Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:22-cr-00240
Case Name:   USA v. HWANG
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1z3Npfa0zl-Qfiq1fPXwJo1H_N0sRXUWUrb7SWdz5nZo
  Last Updated: 2025-04-15 12:41:15 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:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL2xlYWRlci04LW1pbGxpb24tbWVkaWNhaWQtZnJhdWQtc2NoZW1lLXNlbnRlbmNlZC05NS1tb250aHMtcHJpc29u
  Press Releases:
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that JULIO ALVARADO was sentenced to 95 months in prison for leading a sprawling scheme to defraud Medicaid of millions of dollars through the billing of fraudulent transportation claims.  ALVARADO previously pled guilty to one count of healthcare fraud.  U.S. District Judge Kimba M. Wood imposed today’s sentence.

U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “Julio Alvarado was the leader of a multi-million-dollar scheme to defraud Medicaid by filing false claims for medical transportation services that were never provided.  He brazenly lined his own pockets with Medicaid funds meant to help the neediest New Yorkers.  Today’s sentence makes clear that this type of criminal conduct will be prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law.”

According to court filings and statements made in court proceedings:

From August 2017 to February 2020, KJ Transportation C Services Inc. (“KJ”) was paid more than $20 million for providing transportation services for Medicaid enrollees in the New York City area.  A large volume of those claims were fraudulent.  In some instances, the Medicaid recipient was deceased or out of the country when KJ claimed it was transporting that person to medical appointments.  In other instances, the company used stolen identities, whereby the Medicaid recipient had never heard of KJ and had never taken any rides with the company.  In other instances, the Medicaid recipients had received unlawful kickbacks from defendants in exchange for either providing KJ their Medicaid information or for fraudulently scheduling trips they did not take.

ALVARADO, who supervised more than a dozen other participants in the scheme, was responsible for billing more than $8 million in fraudulent trip claims.

*                *                *

In addition to the prison term, ALVARADO, 63, of Yonkers, New York, was sentenced to three years of supervised release and ordered to pay $8,507,115 in restitution and to forfeit $8,507,115.

Mr. Williams praised the outstanding work of Homeland Security Investigations and the United States Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General.  He also thanked the Office of the Medicaid Inspector General for its assistance.

This case is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kedar S. Bhatia and Brandon D. Harper are in charge of the prosecution.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:19-cr-00249
Case Name:   USA v. Freedman
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that ALEXANDRU BURDUCEA, a doctor who practiced in Manhattan, was sentenced today in Manhattan federal court to 57 months in prison for conspiring to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute, in connection with a scheme to prescribe Subsys, a potent fentanyl-based spray, in exchange for bribes and kickbacks from Subsys’s manufacturer, Insys Therapeutics.  BURDUCEA pled guilty on February 14, 2019, and was sentenced by United States District Judge Kimba M. Wood.

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Before September 2014, Alexandru Burducea, a doctor who practiced in Manhattan, had never prescribed Subsys, a potent fentanyl-based spray.  By the second quarter of 2015, however – in exchange for bribes and kickbacks from Subsys’s manufacturer, Insys Therapeutics – Burducea became approximately the 14th-highest prescriber of Subsys in the country. Burducea sacrificed the safety of his patients to satisfy his own greed, and will now spend time in federal prison for his reckless prescribing of this highly addictive and deadly drug.”

According to the allegations contained in the Indictment against BURDUCEA and filings in related proceedings:

The Insys Speakers Bureau

Subsys, which is manufactured by Insys, is a powerful painkiller approximately 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine.  The FDA approved Subsys only for the management of breakthrough pain in cancer patients.  Prescriptions of Subsys typically cost thousands of dollars each month, and Medicare and Medicaid, as well as commercial insurers, reimbursed prescriptions written by BURDUCEA.

In or about August 2012, Insys launched a “Speakers Bureau,” a roster of doctors who would conduct programs (“Speaker Programs”) purportedly aimed at educating other practitioners about Subsys.  In reality, Insys used its Speakers Bureau to induce the doctors who served as speakers to prescribe large volumes of Subsys by paying them Speaker Program fees.  Speakers were supposed to conduct an educational slide presentation for other health care practitioners at each Speaker Program.  In reality, many of the Speaker Programs were predominantly social affairs where no educational presentation about Subsys occurred.  Attendance sign-in sheets for the Speaker Programs were frequently forged by adding the names and signatures of health care practitioners who had not actually been present.

BURDUCEA’s Participation in the Scheme

BURDUCEA, a doctor certified in pain management and anesthesiology, was an Assistant Professor of anesthesiology at a large Manhattan hospital.  He also practiced at an anesthesiology and pain management office associated with the hospital.  From in or about September 2014 until in or about June 2015, BURDUCEA received approximately $68,400 in Speaker Program fees from Insys in exchange for prescribing large volumes of Subsys.  In addition, Insys hired BURDUCEA’s then-girlfriend, now wife, to work as BURDUCEA’s sales representative, and the company paid her large commissions based on the volume of Subsys prescribed by her assigned doctors, which included BURDUCEA. 

BURDUCEA, who had never prescribed Subsys before in or about September 2014, became approximately the 14th-highest prescriber of Subsys nationally in the second quarter of 2015, accounting for total net sales of the drug of approximately $621,345 in that quarter.

*          *          *

In addition to the prison sentence, BURDUCEA, 43, of Little Neck, New York, was sentenced to three years of supervised release and ordered to forfeit $68,400. A restitution order will be entered within 90 days.

BURDUCEA was one of five Manhattan doctors convicted for participating in the Subsys bribery conspiracy.  Todd Schlifstein was convicted upon a guilty plea and sentenced by Judge Wood on October 28, 2019, principally to a term of two years in prison.  Dialecti Voudouris was convicted upon a guilty plea and is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Wood on March 5, 2020.  Jeffrey Goldstein was convicted upon a guilty plea and is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Wood on March 12, 2020.  Gordon Freedman was convicted following a jury trial and is scheduled to be sentenced before Judge Wood on March 19, 2020.

Mr. Berman praised the investigative work of the FBI, and thanked HHS OIG for its participation in the investigation.

The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Noah Solowiejczyk and David Abramowicz are in charge of the prosecution.

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that GORDON FREEDMAN, a doctor who practiced in New York, New York, pled guilty today to one count of distributing oxycodone and fentanyl to a patient for no legitimate medical purpose, which resulted in the overdose of the patient.  FREEDMAN pled guilty before U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “Less than two weeks ago, Gordon Freedman was convicted of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from a pharmaceutical company to push medically unneeded fentanyl.  Today, in a separate but hardly unrelated case, he admitted to dispensing massive quantities of oxycodone and fentanyl to a patient who died of a fentanyl overdose in 2017.  It seems clear Gordon Freedman was more concerned with his own wealth than his patients’ health.”    

According to the allegations contained in the Indictment against FREEDMAN and filings in related proceedings:

From in or about 2013 through in or about May 2017, FREEDMAN, who worked at and owned a private pain-management office on the Upper East Side of Manhattan and was an Associate Clinical Professor at a large hospital in Manhattan, prescribed numerous controlled substances to a particular patient (“Patient-1”), including enormous quantities of oxycodone and fentanyl.  For example, in 2013 alone, FREEDMAN prescribed Patient-1 approximately 85,427 oxycodone pills – an average of approximately 234 oxycodone pills per day – containing a total of approximately 2,422,435 mg of oxycodone. 

On or about April 13, 2017, FREEDMAN gave Patient-1 prescriptions for approximately 150 doses of a drug containing fentanyl, and for approximately 950 oxycodone pills containing approximately 30 mg of oxycodone per pill.  On or about May 4, 2017, Patient-1 died of a fentanyl overdose after ingesting a quantity of the drug prescribed by FREEDMAN on or about April 13, 2017.

*                *                *

FREEDMAN, 59, of Mount Kisco, New York, pled guilty to one count of distributing oxycodone and fentanyl, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The maximum potential sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentence for the defendant will be determined by the judge.

FREEDMAN is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Nathan on March 18, 2020.

On December 5, 2019, FREEDMAN was convicted in a separate case, U.S. v. Gordon Freedman et al., 18 Cr. 217 (KMW), of charges of conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute, violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, and conspiracy to commit honest-services wire fraud.  In connection with that case, FREEDMAN is scheduled to appear for sentencing before U.S. District Judge Kimba M. Wood on March 19, 2020.

Mr. Berman praised the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the New York City Police Department for their investigative efforts and ongoing support and assistance with the case.

The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Noah Solowiejczyk, David Abramowicz, and Katherine Reilly are in charge of the prosecution.

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced the conviction in Manhattan federal court of GORDON FREEDMAN for participating in a scheme to receive bribes and kickbacks in the form of fees for sham educational programs (“Speaker Programs”) from Insys Therapeutics, Inc. (“Insys”) in exchange for prescribing millions of dollars’ worth of Subsys, a potent fentanyl-based spray manufactured by Insys, among other offenses.  The jury convicted FREEDMAN today on three counts, following a three-week trial before the U.S. District Judge Kimba M. Wood.

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman stated:  “Today’s conviction, in addition to the prior guilty pleas in this case of four other prominent Manhattan doctors, underscores that this Office will hold any physician accountable when that physician’s medical judgment is compromised by the corrupting influence of money.  As a jury of his peers has now found, Dr. Gordon Freedman sold out his patients by prescribing a powerful and dangerous fentanyl opioid in exchange for bribes from the pharmaceutical company that manufactured that drug.”

As reflected in the Indictment, documents previously filed in the case, and evidence introduced at trial:

Insys manufactured Subsys, a powerful painkiller approximately 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine.  The FDA approved Subsys only for the management of breakthrough pain in cancer patients.  Prescriptions of Subsys typically cost thousands of dollars each month, and Medicare and Medicaid, as well as commercial insurers, reimbursed prescriptions written by FREEDMAN.

In or about August 2012, Insys launched a “Speakers Bureau,” purportedly aimed at educating practitioners about Subsys.  In reality, however, Insys used its Speakers Bureau to induce doctors to prescribe large volumes of Subsys by paying them Speaker Program fees.  At each Speaker Program, speakers were supposed to conduct a slide presentation for other health care practitioners regarding Subsys.  However, many of the Speaker Programs led by the speakers paid by Insys were predominantly social affairs where no educational presentation about Subsys occurred.  Attendance sign-in sheets for the Speaker Programs were frequently forged by adding the names and signatures of health care practitioners who had not actually been present.

FREEDMAN was a doctor certified in pain management and anesthesiology who owned a private pain management office on Manhattan’s Upper East Side.  FREEDMAN, who was also an Associate Clinical Professor at a large hospital in Manhattan (“Hospital-1”), received approximately $308,600 in Speaker Program fees from Insys in exchange for prescribing large volumes of Subsys. 

In March 2013, a Regional Sales Manager for Insys sent an email to FREEDMAN informing him that he would receive more Speaker Programs in the coming months because Insys wanted prescriptions of Subsys to increase, and urging FREEDMAN to put more patients on Subsys.  FREEDMAN responded, in part, “Got it,” and significantly increased his Subsys prescriptions in the following months, during which he received approximately $33,600 in Speaker Program fees. 

In 2014, FREEDMAN’s prescriptions of Subsys rose even further, and he was the fourth-highest prescriber of Subsys nationally in the final quarter of 2014, accounting for approximately $1,132,287 in overall net sales of Subsys in that quarter alone.  During 2014, FREEDMAN was the highest-paid Insys Speaker in the nation, receiving approximately $143,000. 

*                *                *

FREEDMAN, 59, who resides in Mount Kisco, New York, was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute, which carries a maximum term of five years in prison, one count of violating the Anti-Kickback Statute, which carries a maximum term of 10 years in prison, and one count of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud, which carries a maximum term of 20 years in prison.  The maximum potential 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.  FREEDMAN is scheduled to appear for sentencing before Judge Wood on March 19, 2020.

Mr. Berman praised the investigative work of the FBI, and thanked HHS OIG and the New York City Police Department for their participation in the investigation. 

The prosecution of this case is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Noah Solowiejczyk, David Abramowicz, and Katherine Reilly are in charge of the prosecution.

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and William F. Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced the unsealing today of an Indictment in Manhattan federal court charging a doctor who practiced in Manhattan, GORDON FREEDMAN, with 16 counts of distributing oxycodone, fentanyl, and other controlled substances to a particular patient, including one count for distributing fentanyl that caused the patient’s death.  FREEDMAN was arrested this morning, and is expected to be presented before U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn in Manhattan federal court this afternoon.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Physicians take an oath to practice medicine for the sole purpose of improving their patients’ health.  Instead, Gordon Freedman allegedly used his medical license to overprescribe dangerous opioids to a patient.  When overprescribing deadly fentanyl for no legitimate medical purpose, it is just a matter of time before luck runs out – and in this case it has – as a patient of Freedman’s has allegedly suffered a fatal overdose as a result of Freedman’s alleged misconduct.”    

FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. said: “Everyone knows the inherent danger in buying and selling drugs on the street, but when doctors overprescribe legal substances in lethal quantities, they too contribute to the overall drug epidemic. These drugs pose a real threat to our society. We hope to send the message today that there’s no quick fix for doctors who hide behind their prescription pad—this is criminal activity, and it will be treated as such.” 

As alleged in the Indictment[1] unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:

From in or about 2013 through in or about May 2017, FREEDMAN, who worked at and owned a private pain-management office on the Upper East Side of Manhattan and was an associate clinical professor at a large hospital in Manhattan, prescribed numerous controlled substances to a particular patient (“Patient-1”), including enormous quantities of oxycodone and fentanyl. For example, in 2013 alone, FREEDMAN prescribed Patient-1 approximately 85,427 oxycodone pills – an average of approximately 234 oxycodone pills per day – containing a total of approximately 2,422,435mg of oxycodone. 

On or about April 13, 2017, FREEDMAN gave Patient-1 prescriptions for approximately 150 doses of a drug containing fentanyl, and for approximately 950 oxycodone pills containing approximately 30mg of oxycodone per pill.  On or about May 4, 2017, Patient-1 died of a fentanyl overdose after ingesting a quantity of the drug prescribed by FREEDMAN on or about April 13, 2017.

*                *                *

FREEDMAN, 58, of Mount Kisco, New York, is charged with one count of distributing controlled substances resulting in the death of another, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison.  FREEDMAN is also charged with 15 counts of distributing controlled substances, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.  The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentence for the defendant will be determined by the judge.

In March 2018, FREEDMAN was indicted in a separate case, U.S. v. Gordon Freedman et al., 18 Cr. 217 (KMW), on charges of conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute, violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, and conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud. Trial in that case is scheduled to begin November 4, 2019, before the Honorable Kimba M. Wood.

Mr. Berman praised the FBI and the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) for their investigative efforts and ongoing support and assistance with the case.

The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Noah Solowiejczyk and David Abramowicz are in charge of the prosecution.

 



[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment and the description of the Indictment set forth herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and William F. Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced the unsealing today of an Indictment in Manhattan federal court charging five Manhattan doctors, GORDON FREEDMAN, JEFFREY GOLDSTEIN, TODD SCHLIFSTEIN, DIALECTI VOUDOURIS, and ALEXANDRU BURDUCEA, with participating in a scheme to receive bribes and kickbacks in the form of fees for sham educational programs (“Speaker Programs”) from a pharmaceutical company (“Pharma Company-1”) in exchange for prescribing millions of dollars’ worth of a potent fentanyl-based spray manufactured by Pharma Company-1 (the “Fentanyl Spray”), among other offenses.  FREEDMAN, GOLDSTEIN, SCHLIFSTEIN, VOUDOURIS, and BURDUCEA were arrested this morning.  All are expected to be presented before U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn in Manhattan this afternoon.

Also unsealed today were the guilty pleas of two former Pharma Company-1 employees, Jonathan Roper and Fernando Serrano, in connection with their participation in the bribery and kickback scheme.  Both Roper and Serrano are cooperating with the Government. 

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “These prominent doctors swore a solemn oath to place their patients’ care above all else.  Instead, they engaged in a malignant scheme to prescribe Fentanyl, a dangerous and potentially fatal narcotic 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine, in exchange for bribes in the form of speaker fees. Payments from pharmaceutical companies should not influence how doctors prescribe --- especially when a potent and dangerous drug like Fentanyl is involved.  This scheme to use their patients as an instrument for profit has resulted in the indictment of five physicians.”    

FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. said:  “A substance as powerful as Fentanyl should be prescribed based only on doctors’ own independent medical judgment. In this case, as alleged, a series of doctors were convinced to push aside their ethical obligations and prescribe a drug for profit to patients who turned to them for help. Doctors and medical professionals everywhere should be reminded of the faith and trust placed upon them, and that the health and safety of their patients is not for sale.”

As alleged in the Indictment[1] unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:

The Fentanyl Spray

The Fentanyl Spray, which is manufactured by Pharma Company-1, is a powerful painkiller that is approximately 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine.  The FDA approved the Fentanyl Spray only for the management of breakthrough pain in cancer patients.  Prescriptions of the Fentanyl Spray typically cost thousands of dollars each month, and Medicare and Medicaid, as well as commercial insurers, reimbursed prescriptions written by the defendants.

The Speaker Program Bribery and Kickback Scheme

Pharma Company-1 launched a “Speakers Bureau” in or about August 2012.  While the Speakers Bureau was purportedly aimed at educating other practitioners about the Fentanyl Spray, in reality Pharma Company-1 used its Speakers Bureau to induce the doctors to prescribe large volumes of the Fentanyl Spray by paying them Speaker Program fees. 

Speakers were supposed to conduct a slide presentation for other health care practitioners regarding the Fentanyl Spray at each Speaker Program.  In reality, many of the Speaker Programs led by the defendants were predominantly social affairs where no educational presentation about the Fentanyl Spray occurred.  Attendance sign-in sheets for the Speaker Programs were frequently forged by adding the names and signatures of health care practitioners who had not actually been present.

Freedman’s Participation in the Scheme

FREEDMAN was a doctor certified in pain management and anesthesiology who owned a private pain management office on Manhattan’s Upper East Side.  FREEDMAN, who was also an Associate Clinical Professor at a large hospital in Manhattan (“Hospital-1”), received approximately $308,600 in Speaker Program fees from Pharma Company-1 in exchange for prescribing large volumes of the Fentanyl Spray. 

In March 2013, a Regional Sales Manager for Pharma Company-1 sent an email to FREEDMAN informing him that he would receive more Speaker Programs in the coming months because Pharma Company-1 wanted prescriptions of the Fentanyl Spray to increase, and urging FREEDMAN to put more patients on the Fentanyl Spray.  FREEDMAN responded, in part, “Got it,” and significantly increased his Fentanyl Spray prescriptions in the following months, during which he received approximately $33,600 in Speaker Program fees. 

In 2014, FREEDMAN’s prescriptions of the Fentanyl Spray rose even further, and he was the fourth-highest prescriber of the Fentanyl Spray nationally in the final quarter of 2014, accounting for approximately $1,132,287 in overall net sales of the Fentanyl Spray in that quarter.  During 2014, FREEDMAN was the highest-paid Pharma Company-1 Speaker in the nation, receiving approximately $143,000. 

GOLDSTEIN’s Participation in the Scheme

GOLDSTEIN was a doctor of osteopathic medicine who owned a private medical office on the Upper East Side.  GOLDSTEIN received approximately $196,000 in Speaker Program fees from Pharma Company-1 in exchange for prescribing large volumes of the Fentanyl Spray.  After GOLDSTEIN began prescribing a competitor painkiller, Pharma Company-1 pressured him to stop doing so and switch patients to the Fentanyl Spray, which GOLDSTEIN did.

In 2014, GOLDSTEIN was approximately the fifth-highest-paid Pharma Company-1 Speaker nationally. He was the sixth-highest prescriber of the Fentanyl Spray in the last quarter of 2014, accounting for approximately $809,275 in overall net sales of the Fentanyl Spray in that quarter.

SCHLIFSTEIN’s Participation in the Scheme

SCHLIFSTEIN was a doctor certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation who co-owned with GOLDSTEIN a private medical office on the Upper East Side.  SCHLIFSTEIN, who also worked as an attending physiatrist and consulting physician at two other Manhattan hospitals, received approximately $127,100 in Speaker Program fees from Pharma Company-1 in exchange for prescribing large volumes of the Fentanyl Spray. 

In or about October 2013, SCHLIFSTEIN expressed an interest in becoming a Speaker for Pharma Company-1.  So a senior Pharma Company-1 executive traveled to New York, and took SCHLIFSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN, and others, to a Manhattan strip club where Pharma Company-1 spent approximately $4,100 on a private room, alcoholic drinks, and “lap dances” for SCHLIFSTEIN and GOLDSTEIN.  In the month following that outing and SCHLIFSTEIN’s nomination as a Speaker, SCHLIFSTEIN’s Fentanyl Spray prescriptions increased substantially.    

In late 2014, Pharma Company-1 significantly decreased SCHLIFSTEIN’s Speaker Programs in order to send a message to SCHLIFSTEIN that he would need to prescribe larger volumes of the Fentanyl Spray.  In response, SCHLIFSTEIN repeatedly requested more Speaker Programs.  Pharma Company-1 told SCHLIFSTEIN it would assign him more Speaker Programs only if he prescribed larger volumes of the Fentanyl Spray.  SCHLIFSTEIN’s Fentanyl Spray prescriptions then increased substantially, and Pharma Company-1 rewarded him with more Speaker Programs.

By the end of the second quarter of 2015, SCHLIFSTEIN was approximately the 19th-highest prescriber of the Fentanyl Spray nationally, accounting for approximately $593,373 in net sales in that quarter.

VOUDOURIS’s Participation in the Scheme

VOUDOURIS was a doctor specializing in oncology and hematology who worked at a private medical office on the Upper East Side, and was an Assistant Clinical Professor at Hospital-1.  VOUDOURIS received approximately $119,400 in Speaker Program fees from Pharma Company-1 in exchange for prescribing large volumes of the Fentanyl Spray. 

In September 2014, VOUDOURIS, who had recently been nominated as a Speaker, had dinner with, among others, several Pharma Company-1 executives, as well as Roper and Serrano.  During the dinner, the Pharma Company-1 Vice-President of Sales told VOUDOURIS that he wanted her to prescribe the Fentanyl Spray to one new patient every day, and that VOUDOURIS would be allocated Speaker Programs if she continued prescribing the Fentanyl Spray.  

In the week that followed the dinner, VOUDOURIS did not prescribe what Pharma Company-1 viewed as an adequate quantity of the Fentanyl Spray.  Roper and Serrano met with VOUDOURIS and told her that Pharma Company-1 expected VOUDOURIS to write more Fentanyl Spray prescriptions.  In the months that followed the dinner and this conversation, VOUDOURIS’s Fentanyl Spray prescriptions rose significantly. 

By the end of the first quarter of 2015, VOUDOURIS was approximately the 10th-highest prescriber of the Fentanyl Spray nationally, accounting for total net sales of the Fentanyl Spray of approximately $581,500 in that quarter.

BURDUCEA’s Participation in the Scheme

BURDUCEA was a doctor certified in pain management and anesthesiology, was an Assistant Professor of anesthesiology at Hospital-1, and practiced at an anesthesiology and pain management office associated with Hospital-1.  BURDUCEA received approximately $68,400 in Speaker Program fees from Pharma Company-1 in exchange for prescribing large volumes of the Fentanyl Spray.  In addition, Pharma Company-1 hired BURDUCEA’s then-girlfriend, now wife (“CC-1”), to work as BURDUCEA’s sales representative and paid her in large part based on the volume of Fentanyl Spray prescribed by her assigned doctors, including BURDUCEA. 

By the end of the end of the second quarter of 2015, BURDUCEA was approximately the 14th-highest prescriber of the Fentanyl Spray nationally, accounting for total net sales of the Fentanyl Spray of approximately $621,345 in that quarter.

*          *          *

A chart containing the names, ages, residences, charges, and maximum penalties for the defendants is attached.  The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by a judge.

Mr. Berman praised the investigative work of the FBI, and thanked HHS OIG and the New York City Police Department for their participation in the investigation.

The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Noah Solowiejczyk and David Abramowicz are in charge of the prosecution; paralegal specialist Jake Sidransky provided additional support.

 



Defendant





Age





Hometown





Charges (Potential Maximum Term of Imprisonment)





GORDON FREEDMAN

 





57





Mount Kisco, NY





Anti-Kickback conspiracy (5 years), Violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (5 years), and Honest services fraud conspiracy (20 years)

 





JEFFREY GOLDSTEIN

 





48





New Rochelle, NY





Anti-Kickback conspiracy (5 years), Violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (5 years), Honest services fraud conspiracy (20 years), Aggravated identity theft (2 years mandatory), Wrongful disclosure of individually identifiable health information (1 year)

 





TODD SCHLIFSTEIN

 





49





New York, NY





Anti-Kickback conspiracy (5 years), Violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (5 years), Honest services fraud conspiracy (20 years), Wrongful disclosure of individually identifiable health information (1 year)





DIALECTI VOUDOURIS





47





Long Island City, NY





Anti-Kickback conspiracy (5 years), Violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (5 years), Honest services fraud conspiracy (20 years), Aggravated identity theft (2 years mandatory), Wrongful disclosure of individually identifiable health information (1 year)





ALEXANDRU BURDUCEA





41





Little Neck, NY





Anti-Kickback conspiracy (5 years), Violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (5 years), Honest services fraud conspiracy (20 years), False statements to federal officers (5 years), Wrongful disclosure of individually identifiable health information (1 year)



 



[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment and the description of the Indictment set forth herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VZxXb6Io7esA28b3sgh8_i7e1RV57Lr4wfVmnfak4Hg
  Last Updated: 2025-03-21 16:19:20 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:   SD-NY  1:18-cr-00879
Case Name:   USA v. Jimenez et al
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that YESSENIA JIMENEZ, an officer in the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), was found guilty today of conspiring to distribute heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine, possession of heroin and fentanyl, and using a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking.  A unanimous jury convicted JIMENEZ on all three counts after a one-week trial before United States District Judge Valerie E. Caproni. 

