and Moore would split the illegally obtained funds. Further, John McGahee and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for services ordered by McGahee utilizing his Port Everglades P-card. The services ordered by McGahee would not be performed by Zascavage or his company. Zascavage and McGahee would split the illegally obtained funds.

     Lallharry’s family owned five separate companies. Lallharry would utilize his P-card to make direct payments to each of the family-owned companies for goods to allegedly be utilized by the Port. The goods were not delivered to the Port. The illegally obtained funds were utilized by Lallharry and his family to pay personal expenses, including approximately $101,790.85 to pay monthly expenses due the Chapter 13 trustee overseeing Lallharry’s bankruptcy.

     Lallharry was sentenced by U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas to 21 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $206,297.74 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60205). After his sentencing, Lallharry was remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service to begin serving his sentence of imprisonment. Woessner was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman to 21 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $153,685.88 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60202). Zascavage was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Ursula M. Ungaro to 12 months and 1 day in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $205,706.90 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60203). Moore was sentenced by Judge Ungaro to 3 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $34,768.86 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60206).

McGahee  is scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 18, 2019 (Case No. 19cr60204).

     U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI in connection with this matter. She also thanked the Broward County Sheriff's Office - Public Corruption Unit, Office of the Broward County Auditors, and Port Everglades Department - Port Director's Office for their assistance with the investigation. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey N. Kaplan.

     Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov

Four Port Everglades employees, William Woessner, 68, of Margate, Florida, David Moore, 43, of Pompano Beach, Florida, John McGahee, 43, of Davie, Florida, and Rajindra Lallharry, 60, of Coral Springs, Florida, and business owner Bryan Zascavage, 57, of Pompano, Florida, were each charged in an one-count Information with Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.         

            Ariana Fajardo Orshan, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and George L. Piro, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office, made the announcement.      

As set forth in the charging documents, Woessner, Moore, McGahee, and Lallharry were employees of Port Everglades (U.S. v. Moore, Case No. 19-60206-Ungaro; U.S. v. Woeesner, Case No. 19-60202-Altman; U.S. v. McGahee, Case No. 19-60204-Smith; and U.S. v. Lallharry, Case No. 19-60205-Dimitrouleas).  They were issued purchase cards or P-cards, which were to be used to buy goods and services for Port Everglades.  Instead, they utilized the P-cards to engage in schemes to illegally profit from the use of the cards.

            Zascavage operated a business, Z & Z, Inc., that provided goods and services to the Port (U.S. v. Zascavage, Case No. 19-60203-Ungaro).  Woessner and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Woessner would direct Zascavage to purchase certain goods.  Woessner would pay for the goods using his Port Everglades P-card, but the goods were not sent to Port Everglades.  Instead, Woessner utilized the goods at his plumbing company. 

            Moore and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for goods ordered by Moore utilizing his Port Everglades P-card.  None of the goods would be sent to the Port.  Zascavage and Moore would split the illegally obtained funds.

            McGahee and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for services ordered by McGahee utilizing his Port Everglades P-card.   The services ordered by McGahee would not be performed by Zascavage or his company.   Zascavage and McGahee would split the illegally obtained funds.

            Lallharry’s family owned five separate companies.  Lallharry would utilize his P-card to make direct payments to each of the family-owned companies for goods to allegedly be utilized by the Port.  The goods were not delivered to the Port.  The illegally obtained funds were utilized by Lallharry and his family to pay personal expenses, including approximately $101,790.85 to pay monthly expenses due the Chapter 13 trustee overseeing Lallharry’s bankruptcy.

            Woessner, Moore, McGahee, Lallharry, and Zascavage each face a statutory maximum term of 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine of the greater of $250,000 or twice the amount of the gross gain or the gross loss.

An Information is only an accusation and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. 

            U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI in connection with this matter. She also thanked the Broward County Sheriff's Office - Public Corruption Unit, Office of the Broward County Auditors, and Port Everglades Department - Port Director's Office for their assistance with the investigation. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey N. Kaplan.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mAr_DCNNFFfbnIuvmA7_BzT_oLt_SJZVqNgnnXyZ7Lw
  Last Updated: 2025-03-21 05:31:56 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
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-FL  0:19-cr-60205
Case Name:   USA v. Lallharry
  Press Releases:
     U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan for the Southern District of Florida and Special Agent in Charge George L. Piro of the FBI’s Miami Field Office announced that Port Everglades employees, William Woessner, 68, of Margate, Florida, David Moore, 43, of Pompano Beach, Florida, and Rajindra Lallharry, 60, of Coral Springs, Florida, and business owner Bryan Zascavage, 57, of Pompano, Florida, were sentenced to prison today for their involvement in a fraud scheme. The defendants had each previously pled guilty to participating in a conspiracy to commit fraud concerning programs receiving federal funds.

     According to the court record, including the factual statements in support of the defendants’ guilty pleas, Woessner, Moore, and Lallharry were issued purchase cards or P-cards, which were to be used to buy business related goods and services for Port Everglades. Instead, they utilized the P-cards to engage in schemes to illegally profit from the use of the cards. Zascavage operated a business, Z & Z, Inc., that provided goods and services to the Port. Woessner and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Woessner would direct Zascavage to purchase certain goods. Woessner would pay for the goods using his Port Everglades P-card, but the goods were not sent to Port Everglades. Instead, Woessner utilized the goods at his plumbing company. In addition, Moore and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for goods ordered by Moore utilizing his Port Everglades P-card. None of the goods would be sent to the Port.  Instead, Zascavage and Moore would split the illegally obtained funds. Further, John McGahee and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for services ordered by McGahee utilizing his Port Everglades P-card. The services ordered by McGahee would not be performed by Zascavage or his company. Zascavage and McGahee would split the illegally obtained funds.

     Lallharry’s family owned five separate companies. Lallharry would utilize his P-card to make direct payments to each of the family-owned companies for goods to allegedly be utilized by the Port. The goods were not delivered to the Port. The illegally obtained funds were utilized by Lallharry and his family to pay personal expenses, including approximately $101,790.85 to pay monthly expenses due the Chapter 13 trustee overseeing Lallharry’s bankruptcy.

     Lallharry was sentenced by U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas to 21 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $206,297.74 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60205). After his sentencing, Lallharry was remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service to begin serving his sentence of imprisonment. Woessner was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman to 21 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $153,685.88 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60202). Zascavage was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Ursula M. Ungaro to 12 months and 1 day in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $205,706.90 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60203). Moore was sentenced by Judge Ungaro to 3 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $34,768.86 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60206).

McGahee  is scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 18, 2019 (Case No. 19cr60204).

     U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI in connection with this matter. She also thanked the Broward County Sheriff's Office - Public Corruption Unit, Office of the Broward County Auditors, and Port Everglades Department - Port Director's Office for their assistance with the investigation. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey N. Kaplan.

     Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov

Four Port Everglades employees, William Woessner, 68, of Margate, Florida, David Moore, 43, of Pompano Beach, Florida, John McGahee, 43, of Davie, Florida, and Rajindra Lallharry, 60, of Coral Springs, Florida, and business owner Bryan Zascavage, 57, of Pompano, Florida, were each charged in an one-count Information with Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.         

            Ariana Fajardo Orshan, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and George L. Piro, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office, made the announcement.      

As set forth in the charging documents, Woessner, Moore, McGahee, and Lallharry were employees of Port Everglades (U.S. v. Moore, Case No. 19-60206-Ungaro; U.S. v. Woeesner, Case No. 19-60202-Altman; U.S. v. McGahee, Case No. 19-60204-Smith; and U.S. v. Lallharry, Case No. 19-60205-Dimitrouleas).  They were issued purchase cards or P-cards, which were to be used to buy goods and services for Port Everglades.  Instead, they utilized the P-cards to engage in schemes to illegally profit from the use of the cards.

            Zascavage operated a business, Z & Z, Inc., that provided goods and services to the Port (U.S. v. Zascavage, Case No. 19-60203-Ungaro).  Woessner and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Woessner would direct Zascavage to purchase certain goods.  Woessner would pay for the goods using his Port Everglades P-card, but the goods were not sent to Port Everglades.  Instead, Woessner utilized the goods at his plumbing company. 

            Moore and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for goods ordered by Moore utilizing his Port Everglades P-card.  None of the goods would be sent to the Port.  Zascavage and Moore would split the illegally obtained funds.

            McGahee and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for services ordered by McGahee utilizing his Port Everglades P-card.   The services ordered by McGahee would not be performed by Zascavage or his company.   Zascavage and McGahee would split the illegally obtained funds.

            Lallharry’s family owned five separate companies.  Lallharry would utilize his P-card to make direct payments to each of the family-owned companies for goods to allegedly be utilized by the Port.  The goods were not delivered to the Port.  The illegally obtained funds were utilized by Lallharry and his family to pay personal expenses, including approximately $101,790.85 to pay monthly expenses due the Chapter 13 trustee overseeing Lallharry’s bankruptcy.

            Woessner, Moore, McGahee, Lallharry, and Zascavage each face a statutory maximum term of 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine of the greater of $250,000 or twice the amount of the gross gain or the gross loss.

An Information is only an accusation and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. 

            U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI in connection with this matter. She also thanked the Broward County Sheriff's Office - Public Corruption Unit, Office of the Broward County Auditors, and Port Everglades Department - Port Director's Office for their assistance with the investigation. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey N. Kaplan.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y8wx64oFyRp42Za-c_yz_tLgHkyRVy6zaFvAkDZipqk
  Last Updated: 2025-03-21 05:32:04 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
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-FL  0:19-cr-60206
Case Name:   USA v. Moore
  Press Releases:
     U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan for the Southern District of Florida and Special Agent in Charge George L. Piro of the FBI’s Miami Field Office announced that Port Everglades employees, William Woessner, 68, of Margate, Florida, David Moore, 43, of Pompano Beach, Florida, and Rajindra Lallharry, 60, of Coral Springs, Florida, and business owner Bryan Zascavage, 57, of Pompano, Florida, were sentenced to prison today for their involvement in a fraud scheme. The defendants had each previously pled guilty to participating in a conspiracy to commit fraud concerning programs receiving federal funds.

     According to the court record, including the factual statements in support of the defendants’ guilty pleas, Woessner, Moore, and Lallharry were issued purchase cards or P-cards, which were to be used to buy business related goods and services for Port Everglades. Instead, they utilized the P-cards to engage in schemes to illegally profit from the use of the cards. Zascavage operated a business, Z & Z, Inc., that provided goods and services to the Port. Woessner and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Woessner would direct Zascavage to purchase certain goods. Woessner would pay for the goods using his Port Everglades P-card, but the goods were not sent to Port Everglades. Instead, Woessner utilized the goods at his plumbing company. In addition, Moore and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for goods ordered by Moore utilizing his Port Everglades P-card. None of the goods would be sent to the Port.  Instead, Zascavage and Moore would split the illegally obtained funds. Further, John McGahee and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for services ordered by McGahee utilizing his Port Everglades P-card. The services ordered by McGahee would not be performed by Zascavage or his company. Zascavage and McGahee would split the illegally obtained funds.

     Lallharry’s family owned five separate companies. Lallharry would utilize his P-card to make direct payments to each of the family-owned companies for goods to allegedly be utilized by the Port. The goods were not delivered to the Port. The illegally obtained funds were utilized by Lallharry and his family to pay personal expenses, including approximately $101,790.85 to pay monthly expenses due the Chapter 13 trustee overseeing Lallharry’s bankruptcy.

     Lallharry was sentenced by U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas to 21 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $206,297.74 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60205). After his sentencing, Lallharry was remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service to begin serving his sentence of imprisonment. Woessner was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman to 21 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $153,685.88 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60202). Zascavage was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Ursula M. Ungaro to 12 months and 1 day in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $205,706.90 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60203). Moore was sentenced by Judge Ungaro to 3 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $34,768.86 in restitution (Case No. 19cr60206).

McGahee  is scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 18, 2019 (Case No. 19cr60204).

     U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI in connection with this matter. She also thanked the Broward County Sheriff's Office - Public Corruption Unit, Office of the Broward County Auditors, and Port Everglades Department - Port Director's Office for their assistance with the investigation. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey N. Kaplan.

     Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov

Four Port Everglades employees, William Woessner, 68, of Margate, Florida, David Moore, 43, of Pompano Beach, Florida, John McGahee, 43, of Davie, Florida, and Rajindra Lallharry, 60, of Coral Springs, Florida, and business owner Bryan Zascavage, 57, of Pompano, Florida, were each charged in an one-count Information with Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.         

            Ariana Fajardo Orshan, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and George L. Piro, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office, made the announcement.      

As set forth in the charging documents, Woessner, Moore, McGahee, and Lallharry were employees of Port Everglades (U.S. v. Moore, Case No. 19-60206-Ungaro; U.S. v. Woeesner, Case No. 19-60202-Altman; U.S. v. McGahee, Case No. 19-60204-Smith; and U.S. v. Lallharry, Case No. 19-60205-Dimitrouleas).  They were issued purchase cards or P-cards, which were to be used to buy goods and services for Port Everglades.  Instead, they utilized the P-cards to engage in schemes to illegally profit from the use of the cards.

            Zascavage operated a business, Z & Z, Inc., that provided goods and services to the Port (U.S. v. Zascavage, Case No. 19-60203-Ungaro).  Woessner and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Woessner would direct Zascavage to purchase certain goods.  Woessner would pay for the goods using his Port Everglades P-card, but the goods were not sent to Port Everglades.  Instead, Woessner utilized the goods at his plumbing company. 

