Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-FL  0:19-cr-60007
Case Name:   USA v. Chen
  Press Releases:
A former Miramar Police Department employee was sentenced to prison today for participating in a fraud scheme.

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.

Brian M. Chen, 39, of Weston, Florida, a former Information Technology Analyst with the police department for the city of Miramar, Florida, was sentenced today to 37 months in prison by U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas, after previously pleading guilty to a three-count Information charging him in each count with mail fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341.  Chen was order to pay $343,797.02 in restitution to the City of Miramar.   After sentencing, Chen was remanded to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

According to the court record, including stipulated statements of fact, the State of Florida had a contract with Verizon Wireless for a cellular telephone service plan, which included the acquisition by state and local agencies of cellular telephones and devices.  The contract allowed state and local agencies in Florida to obtain iPhones and Android cellular telephones for free or at a discounted rate, provided that the cellular telephones were obtained for official use and that Verizon Wireless was utilized as the service provider.  In his position as Information Technology Analyst, Chen was the administrator of the plan and was in charge of overseeing the purchase and use of cellular telephones and service.

Beginning in or about 2013, Chen, through his position as Information Technology Analyst with the Miramar Police Department, ordered cellular telephones online through the Verizon “My Business” portal for free or at a substantial discount with the intent to unlawfully resell those cellular telephones. Upon ordering the cellular telephones, Chen caused Verizon to initiate a monthly service plan for each line of service.   Chen attempted to suspend the monthly service plan for each cellular telephone in order to conceal his illegal acquisition of them.

Chen offered the illegally obtained telephones for sale individually through an online auction and resale provider and also sold the illegally obtained telephones in bulk to persons in the business of reselling cellular telephones.   Due to the volume of telephones illegally purchased and the associated lines of service plans, some service plans could not be continuously suspended. Miramar Police Department incurred a loss of approximately $350,000 by paying for service plans for telephones purchased by Chen pursuant to the fraudulent scheme.   From in or about 2013, through on or about November 29, 2018, Chen illegally profited, from the scheme, by receiving approximately $800,000 through the sale of over a thousand illegally obtained cellular telephones.

U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI in connection with this matter.  She thanked the Miramar Police Department for their assistance.  The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jeffrey N. Kaplan and Paul F. Schwartz.

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.

A former Miramar Police Department employee pled guilty today to participating in a fraud scheme.

Ariana Fajardo Orshan, United States 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.

Brian M. Chen, 39, of Weston, Florida, a former Information Technology Analyst with the police department for the city of Miramar, Florida, pled guilty today before U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas to an Information charging him with three counts of mail fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341 (19-CR-60007).  Judge Dimitrouleas is scheduled to sentence the defendant on May 2, 2019, at 1:15 p.m. in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  Chen faces a statutory maximum term of 60 years’ imprisonment and a fine of the greater of $750,000 or twice the amount of the gross gain or the gross loss.

According to the court record, including stipulated statements of fact, the State of Florida had a contract with Verizon Wireless for a cellular telephone service plan, which included the acquisition by state and local agencies of cellular telephones and devices.  The contract allowed state and local agencies in Florida to obtain iPhones and Android cellular telephones for free or at a discounted rate, provided that the cellular telephones were obtained for official use and that Verizon Wireless was utilized as the service provider.  In his position as Information Technology Analyst, Chen was the administrator of the plan and was in charge of overseeing the purchase and use of cellular telephones and service.

Beginning in or about 2013, Chen, through his position as Information Technology Analyst with the Miramar P.D., ordered cellular telephones online through the Verizon “My Business” portal for free or at a substantial discount with the intent to unlawfully resell those cellular telephones. Upon ordering the cellular telephones, Chen caused Verizon to initiate a monthly service plan for each line of service.  Chen attempted to suspend the monthly service plan for each cellular telephone in order to conceal his illegal acquisition of them.

Chen offered the illegally obtained telephones for sale individually through an online auction and resale provider and also sold the illegally obtained telephones in bulk to persons in the business of reselling cellular telephones.   Due to the volume of telephones illegally purchased and the associated lines of service plans, some service plans could not be continuously suspended. Miramar P.D. incurred a loss of approximately $350,000 by paying for service plans for telephones purchased by Chen pursuant to the fraudulent scheme.   From in or about 2013, through on or about November 29, 2018, Chen illegally profited, from the scheme, by receiving approximately $800,000 through the sale of over a thousand illegally obtained cellular telephones.

U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI in connection with this matter.  She thanked the Miramar Police Department for their assistance.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jeffrey N. Kaplan and Paul F. Schwartz.

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/16nZB106iOzbUV-0CYxgBZFNYnerLzMHzkvuF16hmoDQ
  Last Updated: 2024-04-13 04:04:04 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 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
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