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “As proven at trial, Yessenia Jimenez, an NYPD officer, trafficked heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine in New York City, a city she took an oath to serve and protect, and used her NYPD service firearm to carry out her drug dealing.  Simply put, Jimenez was a drug dealer in a cop’s uniform.  Thankfully, Jimenez now stands convicted and faces at least 15 years in prison.”

According to court documents and the evidence at trial:

This case arises from a Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) investigation into a large-scale narcotics trafficking operation that brought heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine across the border from Mexico into the United States, and then into New York City.  From at least June 2017 through March 2018, JIMENEZ, an NYPD officer, participated in the conspiracy.  JIMENEZ used her apartment in the Bronx, New York, to store multiple kilograms of heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine that were brought into the city by other members of the conspiracy.  Along with other co-conspirators, JIMENEZ distributed these drugs in New York and also in the Boston area.  Over the course of the conspiracy, she collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in drug profits, which she also stored in her apartment, and delivered large amounts of cash to other co-conspirators to bring back to drug suppliers in Mexico.  On March 13, 2018, the DEA and NYPD apprehended JIMENEZ and a co-conspirator as they returned to her apartment carrying approximately $52,000 in U.S. currency, which represented the proceeds from narcotics transactions in Boston.  JIMENEZ, who was not in uniform and was off duty, was carrying her loaded NYPD service firearm in her purse, alongside approximately $25,000 of the drug proceeds.  At the time of her arrest, JIMENEZ lied to law enforcement, telling them she was “on the job,” meaning on official NYPD business at the time.  Following the arrest, law enforcement agents obtained a search warrant for JIMENEZ’s apartment and discovered approximately 250 grams of heroin and fentanyl.

*                      *                     *

JIMENEZ, 32, of the Bronx, New York, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute at least one kilogram of heroin and fentanyl, and at least five kilograms of cocaine, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison, one count of possession of at least 100 grams of heroin and fentanyl with intent to distribute, which carries a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison, and one count of using a firearm in furtherance of narcotics trafficking, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a consecutive mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison.  The maximum potential 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 investigative work of the DEA, NYPD, and New York State Police in this investigation.

This case is being handled by the Office’s Narcotics Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Thane Rehn and Louis Pellegrino are in charge of the prosecution.

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and James D. Robnett, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigations (“IRS-CI”), announced charges today against nine individuals for their participation in a long-running scheme to file thousands of fraudulent tax returns using the stolen identities of children, resulting in millions of dollars in estimated loss to the United States Treasury.  Eight of the defendants were arrested this morning and will be presented before U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses today.  MARCOS DE JESUS PANTALEON remains at large.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “As alleged, these defendants used their experience as tax preparers to skirt U.S. tax laws by using the stolen identities of children to help increase their clients’ tax returns.  All told, the defendants’ years’ long scheme resulted in tens of millions of dollars in questionable credits.  Now the defendants’ businesses are shut down – literally – and the defendants face significant time in prison for tax fraud.”

IRS-CI Special Agent in Charge James D. Robnett said:  “Stealing the identities of children to file false tax returns is reprehensible.  These individuals allegedly demonstrated a blatant disregard of the integrity of the United States tax system and caused immeasurable hardship to innocent victims.  IRS-CI special agents are determined to investigate these crimes and protect the honest taxpayers.”

According to the allegations in the Complaint[1] unsealed this morning and information in the public record:

Under federal law, taxpayers may be entitled to claim certain tax credits, including the Earned Income Tax Credit (“EITC”) available to qualifying low and moderate income working individuals and families.  If the individual claims the EITC based on having a child, the individual must list the name and Social Security Number (“SSN”) of the child on his or her tax return, along with completing a separate schedule that contains the child’s name, SSN, year of birth, relationship to the taxpayer, and how many months the child lived with the taxpayer during the tax year.

Starting in 2009, and continuing for multiple years, ARIEL JIEMENEZ, a/k/a “Melo,” IRELINE NUNEZ, ANA YESSENIA JIMENEZ, EVELIN JIMENEZ, LEYVI CASTILLO, CINTHIA FEDERO, GUILLERMO ARIAS MONCION, MARCOS DE JESUS PANTALEON, a/k/a “Junior,” and JOSE CASTILLO, a/k/a “Jairo,” abused the EITC program with their knowledge of the tax system by using the stolen identities of numerous children to file thousands of fraudulent tax returns for their clients.  These clients were not supporting, residing with, or related to the children they claimed as a dependent.  Rather, they paid the defendants between $1,000 and $1,500 for each child falsely added to their returns.  The inclusion of these false dependents allowed clients to claim tax refunds they were not entitled to, chiefly the EITC.

All of the defendants initially worked together at the same tax-preparation business.  In approximately 2013, MONCION, PANTALEON, and JOSE CASTILLO started their own tax-preparation business.  In approximately 2014, JOSE CASTILLO left to start his own, third tax-preparation business.  All three businesses engaged in the same conduct of possessing stolen identities of children and adding those identities to clients’ tax returns in exchange for a fee.

The tax returns filed by the defendants’ associated businesses indicate markedly high rates of returns seeking the EITC.  For example, for returns filed from tax year 2010 through 2017, between 56 percent and 74 percent of all returns prepared by the defendants’ businesses claimed the EITC.  In contrast, between 34 percent and 39 percent of all tax returns filed in the Bronx, New York, and between 18 percent and 21 percent of all tax returns filed nationwide for the same time period sought the EITC.

In total, between 2009 and the present, the returns filed by the defendants’ businesses claimed more than $44 million in the EITC.

In addition to the fraud described above, EVELIN JIMENEZ, LEYVI CASTILLO, FEDERO, MONCION, and JOSE CASTILLO each fraudulently claimed dependents on their own personal tax returns.

*                      *                      *

A chart listing the defendants, and the charges and maximum penalties they face is attached.  The statutory maximum penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.  

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of IRS-CI.  He also thanked the New York City Department of Investigation for its assistance.

This case is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Daniel G. Nessim, Ni Qian, and Daniel C. Richenthal are in charge of the prosecution.

The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

                                                          



Defendant

 





Charges

 





Maximum Penalties





Ariel Jimenez, a/k/a “Melo” (34, of New York, New York)





Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims

 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud

 

Aggravated Identity Theft

 





32 years in prison

 

Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence





Ireline Nunez (36, of New York, New York)





Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims

 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud

 

Aggravated Identity Theft

 





32 years in prison

 

Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence





Ana Yessenia Jimenez (36, of New York, New York)





Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims

 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud

 

Aggravated Identity Theft

 





32 years in prison

 

Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence





Evelin Jimenez (32, of New York, New York)





Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims

 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud

 

Aggravated Identity Theft

 

Subscribing to a false return

 





35 years in prison

 

Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence





Leyvi Castillo (35, of New York, New York)





Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims

 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud

 

Aggravated Identity Theft

 

Subscribing to a false return

 





35 years in prison

 

Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence





Cinthia Federo (31, of New York, New York)





Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims

 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud

 

Aggravated Identity Theft

 

Subscribing to a false return (two counts)

 





38 years in prison

 

Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence





Guillermo Arias Moncion (32, of New York, New York)





Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims (two counts)

 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud (two counts)

 

Aggravated Identity Theft

 

Subscribing to a false return (four counts)

 





74 years in prison

 

Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence





Marcos De Jesus Pantaleon, a/k/a “Junior” (28, of New York, New York)





Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims (two counts)

 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud (two counts)

 

Aggravated Identity Theft

 





62 years in prison

 

Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence





Jose Castillo, a/k/a “Jairo” (42, of New York, New York)





Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims (three counts)

 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud (three counts)

 

Aggravated Identity Theft

 

Subscribing to a false return





95 years in prison

 

Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence



 

 



[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint, and the description of the Complaint set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YxoX9x-HA4PJ-jv1oCEx0XdkzX_nm_Z0YACEuHJYC88
  Last Updated: 2025-03-11 18:34:37 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 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
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:18-mj-09530
Case Name:   USA v. Jimenez et al
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and James D. Robnett, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigations (“IRS-CI”), announced charges today against nine individuals for their participation in a long-running scheme to file thousands of fraudulent tax returns using the stolen identities of children, resulting in millions of dollars in estimated loss to the United States Treasury.  Eight of the defendants were arrested this morning and will be presented before U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses today.  MARCOS DE JESUS PANTALEON remains at large.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “As alleged, these defendants used their experience as tax preparers to skirt U.S. tax laws by using the stolen identities of children to help increase their clients’ tax returns.  All told, the defendants’ years’ long scheme resulted in tens of millions of dollars in questionable credits.  Now the defendants’ businesses are shut down – literally – and the defendants face significant time in prison for tax fraud.”

IRS-CI Special Agent in Charge James D. Robnett said:  “Stealing the identities of children to file false tax returns is reprehensible.  These individuals allegedly demonstrated a blatant disregard of the integrity of the United States tax system and caused immeasurable hardship to innocent victims.  IRS-CI special agents are determined to investigate these crimes and protect the honest taxpayers.”

According to the allegations in the Complaint[1] unsealed this morning and information in the public record:

Under federal law, taxpayers may be entitled to claim certain tax credits, including the Earned Income Tax Credit (“EITC”) available to qualifying low and moderate income working individuals and families.  If the individual claims the EITC based on having a child, the individual must list the name and Social Security Number (“SSN”) of the child on his or her tax return, along with completing a separate schedule that contains the child’s name, SSN, year of birth, relationship to the taxpayer, and how many months the child lived with the taxpayer during the tax year.

Starting in 2009, and continuing for multiple years, ARIEL JIEMENEZ, a/k/a “Melo,” IRELINE NUNEZ, ANA YESSENIA JIMENEZ, EVELIN JIMENEZ, LEYVI CASTILLO, CINTHIA FEDERO, GUILLERMO ARIAS MONCION, MARCOS DE JESUS PANTALEON, a/k/a “Junior,” and JOSE CASTILLO, a/k/a “Jairo,” abused the EITC program with their knowledge of the tax system by using the stolen identities of numerous children to file thousands of fraudulent tax returns for their clients.  These clients were not supporting, residing with, or related to the children they claimed as a dependent.  Rather, they paid the defendants between $1,000 and $1,500 for each child falsely added to their returns.  The inclusion of these false dependents allowed clients to claim tax refunds they were not entitled to, chiefly the EITC.

All of the defendants initially worked together at the same tax-preparation business.  In approximately 2013, MONCION, PANTALEON, and JOSE CASTILLO started their own tax-preparation business.  In approximately 2014, JOSE CASTILLO left to start his own, third tax-preparation business.  All three businesses engaged in the same conduct of possessing stolen identities of children and adding those identities to clients’ tax returns in exchange for a fee.

The tax returns filed by the defendants’ associated businesses indicate markedly high rates of returns seeking the EITC.  For example, for returns filed from tax year 2010 through 2017, between 56 percent and 74 percent of all returns prepared by the defendants’ businesses claimed the EITC.  In contrast, between 34 percent and 39 percent of all tax returns filed in the Bronx, New York, and between 18 percent and 21 percent of all tax returns filed nationwide for the same time period sought the EITC.

In total, between 2009 and the present, the returns filed by the defendants’ businesses claimed more than $44 million in the EITC.

In addition to the fraud described above, EVELIN JIMENEZ, LEYVI CASTILLO, FEDERO, MONCION, and JOSE CASTILLO each fraudulently claimed dependents on their own personal tax returns.

*                      *                      *

A chart listing the defendants, and the charges and maximum penalties they face is attached.  The statutory maximum penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.  

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of IRS-CI.  He also thanked the New York City Department of Investigation for its assistance.

This case is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Daniel G. Nessim, Ni Qian, and Daniel C. Richenthal are in charge of the prosecution.

The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

                                                          



Defendant

 





Charges

 





Maximum Penalties





Ariel Jimenez, a/k/a “Melo” (34, of New York, New York)





Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims

 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud

 

Aggravated Identity Theft

 





32 years in prison

 

Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence





Ireline Nunez (36, of New York, New York)





Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims

 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud

 

Aggravated Identity Theft

 





32 years in prison

 

Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence





Ana Yessenia Jimenez (36, of New York, New York)





Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims

 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud

 

Aggravated Identity Theft

 





32 years in prison

 

Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence





Evelin Jimenez (32, of New York, New York)





Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims

 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud

 

Aggravated Identity Theft

 

Subscribing to a false return

 





35 years in prison

 

Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence





Leyvi Castillo (35, of New York, New York)





Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims

 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud

 

Aggravated Identity Theft

 

Subscribing to a false return

 





35 years in prison

 

Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence





Cinthia Federo (31, of New York, New York)





Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims

 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud

 

Aggravated Identity Theft

 

Subscribing to a false return (two counts)

 





38 years in prison

 

Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence





Guillermo Arias Moncion (32, of New York, New York)





Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims (two counts)

 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud (two counts)

 

Aggravated Identity Theft

 

Subscribing to a false return (four counts)

 





74 years in prison

 

Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence





Marcos De Jesus Pantaleon, a/k/a “Junior” (28, of New York, New York)





Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims (two counts)

 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud (two counts)

 

Aggravated Identity Theft

 





62 years in prison

 

Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence





Jose Castillo, a/k/a “Jairo” (42, of New York, New York)





Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims (three counts)

 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud (three counts)

 

Aggravated Identity Theft

 

Subscribing to a false return





95 years in prison

 

Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence



 

 



[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint, and the description of the Complaint set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pye4rUIEErI8nwvan1MO8jcMGmIpl8ZpUVm6J5wOBfw
  Last Updated: 2025-03-11 18:31:05 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 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:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL2FjdGluZy1tYW5oYXR0YW4tdXMtYXR0b3JuZXktYW5ub3VuY2VzLXJldHVybi05NS1hcnR3b3Jrcy1saW5rZWQtYnJhemlsaWFuLW1vbmV5
  Press Releases:
Joon H. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Matthew Etre, Special Agent in Charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (“ICE”) Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”) Boston Office, announced today the return of 95 works of art, previously acquired by Edemar Cid Ferreira, the former president of Banco Santos, S.A. (“Banco Santos”), in connection with money laundering and other crimes he committed in Brazil against the national financial system.  The 95 works of art will be returned to the Judicial Administrator of Banco Santos’s bankruptcy estate (the “Judicial Administrator”).  These works, which were recovered through an investigation by HSI and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (the “U.S. Attorney’s Office”), will be returned pursuant to a Stipulation and Order between the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Judicial Administrator, which was entered today by United States District Judge Lorna G. Schofield.

Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said:  “Our Office is proud of our role in returning these treasured works of art.  These works were used to mask an audacious criminal scheme by Edemar Cid Ferreira.  Thanks to the diligent efforts of our Office and HSI, these treasured pieces will be returned to their rightful owner, the bankruptcy estate of Ferreira’s insolvent Banco Santos.”

HSI Special Agent in Charge Matthew Etre said:  “Protecting the cultural heritage of our global community is important work and we are committed to identifying and returning these priceless items to their proper place.  It’s the responsibility of law enforcement worldwide to ensure criminals do not profit from the theft of these culturally and historically valuable items.”

The 95 works of art being returned to the Banco Santos Judicial Administrator once belonged to Brazilian banker Edemar Cid Ferreira, the founder and former president of Banco Santos.  Ferriera was convicted in Brazil of crimes against the national financial system and money laundering.  In December 2006, Ferreira was sentenced in Brazil to 21 years in prison.  Banco Santos ultimately entered bankruptcy.

As part of the case, a Sao Paulo Court Judge also ordered the search, seizure, and confiscation of assets that Ferreira, his associates, and members of his family had acquired with unlawfully obtained funds from Banco Santos.  Those assets included an extensive art collection, valued in the tens of millions of dollars.  The art collection was kept in several locations, including Ferreira’s home in the Morumbi neighborhood of Sao Paulo, the main offices of Banco Santos, and at a holding facility.  When Brazilian authorities searched these locations, they found that much of the collection was missing.

The Sao Paulo Court sought Interpol’s assistance after searching museums and institutions in Brazil for the missing artwork.  In October and November 2007, Interpol and the Government of Brazil sought the assistance of the United States to locate and seize the missing works on behalf of the Brazilian government.  The ensuing U.S. Attorney’s Office and HSI investigation found that large numbers of works of art had been smuggled out of Brazil by Ferreria and companies associated with him, and into the United States and various European nations. 

Through their investigation, HSI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office located and recovered the sculpture “Woman” by Henry Moore, from France, seven works from the United Kingdom, and 85 works from the Netherlands.  Two additional works were voluntarily turned over to HSI by third parties in the United States.  These 95 works will now by returned to the Judicial Administrator so they may be disposed of and distributed as part of the Banco Santos bankruptcy estate, under the jurisdiction of the Brazilian Bankruptcy Court.    

The U.S. Attorney’s Office previously repatriated five other works smuggled into the United States, which were seized by HSI and the subject of a successful civil forfeiture action brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office: “Hannibal” by Jean-Michel Basquiat, “Modern Painting with Yellow Interweave” by Roy Lichtenstein, “Figures dans une structure” by Joaquin Torres-Garcia, “Composition abstraite” by Serge Poliakoff, and a Roman Togatus statue. 

 

*                *                *

 

Mr. Kim praised the investigative work of HSI in helping to locate and recover the artworks.  He was grateful for the assistance of the Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs.  Mr. Kim thanked Brazilian authorities for their assistance in the case.  He also acknowledged the assistance of the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Embassy in Brazil for their assistance in the investigation.

The case is being handled by the Money Laundering and Asset Forfeiture Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander Wilson is in charge of the case.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-NY  7:18-cr-00877
Case Name:   USA v. Parmar
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that HARBIR PARMAR was sentenced in White Plains federal court to three years in prison for kidnapping and wire fraud.  PARMAR pled guilty on March 11, 2019, before U.S. District Judge Vincent L. Briccetti, who imposed today’s sentence.

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Many people rely on rideshare apps to navigate New York safely.  But when a woman hailed an ridesharing car driven by Harbir Parmar, her ride home took a turn for the worst.  With Parmar’s lengthy prison term, he will no longer be able to take advantage of ridesharing customers.”

According to the Indictment and statements made during today’s plea proceedings:

On February 21, 2018, PARMAR, who worked as a driver for a ridesharing company (“Company-1”), picked up an individual (“Victim-1”) in New York, New York, who sought to be driven to White Plains, New York.  After Victim-1 fell asleep in the backseat of the vehicle, PARMAR changed Victim-1’s destination in Company-1’s mobile application to an address in Boston, Massachusetts, and proceeded to drive toward that location.  When Victim-1 awoke, the vehicle was in Connecticut.  Victim-1 requested that she be taken to White Plains or to the police station, but PARMAR refused.  PARMAR instead dropped Victim-1 off on the side of I-95 in Branford, Connecticut.  Victim-1 went to a nearby convenience store where she sought assistance.    

In addition, from December 2016 through February 2018, PARMAR sent false information about the destinations of Company-1’s customers through Company-1’s mobile application on several occasions.  At times, he also sent false information about the application of a cleaning fee to be applied to the accounts of Company-1’s customers.  In these instances, customers of Company-1 filed complaints with Company-1 about being overcharged for their rides.  These instances have resulted in thousands of dollars in improper charges to the accounts of Company-1’s customers. 

*             *             *

In addition to the prison term, PARMAR, 25, of Howard Beach, New York, was sentenced to three years of supervised release and ordered to pay $3,642 in restitution and forfeiture.

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI’s Westchester County Safe Streets Task Force, which comprises investigators from the FBI, U.S. Probation Office, New York State police, Westchester County Department of Public Safety, Westchester County District Attorney’s Office, the New York City Police Department, Yonkers Police Department, Greenburgh Police Department, Mount Vernon Police Department, and the Peekskill Police Department.    

The case is being handled by the Office’s White Plains Division.  Assistant United States Attorney Jamie Bagliebter is in charge of the prosecution. 

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that HARBIR PARMAR pled guilty in White Plains federal court to kidnapping and wire fraud.  PARMAR was arrested on October 16, 2018, and pled guilty today before U.S. District Judge Vincent L. Briccetti.

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Last year, Harbir Parmar took advantage of a vulnerable woman who utilized a ridesharing service by kidnapping and terrorizing her.  In addition, he charged many of his ridesharing customers with fraudulent fees.  Today, he admitted his guilt in open court, and will now be held accountable for his brazen crimes.”  

According to the Indictment and statements made during today’s plea proceedings:

On February 21, 2018, PARMAR, who worked as a driver for a ridesharing company (“Company-1”), picked up an individual (“Victim-1”) in Manhattan, New York, who sought to be driven to White Plains, New York.  After Victim-1 fell asleep in the backseat of the vehicle, PARMAR changed Victim-1’s destination in Company-1’s mobile application to an address in Boston, Massachusetts, and proceeded to drive toward that location.  When Victim-1 awoke, the vehicle was in Connecticut.  Victim-1 requested that she be taken to White Plains or to the police station, but PARMAR refused.  PARMAR instead dropped Victim-1 off on the side of I-95 in Branford, Connecticut.  Victim-1 went to a nearby convenience store where she sought assistance.    

In addition, from December 2016 through February 2018, PARMAR sent false information about the destinations of Company-1’s customers through Company-1’s mobile application on several occasions.  At times, he also sent false information about the application of a cleaning fee to be applied to the accounts of Company-1’s customers.  In these instances, customers of Company-1 filed complaints with Company-1 about being overcharged for their rides.  These instances have resulted in thousands of dollars in improper charges to the accounts of Company-1’s customers. 

*              *             *

PARMAR, 25, of Howard Beach, New York, pled guilty to one count of kidnapping, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison, and one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.  The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.

PARMAR is scheduled to be sentenced by United States District Judge Vincent L. Briccetti Honorable Vincent L. Briccetti on June 24, 2019. 

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of FBI’s Westchester County Safe Streets Task Force, which comprises investigators from the FBI, U.S. Probation Office, New York State police, Westchester County Department of Public Safety, Westchester County District Attorney’s Office, the New York City Police Department, Yonkers Police Department, Greenburgh Police Department, Mount Vernon Police Department, and the Peekskill Police Department.    

The case is being handled by the Office’s White Plains Division.  Assistant United States Attorney Jamie Bagliebter is in charge of the prosecution. 

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F. Sweeney Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and James P. O’Neill, the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), announced today the unsealing of a complaint charging HARBIR PARMAR with kidnapping and wire fraud.  PARMAR will be presented in White Plains federal court this afternoon before United States Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy.

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “As alleged, Harbir Parmar was hired to transport a woman from Manhattan to her home in White Plains.  Instead, Parmar kidnapped, terrorized, and assaulted the woman before dumping her on the side of an interstate.  No one – man or woman – should fear such an attack when they simply hire a car service.”

FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. said:  “The victim in this case utilized a ride sharing service trusting that her driver would provide a safe ride home.  Instead, as we allege today, Harbir Parmar made an outrageous choice, deciding to unlawfully take advantage of his passenger at a moment of vulnerability for his own selfish motives.  This kind of behavior should never be tolerated, and the FBI will continue to work tirelessly with our partners to bring justice to those who would shamelessly and illegally take advantage of others.”

Commissioner James P. O’Neill said:  “The criminal acts outlined in this complaint are reprehensible.  This individual’s behavior goes far beyond ridesharing companies’ efforts to revise their ethics codes and put stronger emphasis on background checks for their drivers.  The people we serve deserve much better.  These charges are appalling, and such behavior will never be tolerated by the NYPD or any of our local, state, or federal law enforcement partners.”

According to the allegations in the Complaint unsealed today:[1]

On February 21, 2018, an individual (“Victim-1”) ordered a vehicle through a ridesharing company (“Company-1”) to pick her up in Manhattan, New York, and take her to White Plains, New York, where she resided at the time.  At approximately 11:30 p.m., Victim-1 entered a vehicle driven by PARMAR, who was licensed to use Company-1’s software as a driver.  Victim-1 fell asleep in the vehicle.  PARMAR changed Victim-1’s destination in Company-1’s mobile application to an address in Boston, Massachusetts and proceeded to drive toward Massachusetts.  When Victim-1 awoke, the vehicle was on the side of the road and PARMAR was in the backseat of the vehicle with her, with his hand under her shirt touching the top of her breast.  Upon Victim-1 waking up, PARMAR got back into the driver’s seat and continued driving.  Victim-1 requested that she be taken to White Plains or to the police station but PARMAR refused.  PARMAR instead dropped Victim-1 off on the side of I-95 in Branford, Connecticut.  Victim-1 went to a nearby convenience store where she sought assistance.    

In addition, from December 2016 through February 2018, PARMAR, sent allegedly false information about the destinations of Company-1’s customers through Company-1’s mobile application on at least 11 occasions.   He also sent false information about the application of a cleaning fee to be applied to the accounts of Company-1’s customers on at least three occasions.  In these instances, customers of Company-1 filed complaints with Company-1 about being overcharged for their rides.  These instances have resulted in over $3,600 in improper charges to the accounts of Company-1’s customers. 

*              *             *

PARMAR, 24, of Howard Beach, New York, is charged with one count of kidnapping, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison, and one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.  The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.

There may be more victims of this alleged conduct.  If you have information to report, contact the FBI’s Westchester Resident Agency at (914) 925-3888.