            Moore and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for goods ordered by Moore utilizing his Port Everglades P-card.  None of the goods would be sent to the Port.  Zascavage and Moore would split the illegally obtained funds.

            McGahee and Zascavage engaged in a scheme wherein Zascavage would receive payments for services ordered by McGahee utilizing his Port Everglades P-card.   The services ordered by McGahee would not be performed by Zascavage or his company.   Zascavage and McGahee would split the illegally obtained funds.

            Lallharry’s family owned five separate companies.  Lallharry would utilize his P-card to make direct payments to each of the family-owned companies for goods to allegedly be utilized by the Port.  The goods were not delivered to the Port.  The illegally obtained funds were utilized by Lallharry and his family to pay personal expenses, including approximately $101,790.85 to pay monthly expenses due the Chapter 13 trustee overseeing Lallharry’s bankruptcy.

            Woessner, Moore, McGahee, Lallharry, and Zascavage each face a statutory maximum term of 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine of the greater of $250,000 or twice the amount of the gross gain or the gross loss.

An Information is only an accusation and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. 

            U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI in connection with this matter. She also thanked the Broward County Sheriff's Office - Public Corruption Unit, Office of the Broward County Auditors, and Port Everglades Department - Port Director's Office for their assistance with the investigation. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey N. Kaplan.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SIbyobMEsjzWtePFfTCcISlR0mHZ6CNVAEt6ljKkybk
  Last Updated: 2025-03-21 05:32:11 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
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL2Zsb3JpZGEtbWFuLXNlbnRlbmNlZC04NC1tb250aHMtZmVkZXJhbC1wcmlzb24tZGVmcmF1ZGluZy1wYXljaGVjay1wcm90ZWN0aW9uLXByb2dyYW0tMA
  Press Releases:
MIAMI – Luke Joselin, 36, of Coral Springs, Fla., was sentenced today to 84 months in federal prison for seeking nearly $2 million in fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

According to the evidence presented during a three-day trial in August 2022, Joselin and his co-conspirators, Judlex Jean Louis and Renaldo Harrison, flooded online loan processors with multiple fraudulent PPP loan applications. They used increasingly brazen tactics and sought more and more money as the scheme progressed.

Joselin first applied for and received a PPP loan of about $27,000 for his nonexistent sole proprietorship. He used a fake social security number and fake tax documents. He then coached Harrison and Jean Louis on how to do the same. Joselin and Jean Louis then applied for several more similarly sized PPP loans in the names of people whose identities they had stolen.

After obtaining these smaller-dollar PPP loans, Joselin, Harrison, and Jean Louis began submitting PPP loan applications worth around $180,000 for companies they controlled. These larger-dollar applications were typically for companies that had no real operations and also were supported by fake tax forms, including one form that Joselin, Harrison, and Jean Louis recycled in multiple applications, changing only the company name.

Following trial, a federal jury convicted Joselin of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, nine counts of wire fraud, and one count of aggravated identity theft. In addition to the prison term, a federal judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida also ordered Joselin to serve three years of supervised release and pay $812,857 in restitution and $396,477 in asset forfeiture.

Jean Louis and Harrison were charged separately and sentenced in the Southern District of Florida for their roles in the scheme.

Juan Antonio Gonzalez, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Brian Swain, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Secret Service’s (USSS) Miami Field Office; and Matthew D. Line, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigations (IRS-CI), Miami Office, made the announcement.

USSS and IRS-CI investigated the case, with assistance from the Coral Springs Police Department: Economic Crimes Unit; the Broward County State Attorney’s Office; and the Broward County Sheriff’s Office. Assistant United States Attorneys Kiran N. Bhat and Michael B. Homer prosecuted the case. Assistant United States Attorney Raemy Charest-Turken handled asset forfeiture.

On September 15, 2022, the Attorney General selected the Southern District of Florida’s U.S. Attorney’s Office to head one of three national COVID-19 Fraud Strike Force Teams. The Department of Justice established the Strike Force to enhance existing efforts to combat and prevent COVID-19 related financial fraud. For more information on the department’s response to the pandemic, please click here.

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 Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at: here.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.  

 

 

###

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL2JyaXRpc2gtY2l0aXplbnMtc2VudGVuY2VkLWRlYXRoLXNjdWJhLWRpdmVy
  Press Releases:
Miami, Florida – After more than 10 years on the run from authorities, Christopher Jones and Alison Gracey were sentenced in Miami federal court today for their role in the involuntary manslaughter death of a scuba diver in 2011.

The Honorable James Lawrence King, Senior United States District Court Judge, sentenced Jones to 51 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release.  Alison Gracey was sentenced to the time she already has served in custody – 18.5 months and a one-year term of supervised release.  Both will be deported from the United States at the conclusion of their prison terms.

Jones, 58, and Gracey, 55, owned the Key Largo Scuba Shack, LLC, a business that operated charter scuba diving trips in the Florida Keys from approximately June 2010 to December 2011.  They operated a 24.8-foot vessel named the M/V Get Wet as part of the business.  On December 18, 2011, the M/V Get Wet conducted a scuba trip with two crew members and six passengers.  During their first dive stop, sea conditions went from calm to choppy and the boat operator noticed that the bilge pump had failed.  As the divers reboarded the boat after the dive, the vessel began taking on water and rolling heavily.  The Get Wet ultimately capsized, and quickly sank about 30 feet to the ocean floor.  During its descent, a 300-pound bench that was not properly secured to the vessel’s deck detached.  Made of buoyant material, the bench sprang toward the ocean’s surface as the vessel itself sank.  The two large and heavy objects collided, pinning one of the passenger’s legs against the vessel’s windshield.  The passenger was trapped and drowned. 

Coast Guard experts later inspected the Get Wet and found serious deficiencies.  None of Get Wet’s bilge compartments including the engine spaces below the ship’s deck were watertight.  The aftmost bilge space was covered by a deck plate with holes for 30 bolts, 22 of which were missing and the remaining eight were loose.  The wood at the bottom of the 300-pound bench was rotten, and the screws intended to secure it to the deck were too small.  Beneath the deck, holes that allowed water to flow between the various bilge compartments compromised all the bulkheads.  A bilge pump had been disassembled and re-assembled incorrectly, causing it to fail.

The Coast Guard’s criminal investigation following the death of the diver revealed that Jones and Gracey knew before the tragedy that the vessel needed repairs.  Jones and Gracey continued operating the M/V Get Wet despite the following, all of which occurred prior to December 18, 2011: 

Following inspections, the United States Coast Guard had notified Jones and Gracey that the vessel needed repairs, including securing the center engine bench cover to the deck and making repairs below the deck to insure the water-tight integrity of bulkheads.

The dive operation’s employees repeatedly informed Jones that the Get Wet flooded dangerously.  The deck plates were barely attached, and the engine bench cover would rock back and forth. 

