Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that GLENN BLICHT, the former president of a labor union (the “Union”), was sentenced to 24 months in prison for violating the Taft-Hartley Act by demanding and accepting approximately $150,000 in bribe payments from an employer (the “Employer”). In exchange for these bribes, BLICHT did not represent Union members’ interests. BLICHT previously pled guilty before United States District Judge Analisa Torres, who also imposed today’s sentence.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As the president of a labor union, Glenn Blicht’s duty was to fight for his union members. Instead, he repeatedly sold them out in exchange for cash bribes, which he spent on luxury items. For this betrayal, he has been sentenced to federal prison.”
According to the allegations in the Indictment to which BLICHT pled guilty, public court filings, and statements made in court:
From 2009 through 2019, BLICHT served as an officer of the Union, including as its president for many years. In that role, BLICHT had a duty to act in the best interests of the Union and its members, including by avoiding personal financial conflicts of interest with the Union. Nevertheless, BLICHT demanded and received cash payments from the Employer, which employed a number of members of the Union. For instance, on July 26, 2019, BLICHT received a $10,000 cash bribe from an official of the Employer at a restaurant in New York, New York; BLICHT was arrested outside this restaurant, in possession of the $10,000 bribe.
In exchange for these bribes, BLICHT repeatedly declined to represent Union members’ interests, such as declining to pursue arbitration claims on their behalf. In total, BLICHT received approximately $150,000 in bribes from the Employer over about 10 years.
BLICHT used the monies he received to purchase luxury items, such as designer watches, custom clothing, tickets to sporting events, meals at expensive restaurants, and cigars.
* * *
In addition to his prison term, BLICHT, 57, of Wilton, Connecticut, was ordered to serve two years of supervised release. BLICHT was also ordered to forfeit $150,000 in criminal proceeds. Under the terms of his plea agreement, BLICHT has also agreed to a 13-year ban, which generally prohibits him from, among other things, being employed by a labor union or employee benefit plan, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 504 and 1111.
Mr. Berman praised the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General and Employee Benefits Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for their outstanding work on the investigation. Mr. Berman also thanked the Department of Justice’s Labor-Management Racketeering Unit of the Organized Crime and Gang Section for its assistance in this case.
This matter is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Assistant United States Attorney Michael D. Neff is in charge of the prosecution.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that GLENN BLICHT, the former president of a labor union (the “Union”), pled guilty today to violating the Taft-Hartley Act by demanding and accepting approximately $150,000 in bribe payments from an employer (the “Employer”). In exchange for these bribes, BLICHT did not represent Union members’ interests. BLICHT pled guilty before United States District Judge Analisa Torres, to whom BLICHT’s case is assigned.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As the president of a labor union, Glenn Blicht’s duty was to fight for his union members. Instead, for many years, he demanded and accepted bribes – and in return, he sold out his union members. Our Office is committed to prosecuting those who abuse positions of trust for their own gain.”
According to the allegations in the Indictment to which BLICHT pled guilty, public court filings, and statements made in court:
From 2009 through the present, BLICHT served as an officer of the Union, including as its president for many years. In that role, BLICHT had a duty to act in the best interests of the Union and its members, including by avoiding personal financial conflicts of interest with the Union. Nevertheless, BLICHT demanded and received cash payments from the Employer, which employed a number of members of the Union. In exchange for these bribes, BLICHT declined to file arbitration claims on behalf of Union members. In total, BLICHT received approximately $150,000 in bribes from the Employer over approximately 10 years.
In communications, a number of which were recorded, BLICHT repeatedly referred to the bribe payments as “tickets,” in which each ticket equaled a $1,000 bribe. BLICHT instructed an official of the Employer (the “Official”) as to the number of “tickets” to pay BLICHT each time. Indeed, during the past year, the Official met with BLICHT several times and paid him bribes on approximately four occasions, at the direction of law enforcement. Each of these meetings was recorded. For instance, on July 26, 2019, BLICHT received a $10,000 cash bribe from the Official at a restaurant in New York, New York; BLICHT was arrested outside this restaurant, in possession of the $10,000 bribe.
* * *
BLICHT, 57, of Wilton, Connecticut, pled guilty to one count of demanding or receiving prohibited payments as a labor union official, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. Under the terms of his plea agreement, BLICHT has agreed to a 13-year ban, which generally prohibits him from, among other things, being employed by a labor union or employee benefit plan, pursuant to Title 29, United States Code, Sections 504 and 1111. BLICHT has also agreed to forfeit $150,000 and to pay restitution. The statutory maximum sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.
Sentencing before Judge Torres is scheduled for February 12, 2020, at 3:00 p.m.
Mr. Berman praised the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General and Employee Benefits Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation Division, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for their outstanding work on the investigation. Mr. Berman also thanked the Department of Justice’s Labor-Management Racketeering Unit of the Organized Crime and Gang Section for their assistance in this case.
This matter is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Assistant United States Attorney Michael D. Neff is in charge of the prosecution.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Michael C. Mikulka, Special Agent-in-Charge, New York Region, U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General (“DOL-OIG”), Darren Cohen, New York Regional Director, U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration (“DOL-EBSA”), and William F. Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced that GLENN BLICHT, who currently serves as the president of a labor union (the “Union”), was arrested today for honest services fraud and a violation of the Taft-Hartley Act for demanding and accepting at least $150,000 in bribe payments from an employer (the “Employer”). BLICHT will be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, Glenn Blicht abused his position as the president of a labor union to line his own pockets. He allegedly demanded and received bribes and, in return, he did not fight for his union members – the hard-working individuals whose interests he was duty-bound to protect. Together with our law enforcement partners, this Office is committed to rooting out corruption in union leadership.”