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of FBI’s Westchester County Safe Streets Task Force, which is comprised of investigators from the FBI, U.S. Probation Office, New York State police, Westchester County Department of Public Safety, Westchester County District Attorney’s Office, the New York City Police Department, Yonkers Police Department, Greenburgh Police Department, Mount Vernon Police Department and the Peekskill Police Department.    

The case is being handled by the Office’s White Plains Division.  Assistant United States Attorney Jamie Bagliebter is 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 herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UHJ2eDfegRp_KMChitp3rgXiVOgM3AzmHuYLclNPu3s
  Last Updated: 2025-03-11 18:37:47 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: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE2 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 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-NY  7:18-mj-08726
Case Name:   USA v. Parmar
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F. Sweeney Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and James P. O’Neill, the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), announced today the unsealing of a complaint charging HARBIR PARMAR with kidnapping and wire fraud.  PARMAR will be presented in White Plains federal court this afternoon before United States Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy.

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “As alleged, Harbir Parmar was hired to transport a woman from Manhattan to her home in White Plains.  Instead, Parmar kidnapped, terrorized, and assaulted the woman before dumping her on the side of an interstate.  No one – man or woman – should fear such an attack when they simply hire a car service.”

FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. said:  “The victim in this case utilized a ride sharing service trusting that her driver would provide a safe ride home.  Instead, as we allege today, Harbir Parmar made an outrageous choice, deciding to unlawfully take advantage of his passenger at a moment of vulnerability for his own selfish motives.  This kind of behavior should never be tolerated, and the FBI will continue to work tirelessly with our partners to bring justice to those who would shamelessly and illegally take advantage of others.”

Commissioner James P. O’Neill said:  “The criminal acts outlined in this complaint are reprehensible.  This individual’s behavior goes far beyond ridesharing companies’ efforts to revise their ethics codes and put stronger emphasis on background checks for their drivers.  The people we serve deserve much better.  These charges are appalling, and such behavior will never be tolerated by the NYPD or any of our local, state, or federal law enforcement partners.”

According to the allegations in the Complaint unsealed today:[1]

On February 21, 2018, an individual (“Victim-1”) ordered a vehicle through a ridesharing company (“Company-1”) to pick her up in Manhattan, New York, and take her to White Plains, New York, where she resided at the time.  At approximately 11:30 p.m., Victim-1 entered a vehicle driven by PARMAR, who was licensed to use Company-1’s software as a driver.  Victim-1 fell asleep in the vehicle.  PARMAR changed Victim-1’s destination in Company-1’s mobile application to an address in Boston, Massachusetts and proceeded to drive toward Massachusetts.  When Victim-1 awoke, the vehicle was on the side of the road and PARMAR was in the backseat of the vehicle with her, with his hand under her shirt touching the top of her breast.  Upon Victim-1 waking up, PARMAR got back into the driver’s seat and continued driving.  Victim-1 requested that she be taken to White Plains or to the police station but PARMAR refused.  PARMAR instead dropped Victim-1 off on the side of I-95 in Branford, Connecticut.  Victim-1 went to a nearby convenience store where she sought assistance.    

In addition, from December 2016 through February 2018, PARMAR, sent allegedly false information about the destinations of Company-1’s customers through Company-1’s mobile application on at least 11 occasions.   He also sent false information about the application of a cleaning fee to be applied to the accounts of Company-1’s customers on at least three occasions.  In these instances, customers of Company-1 filed complaints with Company-1 about being overcharged for their rides.  These instances have resulted in over $3,600 in improper charges to the accounts of Company-1’s customers. 

*              *             *

PARMAR, 24, of Howard Beach, New York, is charged with one count of kidnapping, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison, and one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.  The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.

There may be more victims of this alleged conduct.  If you have information to report, contact the FBI’s Westchester Resident Agency at (914) 925-3888.

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of FBI’s Westchester County Safe Streets Task Force, which is comprised of investigators from the FBI, U.S. Probation Office, New York State police, Westchester County Department of Public Safety, Westchester County District Attorney’s Office, the New York City Police Department, Yonkers Police Department, Greenburgh Police Department, Mount Vernon Police Department and the Peekskill Police Department.    

The case is being handled by the Office’s White Plains Division.  Assistant United States Attorney Jamie Bagliebter is 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 herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fslGz8RAAgsuS5tget2OURauXxUKiZnnUigMUr1anmI
  Last Updated: 2025-03-11 18:23:51 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: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE2 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 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:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL2ZvdW5kZXItY3liZXJmcmF1ZC1wcmV2ZW50aW9uLWNvbXBhbnktcGxlYWRzLWd1aWx0eS1kZWZyYXVkaW5nLWludmVzdG9ycy1vdmVyLTEwMA
  Press Releases:
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that ADAM ROGAS, the co-founder and former CEO, CFO, and member of the board of directors of Las Vegas-based cyberfraud prevention company NS8, Inc. (“NS8”), pled guilty today in Manhattan federal court to securities fraud.  ROGAS used fraudulent financial data to obtain over $123 million in financing for NS8, of which he personally obtained approximately $17.5 million. ROGAS pled guilty today before U.S. District Judge John P. Cronan, and is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Cronan on August 10, 2022. 

U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said:  “Today, Adam Rogas admitted to being the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse.  While claiming to be in the fraud prevention business, Rogas himself defrauded investors in his company of over $100 million.  Now Rogas will be held accountable for his fraudulent scheme.”

According to the Complaint, Indictment, and other publicly-filed documents: 

ADAM ROGAS was a co-founder of NS8, and served as its CEO, CFO, and a member of its board of directors.  ROGAS was also primarily responsible for the company’s fundraising activities.  NS8, which was based in Las Vegas, Nevada, was a cyberfraud prevention company that developed and sold electronic tools to help online vendors assess the fraud risks of customer transactions.  In the fall of 2019 and the spring of 2020, NS8 engaged in fundraising rounds through which it issued Series A Preferred Shares and obtained approximately $123 million in investor funds.

ROGAS maintained control over a bank account into which NS8 received revenue from its customers, and periodically provided monthly statements from that account to NS8’s finance department so that NS8’s financial statements could be created.  ROGAS also maintained control over spreadsheets that purportedly tracked customer revenue, which were also used to generate NS8’s financial statements.

ROGAS altered the bank statements before providing them to NS8’s finance department to show tens of millions of dollars in both customer revenue and bank balances that did not exist.  In the period from January 2019 through February 2020, between at least approximately 40% and 95% of the purported total assets on NS8’s balance sheet were fictitious.  In that same period, the bank statements that ROGAS altered reflected over $40 million in fictitious revenue.





Altered (L) and original (R) bank statements for NS8’s revenue account.  Rogas altered statements for the account to show tens of millions of dollars in revenue (deposits) that did not exist.







ROGAS used these materially misleading financial statements to raise approximately $123 million from investors in the fall of 2019 and the spring of 2020.  During the fundraising process, ROGAS also provided the falsified bank records he had created to auditors who were conducting due diligence on behalf of potential investors.  After these fundraising rounds concluded, NS8 conducted a tender offer with the funds raised from investors, and ROGAS received $17.5 million in proceeds from that tender offer, personally and through a company he controlled.

*                      *                      *

ROGAS, 44, of Las Vegas, Nevada, pled guilty to one count of securities fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.  The maximum potential sentences in this case 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. Williams praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI in this investigation.  Mr. Williams further thanked the Securities and Exchange Commission for its cooperation and assistance in this investigation.  

This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Richard Cooper and Jared Lenow are in charge of the prosecution.  

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL3ZpY2UtcHJlc2lkZW50LWludGVybmF0aW9uYWwtY2FyZ28tYWlybGluZS1zZW50ZW5jZWQtMzItbW9udGhzLXByaXNvbi1kZWZyYXVkaW5n
  Press Releases:
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that ABILASH KURIEN was sentenced to 32 months in prison by U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman in connection with a massive scheme to defraud Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. (“Polar”), a leading cargo airline, of more than $32 million dollars in revenue.  KURIEN previously pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering.U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “Abilash Kurien betrayed his employer’s trust.  Over the course of more than a decade, Kurien took millions of dollars in kickbacks for himself and caused tens of millions in dollars in losses to the company he worked for.  This Office and our law enforcement partners will not stop in rooting out corporate fraud.”According to the charging documents and other filings and statements made in court:From at least in or about 2009 through in or about July 2021, KURIEN and at least nine other individuals participated in a massive scheme to defraud Polar.  At all relevant times, KURIEN and three codefendants were senior executives of Polar (the “Executive Defendants”), and six codefendants (the “Vendor Defendants”) owned and operated various Polar vendors and customers.The Executive Defendants agreed to accept millions of dollars in kickbacks from the Vendor Defendants, and also reaped substantial financial benefits as a result of their secret ownership interests in certain Polar vendors, in exchange for ensuring that those vendors received favorable business arrangements with Polar.  The fraud they perpetrated—which involved a substantial portion of Polar’s senior management and at least 10 customers and vendors of Polar—led to pervasive corruption of Polar’s business, touching nearly every aspect of the company’s operations, for over a decade.As a result of the scheme, the Executive Defendants, along with two co-conspirators who also worked as senior executives at Polar, received unlawful payments, either directly or through various limited liability companies they controlled, in excess of approximately $23 million in kickback payments or disbursements as a result of their ownership of conflicted companies.KURIEN was Polar’s Vice President of Marketing, Revenue Management, and Network Planning.  He personally received kickbacks totaling over $7 million.Nine of the defendants charged in this case have pleaded guilty.  Skye Xu, the remaining defendant, is scheduled for trial on October 28, 2024.*               *                *In addition to the prison term, KURIEN, 46, of Wilton, Connecticut, was sentenced to 3 years of supervised release.   KURIEN was also ordered to forfeit $7,192,064.41 and to make restitution to Polar in the amount of $22,956,341.Mr. Williams praised the outstanding work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigations. The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Danielle Kudla, Kevin Mead, Qais Ghafary, and Jerry J. Fang are in charge of the prosecution.
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL2Zvcm1lci1jaGllZi1pbnZlc3RtZW50LW9mZmljZXItZ2xvYmFsLWJvbmQtaW52ZXN0bWVudC1maXJtLWNoYXJnZWQtb3Zlci02MDAtbWlsbGlvbg
  Press Releases:
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and James E. Dennehy, the Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced today the unsealing of an Indictment charging S. KENNETH LEECH II, the former Chief Investment Officer of Western Asset Management Company (“WAMCO”), with securities fraud, investment adviser fraud, commodity trading adviser fraud, commodities fraud, and making false statements.  WAMCO is a global fixed-income investment adviser that manages hundreds of billions of dollars on behalf of its clients.  Between 2021 and 2023, LEECH defrauded WAMCO’s clients by engaging in a criminal cherry-picking scheme to favor certain clients at the expense of others, assigning over $600 million of gains to favored clients and over $600 million of losses to disfavored clients.  LEECH has been summoned to make his initial appearance in the Southern District of New York in connection with the charges by December 6, 2024.  The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Gregory H. Woods.U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “We allege today that S. Kenneth Leech II—the Chief Investment Officer of a significant manager of pension funds and other long-term investments—used his position to cherry pick trades and prop up his favored but failing accounts at the expense of others.  These charges should be a reminder that this Office continues to police all corners of the financial markets and will swiftly hold those accountable who believe that they can cheat and abuse the trust of clients for their own purposes.”FBI Assistant Director in Charge James E. Dennehy said: “Kenneth Leech, the former CIO of Western Asset Management Company, allegedly violated his fiduciary duty by crafting a preferential treatment scheme to allot more than $600 million in profits and losses to particular clients.  Instead of allocating trades appropriately, Leech allegedly allowed favoritism to benefit preferred accounts for their benefit.  The FBI will continue to investigate any individual who exploits their trusted position to favorably treat certain clients at the expense of others."According to the allegations in the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:[1]Between 2021 and October 2023, LEECH committed fraud and abused the trust placed in him by clients of the investment-management company WAMCO.  LEECH engaged in a criminal scheme commonly known as “cherry picking” to compensate for losses in his marquee investment strategy by assigning trades that performed well during their first day into client accounts associated with that investment strategy, and assigning trades that performed poorly over their first day into the accounts of other clients, who were not aware that LEECH was causing them losses to favor others.  LEECH’s victims included institutional and retail investors who trusted LEECH to manage their savings and pension plans.  Over the course of his criminal scheme, LEECH allocated trades with net first-day gains of at least approximately $600 million to his favored strategy and clients, and allocated trades with net first-day losses of at least approximately $600 million to clients to whom he owed an equal fiduciary duty.LEECH was able to carry out this scheme because, as Chief Investment Officer of WAMCO, LEECH was responsible for making trades on behalf of different portfolios and assigning those trades to the portfolio for which he had traded—a process generally referred to as “allocation.”  One set of portfolios for which LEECH traded followed what WAMCO called the “Macro Opportunities” strategy (“Macro Opps”).  Another set of portfolios followed what WAMCO called the “Core” and “Core Plus” strategies (together, the “Core Strategies”).  LEECH owed a fiduciary duty to any client who invested in portfolios that followed either of these strategies.Despite that duty, and in violation of it, LEECH engaged in a fraudulent scheme to bolster Macro Opps, which necessarily came at the expense of the Core Strategies, by allocating trades based on their performance between the time he placed the trades and the time he made his allocations.  He carried out this scheme by placing trades, waiting to see how those trades performed throughout the day, and then using the first-day performance of his trades to determine where to allocate them—assigning better-performing trades to Macro Opps and worse-performing trades to the Core Strategies.  This was contrary to WAMCO’s compliance trainings, which emphasized that LEECH should allocate trades promptly, and against WAMCO’s policies, which prohibited allocating trades on the basis of first-day performance to make up for losses.Neither LEECH nor WAMCO disclosed to investors that LEECH used first-day performance to decide how to allocate trades, or that LEECH was favoring Macro Opps in his allocations.  To the contrary, WAMCO represented to investors that LEECH and others knew where they planned to allocate a trade before making the trade and finalized the allocation promptly after the trade was completed, and LEECH later testified before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) that he knew where he planned to allocate a trade when he placed it. This testimony was false and the reality was far different.  LEECH routinely waited hours after making his trades—often until late in the day—to make his allocations, allowing him to observe how his trades had performed before deciding where to allocate them.  Between 2021 and October 2023, LEECH used that ability to see how the market moved to support Macro Opps by awarding it better performing trading and hiding worse performing trades in the Core Strategies.By allocating trades based on first-day performance, LEECH bolstered the overall performance of Macro Opps at the expense of the larger Core Strategies.  Each time LEECH assigned a trade with a first-day gain to Macro Opps, or assigned a trade with a first-day loss to the Core Strategies, LEECH improved or protected the daily performance of Macro Opps.  When done consistently over time, those daily boosts added up to significantly enhance the performance of Macro Opps.  From January 2021 through October 2023, the Treasury futures and options trades that LEECH allocated specifically to Macro Opps had net first day gains of over $600 million.  By contrast, during this period, the Treasury futures and options trades that LEECH allocated specifically to the Core Strategies had net first day losses of over $600 million.LEECH’s bias in favor of Macro Opps was more pronounced the larger the first-day gain or first-day loss.  For example, between 2021 and October 2023, there were over 500 Treasury futures or options trades that LEECH chose to allocate specifically to either Macro Opps or the Core Strategies and that had first-day gains over $500,000.  LEECH allocated over 90% of those winning trades to Macro Opps and fewer than 10% to the Core Strategies.  Conversely, over that same time period, there were over 500 Treasury futures or options trades that LEECH chose to allocate specifically to either Macro Opps or the Core Strategies and that had first-day losses over $500,000.  LEECH allocated less than 10% of those losing trades to Macro Opps, while allocating over 90% of them to the Core Strategies.Similarly, between 2021 and October 2023, there were over 150 Treasury futures or options trades that LEECH chose to allocate specifically to either Macro Opps or the Core Strategies and that had first-day gains over $1,000,000.  LEECH allocated over 90% of those winning trades to Macro Opps and less than 10% to the Core Strategies.  Over that same time period, there were over 200 Treasury futures or options trades that LEECH chose to allocate specifically to either Macro Opps or the Core Strategies and that had first-day losses over $1,000,000.  LEECH allocated less than 5% of those losing trades to Macro Opps, while allocating over 95% to the Core Strategies.LEECH’s pattern of biased allocation was steady over the period relevant to this Indictment.  In each of the 34 months between the beginning of 2021 and October 2023, the U.S. Treasury futures and options trades allocated specifically to Macro Opps had a net first-day gain.  By contrast, over that same period, the U.S. Treasury futures and options trades that LEECH allocated specifically to the Core Strategies had net first-day losses in all months except two.The bias in favor of Macro Opps was not caused by LEECH pursuing a unique trading strategy for Macro Opps.  Notably, when LEECH did not exercise discretion to allocate trades between Macro Opps and the Core Strategies, the trades that went to Macro Opps were not characterized by disproportionate first-day gains.For example, between 2021 and October 2023, LEECH had a standing instruction that trades he made through a certain broker (“Broker-1”) should, by default, be allocated to Macro Opps.  As a result, LEECH generally did not exercise discretion to allocate trades through Broker-1 at the end of the day because his trading assistant automatically allocated them to Macro Opps.  When Treasury futures and options trades were allocated to Macro Opps without LEECH first observing performance in the market, the bias in favor of Macro Opps disappeared.  Over the relevant time period, approximately 55% of the trades LEECH placed through Broker-1 trades had first-day gains, while approximately 45% had first-day losses. These trades produced modest first-day losses, generating an average first-day loss of over $5,000. This is dramatically lower than the average first-day gain of approximately $225,000 that LEECH generated on those trades that he specifically allocated to Macro Opps when he had an opportunity to see market movements before making an allocation decision.After October 2023, WAMCO removed LEECH from the Core Strategies, so he no longer had the authority to allocate trades to those strategies.  As with the Broker-1 trades, when LEECH no longer had discretion to allocate trades to the Core Strategies, the trades LEECH allocated to Macro Opps stopped having a consistent, pronounced bias toward first-day gain.In all, between 2021 and October 2023, the U.S. Treasury futures and options trades LEECH allocated specifically to Macro Opps had net first-day gains of over $600 million.  By contrast, the U.S. Treasury futures and options trades LEECH allocated specifically to the Core Strategies had net first-day losses of over $600 million.*               *                *LEECH, 70, of Pasadena, California, is charged with one count of investment adviser fraud and one count of securities fraud, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; one count of commodity trading adviser fraud and one count commodities fraud, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison; and one count of making false statements, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by a judge.Mr. Williams praised the outstanding work of the FBI.  Mr. Williams further thanked the SEC, which today filed a parallel civil action against LEECH.This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Thomas S. Burnett and Peter J. Davis are in charge of the prosecution. The charges contained in the Indictment 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 Indictment and the description of the Indictment set forth in this release constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL21hbmhhdHRhbi1lbmVyZ3ktaW52ZXN0b3Itc2VudGVuY2VkLTcwLW1vbnRocy1wcmlzb24tZXZhZGluZy1vdmVyLTQ1LW1pbGxpb24taW5jb21lLWFuZA
  Press Releases:
Joon H. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that MORRIS ZUKERMAN, a Manhattan businessman who owns companies involved in energy investments, was sentenced today to 70 months in prison for engaging in multi-year tax fraud schemes pursuant to which he evaded over $45 million in income taxes and other taxes. ZUKERMAN pled guilty on June 3, 2016, before United States District Judge Analisa Torres, who imposed today’s sentence.

Acting U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said:  “While amassing a personal fortune through, among other things, the $130 million sale of his company, Morris Zuckerman cheated on his taxes for years, illegally scheming to evade almost every one of his tax liabilities. Through his criminal schemes, Zukerman deprived the public of over $45 million in taxes he rightfully owed. For brazenly cheating on his tax obligations – a duty that all Americans owe to each other – Zukerman will now spend significant time in a federal prison.”

According to the allegations in the Indictment to which ZUKERMAN pled guilty, other documents filed in Manhattan federal court, and statements made in court proceedings:

ZUKERMAN, the principal of M.E. Zukerman & Co. (“MEZCO”), an investment firm located in Manhattan, schemed to evade taxes based on income received from the January 2008 sale of a petroleum products company (the “Oil Company”) he co-owned (through a MEZCO subsidiary) with a public company. ZUKERMAN schemed to evade the reporting of the sale – which resulted in the receipt by the MEZCO subsidiary of $130 million in gross sales proceeds – by falsely telling his accountants in mid-2008 that he had transferred ownership of the MEZCO subsidiary to a family trust in early 2007. In support of the false story he gave to the accountants, ZUKERMAN created backdated documents such as promissory notes and a board resolution purporting to show the transfer of the subsidiary to his family trust in 2007. The false documents allowed ZUKERMAN to remove the MEZCO subsidiary from the consolidated tax reporting being handled by the accountants for MEZCO and thereby evade the reporting to the IRS of the sale of the Oil Company, as well as the payment of over $33 million in corporate income taxes.

Following the sale of the Oil Company, ZUKERMAN transferred the proceeds of the sale from the MEZCO subsidiary to his family trust, his personal bank accounts, and various corporations he controlled, including a company called Zukerman Investments. Between 2008 and 2013, ZUKERMAN directed that over $50 million of the funds transferred to Zukerman Investments be used to purchase paintings by European artists from the 15th through the 19th centuries (the “Old Master paintings”), which ZUKERMAN used to decorate his Upper East Side apartment and the apartments of two family members – Family Member-1 and Family Member-2.

In connection with the purchase of the Old Master paintings, ZUKERMAN schemed to defraud New York State of over $4.5 million of sales and use taxes by directing that the paintings, which were frequently purchased from galleries located blocks from ZUKERMAN’s Manhattan residence, be shipped by the galleries to ZUKERMAN’s corporate addresses located in Delaware and New Jersey, and transported immediately thereafter (sometimes within minutes), by ZUKERMAN and others, back to ZUKERMAN’s residence in New York – all without the payment to New York State of sales or use taxes.

ZUKERMAN also schemed to evade personal income taxes and to obstruct the IRS by (i) causing various tax return preparers to prepare U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns, Forms 1040, for ZUKERMAN and his wife, and for Family Member-1, Family Member-2, and Family Member-3, that claimed, in the aggregate, millions of dollars of false and fraudulent deductions and expenses, such as phony charitable contributions and investment interest expenses; (ii) diverting, for personal use, corporate assets from MEZCO and other corporate entities ZUKERMAN controlled by directing that hundreds of thousands of dollars of fees be paid between 2007 and 2013 to Family Member-1, Family Member-2, and Family Member-3, for which the family members performed little or no work; (iii) directing that corporate funds be used to pay compensation to, and health care insurance for, a household employee of ZUKERMAN, whom ZUKERMAN also caused to be falsely identified as a MEZCO employee to ZUKERMAN’s corporate health care provider when, in truth and fact, the household employee worked exclusively out of ZUKERMAN’s homes in New York City and Maine as a domestic employee; (iv) falsely under-reporting employment taxes through the payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash and other wages to ZUKERMAN’s domestic employees; and (v) providing false information to the IRS during audits in an attempt to fraudulently convince IRS auditors and other IRS employees that the fraudulent claims made on his previously filed tax returns were accurate when, in truth, they were not.

The False Charitable Contribution Deductions for the 2009 & 2011 Tax Years

ZUKERMAN’s fraudulent charitable contribution deductions – totaling $1 million – arose out of a real estate transaction in 2009 and 2010, pursuant to which ZUKERMAN purchased approximately 240 acres of property on Black Island, a small island located off the coast of Maine, close to ZUKERMAN’s home on a nearby island. ZUKERMAN was enlisted to purchase the Black Island property by the Maine Coast Heritage Trust (“MCHT”), a Maine-based land conservation entity that was seeking to orchestrate the purchase, for conservation purposes. After considering making a charitable contribution to the MCHT to allow MCHT to purchase the property, ZUKERMAN decided instead to purchase the land as the outright owner for the benefit of himself and his family for $1 million through a newly formed limited liability company he solely owned. ZUKERMAN, however, falsely told his tax return preparer that the $1 million he paid for the property should be declared on his personal income tax returns as a charitable contribution to MCHT during the 2008 and 2010 tax years. ZUKERMAN subsequently signed the false 2008 and 2010 tax returns and caused them to be filed with the IRS.

The Audit Fraud

ZUKERMAN sought to defraud the IRS during three separate audits.  In audits of his personal returns and that of a family member, ZUKERMAN provided his accountants with false documents and false information in an attempt to provide support for false items previously placed on individual tax returns by him.  During an IRS audit of one of ZUKERMAN’s companies, ZUKERMAN attempted to obstruct the audit by utilizing two attorneys from a law firm in Washington, D.C., to convey a false factual narrative to an IRS Appeals Officer.

* * *

In imposing ZUKERMAN’S sentence, Judge Torres stated:  “Mr. Zukerman’s crimes were driven by unmitigated greed,” and that ZUKERMAN “thought himself to be above the law.”

In addition to the prison term, ZUKERMAN, 72, of New York, New York, was sentenced to three years of supervised release and ordered to pay a $37,547,951 in restitution to the IRS and New York State Department of taxation and finance.  ZUKERMAN was also fined $10 million.

Mr. Kim praised the outstanding investigative work of the IRS and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

The prosecution of this case is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Special Assistant United States Attorney Stanley J. Okula, Jr. and Assistant United States Attorney Edward Imperatore are in charge of the prosecution.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1kYy9wci90cmFmZmlja2VyLXdoby1zbXVnZ2xlZC1tYXNzLXF1YW50aXRpZXMtZmVudGFueWwtc291dGhlcm4tY2FsaWZvcm5pYS1kYy1zZW50ZW5jZWQtMTQ
  Press Releases:
            WASHINGTON – Raymond Nava Jr., 20, of Bell Gardens, California., was sentenced today to 168 months in prison for his role in a fentanyl trafficking conspiracy that spanned the country and that was responsible for the distribution of kilograms of fentanyl from Southern California to the DMV. Nava – who sold 12,000 fentanyl-laced counterfeit oxycodone pills and one dozen firearms, including an AR-style rifle to undercover officers – was one of 24 co-defendants arrested over the course of 2023 in D.C., Virginia, Maryland, San Diego, and Los Angeles and charged in the conspiracy.