The Get Wet broke down repeatedly and equipment on the boat failed, including the pumps intended to de-water the vessel.

On one voyage with Gracey aboard as dive master, the Get Wet almost sank.

In the two months before the boat sank, a marine salvor towed the Get Wet to shore on three separate occasions. 

Shortly after the diver’s death, Jones and Gracey fled the United States and spent over 10 years moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, fighting extradition each time law enforcement found them.  They were finally arrested in 2021 in Spain, where Spanish authorities took them into custody based on an Interpol Red Notice.  In January 2022, Jones and Gracey were extradited to the United States to face federal charges in Southern District of Florida.

United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Juan Antonio Gonzalez and Zinnia James, Special Agent in Charge, Southeast Region, U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS), announced the results of the sentencing hearing today. 



The U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service investigated the case.  The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of International Affairs, provided invaluable assistance, pursuing the extradition of the defendants from multiple countries.  The U.S. Marshal’s Service also assisted by transporting the defendants from Spain to Florida.

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich worked on the investigation and initially prosecuted this case, which Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Watts-FitzGerald is now handling.  



Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov, under case number 12-cr-10013. 

###

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL2Zsb3JpZGEtcmV0dXJuLXByZXBhcmVyLXNlbnRlbmNlZC05Ny1tb250aHMtcHJpc29u
  Press Releases:
Miami, Florida – A Florida tax return preparer was sentenced in March 2022 to 97 months in prison for preparing false tax returns for his clients.

According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Fred Pickett Jr., of Belle Glade, owned and operated a tax return business he used to prepare false individual income tax returns. From 2013 to 2016, Pickett prepared tax returns for some of his clients claiming they owned fictitious businesses that lost tens of thousands of dollars each year. Pickett included these nonexistent companies, as well as other false deductions and tax credits, on his clients’ returns to generate refunds they were not entitled to receive. In December 2021, Pickett was convicted at trial of 22 counts of aiding and assisting the preparation of false tax returns.

In addition to the term of imprisonment, U.S. District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg ordered Pickett to serve one year of supervised release and pay approximately $169,639 in restitution to the IRS.

U.S. Attorney Juan Antonio Gonzalez and Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg of the Justice Department’s Tax Division made the announcement.

IRS-Criminal Investigation investigated the case.

Trial Attorneys Parker Tobin and Patrick Elwell of the Tax Division prosecuted the case. Southern District of Florida Assistant U.S. Attorney Marc Osborne indicted Pickett.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

###

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uZGluL3ByL2RlZmVuZGFudC1zZW50ZW5jZWQtZnJhdWQtc291dGgtYmVuZC1ob3VzaW5nLWF1dGhvcml0eQ
  Press Releases:
SOUTH BEND –Douglas Donley, 42 years old, of South Bend, Indiana, was sentenced by United States District Court Senior Judge Jon E. DeGuilio, after being found guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud and one count of bank fraud on November 1, 2023, following an eight-day jury trial, announced United States Attorney Clifford D. Johnson.

Donley was sentenced to 27 months in prison, 2 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $303,920 in restitution to the victim of the offense.

According to documents in the case, the Housing Authority of South Bend (HASB) provides housing opportunities and services to the South Bend community, managing more than 800 public housing residential units. From approximately 2015 through 2019, a number of employees at the HASB conspired with each other and with outside contractors to defraud the HASB. The fraud scheme involved the issuance of HASB payment checks to four outside contractors for contracting work that had not actually occurred. These contractors would then deposit the HASB payment checks, withdraw a portion of each check in cash, and hand-deliver the cash back to co-conspirators at the HASB’s main office. Donley was one of the four outside contractors who participated in the scheme. From October 2017 to March 2019, a total of 29 fraudulent HASB payment checks were issued to the payee “Doug Donley.” None of the checks corresponded to legitimate contracting work. The total value of checks issued to “Doug Donley” was $310,920, which was the amount of the lost benefit intended to maintain and fix the housing units in which HASB tenants lived.  

Donley is the first to be sentenced of the three individuals who were found guilty at trial.

This case was investigated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Inspector General, the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation Division, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Luke N. Reilander, Joel Gabrielse, and Jerome W. McKeever.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL3RyZWF0bWVudC1mYWNpbGl0eS13b3JrZXItcGxlYWRzLWd1aWx0eS1vYnN0cnVjdGlvbi1oZWFsdGhjYXJlLWZyYXVkLWludmVzdGlnYXRpb24
  Press Releases:
An employee of a Coral Springs addiction treatment center pled guilty to his role in obstructing an ongoing healthcare fraud investigation in Federal Court today.

Benjamin G. Greenberg, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Robert F. Lasky, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office; Kelly R. Jackson, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI); Jimmy Patronis, Florida Chief Financial Officer; Michael J. Waters, Special Agent in Charge, Amtrak Office of Inspector General (Amtrak-OIG); Isabel Colon, Regional Director, United States Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (DOL-EBSA); and Dennis Russo, Director of Operations, National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), made the announcement.

Jeffrey Adedoyin Williams, 30, of North Lauderdale, pled guilty to one count of obstruction of a criminal health care investigation, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1518(a), in connection with his employment at Deerfield Medical Center (DMC).  Williams is the fifth DMC employee to plead guilty.

According to court documents, Williams worked at DMC where he assisted with the collection of urine samples and provided administrative support at the facility. Although owned by a non-physician, DMC operated as a doctors’ group and provided medical services to various substance abuse treatment facilities located in Palm Beach and Broward Counties, including Reflections Treatment Center and New Life Treatment Center. At the direction of the center’s owner, Richard Botero, other employees would visit substance abuse treatment centers and prescribe controlled substances even though none of them were medically licensed to do so.  Licensed and unlicensed medical staff also ordered unnecessary bodily fluid testing, conducted patient visits and conducted patient evaluations.

As part of its federal healthcare fraud investigation, on February 16, 2017, members of the FBI-led Greater Palm Beach Health Care Fraud Task Force, served a grand jury subpoena on DMC seeking DMC records, patient files, and other information. On February 22, 2017, Botero delivered documents and information to the FBI and was questioned, but did not provide complete information or all of the documents sought by the subpoena. The following morning, Williams drove Botero to the Miami International Airport where Botero purchased a plane ticket and fled to Colombia. Another DMC employee, Katherine Gonzalez, also fled from Miami to Colombia later that day.

While in Colombia, Botero and Gonzalez maintained contact with Williams, directing him to remove computers, documents, and other items from DMC’s offices to prevent and delay the FBI from obtaining the items. After learning that Botero and Gonzalez had fled, agents obtained a search warrant for DMC.  Upon executing the warrant, agents found that the clinic had been cleared out. When questioned by the agents, Williams admitted that he had removed documents and equipment from DMC. Williams then took agents to the storage space where he had placed most of the items. During questioning, Williams neglected to inform the agents that he also had sold some of Gonzalez’s computer equipment that contained relevant information.

