Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Douglas Shoemaker, the Special Agent in Charge of the New York Regional Investigations Office of the United States Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General (“DOT-OIG”), and Carolyn Pokorny, Metropolitan Transportation Authority Inspector General for the State of New York (“MTA-OIG”), announced that PARESH PATEL, a former MTA manager, pled guilty today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang to obstructing a federal investigation into bid rigging and fraud in connection with contracts awarded by the MTA for Superstorm Sandy-related subway repairs. PATEL, who set up a private company that participated in a bid for a project that he would oversee at the MTA, took numerous steps upon learning that his conduct was being investigated, including deleting an email account, asking others to destroy evidence, and encouraging others to lie to authorities to obstruct the investigation. PATEL previously surrendered to federal authorities on February 18, 2020.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “In the wake of Superstorm Sandy, Paresh Patel set up a company so that he and his family could profit from the work that was being done to repair our subways. When Patel learned he was under investigation, he destroyed evidence and asked others to lie to federal and local investigators. Efforts to obstruct investigations into corruption at the MTA undermine the public’s faith in the nation’s largest public transportation system and threaten the ability of our Government to ensure that justice is done.”
DOT-OIG Special Agent in Charge Douglas Shoemaker said: “The devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy is only exacerbated by the unscrupulous actions of Mr. Patel, who was entrusted with aiding in the restoration of the New York region’s transit infrastructure. Working with our law enforcement and prosecutorial partners, we will continue to protect the taxpayers’ investment in our nation’s infrastructure and pursue those who participate in fraud schemes that undermine DOT-funded programs and projects, and the public trust.”
MTA Inspector General Carolyn Pokorny said: “It is simply unacceptable for an MTA employee to obstruct any investigation - let alone a criminal investigation. We are proud that our initial probe has resulted in derailing this scheme to defraud riders, taxpayers, and other stakeholders of our great transportation system, and thankful to our law enforcement partners who worked with us to leave no doubt that obstructing a federal investigation is a crime.”
According to the allegations made in the Information to which the defendant pled guilty, as well as the defendant’s admissions in court:
In order to manage necessary subway rehabilitation work following Superstorm Sandy in 2013, the MTA awarded construction management contracts for managers to oversee post-Sandy subway projects. To prevent self-dealing and the appearance of corruption, the MTA maintains rules relating to conflicts of interest. The rules provide that MTA employees are barred from participating in the selection, award, or administration of a contract if the employee, his or her family member, or an organization that employs the employee or one of the employee’s family members has a financial interest in any of the companies that propose or bid on, or are awarded, such a contract.
PATEL was a program manager at the MTA and was responsible for awarding contracts and exercising oversight of Superstorm Sandy-related subway repairs. In June 2014, PATEL and another MTA employee set up an engineering consulting firm named Satkirti Consulting Engineering LLC (“Satkirti”). Because MTA rules prohibited them from having an interest in such a company, PATEL and the other employee registered Satkirti in the names of their children, and then transferred the ownership to a friend of PATEL who played no substantive role in the management of Satkirti. In February 2015, Satkirti was awarded a contract as a subcontractor on the Joralemon Tube subway rehabilitation project, which project PATEL would oversee in his role at the MTA. Although the technical employees of Satkirti who sought and carried out the subcontract were PATEL’s friend, who had no background or qualifications in engineering, and a second individual who PATEL recruited from a pizzeria owned by PATEL, PATEL directed the operations of Satkirti and its employees while concealing his involvement with the company. Among other things, PATEL created a company email account for Satkirti, and instructed Satkirti’s employees about what to write in emails. On many occasions, PATEL instructed Satkirti’s employees not to mention PATEL’s name and reminded them that PATEL was not supposed to be involved in the operation of Satkirti.
In the spring of 2016, MTA-OIG launched an investigation, later joined by the DOT-OIG and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, into the contract that was awarded to Satkirti. MTA-OIG served subpoenas and conducted interviews with individuals involved in Satkirti, many of whom made false statements about their and PATEL’s involvement in the company. After MTA-OIG began serving subpoenas, PATEL told one of Satkirti’s employees to delete from his personal email account all emails with PATEL. On November 16, 2016, after federal investigators began serving grand jury subpoenas, PATEL deleted the Satkirti company email account, which contained records of Satkirti’s business and evidence that would have connected PATEL to Satkirti. Over the course of the MTA-OIG and federal investigation, at the request of PATEL, several individuals questioned by investigators also concealed and lied about PATEL’s involvement in Satkirti.
* * *
PARESH PATEL, 59, of Paramus, New Jersey, pled guilty to one count of obstruction of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
PATEL will be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Kimba M. Wood on a date to be determined.
The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the special agents from the DOT-OIG and investigators at the MTA-OIG.
The case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Nicolas Roos and Ryan B. Finkel are in charge of the prosecution.
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