            The sentence was announced by U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves, DEA Special Agent in Charge Jarod Forget of the DEA Washington Division, Inspector in Charge Damon Wood of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service Washington Division, and Chief Pamela A. Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department.

            Nava pleaded guilty on May 9, 2024, to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl. In addition to the 14-year prison term, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered Nava to serve five years of supervised release.

            According to court documents, Nava’s role in the conspiracy was to serve as an upstream Los Angeles-based supplier of fentanyl-laced counterfeit oxycodone pills to other Los Angeles-based fentanyl traffickers, including co-defendant Hector David Valdez. Valdez allegedly was a bulk supplier of fentanyl-laced counterfeit oxycodone pills to D.C.-based fentanyl traffickers.

            In coordinating his sales of fentanyl-laced counterfeit pills, Nava worked with various co-defendants to obtain bulk quantities of pills for redistribution, including fake pills from Mexico-based sources. Nava also conspired with New York-based fentanyl traffickers, meeting with them in Los Angeles and supplying them with the fentanyl-laced fake oxycodone, which the New York-based traffickers then smuggled back to New York using interstate commercial shipping and mail carriers.

            Additionally, Nava regularly trafficked firearms in conjunction with his drug trafficking. He conducted multiple controlled purchases of narcotics and firearms with undercover federal law enforcement agents.

            In total, Nava sold 12,000 fentanyl-laced counterfeit oxycodone pills and one dozen firearms, including an AR-style rifle, as part of controlled sales that were facilitated by federal undercover officers over the life of conspiracy.

            The impetus for this investigation was the overdose death of Diamond Lynch, a young mother in Southeast D.C. In addition to investigating and prosecuting the death resulting case,[1] law enforcement followed the evidence and uncovered a vast network of traffickers who transported fentanyl from Mexico to Los Angeles to the District of Columbia. Since then, investigators have seized more than 450,000 fentanyl pills, 1.5 kilograms of fentanyl powder, and 30 firearms.

            This investigation is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) investigation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.









DEFENDANT





AGE





LOCATION





CHARGES/SENTENCE









 

Hector David Valdez,

aka “Curl”





 

26





Santa Fe Springs, California





Conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl;

Conspiracy to commit international money laundering.









 

Craig Eastman





 

20





Washington, D.C.





Pleaded guilty July 25, 2024, to conspiracy to distribute more than 400 grams of fentanyl.









Charles Jeffrey Taylor





20





Washington, D.C.





Conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl;

Possession with intent to distribute fentanyl.









Raymond Nava, Jr.





20





Bell Gardens,

California





Sentenced 9/17/2024 to 14 Years for conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl.









Ulises Aldaz





28





Bell Gardens,

California





Sentenced June 28, 2024, to 95 months in prison, four years of supervised release, after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl.









 

Max Alexander Carias Torres





 

26





Bell Gardens,

California





Conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl;

Conspiracy to commit international money laundering









Teron Deandre McNeil, aka “Wild Boy”





34





Washington, D.C.





Conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl.









Marvin Anthony Bussie,

aka “Money Marr”





21





Washington, D.C.





Sentenced June 28, 2024, to 120 months in prison, five years of supervised release, after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl.









Marcus Orlando Brown





28





Washington, D.C.





Pleaded guilty March 11, 2024, to conspiracy to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl.









Columbian Thomas, aka

"Cruddy Murda”





26





Washington, D.C.





Pleaded guilty June 4, 2024, to conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl.









Wayne Rodell Carr-Maiden





29





Washington, D.C.





Sentenced April 29, 2024, to 45 months in prison, five years of supervised release, after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl.









Andre Malik Edmond,

aka “Draco”





23





Temple Hills, Maryland





Sentenced July 22, 2024, to 130 months incarceration, 5 years of supervised release, after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl.









Treyveon James Johnson,

aka “Treyski”





20





Alexandria, Virginia





Sentenced Sept. 5, 2024, to 108 months in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl.









Karon Olufemi Blalock,

aka “Fat Bags”





30





Alexandria, Virginia





Conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl









Ronte Ricardo Greene,

aka “Cardiddy”





28





Washington, D.C.





Conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl;

Possession with intent to distribute fentanyl.









Melvin Edward Allen, Jr., aka “21”





38





Washington, D.C.





Conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl.









Darius Quincy Hodges,

aka “Brick”





34





Glen Allen, Virginia





Conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl.









Lamin Sesay,

aka “Rock Star”





27





Alexandria, Virginia





Conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl.









Paul Alejandro Felix





25





Glendale,

California





Pleaded guilty July 1, 2024, to conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl.









Omar Arana,

aka “Frogs”





27





Cudahy,

California





Conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl









Edgar Balderas, Jr., aka “Nano”





26





San Diego,

California





Conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl.









Raul Pacheco Ramirez





30





Long Beach,

California





Pleaded guilty July 19, 2024, to conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl.









Giovani Alejandro Briones





30





Victorville, California





Conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl;

Conspiracy to commit international money laundering.









Alfredo Rodriguez Gonzalez





26





Rosarito, Mexico





Conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl;

Conspiracy to commit international money laundering.









            The prosecutions followed a joint investigation by the DEA Washington Division and the USPIS Washington Division in partnership with the Metropolitan Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), with additional support from the DEA Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside Field Offices, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Washington Field Office, and the Charles County, Maryland Sheriff’s Office. Valuable assistance was provided by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices in the Central and Southern Districts of California, the Eastern District of Virginia, the District of Maryland and U.S. Marshals.

            The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Matthew W. Kinskey, Solomon S. Eppel, and Iris McCranie, of the Violence Reduction and Trafficking Offenses (VRTO) Section.

 

23cr73

 





[1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/brother-and-sister-sentenced-drug-conspiracy-involving-fentanyl-sales





Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL2JtYi1nYW5nLWFzc29jaWF0ZS1zZW50ZW5jZWQtMTUteWVhcnMtcHJpc29uLWNvbm5lY3Rpb24tMjAxMS1zaG9vdGluZy1laWdodC1wZW9wbGU
  Press Releases:
Joon H. Kim, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that ONEIL DASILVA, a/k/a “Soxx,” a/k/a “Bobby Soxx,” an associate of the violent Big Money Bosses (“BMB”) street gang, was sentenced today to 15 years in prison in connection with a shooting in 2011 at a backyard party in the Bronx, New York, during which eight people were shot, including a 13-year-old girl and a 14-year-old girl.  DASILVA pled guilty on December 8, 2016, before United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan, who also imposed today’s sentence.

Acting U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said:  “Oneil Dasilva, a Big Money Boss gang associate, terrorized his neighborhood in the Bronx, engaging in a reckless shooting spree that led to eight people, including two young teenagers, getting shot. For his crimes, Dasilva will now spend 15 years in a federal prison. Gang and gun violence must be confronted forcefully, as we did in this case with our law enforcement partners.”

According to the Indictment and other documents filed in the case, as well as statements made during the plea and sentencing proceedings:

DASILVA was an associate of BMB, a subset of the “Young Bosses,” or “YBz” street gang, which operates throughout New York City.  Between 2007 and 2016, members and associates of BMB committed numerous acts of violence against rival gang members in the Bronx and sold crack cocaine and marijuana.  

As part of his involvement in with BMB, on September 4, 2011, DASILVA opened fire at a backyard barbeque in the vicinity of 221st Street in the Bronx.  Eight people were shot, including a 13-year-old girl and a 14-year-old girl.  All of the victims survived.  

DASILVA was arrested in this case as a result of a multi-year investigation by the New York City Police Department’s Bronx Gang Squad (the “Bronx Gang Squad”), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations Violent Gang Unit (“HSI”), the New York Field Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), and the Joint Firearms Task Force of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) into gang violence in the Northern Bronx. DASILVA was charged in an Indictment unsealed on April 27, 2016 (United States v. Nico Burrell et al., 15 Cr. 95), charging 63 members and associates of BMB with racketeering conspiracy, narcotics conspiracy, narcotics distribution, and/or firearms charges.  To date, 47 of these defendants have pled guilty.

* * *

Mr. Kim praised the outstanding work of the NYPD’s Bronx Gang Squad, HSI, DEA, and ATF.  

This case is being handled by the Office’s Violent and Organized Crime Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Rachel Maimin, Micah W.J. Smith, Hagan Scotten, Jessica Feinstein, and Drew Johnson-Skinner are in charge of the prosecution.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL3N3aXNzLXByaXZhdGUtYmFuay1iYW5xdWUtcGljdGV0LWFkbWl0cy1jb25zcGlyaW5nLXVzLXRheHBheWVycy1oaWRlLWFzc2V0cy1hbmQtaW5jb21l
  Press Releases:
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Stuart M. Goldberg, the Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Matters of the Justice Department’s Tax Division, and Jim Lee, the Chief of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (“IRS-CI”), announced today the filing of criminal charges against Swiss Bank, BANQUE PICTET ET CIE SA (“BANQUE PICTET” or the “Bank”) for conspiring with U.S. taxpayers and others to hide more than $5.6 billion in 1,637 secret bank accounts in Switzerland and elsewhere and to conceal the income generated in those accounts from the IRS.

As part of today’s resolution, BANQUE PICTET entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) and agreed to pay approximately $122.9 million to the U.S. Treasury.  Today’s resolution is one of a series of cases brought by the Department of Justice in connection with its investigations since 2008 into facilitation of offshore U.S. tax evasion by foreign banks.  The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos. 



U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “As it has admitted today, Banque Pictet knowingly conspired to conceal from the IRS the income generated by accounts which held more than $5.6 billion.  Thanks to the hard work of the career prosecutors of this Office and our law enforcement partners, Banque Pictet has agreed to pay more than $122.9 million and will continue to cooperate with the Department of Justice.  Rooting out financial malfeasance remains a priority for this Office, and we encourage companies and financial institutions to come to us to report wrongdoing before we come to you.”



Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg said: “Today, Banque Pictet et Cie admitted to actively helping U.S. taxpayers use coded accounts, foreign trusts and entities, nominee beneficiaries and other deceits to conceal their income and assets abroad.  For this criminal conduct the bank will be paying nearly $122.9 million in restitution, disgorgement of fees and a financial penalty, and is required to fully cooperate with investigations relating to these secret accounts.”

IRS-CI Chief Jim Lee said: “This case should provide a clear message to others who try to hide their assets and income offshore.  Our special agents are experts in following the money, and they are the best at uncovering schemes that try to defraud the U.S. tax system.  Offshore tax evasion is a priority for IRS Criminal Investigation, and today’s deferred prosecution agreement with Bank Pictet collects more than $120 million owed to the U.S. government.”

According to documents filed today in Manhattan federal court:

The Pictet Group was founded in 1805 and is a privately held Swiss financial institution headquartered in Geneva that has historically operated as a general partnership and, since 2014, as a corporate partnership.  A limited number of managing partners, generally eight or fewer, collectively known as “The Salon,” own and manage the Pictet Group.

As of December 31, 2014, the Pictet Group had approximately 3,800 employees in various locations, primarily in Switzerland, but also in Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the Bahamas.   The Pictet Group operates two main business divisions: institutional asset management and private banking for individuals.

From 2008 to 2014, the Pictet Group’s private banking division was operated by the group’s following banking entities: the Swiss bank (BANQUE PICTET & CIE SA); Pictet & Cie (Europe) SA, headquartered in Luxembourg; Bank Pictet & Cie (Asia) Ltd. in Singapore; and the Bahamian bank, Pictet Bank & Trust Ltd.  The Pictet Group provided offshore corporation and trust formation and administration services to certain U.S. taxpayers, first through the Estate Planning and Trust Services unit and later through a wholly owned subsidiary called Rhone Trust and Fiduciary Services SA (Rhone).

As of December 31, 2014, the Pictet Group’s private banking division managed or held custody of approximately $165 billion in assets under management (“AUM”).  From 2008 to 2014, the Pictet Group served approximately 3,736 private accounts that had U.S. taxpayers as beneficial owners, whose aggregate maximum AUM, including declared assets, was approximately $20 billion.

Though the Pictet Group adopted early measures to confirm that U.S. clients complied with U.S. law, from 2008 through 2014, the Pictet Group assisted certain U.S. taxpayer-clients with Pictet Group accounts in evading their U.S. tax obligations and otherwise hiding undeclared accounts[1] from the IRS.

In total, from 2008 through 2014, the Pictet Group held 1,637 U.S. Penalty Accounts,[2] with aggregate maximum AUM of approximately $5.6 billion in January 2008, on behalf of U.S. taxpayer-clients, who collectively evaded approximately $50.6 million in U.S. taxes.

The Pictet Group assisted U.S. taxpayer-clients with evading their U.S. taxes by opening and maintaining undeclared accounts for U.S. taxpayer-clients at the Pictet Group, either directly or through external asset managers.  The Pictet Group also maintained accounts of certain U.S. taxpayer-clients within the Pictet Group in a manner that allowed the U.S. taxpayer-clients to further conceal their undeclared accounts from the IRS.  The Pictet Group and certain of its employees knew or should have known that some of their U.S. taxpayer-clients were evading U.S. taxes.  In every instance, managing partners approved the opening of new private client relationships and were informed of the closing of U.S. taxpayer-clients’ accounts, which included some undeclared accounts.

As further detailed below, the Pictet Group used a variety of means to assist U.S. taxpayer-clients in concealing their undeclared accounts, including by:

Forming or administering offshore entities in whose name the Pictet Group opened and maintained accounts, some of which were undeclared, for U.S. taxpayer-clients; 

Opening and maintaining undeclared accounts in the names of offshore entities formed by others for U.S. taxpayer-clients;

Opening and maintaining Private Placement Life Insurance policy accounts, also called insurance wrappers, held in the name of insurance companies but beneficially owned by U.S. taxpayers and improperly managed or funded through undeclared accounts at the Pictet Group;

Transferring funds from undeclared U.S. taxpayer-client accounts to accounts nominally held by non-U.S. clients but still controlled by U.S. taxpayer-clients via fictitious donations, thus assisting U.S. taxpayer-clients in continuing to maintain undeclared funds offshore; and

Providing traditional Swiss banking products such as hold-mail account services, where account-related mail is held at the bank rather than sent to the client, and coded or numbered accounts; and

Accepting IRS Forms W-8BEN[3] or Pictet Group’s substitute forms that the group knew or should have known falsely stated or implied under penalty of perjury that offshore entities beneficially owned the assets in the undeclared accounts.

The $122.9 million BANQUE PICTET agreed to pay to the U.S. Treasury pursuant to the DPA consists of (i) $52,164,201 to the United States, which represents gross fees (not profits) that the bank earned on its undeclared accounts between 2008 and 2014; (ii) $31,844,192 in restitution to the IRS, which represents the unpaid taxes resulting from BANQUE PICTET’s participation in the conspiracy; and (iii) a $38,950,998 penalty.  The penalty considers the nature and seriousness of the Pictet Group's conduct, the Bank’s extensive internal investigation, the Bank’s substantial provision of documents to the Justice Department, and the Bank’s facilitation of witness interviews.  The Bank further implemented remedial measures to protect against the use of its services for future tax evasion.

In addition to the payment, BANQUE PICTET also agrees under the DPA to accept responsibility for its conduct by stipulating to the accuracy of an extensive Statements of Facts.  BANQUE PICTET further agreed to refrain from all future criminal conduct, implement remedial measures and cooperate fully with further investigations into hidden bank accounts.  Specifically, the Bank is required to cooperate fully with ongoing investigations and affirmatively disclose any information it may later uncover regarding U.S.-related accounts.  The Bank is also required to disclose information consistent with the Justice Department’s Swiss Bank Program relating to accounts closed between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2022.  The agreements provide no protection from criminal or civil prosecution for any individuals.

If BANQUE PICTET continues to comply with its agreement, the United States has agreed to defer prosecution of BANQUE PICTET for a period of three years, after which time the United States will seek to dismiss the charge against BANQUE PICTET.

*                *                *

Mr. Williams praised the outstanding investigative work of the special agents of IRS-CI.

The prosecution of this case is being handled by the Justice Department’s Tax Division and the Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.  Senior Litigation Counsel Nanette Davis of the Tax Division and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Daniel G. Nessim and Olga Zverovich are in charge of the prosecution.





[1] An “undeclared account” was a financial account beneficially owned by an individual subject to U.S. tax obligations and maintained in a foreign country that had not been reported by the individual account owner to the U.S. Government on an income tax return or an FBAR—a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, FinCEN Form 114 (formerly known as Form TD F 90 22.1).





[2] “U.S. Penalty Accounts” are defined as U.S. accounts valued over $50,000 that the parties agree should be subject to a penalty for the offense conduct.





[3]The IRS Form W-8BEN is a tax form that identifies the foreign status of non-U.S. persons for U.S. tax withholding purposes.





Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL2NoaWVmLW9wZXJhdGluZy1vZmZpY2VyLWFuZC12aWNlLXByZXNpZGVudC1pbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsLWNhcmdvLWFpcmxpbmUtcGxlYWQtZ3VpbHR5
  Press Releases:
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced the guilty pleas today of LARS WINKELBAUER and ABILASH KURIEN in connection with a massive scheme to defraud Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. (“Polar”), a leading cargo airline, of tens of millions of dollars in revenue.  WINKELBAUER pled guilty today to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering before U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman, and KURIEN pled guilty yesterday to the same offense.



U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “In April 2023, this Office charged 10 defendants for their involvement in a widespread scheme that permeated nearly every facet of Polar Air Cargo Worldwide.  To date, nine individuals have pled guilty, including Lars Winkelbauer and Abilash Kurien, two top executives who have confessed today and are poised to face time in prison for their betrayal of the company’s trust and that of the wider community.  Wire fraud and money laundering are not merely financial crimes; they erode faith in institutions, undermine economic stability, and harm innocent individuals and businesses.  This Office and our partners recognize that profound impact and we will not falter in our work to uphold the rule of the law.”    



According to the allegations contained in the Indictment and statements made in public filings and in public court proceedings:

From at least in or about 2009 through in or about July 2021, WINKELBAUER, KURIEN, and at least eight other individuals participated in a massive scheme to defraud Polar.  At all relevant times, WINKELBAUER, KURIEN, and two co-defendants were senior executives of Polar (the “Executive Defendants”), and six co-defendants (the “Vendor Defendants”) owned and operated various Polar vendors and customers. 

WINKELBAUER was Polar’s Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President and is the most senior of the Executive Defendants.  KURIEN was the Vice President of Marketing, Revenue Management, and Network Planning.

The Executive Defendants agreed to accept millions of dollars in kickbacks from the Vendor Defendants and also reaped substantial financial benefits as a result of their secret ownership interests in certain Polar vendors, in exchange for ensuring that those vendors received favorable business arrangements with Polar.  The fraud they perpetrated — which involved a substantial portion of Polar’s senior management and at least 10 customers and vendors of Polar — led to pervasive corruption of Polar’s business, touching nearly every aspect of the company’s operations for over a decade. 

As a result of the scheme, the Executive Defendants, along with two co-conspirators who also worked as senior executives at Polar, received unlawful payments, either directly or through various limited liability companies they controlled, in excess of approximately $23 million in kickback payments or disbursements as a result of their ownership of conflicted companies. 

WINKELBAUER and KURIEN are the eighth and ninth defendants to plead guilty in the case thus far.

*                *                *

WINKELBAUER, 48, of Bangkok, Thailand, and KURIEN, 46, of Wilton, Connecticut, each pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.  WINKELBAUER agreed to pay forfeiture in the amount of $6,774,039.30 and to make restitution to Polar in the amount of $33,539,396.  KURIEN agreed to pay forfeiture in the amount of $7,192,064.41 and to make restitution to Polar in the amount of $22,956,341.  WINKELBAUER is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Furman on May 30, 2024, and KURIEN is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Furman on July 23, 2024.

The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.

Mr. Williams praised the outstanding work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation. 

The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Katherine Reilly, Danielle Kudla, Kevin Mead, and Qais Ghafary are in charge of the prosecution.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL255Y2hhLXN1cGVyaW50ZW5kZW50cy1wbGVhZC1ndWlsdHktYWNjZXB0aW5nLWJyaWJlcw
  Press Releases:
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that LEROY GIBBS and JULIO FIGUEROA each pled guilty to accepting bribes for awarding no-bid contracts at the New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”) facilities at which they served as superintendents.  GIBBS pled guilty before United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on October 7, 2022, and will be sentenced by United States District Judge Colleen McMahon on January 25, 2023.  FIGUEROA pled guilty today before United States District Judge Denise L. Cote and will be sentenced by Judge Cote on February 9, 2023. 

U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “Leroy Gibbs and Julio Figueroa betrayed the trust placed in them by the New York City Housing Authority by accepting bribes in exchange for awarding no-bid contracts.  Gibbs and Figueroa now stand convicted of federal felonies and will face sentencing for their crimes.”

According to the Complaints, Informations, and statements made in court:

In February 2020, GIBBS, who was then employed as the Resident Buildings Superintendent at Douglass Houses in New York, New York, solicited and accepted approximately $2,000 in bribes from a confidential informant (the “CI”) in exchange for awarding no-bid contracts to the CI worth a total of approximately $9,950 from NYCHA for work at that NYCHA facility.

Between July 2021 and August 2022, FIGUEROA, who was then employed as the Assistant Resident Buildings Superintendent at the Ft. Independence St.-Heath Ave. Houses in the Bronx, New York, solicited and accepted approximately $6,000 in bribes from the CI in exchange for awarding no-bid contracts to the CI worth a total of approximately $46,622 from NYCHA for work at that NYCHA facility.

*                *                *

GIBBS, 58, of Bay Shore, New York, and FIGUEROA, 45, of East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, each pled guilty to one count of solicitation and receipt of a bribe, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.  Under the terms of their plea agreements, GIBBS agreed to forfeit $2,000 and make restitution in the amount of $2,000, and FIGUEROA agreed to forfeit $6,000 and make restitution in the amount of $6,000.

The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge. 

Mr. Williams praised the outstanding investigative work of the New York City Department of Investigation, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Inspector General, and the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. 

The prosecution of this case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Catherine Ghosh and Robert B. Sobelman are in charge of the prosecution.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL3J1c3NpYW4taGFja2VyLXNlbnRlbmNlZC0xMi15ZWFycy1wcmlzb24taW52b2x2ZW1lbnQtbWFzc2l2ZS1uZXR3b3JrLWludHJ1c2lvbnMtdXM
  Press Releases:
Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that ANDREI TYURIN, a/k/a “Andrei Tiurin,” was sentenced in Manhattan federal court to 144 months in prison for computer intrusion, wire fraud, bank fraud, and illegal online gambling offenses in connection with his involvement in a massive computer hacking campaign targeting U.S. financial institutions, brokerage firms, financial news publishers, and other American companies.  TYURIN is charged with committing these crimes with Gery Shalon, a/k/a “Garri Shalelashvili,” a/k/a “Gabriel,” a/k/a “Gabi,” a/k/a “Phillipe Mousset,” a/k/a “Christopher Engeham,” Joshua Samuel Aaron, a/k/a “Mike Shields,” and Ziv Orenstein, a/k/a “Aviv Stein,” a/k/a “John Avery,” in furtherance of securities market manipulation, illegal online gambling, and payment processing fraud schemes perpetrated by Shalon, Aaron, Orenstein, and their co-conspirators.  TYURIN previously pled guilty to these charges, and was sentenced today before U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain. 

Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said:  “From his home in Moscow, Andrei Tyurin played a major role in orchestrating and facilitating an international hacking campaign that included one of the largest thefts of U.S. customer data from a single financial institution in history, stealing the personal information of more than 80 million J.P. Morgan Chase customers.  The conspiracy targeted major financial institutions, brokerage firms, news agencies, and other companies, and netted Tyurin over $19 million in criminal proceeds.  Now Tyurin has been sentenced to 12 years in prison for his crimes.”

According to the allegations contained in the Indictments to which TYURIN pled guilty, other filings in this case, and statements made during court proceedings, including TYURIN’s guilty plea hearing:

From approximately 2012 to mid-2015, TYURIN engaged in an extensive computer hacking campaign targeting financial institutions, brokerage firms, and financial news publishers in the U.S. (including but not limited to J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, E*Trade, Scottrade, and the Wall Street Journal), and was responsible for the theft of personal information of over 100 million customers of the victim companies.  TYURIN’s hack of J.P. Morgan Chase Bank alone resulted in the theft of personal information of over 80 million customers.  TYURIN engaged in these crimes at the direction of his partner Gery Shalon, and in furtherance of other criminal schemes overseen and operated by Shalon and his co-conspirators, including securities fraud schemes in the United States.  For example, in an effort to artificially inflate the price of certain stocks publicly traded in the U.S., Shalon and his co-conspirators marketed the stocks in a deceptive and misleading manner to customers of the victim companies whose contact information TYURIN stole in the intrusions. 

In addition to the U.S. financial sector hacks, from approximately 2007 to mid-2015 TYURIN also conducted cyberattacks against numerous U.S. and foreign companies in furtherance of various criminal enterprises operated by Shalon and his co-conspirators, including unlawful internet gambling businesses and international payment processors.  Nearly all of these illegal businesses, like the securities market manipulation schemes, exploited the fruits of TYURIN’s computer hacking campaigns.  TYURIN’s hacking activity included the targeting of companies known to be used for email marketing campaigns, competitor online casinos, and a merchant risk intelligence firm based in the United States, in order for the co-conspirators to monitor the firm’s efforts to audit potentially criminal online credit card transactions on behalf of major credit card networks, and thus avoid detection of their own criminal schemes.