U.S. District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg accepted Williams’ guilty plea and set the matter for sentencing at 10:30 a.m. on April 17, 2018.  Williams faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $250,000 fine.

Williams is the fifteenth defendant convicted in the federal investigation into fraud involving substance abuse treatment in the Southern District of Florida. 

Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the Task Force. Agencies of the task force include the FBI, IRS-CI, the Florida Division of Investigative and Forensic Services, Amtrak OIG, DOL-EBSA, and NICB.  The cases are being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney A. Marie Villafaña.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-FL  1:19-cr-20178
Case Name:   USA v. Shapiro et al
  Press Releases:
On August 7, 2019, Sherman Oaks, California native, Robert Shapiro, 61, pled guilty to orchestrating and leading a massive investment fraud scheme, in which more than 7,000 victims suffered financial losses, as well as tax evasion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and 26 U.S.C. § 7201.  Shapiro is the former owner, president, and CEO of Woodbridge Group of Companies LLC (“Woodbridge”). Shapiro is scheduled for sentencing on October 15, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. before United States District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.  He faces a possible maximum sentence of 25 years in prison.

Ariana Fajardo Orshan, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, George L. Piro, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office, Michael J. De Palma, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI), and the Florida Office of Financial Regulation (OFR), made the announcement.

According to the indictment and court documents, Shapiro spearheaded and concealed an enormous Ponzi scheme through his business, Woodbridge.  Woodbridge employed approximately 130 people and had offices located throughout the United States, including in Boca Raton, Florida; Sherman Oaks, California; Colorado; Tennessee; and Connecticut.  The scheme ran from at least July 2012 to December 2017, when Woodbridge filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and defaulted on its obligations to investors.

Throughout the conspiracy, Woodbridge’s main business model was to solicit money from investors and, in exchange, issue investors promissory notes reflecting purported loans to Woodbridge that paid high monthly interest rates.  Woodbridge falsely claimed that these investments were tied to real property owned by third parties and that the third parties would be making the interest payments to Woodbridge and its investors; it was portrayed as an investment in a hard-money lending business.  Using high pressure sales tactics, Shapiro and his co-conspirators marketed and promoted these investments as low-risk, safe, simple, and conservative.  And at minimum, investors were made to believe that Woodbridge’s real estate dealings would generate the funds used to pay the return on their investments. 

Despite Woodbridge’s claims that these investments would be backed by properties owned by third-parties, in fact, to the extent that the properties existed, they were secretly owned by Shapiro.  Unbeknownst to investors, Shapiro created and controlled a network of more than 270 limited liability companies, which he used to acquire and sell the properties pitched to investors. 

Shapiro and his co-conspirators falsely claimed that Woodbridge was profitable and advertised high rates of return to investors.  However, Shapiro’s real estate portfolio failed to generate sufficient cash flow to satisfy the loan obligations and interest payments owed to investors.  To make up for the cash deficiency, Shapiro and his co-conspirators resorted to making Ponzi payments, i.e., hundreds of millions of dollars invested by new investors were used to pay “returns” to older, existing Woodbridge investors.  In some instances, Shapiro made these fraudulent “interest” payments even when the advertised investment properties were never acquired. 

The Woodbridge sales operation functioned as a “boiler room” and featured high-pressure sales tactics, deception, and manipulation.  Woodbridge promoted investments through telephone and in-person conversations, emails and website displays.  The scheme also involved misrepresentations to financial planners who helped Woodbridge to sell investments to potential investors. 

At least five states issued cease and desist orders against one or more of the Woodbridge entities based on their unregistered sale of securities. Shapiro and his co-conspirators nonetheless continued to sell Woodbridge investments to residents of those states, and engaged in deceptive conduct with respect to pending state regulatory actions against Woodbridge, in violation of the cease and desist orders.

At some point in 2017, Shapiro made the decision that Woodbridge would file for bankruptcy. Without disclosing to investors that Woodbridge was insolvent and on the verge of bankruptcy, Shapiro caused Woodbridge to collect additional money from investors through the filing of Woodbridge’s bankruptcy in December 2017.  Shapiro also admitted that, immediately prior to Woodbridge’s bankruptcy filing, he diverted millions of dollars in investor funds to several bank accounts opened in the name of his wife, J.S., which he used for new ventures. 

In total, Shapiro and his co-conspirators convinced more than approximately 9,000 investors to invest more than $1.29 billion to Woodbridge.  According to the Indictment, at least 2,600 of these investor victims invested their retirement savings, totaling approximately $400 million.  Of that, Shapiro misappropriated approximately $25 million to $95 million in investor money for himself and for the benefit of his immediate family members.  Shapiro spent millions on personal expenditures, such as $3.1 million for chartering private planes and travel, $6.7 million on a personal home, $2.6 million on home improvements, $1.8 million on personal income taxes, and over $672,000 on luxury automobiles.  Shapiro further admitted that he used bank accounts and credit cards opened in the name of his wife, J.S., to divert millions of dollars to his family.

Shapiro also pled guilty to tax evasion based upon his failure to pay more than $6 million in taxes due and owing to the IRS for calendar years 2000 through 2005.

As part of his plea, Shapiro and his wife agreed to forfeit certain assets, many of which were seized during a search executed by federal agents at his home in Sherman Oaks, California.  They include, but are not limited to: artworks by Pablo Picasso, Alberto Giacometti, Marc Chagall, and Pierre-August Renoir; a collection of 603 bottles of wine; a 1969 Mercury convertible; luxury jewelry, including a pair of 14-karat, white gold earrings with two black diamonds (61.81 carats), two grey diamonds (23.92 carats), two rose-cut diamonds, and 266 round diamonds; a platinum ring with an oval-cut ruby (10.91 carats), two trapezoid diamonds and 70 round-cut diamonds; a platinum ring with certified Colombia emerald-cut emerald (9.54 carats), trapezoid-cut diamonds, and 166 round-cut diamonds; and other items detailed in court documents.

The indictment also charged two co-defendants, Dane Roseman, a/k/a “Dayne Roseman,” and Ivan Acevedo, who are scheduled for trial in February 2020.  The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed parallel civil enforcement actions against Woodbridge, Shapiro, his wife, and co-defendants Acevedo and Roseman related to the Ponzi scheme. 

U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI, IRS-CI and OFR in this matter.  She thanked the SEC Miami Regional Office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California for their assistance.  This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Roger Cruz and Lisa H. Miller.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Nalina Sombuntham and Alison Lehr are responsible for the asset forfeiture component of the case.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

The owner of Woodbridge Group of Companies LLC and two former directors of investments have been charged criminally, in the Southern District of Florida, with orchestrating a massive investment fraud (Ponzi) scheme. 

Ariana Fajardo Orshan, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, George L. Piro, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office, Michael J. De Palma, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI), and Ronald L. Rubin, Commissioner, Florida Office of Financial Regulation (OFR), made the announcement.

