Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-FL  1:18-cr-20313
Case Name:   USA v. Starks
  Press Releases:
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, and Kelly R. Jackson, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI), announced federal charges against Dante Starks arising from his role in the Opa Locka municipal corruption scheme.

“The resulting harm from corruption, extortion and bribery denies law abiding citizens the right to expect honest services from government officials overseeing their business-related issues,” stated U.S. Attorney Benjamin Greenberg.  “Political power and influence must not be bought or sold and those who believe otherwise will be prosecuted by this office with the assistance of our dedicated law enforcement partners.”

“For the public to have confidence in their government, they must be certain that officials - either elected or appointed - will not use their position for personal gain,” said Robert F. Lasky, Special Agent in Charge, FBI Miami.  “Public corruption remains a top priority for the FBI.  We encourage anyone who may have information about corruption to come forward and report it. This information is vital to our work.”

“Today's announcement demonstrates our collective efforts to enforce the law and ensure public trust,” stated Kelly R. Jackson, Special Agent in Charge, IRS-CI. “The tax laws apply to everyone, and each of us is responsible for filing correct and accurate tax returns. Choosing not to file a tax return is a crime; and IRS Criminal Investigation will continue to investigate individuals who ignore their tax responsibilities.”

Starks, 55 of Miami-Dade County, was charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951 (a); conspiracy to commit Federal programs bribery, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371; aiding and abetting Federal programs bribery, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 666(a)(1)(B) and 2; and failure to file income tax returns (for tax years 2014, 2015 and 2016), in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7203.  If convicted, Starks faces a maximum statutory sentence of 20 years in prison for the Hobbs Act extortion conspiracy, 5 years in prison for the bribery conspiracy, 10 years in prison for each count of aiding and abetting bribery, and 1 year in prison on each of the failure to file charges.  The case against Starks is assigned to U.S. District Judge Jose E. Martinez (Case No. 18-20313-CR).

Starks is charged with conspiring with former Opa Locka City Commissioner Luis Santiago, former Opa Locka City Manager David Chiverton, and former Opa Locka Assistant Public Works Director Gregory Harris, to use the official positions and authority that Santiago, Chiverton, and Harris had with the City of Opa Locka to solicit, demand, and obtain personal payments from businesses and individuals in exchange for taking official actions, and for directing, pressuring, and advising other city employees to take official actions, to assist and benefit those businesses and individuals in their official dealings with the City of Opa Locka.

As the Indictment alleges, although Starks was not an official or employee of the City of Opa Locka, he was closely associated with and had great influence over Santiago.  Starks also had and exercised significant influence over numerous other city officials and employees, including Chiverton and Harris, and he regularly used that significant influence to pressure and advise city officials and employees to take official actions on matters relating to occupational licenses, code enforcement citations and fines, liens, water service and billing, zoning, and city contracting.

Working together, Santiago and Starks solicited and obtained illegal payments from businesses and individuals in Opa Locka.  In exchange for these illegal personal payments,  Santiago, with the assistance of Starks, would take official actions on behalf of the paying businesses and individuals, and would also work with Starks to direct, pressure, and advise Chiverton, Harris, and other City of Opa Locka employees to take official actions on behalf of those businesses and individuals.  These official actions included, but were not limited to, issuing occupational licenses; waiving, removing, and settling code enforcement matters and liens; initiating, restoring and continuing water service; reducing and eliminating water service billing balances; assisting with zoning issues; and assisting with obtaining city contracts.

Starks also is charged with participating in a conspiracy with Santiago and others to receive bribes in exchange for ensuring that a particular company received a city contract.   According to the Indictment, in April 2015, the City of Opa Locka published a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) seeking bids from licensed and experienced towing firms seeking multi-year non-exclusive contracts to provide Opa Locka with citywide towing services.  Shortly after this RFP was published, then-City Commissioner Santiago and Starks met with Raul Sosa Sr. (“Sosa Sr.”), who agreed to pay them a $10,000 bribe to ensure that the company Sosa Sr. was associated with, referred to as the “Towing Company,” was selected as one of the companies receiving a city towing contract.During this meeting, Sosa Sr. paid the first installment of the bribe and designated his son, Raul Sosa Jr. (“Sosa Jr.”), the Towing Company’s manager, as the person who would work with Santiago and Starks to carry out the illegal arrangement.

The Indictment further alleges that Starks arranged for Opa Locka’s Purchasing Director to assemble and prepare the Towing Company’s bid package.  After this bid was submitted, Starks violated the city’s purchasing Cone of Silence rule by contacting a member of the city’s committee evaluating the towing bids and directing that individual to rank the Towing Company as the number one company.  While this process was ongoing, Sosa Jr. made additional partial payments of the agreed $10,000 bribe.  To complete the illegal arrangement, at the June 24, 2015, City Commission meeting, Santiago used his position as a City Commissioner to vote in favor of the resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into towing contracts with the Towing Company and three other companies.  The final installment of the bribe was paid after the City Commission voted to award a contract to the Towing Company.

In addition, Starks was charged in the Indictment with failing to file federal income tax returns for tax years 2014, 2015 and 2016. 

Related cases arising from the Opa Locka corruption investigation are the following:

Santiago previously pled guilty to conspiring to commit Federal programs bribery and Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right (Case No. 16-20971-CR).  Santiago was sentenced to 51 months in prison. 

Chiverton previously pled guilty to conspiring to commit Federal programs bribery and Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right (Case No. 16-20596-CR).  Chiverton was sentenced to 38 months in prison.

Harris previously pled guilty to conspiring to commit Federal programs bribery and Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right (Case No. 16-20589-CR-BLOOM).  Harris was the first defendant to plead guilty to charges arising from this investigation, and received a sentence of probation. 

Sosa Sr. and Sosa Jr. have been charged by Indictment with conspiracy to commit Federal programs bribery and substantive counts of Federal programs bribery (Case No. 18-20256-CR).  Their case is pending before U.S. District Judge Jose E. Martinez. 

Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the FBI Miami Area Corruption Task Force and IRS-CI in this matter.  Mr. Greenberg thanked the Miami-Dade Police Department and Hialeah Police Department for their assistance.   This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Edward N. Stamm and Maurice Johnson.

An Indictment merely contains allegations and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt 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 on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov

 

 

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ckgYyE-QCYu2xSUoPvFAYpVAhxlzoOFV4XVEjp_lq30
  Last Updated: 2024-04-09 10:28:54 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
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