In furtherance of his hacking activities, TYURIN used computer infrastructure located across five continents, which he controlled from his home in Moscow, and maintained persistent access over extended periods of time to the victims’ networks, regularly refreshing the stolen data by repeatedly downloading information from these companies.  And once his hacking activities were detected, TYURIN worked with Shalon to destroy the evidence of their criminal activity and undermine U.S. law enforcement’s efforts to identify and arrest them. 

Through these various criminal schemes, TYURIN, Shalon, and their co-conspirators obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in illicit proceeds, and TYURIN himself earned over $19 million in profits from his hacking activity.

*                *                *

TYURIN, 37, of Moscow, Russia, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit computer hacking, one count of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to violate the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud.  In addition, TYURIN pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit computer hacking, from charges that were transferred from the Northern District of Georgia for purposes of his plea.  In addition to the prison term, Judge Swain ordered TYURIN to serve three years of supervised release, and to pay forfeiture in the amount of $19,214,956. The Court will determine TYURIN’s restitution obligations at a hearing scheduled for April 6, 2021.  TYURIN has been in U.S. custody since he was extradited from the country of Georgia in September 2018, and will commence serving his sentence immediately.   

*                *                *

Ms. Strauss praised the investigative work of the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service, and expressed her sincere gratitude to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia and the Ministry of Justice of Georgia for their support and assistance with the extradition proceedings.  She also thanked the Securities and Exchange Commission, Homeland Security Investigations, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the Office of International Affairs of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division for its assistance with the extradition, and the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center, which significantly aided the investigation by facilitating information sharing among the victim institutions.

The prosecution of this case is being overseen by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eun Young Choi, Noah Solowiejczyk, and Sarah Lai are in charge of the prosecution.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL2ZvdW5kZXItY3liZXJmcmF1ZC1wcmV2ZW50aW9uLWNvbXBhbnktc2VudGVuY2VkLWZpdmUteWVhcnMtcHJpc29uLWRlZnJhdWRpbmctaW52ZXN0b3Jz
  Press Releases:
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that ADAM ROGAS, the co-founder and former CEO, CFO, and member of the board of directors of a Las Vegas-based cyberfraud prevention company NS8, Inc. (“NS8”), was sentenced today in Manhattan federal court to five years in prison for engaging in securities fraud by creating and using fraudulent financial data to obtain over $123 million in financing for NS8, of which he personally obtained approximately $17.5 million.  ROGAS pled guilty on March 16, 2022, before United States District Judge John P. Cronan, who imposed today’s sentence.

U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “Adam Rogas took the ‘fake-it-till-you-make-it’ saying to a criminal extreme.  While claiming to be in the fraud prevention business, Rogas himself faked nearly all of his company’s customers, revenue, and assets.  In doing so, he defrauded investors out of over $100 million.  Now Rogas will report to prison to be held accountable for his fraudulent scheme.”

In handing down ROGAS’s sentence, Judge Cronan characterized the defendant’s fraud as “brazen, calculated, and long-running.”

According to the Complaint, Indictment, other publicly filed documents, and statements made in court:

ADAM ROGAS was a co-founder of NS8 and served as its CEO, CFO, and as a member of its board of directors.  ROGAS was also primarily responsible for the company’s fundraising activities.  NS8, which was based in Las Vegas, Nevada, was a cyberfraud prevention company that developed and sold electronic tools to help online vendors assess the fraud risks of customer transactions.  In the fall of 2019 and the spring of 2020, NS8 engaged in fundraising rounds through which it issued Series A Preferred Shares and obtained approximately $123 million in investor funds.  ROGAS used the materially misleading financial statements to raise those funds.

Specifically, ROGAS maintained control over a bank account into which NS8 received revenue from its customers and periodically provided monthly statements from that account to NS8’s finance department so that NS8’s financial statements could be created.  ROGAS also maintained control over spreadsheets that purportedly tracked customer revenue, which were also used to generate NS8’s financial statements.

During the fundraising process in the fall of 2019 and spring of 2020, ROGAS altered the bank statements before providing them to NS8’s finance department to show tens of millions of dollars in both customer revenue and bank balances that did not exist.  In the period from January 2019 through February 2020, between at least approximately 40% and 95% of the purported total assets on NS8’s balance sheet were fictitious.  In that same period, the bank statements that ROGAS altered reflected over $40 million in fictitious revenue.  ROGAS also falsified nearly all of NS8’s purported customers on internal tracking spreadsheets.

Additionally, ROGAS provided the falsified bank records he had created to auditors who were conducting due diligence on behalf of potential investors.  After these fundraising rounds concluded, NS8 conducted a tender offer with the funds raised from investors, and ROGAS received $17.5 million in proceeds from that tender offer, personally and through a company he controlled.  After ROGAS’s fraud was uncovered, NS8 ultimately entered bankruptcy proceedings.  ROGAS used his fraudulent proceeds to purchase, among other things, luxury goods and a residence in the Dominican Republic.

*                *                *

In addition to his prison term, ROGAS, 45, of Las Vegas, Nevada, was sentenced to three years’ supervised release and ordered to forfeit $17,542,259.

Mr. Williams praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI in this investigation.  Mr. Williams further thanked the Securities and Exchange Commission for its cooperation and assistance in this investigation.  

This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Richard Cooper and Jared Lenow are in charge of the prosecution.  

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL2FjdGluZy1tYW5oYXR0YW4tdXMtYXR0b3JuZXktYW5ub3VuY2VzLWF3YXJkLTI5Ni1taWxsaW9uLWp1ZGdtZW50LWFnYWluc3QtYWxsaWVkLWhvbWU
  Press Releases:
Joon H. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced the award of a judgment yesterday totaling $296,298,325 against the entities formerly known as ALLIED HOME MORTGAGE CAPITAL CORPORATION (“ALLIED CAPITAL”) and ALLIED HOME MORTGAGE CORPORATION (“ALLIED CORPORATION”) (collectively, “ALLIED”), and a judgment in the amount of $25,340,496 against ALLIED’s President and Chief Executive Officer JIM C. HODGE (“HODGE”), for over a decade of fraudulent misconduct while participating in the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) mortgage insurance program.  In November 2016, after a five-week trial in Houston, Texas, a unanimous jury found that ALLIED and HODGE violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), and caused over $92 million in damages to the United States.  The judgment, ordered by the district court on September 14, 2017, trebles the jury’s $92 million FCA verdict and imposes additional statutory penalties under the FCA and FIRREA as determined by the Court in light of ALLIED and HODGE’s misconduct.  The judgment was awarded by United States District Judge George C. Hanks Jr. of the Southern District of Texas, who presided over the trial.          

Under the FCA, damages are subject to mandatory trebling.  The FCA also provides for a per-violation penalty, which during the relevant time period was $5,500 to $11,000 for each violation, and FIRREA provides for a penalty of up to $1.1 million for each violation.  In addition to trebling the $92 million damages determined by the jury, the Court imposed a penalty of $10,000 for each violation of the FCA found by the jury, for a total of $12,950,000 in FCA penalties, and the maximum $1.1 million penalty for each violation of FIRREA, for a total of $6.6 million in FIRREA penalties.  Pursuant to the Court’s order, HODGE is liable for over $25 million in damages and penalties.  

Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said:  “Jim Hodge and Allied defrauded a federal mortgage insurance program designed to help spread the dream of homeownership, and then lied about it repeatedly.  A jury saw through their lies, and now the Court has imposed millions of dollars in additional penalties.  This Office will continue to investigate and root out fraud in all of its forms.”

According to the evidence presented at trial, ALLIED and HODGE abused the FHA mortgage insurance program by falsely certifying that thousands of high risk, low quality loans were eligible for FHA insurance and then submitting insurance claims to FHA when any of those loans defaulted.  Specifically, ALLIED CAPITAL, with the knowledge and approval of HODGE, originated FHA-insured loans from more than one hundred “shadow” branch offices without the authorization of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), in order to evade oversight and disguise default rates.  In addition, ALLIED CORPORATION, as a participant in HUD’s Direct Endorsement Lender program, recklessly certified thousands of loans for FHA insurance that were in fact ineligible for insurance under HUD’s guidelines.  Finally, ALLIED and HODGE operated a dysfunctional quality control department that was not only unqualified and understaffed but also, at HODGE’s direction, submitted falsified quality control reports to HUD auditors and falsely certified that Allied was in compliance with HUD quality control guidelines.   

The United States filed a complaint-in-intervention in this lawsuit in November 2011.  At that time, the action was pending as a qui tam whistleblower lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  In September 2012, the action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  The jury returned its verdict in favor of the government on November 30, 2016. 

*                *                *

Mr. Kim thanked the HUD Office of General Counsel and the HUD Office of the Inspector General for their extraordinary assistance with this case.    

This case is being handled by the Civil Frauds Unit of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.  Assistant United States Attorneys Jeannette A. Vargas, Joseph N. Cordaro, Jean-David Barnea, Caleb Hayes-Deats, and Stephen Cha-Kim, who are designated as Special Assistant United States Attorneys for the Southern District of Texas for purposes of this matter, are in charge of the case.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:19-cr-00311
Case Name:   USA v. Melendez
  Press Releases:
Joon H. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, James J. Hunt, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), Philip R. Bartlett, Inspector-in-Charge of the New York Office of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), James P. O’Neill, the Police Commissioner of the City of New York (“NYPD”), George P. Beach II, the Superintendent of the New York State Police (“NYSP”), and Angel M. Melendez, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), announced today the arrest of CRISTIAN RODRIGUEZ, who distributed through the U.S. mail heroin, oxycodone and other prescription drugs that were illegally sold over the Internet and on “dark web” marketplaces.  When RODRIGUEZ was arrested yesterday, the DEA and USPIS seized approximately 32 kilograms of prescription drugs that were in his apartment.  The defendant was presented yesterday before U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis in Manhattan federal court.     

 

Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said:  “As alleged, Cristian Rodriguez used the anonymity of the internet to peddle massive quantities of addictive pain killers without valid prescriptions.  Hiding behind computers, Rodriguez and his co-conspirators allegedly sold and shipped multiple kilograms of highly addictive prescription drugs and potentially lethal opioids.  Thanks to the outstanding work of our law enforcement partners, Rodriguez has been arrested and his dangerous business has been taken offline.”

DEA Special Agent-in-Charge James J. Hunt said:  “Anonymity is a drug trafficker’s friend and law enforcement’s foe.  Yesterday’s street corner dealer has been replaced by the dark web that enables criminal activity and drug addiction.  Online illicit marketplaces challenge law enforcement, but this investigation demonstrates how joint efforts can lead to the arrest of an alleged major drug distributor based in New York City.”

USPIS Inspector-in-Charge Philip R. Bartlett said: “The opioid crisis has become a national emergency impacting the lives of so many unsuspecting families.  Postal Inspectors, along with their law enforcement partners, are determined to put a stop to the distribution of illegal narcotics, safeguarding the American public.”

NYPD Commissioner James P. O’Neill said:  “This defendant attempted to use the anonymity of the internet to peddle heroin, counterfeit oxycodone, and other prescription drugs to those battling serious addiction.  Those who profit on at the expense of others’ well-being will be investigated and prosecuted, aggressively. Today’s arrest is the latest example of our continued commitment.”

NYSP Superintendent George P. Beach II said:  “This arrest is another example of how dedicated police work and strong law enforcement partnerships are succeeding in keeping dangerous narcotics from infiltrating our neighborhoods.  Criminals who illegally sell counterfeit prescription drugs are putting our communities as risk.  These pharmaceuticals, when not taken under the supervision of a doctor, can be highly addictive and destroy lives.  I commend the hard work of the Strike Force and all of our law enforcement partners as they fight to keep drugs off our streets and work to prevent prescription drug abuse.”

HSI Special Agent-in-Charge Angel Melendez said:  “These multi-agency task forces are essential in the fight against the illegal proliferation of potentially deadly and highly-addictive prescription drugs.  The arrest of the defendant and the significant seizures announced today ensure that these drugs will never make it into our communities to do untold harm.”

According to the allegations in the Complaint and statements made in Manhattan federal court:[[1]]    

 

Since at least May 2016, RODRIGUEZ and his co-conspirators anonymously sold and distributed controlled substances over the Internet via online marketplaces and “dark web” sites.  RODRIGUEZ shipped various prescription drugs, including counterfeit oxycodone, which was actually made of heroin and other substances, to individuals across the United States.  RODRIGUEZ maintained a stockpile of these drugs in his apartment in the Bronx, New York.  A search of RODRIGUEZ’s residence at the time of his arrest uncovered, among other things, approximately 32 kilograms of prescription drugs, shipping supplies, drug paraphernalia, money transfer records, and electronics typically used in the operation of online narcotics distribution schemes.                

 

*                      *                     *

           

RODRIGUEZ, 43, of the Dominican Republic, was charged with one count of distributing and possessing with intent to distribute heroin and oxycodone, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.  The maximum potential 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. 

 

Mr. Kim praised the outstanding investigative work of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the DEA’s New York Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Strike Force.  The Strike Force comprises agents and officers of the DEA, the New York City Police Department, Homeland Security Investigations, the New York State Police, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigative Division, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Marshals Service, the New York National Guard, the Clarkstown Police Department, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Port Washington Police Department, and the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.  The Strike Force is partially funded by the New York/New Jersey High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (“HIDTA”), which is a federally funded crime fighting initiative and part of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (“OCDTEF”) program.

 

In an effort to help prevent prescription drug abuse and theft, the DEA and its local law enforcement, community, and tribal partners are offering the public its 14th opportunity in seven years to rid their homes of potentially dangerous expired, unused, and unwanted prescription drugs.  This Saturday, October 28, 2017, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., individuals can take pills and other solid forms of medication to one of almost 5,000 collection sites manned by more than 4,000 partners nationwide.  Individuals can find nearby collection sites at www.DEATakeBack.com.  The service is free and anonymous, no questions asked.

           

This case is being handled by the Office’s Narcotics Unit.  Assistant United States Attorney Nicolas Roos is 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 descriptions of the Complaint set forth below constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Joon H. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, James J. Hunt, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s New York Field Division (“DEA”), Angel M. Melendez, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), George Beach, the Superintendent of the New York State Police (“NYSP”), James P. O’Neill, the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), and George Beach, Superintendent, New York State Police, announced charges against five defendants for allegedly possessing and conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute over 2,000 kilograms of cocaine, in violation of the maritime drug enforcement laws of the United States.  IVAN CORTES MOLINERO, FRANCISCO JAVIER OCHOA JOAQUIN, MIGUEL CHAVEZ DELGADO, ENEDINO GATAN VARGAS, and FERNANDO MORENO HERNANDEZ were transported to and arrived in the Southern District of New York on August 4, 2017, and are expected to be presented later today, before Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis in Manhattan federal court.

Manhattan Acting U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said:  “These five defendants allegedly made a brazen attempt to ship nearly 5,000 pounds of cocaine to the U.S., packing the drugs in a speedboat and then trying to outrun authorities in the waters off of Mexico. I want to thank our law enforcement partners, who stopped this massive shipment of narcotics from arriving at our shores.”

DEA Special Agent in Charge James J. Hunt said:  “From digging border tunnels to using go-fast boats, drug cartels will stop at nothing to get their illicit product into America. This seizure was a significant profit loss to the traffickers with a sobering effect to drug users in the U.S. I would like to thank our law enforcement partners in the U.S, Mexico and Colombia for their diligent work and collaboration on this investigation.”

HSI Special Agent-in-Charge Angel Melendez said:  “This team of perpetrators allegedly attempted to bring more than two tons of cocaine though U.S. borders.  It is the collaborative effort with the DEA and other federal and local agencies that law enforcement was able to interdict this action and keep deadly drugs off American streets.”

 

NYPD Commissioner James P. O’Neill said:  “As alleged, this criminal enterprise attempted to import a significant amount of cocaine to the United States by boat but law enforcement intercepted this shipment, five individual were taken into custody, and were subsequently charged. This investigation demonstrates the commitment of the NYPD to work alongside our federal partners to stop illegal drugs from entering our communities and hold responsible those who work to profit from illegal narcotics.”

State Police Superintendent George P. Beach II said: “We simply will not tolerate this type of alleged illegal drug trafficking activity in New York State. The valuable partnerships developed through the New York Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Strike Force were instrumental in these arrests and the seizure of these lethal narcotics. I want to thank our federal, state and local partners for their ongoing hard work and collaboration on this case, which has resulted in the arrests and removal of five alleged dangerous criminals who profit at the expense of our communities.”

As alleged in the criminal Complaint,[1] filed earlier this week in Manhattan federal court:

The DEA has been investigating a Colombian drug cartel (the “Cartel”) that sends shipments of cocaine to various points around the world by, among other methods, panga boats or “go-fasts.”  Go-fasts are small boats, typically similar in size to speed boats, with hulls of approximately 20 to 50 feet and a maximum capacity of approximately five passengers. 

On or about July 8, 2017, a United States Navy Aircraft (the “Aircraft”) was on routine patrol off the western coast of Mexico and approximately 590 nautical miles south of Mexico.  While there, an occupant of the Aircraft observed what appeared to be a go-fast boat (the “Go-Fast”).  The Aircraft communicated this information to the command of the United States Coast Guard (the “Coast Guard”), which dispatched a Coast Guard cutter (the “Cutter”) to intercept and board the Go-Fast.

The Cutter approached the Go-Fast and launched a helicopter and a patrol boat (the “Patrol Boat”), which proceeded to intercept the Go-Fast.  Occupants of the Patrol Boat (the “Boarding Team”) boarded and gained control of the Go-Fast, where they found CORTES MOLINERO, OCHOA JOAQUIN, CHAVEZ DELGADO, GATAN VARGAS, and MORENO HERNANDEZ. 

The Boarding Team observed numerous bales or large bundles wrapped in black plastic and brown tape on the deck of the Go-Fast.  The bales were in plain sight and occupied a substantial portion of the deck of the Go-Fast.

The Boarding Team recovered approximately 107 bales and one loose brick from the Go-Fast.  Two samples from the bales were field-tested, and tested positive for the presence of cocaine.  In total, the contents of the 107 bales and brick weighed approximately 2,141 kilograms or approximately 4,720 pounds.

*                      *                      *

CORTES MOLINERO, 30, OCHOA JOAQUIN, 40, CHAVEZ DELGADO, 46, GATAN VARGAS, 51, and MORENO HERNANDEZ 31, are citizens of Mexico.  Each defendant is charged with one count of conspiring to violate maritime drug enforcement laws and one count of violating maritime drug enforcement laws by possessing with the intent to distribute cocaine.  Each defendant faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment.  The statutory maximum penalties and mandatory minimum penalties in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.

Mr. Kim praised the outstanding efforts of the DEA’s New York Drug Enforcement Strike Force, which is comprised of officers of the DEA, the New York City Police Department, Immigration and Customs Enforcement – Homeland Security Investigations, the New York State Police, and the U.S. Marshal Service, among other agencies.  Mr. Kim also praised the outstanding efforts and assistance provided by the Coast Guard, United States Customs and Border Protection, the United States Navy, and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

This prosecution is being handled by the Office’s Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Jane Kim is in charge of the prosecution. 

The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are 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 are only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Joon H. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, James P. O’Neill, the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), Angel M. Melendez, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”),  Ashan M. Benedict, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”), and James J. Hunt, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), announced that DOMINICK SHERLAND, a/k/a “D-Nick,” was charged today in a Superseding Indictment with the murder of Jeffrey Delmore, who was stabbed to death on May 15, 2010, at the age of 15.  SHERLAND, along with 62 others, was originally charged on April 27, 2016, with racketeering conspiracy, narcotics conspiracy, and firearms offenses in connection with his membership in the “Big Money Bosses” (“BMB”), a violent street gang that operated primarily on White Plains Road from 215th Street to 233rd Street in the Bronx.

Acting U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said:  “As alleged, Dominick Sherland mistook 15-year-old Jeffrey Delmore for a gang rival, and stabbed him to death in defense of gang turf.  This brutal and senseless murder ended a young life.  Thanks to the outstanding work of our law enforcement partners, we are one step closer to providing Jeffrey Delmore’s family with the justice they deserve.”

HSI SAC Angel Melendez said:  “Dominick Sherland is already facing trial for a slew of charges including narcotics distribution and racketeering, and now he faces charges of murder for allegedly stabbing a 15-year-old boy to death as he pled for his life.  The alleged heinous act of this individual certifies that our unrelenting efforts to crack down on gang activity and the ensuing violence are necessary, and HSI and its partners will not waiver in that resolve.”

ATF SAC Ashan M. Benedict said:  “The members of BMB, including the defendant, terrorized the streets of the Northern Bronx, committing numerous wanton acts of violence. The alleged homicide of an innocent victim mistaken as a member of a rival gang highlights the depth of the defendant’s alleged depravity and the senselessness of the violence the defendant and his criminal associates allegedly brought to the streets. Today’s charges demonstrate that our investigation has not stopped, and that we will continue to hold these gang members accountable to ensure they face justice for all the crimes they are alleged to have committed.”

DEA SAC James J. Hunt said:  “Drug trafficking and violent crime are synonymous with gang activity. It is not surprising that additional crimes were unearthed as a result of last year’s massive gang takedown targeting the 2Fly YGZ and the BMB. What are shocking and appalling are casualties of this gang war; including the murder of a teenage boy whose identity was mistaken.”

According to the Superseding Indictment[1] and other documents filed in the case, as well as public proceedings in this case:

BMB was a subset of the “Young Bosses,” or “YBz” street gang, which operates throughout New York City.  Between 2007 and 2016, members and associates of BMB committed numerous acts of violence against rival gang members in the Bronx – including murders, attempted murders, and armed robberies – and sold crack cocaine and marijuana.  

SHERLAND was a member of BMB.  On May 15, 2010, SHERLAND and a group of other BMB members encountered a group of people in the vicinity of Gun Hill Road in the Bronx who the BMB members believed were members of the rival 2Fly YGz (“2Fly”) gang, which was based at the Eastchester Gardens public housing development.  The BMB members mistook Delmore for a member of 2Fly.  SHERLAND stabbed Delmore to death as Delmore pled for his life.

* * *

SHERLAND, 25, of the Bronx, New York, was arrested on April 27, 2016, and has been detained pending trial.  In the Superseding Indictment, he is charged with murder in aid of racketeering, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison; racketeering conspiracy, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison; narcotics conspiracy, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison; possessing a firearm during the narcotics conspiracy, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum of five years in prison, which must run consecutively to any other sentence imposed; and discharging a firearm during the racketeering conspiracy, which carries a maximum of sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum of 25 years in prison, which must run consecutively to any other sentence imposed.  The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as the defendant’s sentence will be determined by the judge.  SHERLAND is scheduled for trial on November 6, 2017, before United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan.

SHERLAND was arrested in this case as a result of a multi-year investigation by the Bronx Gang Squad of the NYPD, the HSI Violent Gang Unit, the DEA, and the Joint Firearms Task Force of ATF into gang violence in the Northern Bronx. On April 27, 2016, Indictment S2 15 Cr. 95 (AJN) was unsealed, charging 63 members and associates of BMB, including SHERLAND, with racketeering conspiracy, narcotics conspiracy, narcotics distribution, and firearms charges.  To date, 49 of these defendants have pled guilty.  Also on April 27, 2016, Indictment S1 16 Cr. 212 (LAK) was unsealed, charging 57 members of 2Fly with the same offenses.  To date, 54 of these defendants have pled guilty.

Mr. Kim praised the outstanding work of the NYPD’s 49th Precinct Detective Squad, the NYPD’s Bronx Gang Squad, HSI, DEA, ATF, and the Department of Investigation, NYCHA Inspector General’s Office.  He also thanked the Bronx County District Attorney’s Office for their ongoing support in this investigation.

This case is being handled by the Office’s Violent and Organized Crime Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Rachel Maimin, Micah W.J. Smith, Hagan Scotten, Jessica Feinstein, and Drew Johnson-Skinner are in charge of the prosecution.

 





[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment and the descriptions of the Indictment constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F. Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Angel M. Melendez, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), George Beach, the Superintendent of the New York State Police (“NYSP”), Carl E. Dubois, the Sheriff of Orange County, and Daniel C. Cameron, Chief of the City of Newburgh Police Department,  today announced the unsealing of two Indictments charging 10 members of two drug trafficking organizations based in Orange County, New York, with conspiracy to distribute cocaine.  Additionally, two other members were arrested on separate complaints.  In a coordinated operation earlier today, federal, state, and local law enforcement officers arrested eight defendants in Orange County and the Bronx.  One of the charged defendants had already been arrested and presented.  Most of the defendants are expected to be presented in White Plains federal court today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy. 

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara stated:  “The narcotics charges brought today strike at the heart of an entrenched group of alleged drug dealers operating out of Newburgh and the surrounding areas of Orange County.  With today’s charges, made possible by the outstanding work of the FBI, ICE HSI, and our state and local law enforcement partners, we seek to help stem the flow of cocaine in Orange County.”

FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. stated: “The ultimate goal in an investigation like this is to take out the leadership of these groups. It’s not just the drugs that take a toll on the communities where these subjects were operating, it’s the crime accompanying the drugs that impacts everyone. The FBI Hudson Valley Safe Streets Task Force and our law enforcement partners will continue to do all we can to stop the spread of the drug trade and the criminals who support it.”

HSI Special Agent-in-Charge Angel Melendez said:  “With many of the individuals arrested today facing up to 40 years in prison if convicted, we have sent a clear message to drug dealers in Orange County that they should immediately seek other employment.  HSI will remain steadfast in its commitment to working with its law enforcement partners to dismantle these drug trafficking organizations that destroy our neighborhoods with their poison.”