Robert Shapiro, 61, of Sherman Oaks, California, Dane R. Roseman, a/k/a “Dayne Roseman,” 35, of Encino, California, and Ivan Acevedo, 42, of Chatsworth, California, were charged, by an indictment out of the Southern District of Florida that was unsealed today, with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and substantive mail fraud counts (Case No. 19-20178-CR-Altonaga/Goodman). Shapiro and Roseman were also charged with substantive wire fraud counts.  In addition, Shapiro was charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering and evasion of payment of federal income taxes.  Shapiro, Roseman and Acevedo were arrested today in California and had their initial appearances before a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Central District of California.  Shapiro was ordered to be detained in prison.  Roseman and Acevedo were ordered to appear in the Southern District Florida for their arraignment.  An arraignment date has not yet been scheduled.

According to the indictment, the owner of Woodbridge Group of Companies LLC (Woodbridge) Shapiro, and his former Directors of Investments, Acevedo and Roseman, orchestrated a massive Ponzi scheme through the business.  They ran their scheme through Woodbridge offices located throughout the United States, including Boca Raton, Florida and Sherman Oaks, California.  The conspiracy ran from July 2012 to December 2017, and involved material misrepresentations and material omissions to investors in the sale of Woodbridge investments.  Through telephone and in-person conversations, emails and website displays, Shapiro, Acevedo, Roseman and their co-conspirators promoted speculative and fraudulent securities to potential investors, targeting elderly investors who had Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs).  Shapiro hired sales agents to solicit potential investors from the Woodbridge “phone room” that Roseman and Acevedo managed.  The phone room functioned as a “boiler room,” and featured high-pressure sales tactics, deception, material misrepresentations, and investor manipulation. Through telemarketing, Woodbridge sales agents contacted potential investors located throughout the United States, and solicited, offered, and sold Woodbridge investments to them.  For the fraud-based investments, the defendants and their co-conspirators’ main business model was to solicit money from investors and, in exchange, issue investors promissory notes reflecting purported loans to Woodbridge that paid monthly interest and matured in twelve to eighteen months.  The defendants claimed that the investments were tied to real property owned by third-party property owners.

The indictment alleges that Shapiro, Acevedo, Roseman and their co-conspirators, made and caused others to make materially false and fraudulent statements to induce investors to provide money, such as, that Woodbridge investments were “low risk,” “simpler,” “safe” and “conservative;” that Woodbridge was profitable, but in reality new Woodbridge investor money was used to pay prior Woodbridge investors, and that third-party affiliates were property owners, when in fact Shapiro owned nearly all of the real property at the center of every investment product offered by Woodbridge. 

According to the indictment, Shapiro took approximately $35 million in investor money for his benefit, spending millions on personal expenditures, such as $3.1 million for chartering private planes and travel, $6.7 million on a personal home, $2.6 million on home improvements, $1.8 million on personal income taxes, $1.4 million to his ex-wife, and over $672,000 on luxury automobiles. 

The indictment further alleges that Shapiro caused most of the Woodbridge companies to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which caused investors to suffer substantial losses, as they were owed close to $1 billion in principal. 

At least 2,600 of these investor victims invested their retirement savings, totaling approximately $400 million.

According to information presented to the court, search warrants related to the indictment were executed today in California.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed parallel civil enforcement actions against Acevedo and Roseman related to the Ponzi scheme.

An indictment contains allegations.  Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI, IRS-CI and OFR in this matter.  She thanked the SEC Miami Regional Office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California for their assistance.  This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U. S. Attorneys Roger Cruz and Michael Sherwin.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PFc86pb3CLfOHala97tLeKfuNJ8wiQJ4NC2ovPzjomE
  Last Updated: 2025-03-21 03:19:31 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL2RvY3Rvci1zZW50ZW5jZWQtMTAteWVhcnMtcHJpc29uLXVubGF3ZnVsbHktZGlzcGVuc2luZy1jb250cm9sbGVkLXN1YnN0YW5jZXM
  Press Releases:
MIAMI – On April 25, a Weston doctor was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison, followed by three years of supervised release for running a pill mill type pain clinic.

The sentence comes after Osmin Morales, 72, of Weston, Florida, was convicted in January of conspiracy to unlawfully dispense and distribute controlled substances, and six counts of unlawfully dispensing controlled substances.

Under federal law, a physician is authorized to dispense (prescribe) controlled substances only when there is a legitimate medical basis for doing so, and the dispensing is consistent with accepted standards of professional medical practice.

Morales established a purported pain management clinic in which he issued prescriptions for controlled substances, principally oxycodone, morphine, and alprazolam (a tranquilizer commonly known by its brand name, Xanax) to most patients who sought them, without any appropriate medical basis. On many occasions, Morales issued prescriptions for controlled substances without examining the patients, often when he was not even present in the clinic. Morales also often pre-wrote many prescriptions for controlled substances and provided them to his office managers to hand out for cash payments of $250 to regular patients, with the purpose of unlawfully maximizing the clinic’s profits.

Some of Morales’s former patients testified during trial that they had often obtained prescriptions for oxycodone, morphine, and alprazolam from the office staff without seeing Morales. One patient’s mother testified that she had begged Morales to stop prescribing narcotics to her daughter, because she was becoming dysfunctional, but he continued prescribing them.

Medical records from Morales’s office described a number of medical examinations he had purportedly conducted of patients which described the patients’ symptoms and included Morales’s diagnoses for which he prescribed opioids to them. However, official records from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) confirmed that on many of the dates for those purported examinations, Morales had been out of the country. A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent testified that Florida’s prescription drug monitoring program showed that during the time of the indictment, Morales had prescribed opioids to more than a thousand patients, most often the maximum available doses. The DEA agent also researched numerous patients by name and found that nearly one-third of them had criminal records relating to drug dealing.

A pain medicine expert witness testified that none of the patient medical records he had examined contained any proper medical basis for the use of opioids, such as oxycodone or morphine, nor any basis for the use of benzodiazepines, such as alprazolam. The pain medicine expert also testified that the combination of opioids and benzodiazepines that Morales regularly prescribed, both of which are central nervous system depressants, created an enhanced risk of overdose and death.

A former member of the Morales’s office staff testified that she had collected approximately $4,000 per day, in cash, from patients to whom Morales provided controlled substance prescriptions. On most of those days, Morales had not been present at the clinic.

U.S. Attorney Markenzy Lapointe for the Southern District of Florida and Special Agent in Charge Deanne L. Reuter of the DEA, Miami Field Division, announced the sentence.

DEA Miami Field Division investigated the case with assistance from CBP. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Frank Tamen and Theodore Joseph O’Brien prosecuted it.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Emily Stone and Mitchell Hyman handled asset forfeiture.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov, under case number 22-cr-20255.