DOL-OIG New York Region Special Agent-in-Charge Michael C. Mikulka said: “Labor racketeering investigations that involve bribing union officials are an important part of the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General’s mission. We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to vigorously investigate all types of labor racketeering allegations.”
FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. said: “Criminals are asked to do things all the time for money, but sometimes they’re asked not to do things for money. Glenn Blicht was supposed to be representing the best interests of hundreds of people who had faith in the fact that he was helping them, but he allegedly decided to help himself to bribes the other side was offering him. It’s often hard to see what’s actually going on just under the surface, but as the FBI, we have the ability to dig into criminal behavior and expose fraudsters for what they truly are.”
According to the allegations contained in the Complaint against GLENN BLICHT[1]:
From 2009 through the present, BLICHT served as an officer of the Union, including as its president for many years. In that role, BLICHT had a duty to act in the best interests of the Union and its members, including by avoiding personal financial conflicts of interest with the Union. Nevertheless, BLICHT demanded and received cash payments from the Employer, which employed a number of members of the Union. In exchange for these bribes, BLICHT declined to file arbitration claims on behalf of Union members. In total, BLICHT received at least approximately $150,000 in bribes from the Employer over approximately 10 years.
In communications, a number of which were recorded, BLICHT repeatedly referred to the bribe payments as “tickets,” in which each ticket equaled a $1,000 bribe. BLICHT instructed an official of the Employer (the “Official”) as to the number of “tickets” to pay BLICHT each time. Indeed, during the past year, the Official met with BLICHT several times and paid him bribes on approximately three occasions, at the direction of law enforcement. Each of these meetings was recorded.
* * *
BLICHT, 57, of Wilton, Connecticut, is charged with one count of honest services fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and one count of demanding or receiving prohibited payments as a labor union official, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. The statutory maximum sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman praised the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation Division, DOL-OIG, IRS-CI, FBI, and DOL-EBSA for their outstanding work on the investigation. He added that the investigation is continuing.
This matter is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Michael D. Neff and Andrew D. Beaty are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint and the description of the Complaint set forth below constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
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 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
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Michael C. Mikulka, Special Agent-in-Charge, New York Region, U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General (“DOL-OIG”), Darren Cohen, New York Regional Director, U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration (“DOL-EBSA”), and William F. Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced that GLENN BLICHT, who currently serves as the president of a labor union (the “Union”), was arrested today for honest services fraud and a violation of the Taft-Hartley Act for demanding and accepting at least $150,000 in bribe payments from an employer (the “Employer”). BLICHT will be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, Glenn Blicht abused his position as the president of a labor union to line his own pockets. He allegedly demanded and received bribes and, in return, he did not fight for his union members – the hard-working individuals whose interests he was duty-bound to protect. Together with our law enforcement partners, this Office is committed to rooting out corruption in union leadership.”
DOL-OIG New York Region Special Agent-in-Charge Michael C. Mikulka said: “Labor racketeering investigations that involve bribing union officials are an important part of the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General’s mission. We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to vigorously investigate all types of labor racketeering allegations.”
FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. said: “Criminals are asked to do things all the time for money, but sometimes they’re asked not to do things for money. Glenn Blicht was supposed to be representing the best interests of hundreds of people who had faith in the fact that he was helping them, but he allegedly decided to help himself to bribes the other side was offering him. It’s often hard to see what’s actually going on just under the surface, but as the FBI, we have the ability to dig into criminal behavior and expose fraudsters for what they truly are.”
According to the allegations contained in the Complaint against GLENN BLICHT[1]:
From 2009 through the present, BLICHT served as an officer of the Union, including as its president for many years. In that role, BLICHT had a duty to act in the best interests of the Union and its members, including by avoiding personal financial conflicts of interest with the Union. Nevertheless, BLICHT demanded and received cash payments from the Employer, which employed a number of members of the Union. In exchange for these bribes, BLICHT declined to file arbitration claims on behalf of Union members. In total, BLICHT received at least approximately $150,000 in bribes from the Employer over approximately 10 years.
In communications, a number of which were recorded, BLICHT repeatedly referred to the bribe payments as “tickets,” in which each ticket equaled a $1,000 bribe. BLICHT instructed an official of the Employer (the “Official”) as to the number of “tickets” to pay BLICHT each time. Indeed, during the past year, the Official met with BLICHT several times and paid him bribes on approximately three occasions, at the direction of law enforcement. Each of these meetings was recorded.
* * *
BLICHT, 57, of Wilton, Connecticut, is charged with one count of honest services fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and one count of demanding or receiving prohibited payments as a labor union official, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. The statutory maximum sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman praised the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation Division, DOL-OIG, IRS-CI, FBI, and DOL-EBSA for their outstanding work on the investigation. He added that the investigation is continuing.
This matter is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Michael D. Neff and Andrew D. Beaty are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint and the description of the Complaint set forth below constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
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 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