NYSP Superintendent George P. Beach II said:  “Today’s arrests are a result of an aggressive strategy to stop illegal drug trafficking and keep cocaine and other deadly substances off our streets.  Together, with our partners in federal, local and state law enforcement, we can combat the infiltration of narcotics into our communities and continue to put dangerous individuals like these 11 criminals behind bars.”

Orange County Sheriff Carl E. DuBois stated:  “These arrests prove once again that agencies cooperating with each other benefit the communities they serve.  The FBI Safe Streets Task Force has been instrumental in dismantling drug networks in the Hudson Valley area, and the Orange County Sheriff’s Office is proud to participate with and support the FBI, the U.S. Attorney’s office and other participating agencies.”

City of Newburgh Police Chief Daniel C. Cameron stated:  “Collaborative efforts like this are critical to targeting high level narcotics traffickers who plague our cities.  When we all work together in this capacity, we can truly improve the quality of life for the residents in Newburgh, Orange County, and across the state.”          

As alleged in the Indictments unsealed today in White Plains federal court[1]:

RIGOBERTO DIAZ, JAIRO ESQUIVIAS, a/k/a “Jalisco,” JUAN ROMERO, SAUL GARZON, ANDRES RIOS, and JUAN SANCHEZ PEREZ are charged in an indictment with conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams of cocaine, from 2013 to September 2016.  DIAZ and his alleged co-conspirators distributed cocaine in and around the City of Newburgh, New York, and other locations in Orange County, New York. 

ADAN SOLIS-TEYO, a/k/a “Adan Hernandez,” CHRISTOPHER POOL, LUIS SANCHEZ, a/k/a “Eito,” and LUIS MEJIA, a/k/a “Miguel Contreras,” are charged in an indictment with conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams of cocaine, from 2014 to February 2017.  SOLIS-TEYO and his alleged co-conspirators distributed cocaine in and around the City of Newburgh, New York, and in the Bronx, New York.

WILLIAM PERELDA, a/k/a “William Peralda,” a/k/a “Arturo Pelez-Gonzalez,” was charged by complaint and arrested on February 11, 2017.  PERELDA is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams and more of cocaine.  PERELDA is also charged with five counts of distribution of cocaine based on sales of cocaine to a cooperating witness.   

All of the defendants except SOLIS-TEYO and MEJIA were arrested today. 

*                      *                     *

Charts containing the names of the defendants who were charged today, and the charges and maximum penalties they face, are attached.  The statutory maximum penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencings of the defendants would be determined by the respective judges.

Mr. Bharara praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations, the New York State Police, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, the City of Newburgh Police Department, and the Village of Port Chester Police Department. 

These cases are being handled by the Office’s White Plains Division.  Assistant United States Attorneys Jennifer Burns, Lauren Schorr, and Olga Zverovich are in charge of the prosecutions.

The charges contained in the Indictments and Complaints are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.



CHARGE(S)





DEFENDANT(S)





MAXIMUM PENALTIES





Narcotics conspiracy – Cocaine

(conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) & 841(b)(1)(B))





RIGOBERTO DIAZ, JAIRO ESQUIVIAS, a/k/a “Jalisco,” JUAN ROMERO, SAUL GARZON, ANDRES RIOS, and JUAN SANCHEZ PEREZ, ADAN SOLIS-TEYO, a/k/a “Adan Hernandez,” CHRISTOPHER POOL, LUIS SANCHEZ, a/k/a “Eito,” LUIS MEJIA, a/k/a “Miguel Contreras,” WILLIAM PERELDA, a/k/a “William Peralda,” a/k/a “Arturo Pelez-Gonzalez,”

 





40 years in prison

Mandatory minimum: Five years in prison





Narcotics distribution

(distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) & 841(b)(1)(C))





WILLIAM PERELDA, a/k/a “William Peralda,” a/k/a “Arturo Pelez-Gonzalez”





40 years in prison

 





Narcotics distribution

(distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) & 841(b)(1)(C))





WILLIAM PERELDA, a/k/a “William Peralda,” a/k/a “Arturo Pelez-Gonzalez”





40 years in prison

 





Narcotics distribution

(distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) & 841(b)(1)(C))





WILLIAM PERELDA, a/k/a “William Peralda,” a/k/a “Arturo Pelez-Gonzalez”





40 years in prison

 





Narcotics distribution

(distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) & 841(b)(1)(C))





WILLIAM PERELDA, a/k/a “William Peralda,” a/k/a “Arturo Pelez-Gonzalez”





40 years in prison

 





Narcotics distribution

(distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) & 841(b)(1)(C))





WILLIAM PERELDA, a/k/a “William Peralda,” a/k/a “Arturo Pelez-Gonzalez”





40 years in prison

 



 

 





[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictments and the descriptions of the Indictments set forth below constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Angel M. Melendez, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), announced the arrest of ALFRED PABON, an Emergency Medical Technician with the Fire Department of the City of New York, stemming from his possession and receipt, as well as distribution of child pornography. PABON was arrested today and presented in Manhattan federal court before U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “As alleged, Alfred Pabon frequented online chat groups for the explicit purpose of finding children and child pornography. In one his chats, Pabon allegedly expressed interest in taking a trip to Mexico in search of ‘something teenish.’ Thanks to the work of Homeland Security Investigations, Pabon’s alleged predatory search for children and child pornography has been brought to an end.”

HSI Special Agent-in-Charge Angel Melendez said: “Using online chat groups to post photos and videos of children being sexually exploited is a sickening crime made even more disturbing when it is committed by an individual who holds the public's trust as a member of the FDNY. Every day HSI agents stationed around the country, use innovative techniques to search the internet and chat rooms to bring these pedophiles to justice and keep our children safe.”

According to the Complaint filed today in Manhattan federal court[1]:

From in or about November 2015, up to and including at least in or about January 2017, ALFRED PABON, an Emergency Medical Technician for the Fire Department of the City of New York, posted images and videos containing child pornography in chat groups of an online messaging application. The chat groups were used almost exclusively to trade child pornography, discuss child pornography, and/or discuss engaging in sexual activity with minors. In or about December 2015, PABON exchanged private messages through the online messaging application with an undercover HSI Special Agent (“UC-1”). Through these exchanges, PABON, using a particular account username (the “Pabon Account”) indicated to UC-1 that he was interested in a trip to Mexico and was looking for “something teenish.” PABON posted an image of two girls, who appear to be prepubescent minors, posing nude on a bed as an example of the type of girls in whom he was interested. In August 2016, a second undercover HSI Special Agent (“UC-2”) observed additional postings by PABON in another online chat room, at least one of which appeared to include an image of child pornography. UC-2 later used a link that PABON had posted to download approximately 33 videos, most of which contained child pornography.

PABON was arrested at his residence in the Bronx, New York. On the morning of his arrest, he admitted to law enforcement that he was the user of the Pabon Account and had used that account to copy and forward images and videos containing child pornography as recently as within the last month.

* * *

ALFRED PABON, 49, of the Bronx, New York, is charged with one count of distribution and receipt of child pornography, which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and one count of possession of child pornography, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.

Any individuals who believe they have information concerning ALFRED PABON that may be relevant to the investigation should contact HSI at its toll-free hotline: 1-866-DHS-2ICE; TTY for hearing impaired: (802) 872-6196. This hotline is staffed around-the-clock by investigators.

Mr. Bharara praised the efforts of HSI in this investigation. He added that the investigation is continuing.

The prosecution is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorney Lara Pomerantz is in charge of the prosecution.

The allegations 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 herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wo3c_SLJKKqXQAcTMu-5CAWlJAnVyrKaYRvGwWXbcLQ
  Last Updated: 2019-09-18 17:16:05 UTC
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL2ZvdW5kZXItYW5kLWNlby1jeWJlcmZyYXVkLXByZXZlbnRpb24tY29tcGFueS1hcnJlc3RlZC1hbmQtY2hhcmdlZC1zZWN1cml0aWVzLWZyYXVk
  Press Releases:
Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and William F. Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced today that ADAM ROGAS, the co-founder and former CEO, CFO, and member of the board of directors of Las Vegas-based cyberfraud prevention company NS8, Inc. (“NS8”), was charged in a Complaint in Manhattan federal court with securities fraud, fraud in the offer and sale of securities, and wire fraud.  ROGAS used fraudulent financial data to obtain over $123 million in financing for NS8, of which he personally obtained approximately $17.5 million.  ROGAS was arrested today in the District of Nevada and is expected to be presented before a judge there tomorrow.

Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said:  “As alleged, Adam Rogas was the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse.  While raising over $100 million from investors for his fraud prevention company, Rogas himself allegedly was engaging in a brazen fraud.  Today’s arrest of Rogas ensures that he will be held accountable for his alleged scheme.”

FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said:  “It seems ironic that the co-founder of a company designed to prevent online fraud would engage in fraudulent activity himself, but today that’s exactly what we allege Adam Rogas did. Rogas allegedly raised millions of dollars from investors based on fictitious financial affirmations, and in the end, walked away with nearly $17.5 million worth of that money. Within our complex financial crimes branch, securities fraud cases remain among our top priorities. We’ve seen far too many examples of unscrupulous actors engaging in this type of criminal activity, and we continue to work diligently to weed out this behavior whenever and wherever we find it.”

As alleged in the Complaint unsealed today in Manhattan federal court: 

    

ADAM ROGAS was a co-founder of NS8, and served as its CEO, CFO, and a member of its board of directors.  ROGAS was also primarily responsible for the company’s fundraising activities.  NS8, based in Las Vegas, Nevada, is a cyberfraud prevention company that developed and sold electronic tools to help online vendors assess the fraud risks of customer transactions.  In the fall of 2019 and the spring of 2020, NS8 engaged in fundraising rounds through which it issued Series A Preferred Shares and obtained approximately $123 million in investor funds.

ROGAS maintained control over a bank account into which NS8 received revenue from its customers, and periodically provided monthly statements from that account to NS8’s finance department so that NS8’s financial statements could be created.  ROGAS also maintained control over spreadsheets that purportedly tracked customer revenue, which were also used to generate NS8’s financial statements.

ROGAS altered the bank statements before providing them to NS8’s finance department to show tens of millions of dollars in both customer revenue and bank balances that did not exist.  In the period from January 2019 through February 2020, between at least approximately 40% and 95% of the purported total assets on NS8’s balance sheet were fictitious.  In that same period, the bank statements that ROGAS altered reflected over $40 million in fictitious revenue.

ROGAS used these materially misleading financial statements to raise approximately $123 million from investors in the fall of 2019 and the spring of 2020.  During the fundraising process, ROGAS also provided the falsified bank records he had created to auditors who were conducting due diligence on behalf of potential investors.  After these fundraising rounds concluded, NS8 conducted a tender offer with the funds raised from investors, and ROGAS received $17.5 million in proceeds from that tender offer, personally and through a company he controlled.

*                      *                      *

ROGAS, 43, of Las Vegas, Nevada, is charged with one count of securities fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, one count of fraud in the offer or sale of securities, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, and one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.  The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.

Ms. Strauss praised the work of the FBI.  Ms. Strauss further thanked the Securities and Exchange Commission for its cooperation and assistance in this investigation.   

This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Richard Cooper and Jared Lenow are in charge of the prosecution.   

The allegations 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 herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:20-cr-00513
Case Name:   USA v. Rodriguez et al
  Press Releases:
Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Philip R. Bartlett, Inspector-in-Charge of the New York Office of the United States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), announced today that EVA CHRISTINE RODRIGUEZ and SERGIO LORENZO RODRIGUEZ, mother and son, of Orange County, California, were arrested and charged with wire fraud offenses in connection with a fraudulent foreclosure rescue scheme that took in more than $5 million in prohibited advance fees from thousands of financially distressed homeowners.

Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said:  “As alleged, Eva Christine Rodriguez and Sergio Lorenzo Rodriguez preyed on vulnerable homeowners at risk of foreclosure by making false and misleading promises that they knew they would not or could not keep.  They allegedly continued to do so even after they were barred from the debt relief industry by a federal court in California.  They now face serious criminal charges.”

USPIS Inspector-in-Charge Philip R. Bartlett said:  “Loan Modification Scams are a cruel fraud targeting very desperate homeowners faced with losing their homes. While a loan modification may appear to be a lifeline, these scams often become a nightmare. This is allegedly what happened to victims who did business with Eva and Sergio Rodriguez. Postal Inspectors remain on alert for fraud scams targeting consumers, bringing fraudsters to justice worldwide.”

According to the Complaint[1] unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:    

From approximately March 2014 through April 2018, EVA CHRISTINE RODRIGUEZ and SERGIO LORENZO RODRIGUEZ (the “Defendants”) owned and/or managed a series of mortgage modification companies through which they perpetrated a scheme to defraud and attempt to defraud financially distressed consumers who were facing or were at imminent risk of foreclosure through deceptive marketing practices.  Those companies were National Servicing Center, American Home Servicing Center, National Advocacy Center, National Advocacy Group, and Capital Home Advocacy Center (collectively, the “Companies”).  Among other ways, the Defendants charged desperate homeowners thousands of dollars in prohibited advance fees by tricking them into believing that they had been pre-approved by their lender or servicer for a mortgage modification; falsely represented prohibited advance fees to be closing costs or other non-prohibited costs; fraudulently claimed that the Companies achieved success rates of 95 percent or higher for mortgage modifications; and made empty promises of a no-risk money back guarantee.  As a result of their intentional misrepresentations, and misrepresentations that they encouraged their subordinates to make, the Defendants induced thousands of homeowners to pay an aggregate of more than $5 million in prohibited advance fees to the Companies, including a large number of consumers who were ultimately denied mortgage modifications or who received modification offers that were less favorable than they had been led to expect at the time they paid advance fees.

In February 2018, the Federal Trade Commission brought a civil lawsuit against EVA CHRISTINE RODRIGUEZ and SERGIO LORENZO RODRIGUEZ, among others, in federal court in Santa Ana, California.  That civil action resulted first in a temporary restraining order and then a permanent injunction barring EVA CHRISTINE RODRIGUEZ and SERGIO LORENZO RODRIGUEZ from marketing and selling all debt relief products and services.  As alleged in the Complaint, the Defendants flouted those judicial orders by having a relative create another mortgage modification company named 1st Premier Asset Solutions, which the Defendants operated using aliases and some of the same deceptive practices. 

EVA CHRISTINE RODRIGUEZ and SERGIO LORENZO RODRIGUEZ will be presented in federal court in Santa Ana later today.

*                *                *

EVA CHRISTINE RODRIGUEZ, 65, of Laguna Hills, California, and SERGIO LORENZO LAWRENCE, 46, of Laguna Niguel, California, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of wire fraud.  Each count carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense.  The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.

Ms. Strauss praised the investigative work of the USPIS and thanked the Federal Trade Commission and the United States Trustee for Region 5 for their assistance.

This case is being handled by the Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Lai is in charge of the prosecution.

If you believe you are a potential victim of this fraud, please contact Postal Inspector Brandy King-Gonzalez of the USPIS at bnking-gonzalez@uspis.gov, or (212) 330-5252.

The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations and the defendants are 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 herein constitute only allegations and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.

 





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10gSDJoJqa1eN_hwcH8tax-F8NtmA3yeEioPPd19YCPo
  Last Updated: 2025-03-30 18:32:13 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 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-NY  1:20-mj-08996
Case Name:   USA v. Rodriguez et al
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1z2fiDswg2ofwSMDsPgBZl8P53-nHfZeYjROy9aCOgXU
  Last Updated: 2025-02-27 13:57:17 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 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:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL2NhbGlmb3JuaWEtbWFuLXBsZWFkcy1ndWlsdHktb3BlcmF0aW5nLW11bHRpLW1pbGxpb24tZG9sbGFyLW1vcnRnYWdlLW1vZGlmaWNhdGlvbi1mcmF1ZA
  Press Releases:
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Daniel B. Brubaker, Inspector-in-Charge of the New York Office of the United States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), announced today that SERGIO LORENZO RODRIGUEZ, of Orange County, California, pled guilty to one count of wire fraud in connection with a fraudulent foreclosure rescue scheme that took in at least $5 million in prohibited advance fees from thousands of financially distressed homeowners.  RODRIGUEZ pled guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn.

U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said:  “As he admitted today, for years, Sergio Lorenzo Rodriguez took advantage of desperate homeowners who were facing foreclosure and eviction to collect from them, in the aggregate, millions of dollars in advance fees based on promises that Rodriguez knew he could not, or would not, keep.  He exploited the financial vulnerability of his victims and is now being held accountable for his crime.”

According to the Complaint, the Indictment,[1] and statements made in court, and publicly available documents:    

From approximately mid-2015 through August 2020, SERGIO LORENZO RODRIGUEZ and a co-conspirator (the Defendants) owned and/or managed a series of mortgage modification companies through which they perpetrated a scheme to defraud and attempt to defraud financially distressed consumers who were facing or were at imminent risk of foreclosure through deceptive marketing practices. Those companies included American Home Servicing Center, National Advocacy Center, National Advocacy Group, and Capital Home Advocacy Center (collectively, the “Companies”).  The Defendants tricked desperate homeowners into paying thousands of dollars each in prohibited advance fees through various misrepresentations, including: falsely claiming that the homeowners had been pre-approved by their lender or servicer for a mortgage modification; misrepresenting prohibited advance fees as closing costs or other non-prohibited costs; fraudulently claiming that the Companies achieved success rates of 95 percent or higher for mortgage modifications; and making empty promises of a no-risk money back guarantee.  As a result of their intentional misrepresentations, and misrepresentations that they encouraged their subordinates to make, the Defendants induced thousands of homeowners to pay, in the aggregate, millions of dollars in prohibited advance fees to the Companies, including a large number of consumers who were ultimately denied mortgage modifications or who received modification offers that were less favorable than they had been led to expect at the time they paid advance fees.

In February 2018, the Federal Trade Commission brought a civil lawsuit against the Defendants, among others, in federal court in Santa Ana, California.  That civil action resulted first in a temporary restraining order and then a permanent injunction barring the Defendants from marketing and selling all debt relief products and services.  As alleged in the Indictment, the Defendants flouted those judicial orders by having a relative create another mortgage modification company named 1st Premier Asset Solutions, which the Defendants operated using aliases and some of the same deceptive practices. 

*                *                *

SERGIO LORENZO RODRIGUEZ, 47, of Laguna Niguel, California, pled guilty to one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. 

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. Williams praised the outstanding and persistent investigative work of the United States Postal Inspection Service and thanked the Federal Trade Commission for their assistance.

The prosecution of this case is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Lai is in charge of the prosecution. 





[1] As to Rodriguez’s co-defendant Eva Christine Rodriguez, the entirety of the text of the Indictment, and the descriptions of the Indictment set forth herein constitute only allegations and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL25ldy1yb2NoZWxsZS1tYW4tcGxlYWRzLWd1aWx0eS1icm9ueC1zaG9vdGluZw
  Press Releases:
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that TYRIEK SKYFIELD pled guilty today to one count of illegally possessing ammunition after a felony conviction.  The charge of conviction arises from SKYFIELD’s firing two shots at an individual (“Victim-1”), one of which hit Victim-1, on a residential street in the Bronx on July 22, 2023.  SKYFIELD pled guilty before U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman and is scheduled to be sentenced on May 7, 2024.



U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said:  “On a summer night in the Bronx last July, Tyriek Skyfield fired two shots from a handgun at an individual from close range.  One shot struck the victim in the foot, injuring him.  Today’s plea underscores an important priority of my Office: We will not tolerate gun violence in the Southern District of New York.”



According to court filings and statements made in court proceedings:

On or about July 22, 2023, at approximately 9:56 p.m., TYRIEK SKYFIELD fired two shots with a handgun at Victim-1 near the intersection of Needham Avenue and East 223rd Street in the Bronx, New York.  Surveillance video from a building overlooking the scene showed SKYFIELD brandishing a firearm at Victim-1 seconds before shooting at him. 









Surveillance video then captured SKYFIELD fleeing down Needham Avenue and onto East 222nd Street.  During a canvass of the scene of the shooting on the following day, officers from the New York City Police Department recovered a 9mm Luger shell casing from one of the gunshots in the yard of a residential building near the shooting.

SKYFIELD was not permitted to possess ammunition because of prior felony convictions. 

*                *                *

TYRIEK SKYFIELD, 31, of New Rochelle, New York, pled guilty to one count of possession of ammunition after a felony conviction, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison. 

The statutory maximum penalty 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. Williams praised the outstanding investigative work of the New York State Police and the Special Agents and Task Force Officers of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, and he thanked the New York City Police Department for its assistance.

This case is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Adam Z. Margulies and Joseph H. Rosenberg are in charge of the prosecution.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL2lyaXNoLW1hbi13aG8taGVscGVkLW9wZXJhdGUtc2lsay1yb2FkLXdlYnNpdGUtc2VudGVuY2VkLW1hbmhhdHRhbi1mZWRlcmFsLWNvdXJ0LW92ZXI
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that GARY DAVIS, a/k/a “Libertas,” was sentenced today to 78 months in prison for his role as a member of the small administrative staff of the “Silk Road” website.  Silk Road was an online black market of unprecedented scope.  During its operation from 2011 until 2013, Silk Road was used by thousands of drug dealers and other unlawful vendors to distribute over $200 million worth of illegal drugs and other illicit goods and services to more than 115,000 buyers, and to launder hundreds of millions of dollars derived from those unlawful transactions.  DAVIS previously pled guilty before United States District Judge Jesse M. Furman, who also imposed today’s sentence.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Gary Davis helped run the Silk Road website – a dark web marketplace for illegal drugs, hacking services, and other criminal activity.  Davis’s arrest, extradition from Ireland, conviction, and prison sentence should send an unmistakable message: the dark web does not cast shadows long enough to protect criminals from the long arm of the law.”

According to the allegations in the Superseding Indictment, court filings, statements made in court, and evidence presented during the 2015 trial of Ross Ulbricht, Silk Road’s founder:

From approximately January 2011 until October 2, 2013, the Silk Road website hosted a sprawling black market bazaar on the Internet, where illegal goods and services were regularly bought and sold by the site’s users.  During its more than two-and-a-half years in operation, Silk Road was used by nearly 4,000 vendors to distribute illicit goods and services to more than 115,000 buyers, including hundreds of kilograms of illegal drugs, fake IDs and passports, computer hacking tools and services, counterfeit goods and pirated media, and money laundering services.  In total, more than 1.5 million transactions were conducted over Silk Road, with a total value of more than $213 million in U.S. currency.  Nearly 95 percent of those sales (approximately $183 million worth) were for illegal drugs.

The owner and operator of Silk Road, Ross William Ulbricht, a/k/a “Dread Pirate Roberts,” a/k/a “DPR,” a/k/a “Silk Road,” ran the website with the assistance of a small support staff, including both site administrators and forum moderators.  The site administrators were responsible for, among other things, monitoring user activity on Silk Road for problems, responding to customer service inquiries, and resolving disputes between buyers and vendors.  The forum moderators were responsible for, among other things, monitoring user activity on discussion forums associated with the site, providing guidance to forum users concerning how to conduct business on Silk Road, and reporting any significant problems discussed on the forums to the site administrators and to Ulbricht. 

From approximately May 2013 until June 2013, GARY DAVIS, a/k/a “Libertas,” served as a forum moderator for Silk Road.  From approximately June 2013 until October 2, 2013, DAVIS worked as a site administrator on Silk Road.  In his role as a site administrator, DAVIS’s responsibilities included (1) responding to customer support requests from Silk Road users who needed assistance with their buyer or seller accounts on the marketplace; (2) investigating disputes that arose between vendors (e.g., drug dealers) and buyers, including reporting his findings to Ulbricht; and (3) helping enforce the rules for doing business on Silk Road, which had been set by Ulbricht.  For instance, there was a rule against “out of escrow” sales – i.e., sellers and buyers arranging payments off the site to avoid paying Silk Road commissions.  When violations of this rule were discovered, DAVIS had the ability to demote a vendor or refer the vendor (e.g., to Ulbricht) for further discipline.  Ulbricht paid DAVIS a weekly salary for his work as a site administrator.

Shortly after law enforcement shut down the original Silk Road in early October 2013, its virtually identical successor – Silk Road 2.0 – was launched.  From approximately November 2013 until December 2013, DAVIS served as an administrator for Silk Road 2.0.

*                *                *

In addition to his prison term, GARY DAVIS, 31, of Wicklow, Ireland, was ordered to serve three years of supervised release and to forfeit $25,000.

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding joint efforts of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and its New York Special Operations and Cyber Division, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations - Chicago-O’Hare, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s New York Field Division, and the Internal Revenue Service - Criminal Investigation’s New York Field Office.  Mr. Berman also thanked both the Irish Republic’s Computer Crime Investigation Unit of the An Garda Siochana and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs for their valuable assistance and support.

This case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Michael D. Neff, Eun Young Choi, and Timothy T. Howard are in charge of the prosecution.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL3VuaXRlZC1zdGF0ZXMtc3Vlcy1idXNpbmVzcy1hbmQtZm9ybWVyLW93bmVyLWNvbnRhbWluYXRpbmctZ3JvdW5kd2F0ZXItZWFzdC1maXNoa2lsbA
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Peter D. Lopez, Regional Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), announced today that the United States has filed and simultaneously entered into two consent decrees settling a civil lawsuit against HOPEWELL PRECISION, INC. (“HOPEWELL”) and JOHN B. BUDD (collectively, the “Defendants”).  The lawsuit, brought pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) – commonly known as the Superfund statute – seeks to collect costs that EPA has incurred since March 2003 in connection with its cleanup of trichloroethene and other hazardous substances at the HOPEWELL Precision Superfund Site (the “Site”) in the Town of East Fishkill, Dutchess County, New York.  The two consent decrees (one against each Defendant) provide for a combined payment of $1,247,700 by the Defendants.