###

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-FL  9:18-cr-80236
Case Name:   USA v. Hartman
  Press Releases:
A Palm Beach County resident was sentenced to prison in connection with a $1.4 million dollar insurance fraud scheme.

Ariana Fajardo Orshan, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and Brian Swain, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Secret Service (USSS), Miami Field Office, made the announcement.

Alexander Hartman, of Palm Beach County, pled guilty, on January 24, 2019, to four counts of wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343 (18-80236-CR-Rosenberg).  On April 5, 2019, Hartman was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg to 33 months in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release.

According to the court record, including the agreed upon factual proffer, Hartman was the sole owner and operator of Alexander Insurance Consultants (“AIC”).  During the period of August 2014 through May 2017, Hartman, while operating as the insurance agent/broker of AIC, engaged in a fraudulent course of conduct aimed at enriching himself.  Hartman submitted to Premium Assignment Corporation (“PAC”), via wire, false documentation in support of premium finance loans.  Hartman falsely represented to PAC that Lloyds of London had issued insurance policies for companies, that these companies were using PAC’s financing services to finance their premium payments, and that AIC had brokered the contracts and was entitled to collect the premiums on behalf of the insured.  None of the named companies were clients of AIC or Hartman and three of the companies did not exist.

Hartman defrauded PAC of approximately $1.4 million when he submitted false insurance obligations and used non-existent clients for which he sought premium financing.

U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the USSS in this matter.  This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Robin Waugh.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lnWkvNgahvOStPyU0ODnyOZ2vI4UhUI6222-1P58KJU
  Last Updated: 2025-03-11 11:10:25 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 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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZGZsL3ByL2hvc3BpdGFsLWNoYWluLXdpbGwtcGF5LW92ZXItMjYwLW1pbGxpb24tcmVzb2x2ZS1mYWxzZS1iaWxsaW5nLWFuZC1raWNrYmFjay1hbGxlZ2F0aW9ucw
  Press Releases:
WASHINGTON – Health Management Associates, LLC (HMA), formerly a U.S. hospital chain headquartered in Naples, Florida, will pay over $260 million to resolve criminal charges and civil claims relating to a scheme to defraud the United States.  The government alleged that HMA knowingly billed government health care programs for inpatient services that should have been billed as outpatient or observation services, paid remuneration to physicians in return for patient referrals, and submitted inflated claims for emergency department facility fees. 

Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Assistant Attorney General Joseph H. Hunt of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, U.S. Attorney Maria Chapa Lopez for the Middle District of Florida, U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan for the Southern District of Florida, U.S. Attorney Charles E. Peeler for the Middle District of Georgia, U.S. Attorney John R. Lausch Jr. for the Northern District of Illinois, U.S. Attorney R. Andrew Murray for the Western District of North Carolina, U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, U.S. Attorney Sherri Lydon for the District of South Carolina, Assistant Director Robert Johnson of FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division, and Acting Assistant Inspector General for Investigations Derrick L. Jackson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) made the announcement.

HMA was acquired by Community Health Systems Inc. (CHS), a major U.S. hospital chain, in January 2014, after the alleged conduct at HMA occurred.  Since July 2014, HMA has been operating under a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) between CHS and the HHS-OIG.

As part of the criminal resolution, HMA entered into a three-year Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section in connection with a corporate-driven scheme to defraud Federal health care programs by unlawfully pressuring and inducing physicians serving HMA hospitals to increase the number of emergency department patient admissions without regard to whether the admissions were medically necessary.  The scheme involved HMA hospitals billing and obtaining reimbursement for higher-paying inpatient hospital care, as opposed to observation or outpatient care, from Federal health care programs, increasing HMA’s revenue.  Under the terms of the NPA, HMA will pay a $35 million monetary penalty.  Under the terms of the NPA, HMA and CHS, the current parent company, agreed to cooperate with the investigation, report allegations or evidence of violations of Federal health care offenses, and ensure that their compliance and ethics program satisfies the requirements of an amended and extended CIA between CHS and HHS-OIG.

In addition, an HMA subsidiary, Carlisle HMA, LLC, formerly doing business as Carlisle Regional Medical Center, has agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud.  The plea agreement remains subject to acceptance by the court.  Up until 2017, Carlisle HMA, LLC owned and operated Carlisle Regional Medical Center, an acute care hospital located in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.  Carlisle HMA, LLC was charged in a criminal information filed today in the District of Columbia with conspiracy to commit health care fraud.

According to admissions made in the resolution documents, HMA instituted a formal and aggressive plan to improperly increase overall emergency department inpatient admissions at all HMA hospitals, including at Carlisle Regional Medical Center.  As part of the plan, HMA set mandatory company-wide admission rate benchmarks for patients presenting to HMA hospital emergency departments – a range of 15 to 20 percent for all patients presenting to the emergency department, depending on the HMA hospital, and 50 percent for patients 65 and older (i.e. Medicare beneficiaries) - solely to increase HMA revenue.  HMA executives and HMA hospital administrators executed the scheme by pressuring, coercing and inducing physicians and medical directors to meet the mandatory admission rate benchmarks and admit patients who did not need impatient admission through a variety of means, including by threatening to fire physicians and medical directors if they did not increase the number of patients admitted.

“HMA pressured emergency room physicians, including through threats of termination, to increase the number of inpatient admissions from emergency departments—even when those admissions were medically unnecessary,”  said Assistant Attorney General Benczkowski.  “Hospital operators that improperly influence a physician’s medical decision-making in pursuit of profits do so at their own peril.  Where we find such conduct, the Criminal Division’s Health Care Fraud Unit, together with our Civil Division and law enforcement colleagues, will aggressively prosecute those responsible to the fullest extent of the law.”

HMA also agreed to pay $216 million as part of a related civil settlement. The civil settlement resolves HMA’s liability for submitting false claims between 2008 and 2012 as part of its corporate-wide scheme to increase inpatient admissions of Medicare, Medicaid and the Department of Defense’s (DOD) TRICARE program beneficiaries over the age of 65.  The government alleged that the inpatient admission of these beneficiaries was not medically necessary, and that the care needed by, and provided to, these beneficiaries should have been provided in a less costly outpatient or observation setting.  HMA agreed to pay $62.5 million to resolve these allegations with $61,839,718 being paid to the United States and $706,084 being paid to participating States.

The civil settlement also resolves allegations that during the period from 2003 through 2011, two HMA hospitals in Florida, Charlotte Regional Medical Center and Peace River Medical Center, billed federal health care programs for services referred by physicians to whom HMA provided remuneration in return for patient referrals.  To induce patient referrals, Charlotte Regional provided a local physician group with free office space and staff, as well as direct payments, which purportedly covered overhead and administrative costs incurred by the group for its management of a Charlotte Regional physician.  HMA also provided another local physician with free rent and upgrades to his office space.  HMA agreed to pay $93.5 million to resolve these civil allegations, with the United States receiving $87.96 million, and the State of Florida receiving $5.54 million.

Additional allegations that are resolved by the civil settlement are that between 2009 and 2012, two former HMA hospitals, Lancaster Regional Medical Center and Heart of Lancaster Medical Center in Pennsylvania, billed federal health care programs for services referred by physicians with whom the facilities had improper financial relationships.  These relationships stemmed from HMA’s excessive payments to (1) a large physician group in return for two businesses owned by the group and for services allegedly performed by the group, and (2) a local surgeon that exceeded the value of the services provided.  The government alleged that these arrangements were structured in this manner to disguise payments intended to induce the referral of patients.  HMA agreed to pay $55 million to the United States to resolve these civil allegations.

Finally, the civil settlement will also resolve claims that Crossgates Hospital, an HMA facility in Brandon, Mississippi, leased space to a local physician from Jan. 15, 2005 through Jan. 14, 2007, but required the physician to pay rent for only half of the space he was actually occupying, in return for patient referrals to Crossgates Hospital.  HMA agreed to pay $425,000 to the United States to resolve these civil allegations.

Federal law, including the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law, prohibits hospitals from providing financial inducements to physicians for referrals.  These provisions are designed to ensure that physician decision-making is not compromised by improper financial incentives.

“Billing for unnecessary hospital stays wastes federal dollars,” said Assistant Attorney General Hunt.  “In addition, offering financial incentives to physicians in return for patient referrals undermines the integrity of our health care system.  Patients deserve the unfettered, independent judgment of their health care professionals.”

“The payment of kickbacks in exchange for medical referrals undermines the integrity of our healthcare system,” said U.S. Attorney Chapa Lopez. “Today’s resolution should remind healthcare providers of their duty to comply with the law, and the heavy price to be paid for corrupt practices committed by their executives. Our Civil Division will continue to invest itself in the pursuit of health care providers who violate the law for personal gain.” 

“Our office will continue to enforce prohibitions on improper financial relationships between health care providers and their referral sources, as these relationships can serve to corrupt physician judgment about a patient’s true health needs,” said U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan.  “We will devote all necessary resources to ensure that those rendering medical care do so for the sole benefit of the patient and in compliance with the law.”

“By manipulating patient status, HMA increased Medicare costs and pocketed taxpayer funds to which it was not entitled,” said U.S. Attorney Peeler.  “Our Medicare patients and our taxpayers deserve better, and I am proud that justice has been done. Nonetheless, we will continue to pursue those hospitals in our district that would seek to take advantage of the Medicare Program.”

“Government healthcare programs are vital to the welfare of our communities,” said U.S. Attorney Murray for the Western District of North Carolina, where two HMA hospitals were located.  “We will aggressively pursue providers that fraudulently inflate charges to government programs and divert scarce resources from those in need into their own pockets.”

“Our resolution of this matter and the significant recovery we have obtained show once again that no matter how complex the scheme is, we will find it, stop it, and punish it,” said U.S. Attorney McSwain.  “HMA covered up kickbacks for patient referrals with sham joint venture agreements, lease payments, and management agreements. These sorts of improper physician inducements are a form of ‘pay to play’ business practices that will not be tolerated.  Healthcare institutions cannot pad their bottom line at the expense of the American taxpayers.  And most importantly, this conduct must be rooted out because it gets in the way of providing top-notch patient care to American citizens.”

“It is critically important to all of us that the patients’ interest drive the physicians’ decisions on care,” said U.S. Attorney Lydon.  “Unnecessary hospital admissions not only drive up costs but can cause damage to patients and cannot be tolerated.” 

The government further alleged that from September 2009 through December 2011, certain HMA hospitals submitted claims to Medicare and Medicaid seeking reimbursement for falsely inflated emergency department facility charges.  HMA agreed to pay $12 million to resolve these civil allegations, with $11.028 million being paid to the United States and $972,000 being paid to participating States.

“Compliance with government healthcare rules requires that patients only receive treatment they actually need,” said HHS-OIG Acting Assistant Inspector General for Investigations Jackson.  “Then government programs must be billed just for those services.  No more, no less.  Let there be no doubt, we will continue to protect federal healthcare programs and beneficiaries by holding provider organizations fully accountable.”    

“This settlement is a result of the FBI’s hard work and dedication to hold companies accountable for their role in healthcare fraud and abuse,” said FBI Assistant Director Johnson.  “The FBI will not stand by when there are allegations that a company operates a corporate wide scheme to increase their financial gain at the expense of the U.S. government. We appreciate those who come forward with allegations of criminal misconduct and recognize the importance of the public’s assistance in our work.”

The allegations resolved by the settlement were originally brought in eight lawsuits filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private parties to sue on behalf of the government for false claims and to receive a share of any recovery.  The eight qui tam cases, which were filed in various districts and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia as part of a multi-district litigation presided over by the Honorable Reggie B. Walton, are captioned: United States ex rel. Brummer v. HMA, Inc., 3-09-cv-135 (CDL) (M.D. Ga.); United States ex rel. Williams v. HMA, Inc., 3:09-cv-130 (M.D. Ga.); United States ex rel. Plantz v. HMA, Inc., 13-CV-1212 (N.D. Ill.); United States ex rel. Miller v. HMA, Inc., 10-3007 (E.D. Pa.); United States ex rel. Mason & Folstad v. HMA, Inc., 3:10-CV-472-GCM (W.D.N.C.); United States ex rel. Nurkin v. HMA, Inc., 2:11-cv-14-FtM-29DNF (M.D. Fla.); United States ex rel. Jacqueline Meyer & Cowling v. HMA, Inc., 0:11-cv-01713-JFA (D.S.C.); and United States ex rel. Paul Meyer v. HMA, Inc., 11-62445 cv-Williams (S.D. Fla.).

The whistleblower in United States ex rel. Nurkin will receive approximately $15 million as a share of the recovery, and the whistleblowers in United States ex rel. Miller will receive approximately $12.4 million as their share of the recovery.  The whistleblower shares to be awarded in the remaining cases have not yet been determined.

These matters were investigated by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch; the Health Care Fraud Unit of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section; the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for the Middle District of Florida, Southern District of Florida, Middle District of Georgia, Northern District of Illinois, Western District of North Carolina, Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the District of South Carolina, the FBI Healthcare Fraud Unit Major Provider Response Team, HHS-OIG and Defense Health Agency Program Integrity.  On behalf of the States, an investigative/settlement team with members from North Carolina, Massachusetts, Virginia, Washington, and Florida assisted with the investigation and resolution of these matters. 

The government’s resolution of this matter illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud and marks another achievement for the Health Care Fraud and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, a partnership between the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services to focus efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation.  One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, can be reported to the Department of Health and Human Services at 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477).

Except for those facts admitted to in the guilty plea and in the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

If you believe you are a victim of this offense, please call (888) 549-3945.

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