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Polluters must pay for the costs they have imposed on the community.  Together, these defendants released toxic chemicals into the environment, which then contaminated the nearby groundwater and adversely affected the surrounding neighborhoods.  Today’s lawsuit and consent decrees demonstrate that we will hold polluters responsible for their conduct.”

Regional Administrator Peter D. Lopez said:  “The Superfund program operates on the principle that polluters pay for cleanups, and this settlement allows EPA to recover some of the taxpayer money that was spent at this site to address the contamination.  Defendants’ actions led directly to contamination of groundwater, which migrated to people’s wells and caused hazardous vapors to seep into their homes.  EPA stepped in and took the necessary actions to protect residents in the area, initially by installing treatment systems at homes, and now we are working toward a permanent remedy through the creation and extension of a new public water supply system in the community.  This settlement, however, reimburses only a portion of the money EPA is spending at the site because of the limitations of the Defendants’ financial resources.”           

As alleged in the complaint filed today in federal court, since 1972, HOPEWELL has been engaged in the business of custom sheet metal and machining fabrication at two properties that, together with the surrounding area into which contamination has migrated, make up the Site.  BUDD owns one of the two properties and was the president and sole shareholder of HOPEWELL from 1972 until 1985, as well as the 80 percent owner from 1985 until 1991.  In connection with its operations, until approximately 1998, HOPEWELL used chemical solvents, including trichloroethene (“TCE”) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (“1,1,1-TCA”), to clean and degrease machine parts, generating a hazardous solvent waste that was at times disposed into the ground behind the facility.  Additionally, during certain years, HOPEWELL employees poured paints and other chemicals into the ground behind the facility.  As a result of these operations, solvents including TCE and 1,1,1-TCA were released into the environment, including the structures and soils at the HOPEWELL properties, and they leached into the groundwater and migrated beyond the properties, affecting drinking wells and homes in an area extending approximately one-and-a-half miles from the properties.  EPA has incurred millions of dollars of costs in connection with cleaning up the Site.  Work continues at the Site, including restoration of the contaminated groundwater aquifer and construction of an alternative water supply to serve properties with private drinking water wells that have been or may be affected by the groundwater contamination.

In the consent decrees filed today, the Defendants admit and accept responsibility for the following:

In connection with its operations, until 1998, HOPEWELL used a vapor degreasing machine to clean and degrease parts, and, until at least 1991, used TCE and 1,1,1-TCA in that machine.

As a result of HOPEWELL’s operations while BUDD was its owner and president, solvents including TCE and 1,1,1 TCA were released into the environment, including the structures and soils at the HOPEWELL properties.   

Contamination from the HOPEWELL properties has migrated beyond the properties into the area’s groundwater, contaminating approximately 66 private drinking water wells in the neighborhood as well as ponds in the path of the contaminated groundwater.

            Pursuant to the consent decrees, the Defendants will pay a total of $1,247,700 in costs incurred by EPA, consisting of $963,750 to be paid by BUDD and $283,950 to be paid by HOPEWELL.  These settlement amounts were based on a financial analysis of what the Defendants were capable of paying.

*                *                *

The consent decrees will be lodged with the District Court for a period of at least 30 days before they are submitted for the Court’s approval, to provide public notice and to afford members of the public the opportunity to comment on the consent decrees.

This case is being handled by the Environmental Protection Unit of the Office’s Civil Division.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Dominika Tarczynska and Rachael Doud are in charge of the case.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL21hbmhhdHRhbi1kb2N0b3Itc2VudGVuY2VkLW1vcmUtMTcteWVhcnMtcHJpc29uLWJyaWJlcnktYW5kLWtpY2tiYWNrLXNjaGVtZS1hbmQ
  Press Releases:
Audrey Strauss, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that GORDON FREEDMAN, a doctor who practiced in New York, New York, was sentenced today in Manhattan federal court to 121 months in prison for participating in a scheme to receive bribes and kickbacks in the form of fees for sham educational programs (“Speaker Programs”) from pharmaceutical company Insys Therapeutics in exchange for prescribing millions of dollars’ worth of Subsys, a potent fentanyl-based spray manufactured by Insys, among other offenses (the “Insys Bribery Offenses”).  FREEDMAN was convicted of the Insys Bribery Offenses following a jury trial.  FREEDMAN was also sentenced to 210 months in prison, to run concurrently to the other sentence, for distributing oxycodone and fentanyl to a patient for no legitimate medical purpose (the “Diversion Offense”).  That patient ultimately died of a fentanyl overdose from drugs FREEDMAN illegally prescribed him.  FREEDMAN pled guilty to the Diversion Offense in December 2019.  

FREEDMAN was sentenced by United States District Judge Kimba M. Wood.

U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: “Dr. Gordon Freedman, a prominent Manhattan physician, allowed his medical judgment to be corrupted by hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes that he accepted from Insys in return for prescribing Subsys, a potent fentanyl painkiller.  These payments were made to appear like legitimate speaker program fees, but as the evidence at Freedman’s trial revealed, the speaker programs were a sham and were simply a way for Insys to line Freedman’s pockets.  In addition, Freedman prescribed excessive quantities of oxycodone and fentanyl to one of his patients for no legitimate medical purpose.  The patient overdosed and died from fentanyl prescribed by Freedman.  Freedman will now be serving a long prison sentence for accepting bribes and prescribing medically unnecessary opioids.”           

According to the allegations contained in the Indictments against FREEDMAN, the evidence presented in Court during the trial related to the Insys Bribery Offenses, and filings in related proceedings:

Insys manufactured Subsys, a powerful painkiller approximately 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine.  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved Subsys only for the management of breakthrough pain in cancer patients.  Prescriptions of Subsys typically cost thousands of dollars each month, and Medicare and Medicaid, as well as commercial insurers, reimbursed prescriptions written by the defendants.  In or about August 2012, Insys launched a “Speakers Bureau,” purportedly aimed at educating practitioners about Subsys.  In reality, however, Insys used its Speakers Bureau to induce doctors to prescribe large volumes of Subsys by paying them Speaker Program fees.  At each Speaker Program, speakers were supposed to conduct a slide presentation for other health care practitioners regarding Subsys.  However, many of the Speaker Programs led by the speakers paid by Insys were predominantly social affairs where no educational presentation occurred.  Attendance sign-in sheets for the Speaker Programs were frequently forged by adding the names and signatures of health care practitioners who had not actually been present.

FREEDMAN, a doctor certified in pain management and anesthesiology, owned a private pain management office on Manhattan’s Upper East Side and was an associate clinical professor at a large hospital in Manhattan (“Hospital-1”).  FREEDMAN received approximately $308,600 in Speaker Program fees from Insys in exchange for prescribing large volumes of Subsys.

In March 2013, a Regional Sales Manager for Insys sent an email to FREEDMAN informing him that he would receive more Speaker Programs in the coming months because Insys wanted prescriptions of Subsys to increase, and urging FREEDMAN to put more patients on Subsys.  FREEDMAN responded, in part, “Got it,” and significantly increased his Subsys prescriptions in the following months, during which he received approximately $33,600 in Speaker Program fees. 

In 2014, FREEDMAN’s prescriptions of Subsys rose even further, and he was the fourth-highest prescriber of Subsys nationally in the final quarter of 2014, accounting for approximately $1,132,287 in overall net sales of Subsys in that quarter.  During 2014, FREEDMAN was the highest-paid Insys Speaker in the nation, receiving approximately $143,000. 

During the period in which FREEDMAN was receiving kickbacks from Insys, he was also distributing powerfully addictive prescription drugs to a particular patient (“Patient-1”) with no legitimate medical purpose.  From in or about 2013 through in or about May 2017, FREEDMAN prescribed enormous quantities of oxycodone and fentanyl to Patient-1.  For example, in 2013 alone, FREEDMAN prescribed Patient-1 approximately 85,427 oxycodone pills –  an average of approximately 234 oxycodone pills per day – containing a total of approximately 2,422,435 mg of oxycodone.  On or about April 13, 2017, FREEDMAN gave Patient-1 prescriptions for approximately 150 doses of a drug containing fentanyl, and for approximately 950 oxycodone pills containing approximately 30 mg of oxycodone per pill.  On or about May 4, 2017, Patient-1 died of a fentanyl overdose after ingesting a quantity of the drug prescribed by FREEDMAN on or about April 13, 2017.

*                *                *

In addition to the prison sentence, FREEDMAN, 61, of New York, New York, was sentenced to three years of supervised release, ordered to forfeit $308,600 and ordered to pay a total fine across the two cases of $75,000.

FREEDMAN was one of five Manhattan doctors convicted for participating in the Subsys bribery conspiracy.  Todd Schlifstein was convicted upon a guilty plea and sentenced by Judge Wood on October 28, 2019, principally to a term of two years in prison.  Alexandru Burducea was convicted upon a guilty plea and sentenced by Judge Wood on January 27, 2020, principally to a term of 57 months in prison.  Dialecti Voudouris was convicted upon a guilty plea and sentenced by Judge Wood on March 5, 2020, principally to time served.  Jeffrey Goldstein was convicted upon a guilty plea and sentenced by Judge Wood on June 16, 2021, principally to a term of 57 months in prison.

Ms. Strauss praised the outstanding investigative work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and thanked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Office of the Inspector General for its participation in the investigation.

The cases are being prosecuted by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Noah Solowiejczyk, David Abramowicz, and Katherine Reilly are in charge of the prosecutions.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL3VzLWFybXktc29sZGllci1jaGFyZ2VkLXRlcnJvcmlzbS1vZmZlbnNlcy1wbGFubmluZy1kZWFkbHktYW1idXNoLXNlcnZpY2UtbWVtYmVycy1oaXM
  Press Releases:
Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, John C. Demers, the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, William F. Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and Dermot Shea, the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), announced today the unsealing of an indictment charging ETHAN MELZER for allegedly planning an attack on his U.S. Army unit by sending sensitive details about the unit – including information about its location, movements, and security – to members of an extremist organization named Order of the Nine Angles (“O9A”), an occult-based neo-Nazi and racially motivated violent extremist group.  MELZER is charged with conspiring and attempting to murder U.S. nationals, conspiring and attempting to murder military service members, providing and attempting to provide material support to terrorists, and conspiring to murder and maim in a foreign country.  The FBI and the U.S. Army thwarted MELZER’s plot in late-May 2020, and the FBI arrested MELZER on June 10, 2020.  The case is assigned to United States District Judge Gregory H. Woods.

Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said:  “As alleged, Ethan Melzer, a private in the U.S. Army, was the enemy within.  Melzer allegedly attempted to orchestrate a murderous ambush on his own unit by unlawfully revealing its location, strength, and armaments to a neo-Nazi, anarchist, white supremacist group.  Melzer allegedly provided this potentially deadly information intending that it be conveyed to jihadist terrorists.  As alleged, Melzer was motivated by racism and hatred as he attempted to carry out this ultimate act of betrayal.  Thanks to the efforts of the agents and detectives of the JTTF, our partners in the Departments of Defense and State, and the career prosecutors of this Office, a hate-fueled terrorist attack against American soldiers has been thwarted.”

Assistant Attorney General John C. Demers said:  “As the indictment lays out, Ethan Meltzer plotted a deadly ambush on his fellow soldiers in the service of a diabolical cocktail of ideologies laced with hate and violence.  Our women and men in uniform risk their lives for our country, but they should never face such peril at the hands of one of their own.  The National Security Division is proud to support the efforts of those who disrupted this planned attack and to seek justice for these acts.”

FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said:  “Melzer declared himself to be a traitor against the United States, and described his own conduct as tantamount to treason.  We agree.  He turned his back on his county and his unit while aligning himself with members of the neo-Nazi group O9A.  Today, he is in custody and facing a lifetime of service – behind bars – which is appropriate given the severity of the conduct we allege today.”

NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said:  “This case is another example of the international responsibilities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s New York Joint Terrorism Task Force.  Its FBI agents and New York City police detectives will travel anywhere in the world to bring terrorists to justice, in this case a soldier who is alleged to have forsaken his oath to the United States military and his fellow soldiers.”

According to the criminal Complaint and the Indictment charging Melzer,[1] which were unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:

MELZER joined the U.S. Army in approximately 2018, and he joined O9A by approximately 2019.  Members and associates of O9A have espoused violent, neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, and Satanic beliefs, and have expressed admiration for both Nazis, such as Adolf Hitler, and Islamic jihadists, such as Usama Bin Laden, the now-deceased former leader of al Qaeda.  Members and associates of O9A have also participated in acts of violence, including murders.

In approximately October 2019, MELZER deployed abroad with the Army.  Prior to planning the attack, MELZER consumed propaganda from multiple extremist groups, including O9A and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, which is also known as ISIS.  For example, in connection with the investigation, the FBI seized from an iCloud account maintained by MELZER an ISIS-issued document with a title that included the phrase “HARVEST OF THE SOLDIERS” and described attacks and murders of U.S. personnel in approximately April 2020.

In approximately April 2020, the Army informed MELZER of plans for a further foreign deployment by his unit.  MELZER thereafter sought to facilitate a deadly attack on his fellow service members.  After he was notified of the assignment, MELZER used an encrypted application to send messages to members and associates of O9A and a related group known as the “RapeWaffen Division,” including communications regarding MELZER’s commitment to O9A and sensitive information related to his unit’s anticipated deployment such as locations, movements, and security, for purposes of facilitating an attack on MELZER’s unit.  MELZER and his co-conspirators planned what they referred to as a “jihadi attack” during the deployment, with the objective of causing a “mass casualty” event victimizing his fellow service members.  MELZER acknowledged in electronic communications that he could be killed during the attack, and, describing his willingness to die, wrote “who gives a fuck [. . .] it would be another war . . . I would’ve died successfully . . . cause [] another 10 year war in the Middle East would definitely leave a mark.”  

On or about May 17, 2020, MELZER exchanged electronic communications regarding passing information about the anticipated deployment to a purported member of al Qaeda.  Between approximately May 24 and May 25, 2020, MELZER sent additional electronic messages with specific information about his unit’s anticipated deployment, including, among other things, the number of soldiers who would be traveling, the location of the facility to which MELZER expected the unit would be deployed, and information about the facility’s surveillance and defensive capabilities.  MELZER promised to leak more information once he arrived at the location of the new deployment in order to try to maximize the likelihood of a successful attack on his unit. 

During a voluntary interview with military investigators and the FBI, MELZER admitted his role in plotting the attack.  MELZER said that he intended the planned attack to result in the deaths of as many of his fellow service members as possible.  MELZER also declared himself to be a traitor against the United States, and described his conduct as tantamount to treason.      

*                      *                      *

MELZER, 22, of Louisville, Kentucky, is charged in the Indictment with (1) conspiring to murder U.S. nationals, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332(b)(2), which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison; (2) attempting to murder U.S. nationals, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332(b)(1), which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; (3) conspiring to murder U.S. military service members, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1117, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison; (4) attempting to murder U.S. military service members, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1114, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; (5) attempting to provide and providing material support to terrorists, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison; and (6) conspiring to murder and maim in a foreign country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 956, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.  The statutory penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant would be determined by the judge.

Ms. Strauss praised the outstanding efforts of the FBI’s New York Joint Terrorism Task Force, which consists of investigators and analysts from the FBI, the NYPD, and over 50 other federal, state, and local agencies; the FBI’s Legal Attaché Office in Rome, Italy; the Air Force Office of Special Investigations; U.S. Army Counterintelligence; U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command; Attorneys from the U.S. Army Africa Office of the Staff Judge Advocate and 173rd Airborne Brigade; and the U.S. Department of State Diplomatic Security Service.

This prosecution is being handled by the Office’s Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sam Adelsberg, Matthew Hellman, and Sidhardha Kamaraju are in charge of the prosecution, with assistance from Trial Attorney Alicia Cook of the Counterterrorism Section.

The charges in the Complaint and Indictment 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 Indictment, and the description of the Complaint and Indictment set forth herein, constitute only allegations and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:19-cr-00541
Case Name:   USA v. Haney
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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:19-mj-06625
Case Name:   USA v. Haney
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Angel M. Melendez, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), announced the arrest and unsealing of a complaint charging HUGH BRIAN HANEY with money laundering, derived from the proceeds of his narcotics trafficking on the Dark Web site known as “Silk Road,” where illegal drugs and other illicit goods and services were regularly bought and sold by the site’s vendors and customers.  HANEY was arrested this morning near Columbus, Ohio, and was presented before a magistrate judge in the Southern District of Ohio.

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Working side by side with our law enforcement partners, our Office has shut down Silk Road, the secret online marketplace for illegal drugs, hacking services, and a whole host of other criminal activity.  As alleged, Hugh Haney used Silk Road as a means to sell drugs to people all over the world.  Then he allegedly laundered his profits – more than $19 million – through cryptocurrency.  Today’s arrest should be a warning to dealers peddling their drugs on the dark web that they cannot remain anonymous forever, especially when attempting to legitimize their illicit proceeds.”

HSI Special Agent-in-Charge Angel M. Melendez said:  “In 2013, Silk Road was put out of business, and as a result of that, cyber criminals sought ways to continue their criminal activities and more importantly launder their illicit digital currency.  Haney was allegedly one of those criminals  who was still holding on to a stash of cyber gold.  HSI special agents employed blockchain analytics to uncover and seize bitcoins valued at $19 million and usher Haney out of the dark web shadows to face justice in the Southern District of New York.”

As alleged in the Complaint to be unsealed today[1]:

Silk Road was designed to be an online criminal marketplace outside the reach of law enforcement or governmental regulation.  All transactions on Silk Road could be completed only through use of the cryptocurrency Bitcoin.  During its two-and-a-half years in operation, Silk Road was used by several thousand drug dealers and other unlawful vendors to distribute hundreds of kilograms of illegal drugs and other illicit goods and services to more than 100,000 buyers, and to launder hundreds of millions of dollars derived from these unlawful transactions. All told, the site generated sales revenue totaling more than approximately 9.5 million Bitcoins. 

One prominent narcotics vendor on Silk Road was called “Pharmville.”  The operators of Pharmville supplied a dedicated community of individuals who often traded illicit narcotics.  Agents and officers of the Drug Enforcement Administration made multiple controlled purchases of narcotics, including oxycontin, from Pharmville in 2011 and 2012.  Pursuant to a judicially authorized search of HANEY’s house in Ohio in 2018, agents with HSI found evidence that HANEY was a high-ranking member or administrator of Pharmville, involved in large-scale narcotics trafficking on Silk Road.

Because Silk Road’s payment system essentially involved a Bitcoin “bank” internal to the site, every user had to hold an account in order to conduct transactions on the site.  Vendors seeking to sell items, including narcotics, on Silk Road each had a Silk Road Bitcoin address, or multiple addresses, associated with the user’s Silk Road account.  Once a transaction was complete, a vendor who had been paid by another user through the transfer of the user’s Bitcoins could then withdraw Bitcoins from the vendor’s Silk Road Bitcoin address by sending them to a different Bitcoin address, outside Silk Road, such as the Bitcoin addresses the vendor personally controlled.

In 2017 and 2018, HANEY transferred Bitcoins representing narcotics proceeds he had earned through his control of Pharmville from Silk Road to an account held at a company involved in the exchange of Bitcoins and other digital currency (“Company-1”).  In correspondence with Company-1, HANEY claimed falsely that the source of these Bitcoins was his own “mining” of Bitcoins – which is the process by which new Bitcoins are created cryptographically – and from “individuals [he] met online,” while in truth and in fact, the Bitcoins were derived from transfers from Silk Road.  After HANEY transferred the Bitcoins to cash worth more than $19 million through Company-1, HSI seized the money pursuant to a judicially authorized seizure warrant from a custodial account at a bank (“Bank-1”) that was located in the Southern District of New York.

*              *             *

HANEY, 60, of Columbus, Ohio,  is charged with one count of concealment money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and one count of engaging in a financial transaction in criminally derived property, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.  The maximum potential sentences in this case 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 outstanding investigative work of HSI. 

This case is being handled by the Office’s Money Laundering and Transnational Criminal Enterprises Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Samuel L. Raymond and Tara M. La Morte are in charge of the prosecution.

The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are 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 herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.

 



[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint and the description of the Complaint set forth herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dL1o9auPkjcmrc3-moVqhnsOyB-htiARB7qO8X8fOLU
  Last Updated: 2025-03-21 17:01:52 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 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:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL3VuaXRlZC1zdGF0ZXMtZmlsZXMtZmFpci1ob3VzaW5nLWFjdC1sYXdzdWl0LWFnYWluc3QtdG9sbC1icm90aGVycy1hbmQtcmVsYXRlZA
  Press Releases:
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that the United States has filed a federal Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) lawsuit against TOLL BROTHERS, INC. and TOLL BROTHERS REALTY TRUST (collectively, “TOLL BROTHERS”), relating to their failure to design and construct new apartment buildings so as to be accessible to persons with physical disabilities.  The lawsuit also names certain TOLL BROTHERS affiliates as well as other entities that participated in the design or construction of these residential complexes, as well as a condominium association whose cooperation is essential to ensure retrofits.  Upon filing suit, the United States also submitted to the Court a proposed consent decree with LENDLEASE (US) CONSTRUCTION LMB, INC. f/k/a BOVIS LEND LEASE LMB, INC., (“LENDLEASE”), which participated in the design and construction of one such building.  This settlement is subject to the review and approval of the U.S. District Judge assigned to the case.



U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “This is the 19th suit that this Office has filed to remedy the failure of real estate developers to comply with the Fair Housing Act.  We appreciate Lendlease’s cooperation in taking responsibility for its actions so that more properties are more accessible to more people.  This Office will remain vigilant in ensuring that developers and architects comply with the FHA and remedy inaccessible housing in this District.”



The FHA’s accessible design and construction provisions require multifamily housing complexes constructed after January 1991 to have basic features accessible to persons with disabilities.

According to the allegations in the Complaint:

The inaccessible conditions at TOLL BROTHERS’ buildings include excessively high thresholds at building entrances and entrances to common use areas, common use bathrooms that lack grab bars, excessively high thresholds at entrances to individual apartments and within the apartments, and bathrooms in individual apartments that lack sufficient clear floor space for people who use wheelchairs.  These features in the common use areas of TOLL BROTHERS’ buildings, as well as in the buildings’ apartment interiors, did not meet the specifications set forth in the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, Design Guidelines for Accessible/Adaptable Dwellings.

The Complaint identifies, by way of example, inaccessible conditions at the following five properties:



The Sutton, at 959 First Avenue, New York, New York 10022.





49 North 8th Street, Brooklyn, New York 11211 (“North 8th”).  Based upon an investigation by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), the Complaint names several entities as defendants that were involved in the design and construction of North 8th: LENDLEASE (with whom, as noted above, the Government has reached an agreement subject to Court approval); GREENBERGFARROW ARCHITECTS; TOLL LAND XIII LIMITED PARTNER; TOLL NORTHEAST LP COMPANY, INC.; and NORTH8 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., which has been named as a defendant not because it created the accessible conditions but because its cooperation is essential to making retrofits to the property.





3000 Goldfinch Boulevard in Princeton, New Jersey (“Parc at Princeton Junction”).  The Complaint names TB PRINCETON VILLAGE LLC as a developer of the Parc at Princeton Junction.





134 Plymouth Road in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania (“Parc Plymouth Meeting”).  The Complaint names TB-BDN PLYMOUTH APARTMENTS as a developer of Parc Plymouth Meeting.





10 Provost Street, Jersey City, New Jersey 07302.



Similar inaccessible conditions existed at nine additional properties: Emerson at Edge on the Hudson, 203 Legend Drive, in Sleepy Hollow, New York; 160 Morgan Street in Jersey City, New Jersey; 527 Old Bridge Turnpike in East Brunswick, New Jersey; 900 Wessex Place in Princeton, New Jersey; 45 North Main Street in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania; 275 2nd Avenue in Needham, Massachusetts; 2150 Astoria Circle in Herndon, Virginia; and 1011 1st Street, SE and 200 K Street, NE in Washington, D.C.

Due to the inaccessible conditions at the buildings they designed and constructed, TOLL BROTHERS engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights protected by the FHA and denied such rights to people with disabilities.  The Complaint seeks a court order directing TOLL BROTHERS to retrofit individual apartments as well as the public and common use areas of the buildings so that they are accessible, to adopt policies and procedures to ensure FHA compliance in future constructions, and to compensate people who suffered discrimination due to the inaccessible conditions.

Under the settlement with LENDLEASE, LENDLEASE agreed to establish procedures to ensure FHA compliance at future development projects and agreed to institute policies and training to ensure that their employees and agents will comply with the FHA’s accessibility requirements.  LENDLEASE also agreed to pay a civil penalty of $10,000, commensurate with its role in designing and/or constructing North 8th.

People who believe they may have experienced discrimination due to the inaccessible conditions at the above-named buildings developed by TOLL BROTHERS may contact the Civil Rights Complaint account at USANYS-CivilRights@usdoj.gov, use the Civil Rights Complaint Form available on the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s website http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/civilrights.html, or send a written report to: 

U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York 

86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor 

New York, New York 10007 

Attention: Chief, Civil Rights Unit

The suit against TOLL BROTHERS is the 19th lawsuit filed by this Office with developers and architects to remedy inaccessible housing in this District, including suits against The Durst Organization, Glenwood Management, Silverstein Properties, Related Companies, and Atlantic Development.

*                *                *

Mr. Williams thanked HUD for its assistance on the investigation.

The case is being handled by the Office’s Civil Rights Unit in the Civil Division.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys David J. Kennedy and Danielle J. Marryshow are charge of the case.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL2Zvcm1lci13aGl0ZS1ob3VzZS1hZHZpc29yLXNlbnRlbmNlZC1vbmUteWVhci1hbmQtb25lLWRheS1wcmlzb24tZGV2aXNpbmctc2NoZW1lLXN0ZWFs
  Press Releases:
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that SETH ANDREW was sentenced to 366 days in prison in connection with his execution of a scheme to defraud Democracy Prep Public Schools (“DPPS”), a charter school network that he founded, of more than $218,000.  United States District Judge John P. Cronan imposed today’s sentence.

U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “Seth Andrew was sentenced today for stealing from those who once trusted him.  Andrew committed this crime to attempt to punish non-profit charter schools because they declined his offer to return as their leader.  Thankfully, the victim of Andrew’s crime was resilient, and its important work continues.  Today’s sentence sends a message that those who engage in fraud schemes and steal from others will face appropriate consequences for their conduct.”      

According to previous filings in this case:

In 2005, SETH ANDREW helped to found Democracy Prep Public Schools, a series of public charter schools then based in New York City.  In the Spring of 2013, ANDREW left DPPS and accepted a job in the United States Department of Education and, thereafter, as a senior advisor in the Office of Educational Technology at the White House.  In November 2016, ANDREW left his role at the White House.  Shortly thereafter, in January 2017, ANDREW officially severed his relationship with DPPS.

Under New York state regulations, DPPS’s New York-based charter schools must maintain an “escrow account” that may be accessed only if the school dissolves.  Three such escrow accounts, for three New York City-based-DPPS schools, were opened by ANDREW and other DPPS employees, at  a bank (“Bank-1”) in 2009, 2011 and 2013, respectively (“Escrow Account-1,” “Escrow Account-2,” and “Escrow Account-3”, collectively, the “Escrow Accounts”).  ANDREW was a signatory and had access to the funds in the Escrow Accounts.  However, pursuant to the charter agreement, the funds in the Escrow Accounts were reserved in case the schools dissolved, and the funds could not be moved by ANDREW, or anyone, without proper authorization.

In early 2019, apparently frustrated with decisions made by DPPS, and his inability to exercise control over the organization, ANDREW sought to rejoin DPPS.  On March 10, 2019, ANDREW sent an email to several members of DPPS, including its Chairman, offering to return as “President,” in exchange for “$25k/month as [a] salaried employee and basic frugal expenses,” plus a $250,000 bonus if he met deliverables ANDREW outlined.  ANDREW further stated that “every single day that goes by, this situation becomes exponentially more difficult and the ability to pull out of a nosedive becomes harder. So after 24 hours, my monthly salary expectation will go up every day that we’re not under a signed contract.” 

DPPS declined ANDREW’s offer.  Eighteen days later, on March 28, 2019, ANDREW entered a Bank-1 branch in New York City and closed both Escrow Account-1 and Escrow Account-2.  Bank-1 provided ANDREW a bank check in the amount of $71,881.23 made payable to “Democracy Prep Charter School” (“Check-1”) and a second bank check in the amount of $70,642.98 made payable to “Democracy Prep Harlem Charter” (“Check-2”). 

The same day that ANDREW closed Escrow Account-1 and Escrow Account-2, ANDREW entered a Manhattan branch of a different FDIC-insured bank (“Bank-2”) and opened a business bank account in the name of “Democracy Prep Charter School” (“Fraud Account‑1”).  To open that account, ANDREW misrepresented to a Bank-2 employee that he was a “Key Executive with Control of” DPPS and supported that misrepresentation by sending emails sent to the Bank-2 employee from a DPPS email account.  ANDREW then deposited Check-1 into Fraud Account-1. Five days later, on April 2, 2019, ANDREW used an ATM machine in Baltimore, Maryland to deposit Check-2 into Fraud Account‑1. 

On October 17, 2019, ANDREW closed out Escrow Account-3 and received a check (“Check-3”) made payable to “Democracy Prep Endurance” in the amount of $75,481.10.  On October 21, 2019, ANDREW deposited Check-3 into an account that he opened at a third bank (“Fraud Account-2”). 

Approximately one month later, ANDREW obtained a check from Bank-2 for $144,473.29, which constituted the funds stolen from Escrow Account-1 and Escrow Account-2.  ANDREW ultimately deposited those funds into Fraud Account-2, combing all of the stolen funds, then worth approximately $219,954.  Five days later, ANDREW rolled the stolen funds in Fraud Account-2 into a certificate of deposit.  That certificate of deposit matured on May 20, 2020, which earned ANDREW $2,083.52 in interest.  ANDREW then transferred the funds from the certificate of deposit -- including the funds stolen from the Escrow Accounts -- into a bank account held in the name of Democracy Builders, another nonprofit that ANDREW then-controlled, thereby concealing the money’s association with DPPS, and depositing the stolen money into an account under ANDREW’s complete control.  The next day, ANDREW sent a wire for $225,000, apparently comprised primarily of funds from the Escrow Accounts, for a down payment on a significant purchase of property for Democracy Builders.

In total, DPPS lost $218,005 as a result of Andrew’s actions.

*                      *                     *

ANDREW, 43, previously pled guilty to one count of wire fraud on January 14, 2022, before Judge Cronan.  In addition to this prison sentence, ANDREW was sentenced to 3 years of supervised release.  Prior to today’s sentencing Andrew paid $218,005 in restitution to DPPS, and $22,537 in forfeiture.

Mr. Williams praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI.

This case is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit.  Assistant United States Attorney Ryan B. Finkel is in charge of the prosecution.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL2ZpdmUtZGVmZW5kYW50cy1hcnJlc3RlZC03LW1pbGxpb24tZW1iZXp6bGVtZW50LXNjaGVtZS10YXJnZXRpbmctaXQtc2VydmljZXMtY29tcGFueQ
  Press Releases:
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York; Stuart M. Goldberg, the Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Tax Division; James Smith, the Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”); Thomas M. Fattorusso, the Special Agent in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (“IRS-CI”); and Jonathan Mellone, the Special Agent in Charge of the Northeast Regional Office of the U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General (“DOL-OIG”), announced the arrests today of five defendants on fraud charges: MARK ANGAROLA, ALLISON ANGAROLA, JOSE GARCIA, MICHELLE COX, and LISA MINCAK.  The five defendants are charged with perpetrating a yearslong embezzlement scheme that involved both no-show jobs and disguising personal expenses as purported business expenses.  In addition, three of the defendants — MARK ANGAROLA, GARCIA, and COX — are charged with tax fraud for their failures to report income to the IRS, including income derived from the embezzlement scheme.  MARK ANGAROLA and ALLISON ANGAROLA were arrested earlier this week in Point Lookout, New York, and were presented in Manhattan federal court before U.S. Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker; JOSE GARCIA and MICHELLE COX surrendered today and will be presented in Manhattan federal court before Magistrate Judge Parker; and LISA MINCAK surrendered yesterday and was presented in the Eastern District of Texas before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kimberly C. Priest Johnson.  The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Dale E. Ho.



U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “As alleged, the five defendants engaged in a brazen, lengthy embezzlement scheme that involved no-show jobs, false timesheets, fraudulent billings, and disguising personal expenses as purported business expenses.  In total, they allegedly bilked a corporate victim out of more than $7 million.  As part of the alleged scheme, the defendants charged an array of personal expenses to a corporate victim, including a cruise, hotels, private car service, gentlemen’s clubs, and more.  Several defendants also allegedly sought to conceal the fraud by failing to report, or pay taxes on, the income they received from the scheme.  Today’s arrests are yet another example of this Office’s commitment to holding accountable those who commit financial fraud.”



FBI Assistant Director in Charge James Smith said: “When an individual puts in an honest day’s work, they deserve to be compensated fairly.  The defendants in this case allegedly sought to do the opposite, scheming to create a dishonest plan involving no-show jobs and reporting personal spending as business.  Through their alleged scam, they received significant benefits including payment, travel, and entertainment.  The FBI will ensure that anyone attempting to benefit from deceit is instead held accountable in the justice system.”

IRS-CI Special Agent in Charge Thomas M. Fattorusso said: “The five defendants allegedly created a web of lies, resulting in a scheme to embezzle millions, while three are additionally charged with evading taxes on their illicit gains.  Though it’s purported they ‘lived the good life’ through this deception, today’s arrests ensure that their very near future won’t be so comfortable.”

According to the allegations in the Indictment:[1]

From at least in or about May 2010 through at least in or about February 2019, the five defendants and others (the “Conspirators”) executed a fraudulent scheme to unlawfully enrich themselves by submitting and causing to be submitted fraudulent invoices and expenses to an information technology (“IT”) services company (the “Contractor”), at which MARK ANGAROLA was employed in a senior position. 

Specifically, MARK ANGAROLA was a Global Account General Manager at the Contractor, working out of the Contractor’s office in New York, New York.  MARK ANGAROLA was responsible for managing the Contractor’s relationship with a particular client, which was a subsidiary of a global financial institution (the “Client”).  The Contractor had a service contract with the Client, pursuant to which the Contractor would provide IT support services to the Client at locations across the United States.  The Contractor subcontracted certain of its work under the Service Contract to a technology solutions company (the “Subcontractor”) based in New Jersey.  Pursuant to the agreement between the Contractor and the Subcontractor (the “Subcontract”), the Subcontractor provided certain IT support services directly to the Client in the place of the Contractor.  MARK ANGAROLA was responsible for oversight of the Subcontractor’s performance under the Subcontract, which included approving payment to the Subcontractor on invoices submitted for work purportedly performed and expenses purportedly incurred in the Subcontractor’s performance on the Subcontract. 

MARK ANGAROLA used his position at the Contractor — and in particular his oversight of the Contractor’s relationship with the Client and the Subcontractor — to fraudulently enrich himself, his family, and his friends.  For example, MARK ANGAROLA arranged for the Subcontractor to hire certain of his family members, friends, and subordinates, despite the fact that these individuals — which included a schoolteacher, a homemaker, a police sergeant, and a manager in the construction industry — lacked apparent qualifications to perform deskside IT work.  MARK ANGAROLA arranged for the Subcontractor to hire, among others, ALLISON ANGAROLA, JOSE GARCIA, MICHELLE COX, and LISA MINCAK, the defendants.  Thereafter, ALLISON ANGAROLA, GARCIA, COX, MINCAK, and others who MARK ANGAROLA caused to be hired by the Subcontractor, repeatedly falsely reported to the Subcontractor that they had performed work under the Subcontract and incurred business expenses.  GARCIA also used nominee corporate and limited liability entities to further disguise his receipt of funds for purported work performed under the Subcontract, including for alleged “Management Fees” due.  The Subcontractor submitted invoices to the Contractor for the hours purportedly worked by several of the Conspirators, for purported management fees allegedly due and for the purported business expenses incurred by several of the Conspirators in connection with that work, which hours, fees, and expenses were falsely reported to the Subcontractor by the Conspirators.  MARK ANGAROLA, in turn, caused the Contractor to pay the Subcontractor on these fraudulent invoices.

The purported business expenses incurred by several of the Conspirators and ultimately paid for by the Contractor at the direction of MARK ANGAROLA included, among other things, restaurant meals, hotel stays, transportation fees, a cruise, and gentlemen’s clubs.  In fact, the expenses were personal expenses and were not reimbursable.  In addition, to circumvent the Contractor’s expense policies, MARK ANGAROLA charged certain of his own personal expenses — including a private car service that he used for personal travel to restaurants, cigar bars, and gentlemen’s clubs, and to transport his children to visit family regularly and his friends to parties at his residence — to credit cards in the name of co-conspirators, including LISA MINCAK.  MARK ANGAROLA, with the assistance of MINCAK and others, who falsely represented to the Subcontractor that the expenses were incurred in connection with work for the Subcontractor, fraudulently caused the Contractor to pay for such personal expenses of MARK ANGAROLA.

As a result of the scheme, MARK ANGAROLA, ALLISON ANGAROLA, JOSE GARCIA, MICHELLE COX, and LISA MINCAK, and entities controlled by certain Conspirators, received personal benefits, including travel, meals, and entertainment, and were paid substantial sums.  For example, despite the fact that most Conspirators provided few, if any services, to the Client, the Conspirators fraudulently obtained at least the following approximate amounts through this scheme: $1,468,215 to MARK ANGAROLA; $751,641 to ALLISON ANGAROLA; $4,554,950 to JOSE GARCIA and entities he controlled; $335,500 to MICHELLE COX; $88,793 to LISA MINCAK; and $90,521 to Anthony Lisi, a previously charged co-conspirator who pled guilty for his involvement in the embezzlement scheme on September 13, 2022, before U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.

Several participants in this fraud scheme also committed related tax fraud by concealing from the IRS substantial income that they had obtained through the scheme.  For several years, MARK ANGAROLA and JOSE GARCIA committed tax evasion, and MICHELLE COX failed to file individual income tax returns.

*                *                *

MARK ANGAROLA, 50, of Point Lookout, New York, is charged with one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; one count of wire fraud conspiracy, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; and three counts of tax evasion, which each carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

ALLISON ANGAROLA, 53, of Point Lookout, New York, is charged with one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and one count of wire fraud conspiracy, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

JOSE GARCIA, 52, of New York, New York, is charged with one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; one count of wire fraud conspiracy, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; and three counts of tax evasion, which each carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

MICHELLE COX, 52, of New York, New York, is charged with one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; one count of wire fraud conspiracy, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; and two counts of failure to file an individual income tax return, which each carry a maximum sentence of one year in prison.

LISA MINCAK, 46, of Plano, Texas, is charged with one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and one count of wire fraud conspiracy, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

The statutory maximum sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.

Mr. Williams praised the outstanding efforts of the FBI, IRS-CI, and DOL-OIG.  Mr. Williams also noted that the investigation is ongoing.

This matter is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael D. Neff, Timothy V. Capozzi, and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Jorge Almonte of the Tax Division are in charge of the prosecution.

The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.







[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment and the description of the Indictment set forth herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL21vdW50LXZlcm5vbi1uYXRpdmUtc2VudGVuY2VkLTExLXllYXJzLXByaXNvbi1vcmNoZXN0cmF0aW5nLTc2LW1pbGxpb24tY292aWQtMTktZnJhdWQ
  Press Releases:
Matthew Podolsky, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that JACOB CARTER, who led a scheme to defraud the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) of more than $7.6 million, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Nelson S. Román to 11 years in prison.  CARTER and co-defendants Quadri Salahuddin and Anwar Salahuddin were convicted at trial on February 9, 2024, for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft.Acting U.S. Attorney Matthew Podolsky said: “Jacob Carter took advantage of a taxpayer-funded program intended to help small businesses in desperate need during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Some small businesses that were eligible for and deserving of this money did not get it because funds ran out.  Carter used his ill-gotten gains for far more selfish pursuits, including expensive jewelry and a Lamborghini.  Thanks to the work of our law enforcement partners at the FBI and the career prosecutors of this Office, Carter has now received just punishment.”According to the Indictment, publics filings, public court proceedings and filings, and the evidence presented at trial and in connection with sentencing:The SBA is a federal agency of the Executive Branch that administers assistance to American small businesses. This assistance includes making direct loans to applicants through the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) Program.  In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress expanded SBA’s EIDL Program to provide small businesses with low-interest loans of up to $2 million prior to in or about May 2020 and up to $150,000 beginning in or about May 2020, in order to provide vital economic support to help overcome the loss of revenue small businesses are experiencing due to COVID-19.  Applicants seeking a loan under the EIDL program were also now permitted to request and receive an advance of approximately $1,000 per employee, for an amount up to $10,000, which the SBA has generally provided while the loan application was pending.From March through July 2020, CARTER and co-defendants Quadri Salahuddin, Anwar Salahuddin, and Crystal Ransom, used the identities of more than 1,000 other individuals (the “Applicants”) to submit more than 1,000 online applications to the SBA, seeking over $10 million of funds through the SBA’s EIDL Program (the “EIDL Applications”). In connection with the EIDL Applications, CARTER, Quadri Salahuddin, Anwar Salahuddin, and Ransom falsely represented to the SBA that the Applicants were the owners of businesses with 10 or more employees.  However, that was a lie – the individuals did not own businesses or employ people.  Based on the fraudulent EIDL Applications, the SBA made advance payments of more than $7.6 million to the Applicants, who then kicked back a portion of the advance payments to CARTER, Quadri Salahuddin, Anwar Salahuddin, and Ransom.  After the defendants collected millions of dollars in kickback payments, CARTER took photographs of his stacks of cash, purchased expensive jewelry, and leased a Lamborghini.*               *                *In addition to the prison term, CARTER, 39, of Capitol Heights, Maryland, was sentenced to three years of supervised release.  CARTER was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $7,737,000 to the SBA and forfeiture in the amount of $1,720,950.Ransom pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and was sentenced on April 24, 2024, to two years in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release with the first six months under home confinement. The Court also ordered that Ransom pay restitution in the amount of $7,577,000 to the SBA and forfeiture in the amount of $99,000. Quadri Salahuddin and Anwar Salahuddin are scheduled to be sentenced on March 26, 2025.Mr. Podolsky praised the outstanding work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.The case is being handled by the Office’s White Plains Division.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jeffrey C. Coffman, Courtney L. Heavey, and Jared D. Hoffman are in charge of the prosecution.
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL255Y2hhLXN1cGVyaW50ZW5kZW50cy1zZW50ZW5jZWQtcHJpc29uLWFjY2VwdGluZy1icmliZXM
  Press Releases:
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that LEROY GIBBS was sentenced yesterday by U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon to 33 months in prison, and JULIO FIGUEROA was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote to 15 months in prison, for accepting bribes in exchange for awarding no-bid contracts at the New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”) facilities where they worked.  GIBBS also obstructed justice in the weeks before his sentencing.  GIBBS and FIGUEROA each previously pled guilty to one count of solicitation and receipt of a bribe. 

U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “Leroy Gibbs and Julio Figueroa betrayed the trust of NYCHA and harmed the residents of Douglass Houses and Ft. Independence Houses, taxpayers, and the contractors who were forced to pay them bribes in order to receive work – all so that they could line their pockets.  By accepting bribes, they put greed above their duty to the public.”

According to the Complaints, Informations, and statements made in court proceedings and filings:

In February 2020, GIBBS, who was then employed as the Resident Buildings Superintendent at Douglass Houses in New York, New York, solicited and accepted approximately $2,000 in bribes from a confidential informant (the “CI”) in exchange for awarding no-bid contracts to the CI worth a total of approximately $9,950 from NYCHA for work at that NYCHA facility.  

These were not the only bribes GIBBS solicited and received; between at least 2019 and 2022, GIBBS demanded bribes from numerous other contractors who sought to do work for NYCHA at Douglass Houses.  For example, in one text message exchange in February 2020, GIBBS wrote to a contractor, “so there isn’t anything confusion like before. What is my $ from this?  I have to ask because you guys were trying to be funny last time.”  The contractor replied, “Good evening sir[,] 50k yours 50k us.”  If contractors were too explicit about the bribery scheme in their messages to GIBBS, he admonished them; for example, when a contractor asked GIBBS, “Did [my associate] gave you 4k last week?”, GIBBS replied, “Don’t ever text something like that.  Ever are you crazy.”  GIBBS also referred to his practice of receiving a $1,000 bribe for each awarded job as his “side hustle,” and wrote that he had previously “put hands on” a contractor who had threatened to report his corruption.   

In January 2023, just weeks before he was due to be sentenced, GIBBS took several steps to obstruct justice, including by deleting text messages and obtaining a new phone number to communicate with a co-conspirator. 

Between July 2021 and August 2022, FIGUEROA, who was then employed as the Assistant Resident Buildings Superintendent at the Ft. Independence St.-Heath Ave. Houses in the Bronx, New York, solicited and accepted approximately $6,000 in bribes from the CI in exchange for awarding no-bid contracts to the CI worth a total of approximately $46,622 from NYCHA for work at that NYCHA facility.  FIGUEROA continued to solicit bribes even after learning about the arrests of nine NYCHA contractors in September 2021 for paying bribes, telling the CI that he hoped he would not be the subject of an undercover investigation and that he would probably only deal with the CI from then on because the news of the arrests scared him. 

*                *                *

In addition to his prison sentence, GIBBS, 58, of Bay Shore, New York, was sentenced to three years of supervised release, including 120 hours of community service per year, and was ordered to pay a $100,000 fine, forfeit $2,000, and pay $2,000 in restitution. 

In addition to his prison sentence, FIGUEROA, 45, of the Bronx, New York, was sentenced to three years of supervised release and was ordered to forfeit $6,000 and pay $6,000 in restitution. 

Mr. Williams praised the outstanding investigative work of the New York City Department of Investigation, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Inspector General, and the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. 

The prosecution of this case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Catherine Ghosh and Robert B. Sobelman are in charge of the prosecution.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL2Zvcm1lci1nb3Zlcm5tZW50LW9mZmljaWFsLWFycmVzdGVkLWFjdGluZy11bnJlZ2lzdGVyZWQtYWdlbnQtc291dGgta29yZWFuLTA
  Press Releases:
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Christie M. Curtis, the Acting Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced the unsealing of an Indictment yesterday charging SUE MI TERRY with offenses under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”).  TERRY was arrested on July 16, 2024, in New York, New York, and presented before U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger.  The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield.



U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “As alleged, Sue Mi Terry, a former CIA and White House employee, subverted foreign agent registration laws in order to provide South Korean intelligence officers with access, information, and advocacy.  Terry allegedly sold out her positions and influence to the South Korean government in return for luxury handbags, expensive meals, and thousands of dollars of funding for her public policy program.  The charges brought should send a clear message to those in public policy who may be tempted to sell their expertise to a foreign government to think twice and ensure you are in accordance with the law.”



FBI Acting Assistant Director in Charge Christie M. Curtis said: “Compromising national security endangers every American by weakening our defenses and putting lives at risk.  Sue Mi Terry, a former CIA and White House official, was arrested for allegedly acting as an unregistered agent for South Korea.  For over a decade, despite repeated warnings, Terry allegedly exploited her think tank roles to advance a foreign agenda.  As alleged, she disclosed sensitive U.S. government information to South Korean intelligence and used her position to influence U.S. policy in favor of South Korea… for money and luxury gifts.  Her alleged actions posed a severe threat to national security.  This arrest sends a clear message: the FBI will pursue and arrest anyone who endangers our nation’s security by collaborating with foreign spies.”

As alleged in the Indictment:[1] 

After leaving U.S. government service and for more than a decade, TERRY worked as an agent of the government of the Republic of Korea (“ROK”), commonly known as South Korea, without registering as a foreign agent with the Attorney General, as required by law.  As covertly directed by ROK government officials, TERRY publicly advocated ROK policy positions, disclosed non-public U.S. government information to ROK intelligence officers, and enabled ROK officials to gain access to U.S. government officials.  In return for these actions, ROK intelligence officers provided TERRY with luxury goods, expensive dinners, and more than $37,000 in funding for a public policy program focusing on Korean affairs that TERRY controlled. 

From in or about 2001 to in or about 2011, TERRY served in a series of positions in the U.S. government, including as an analyst on East Asian issues for the Central Intelligence Agency, as the Director for Korea, Japan, and Oceanic Affairs for the White House National Security Council, and as the Deputy National Intelligence Officer for East Asia at the National Intelligence Council.  Since leaving government service in or about 2011, TERRY has worked at academic institutions and think tanks in New York City and Washington, D.C.  TERRY has made media appearances, published articles, and hosted conferences as a policy expert specializing in, among other things, South Korea, North Korea, and various regional issues impacting Asia.  TERRY has also testified before Congress on at least three occasions regarding the U.S. government’s policy toward Korea. 

Since leaving U.S. government service, TERRY served as a valuable source of information for the ROK National Intelligence Service (“ROK NIS”), the ROK’s primary intelligence agency.  For example, in or about June 2022, TERRY participated in a private, off-the-record group meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State regarding the U.S. government’s policy toward North Korea.  Immediately after the meeting, TERRY’s primary ROK NIS point of contact, or “handler,” picked up TERRY in a car bearing ROK Embassy diplomatic license plates.  While in the car, TERRY provided her handler detailed handwritten notes of her meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State.  TERRY’s handler photographed the notes while sitting in the car with TERRY. 

Weeks later, at the request of her ROK NIS handler, TERRY hosted a happy hour for Congressional staff.  Although the happy hour was under the auspices of the think tank where TERRY worked, the ROK NIS paid for it with TERRY’s knowledge.  TERRY’s handler attended the event and posed as a diplomat, mingling with Congressional staff without disclosing that he was, in fact, an ROK intelligence officer. 

The ROK government rewarded TERRY for her services.  For example, TERRY’s ROK NIS handlers gifted her a $2,950 Bottega Veneta handbag and a $3,450 Louis Vuitton handbag, both of which TERRY selected during shopping trips with her handlers.  One of TERRY’s ROK NIS handlers also gifted her a $2,845 Dolce & Gabbana coat.  

In addition to luxury goods, TERRY’s ROK NIS handlers provided her with expensive meals, including at Michelin-starred restaurants.  TERRY’s ROK NIS handlers also deposited approximately $37,000 into an unrestricted “gift” account that TERRY controlled at the think tank where she worked.  In addition, ROK government officials paid TERRY to write articles in both the U.S. and Korean press conveying positions and phrases provided by the ROK government. 

*                *                *

TERRY, 54, of New York, New York, has been charged with one count of conspiracy to violate FARA, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, and one count of failure to register under FARA, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by a judge.

Mr. Williams praised the outstanding investigative work of the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI’s New York Field Office.  Mr. Williams also thanked the Counterintelligence Division and Foreign Influence Task Force of FBI Headquarters, the Mission Services and Counterintelligence Divisions of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, the Amtrak Police Department, and the Department of Justice’s National Security Division for their assistance. 

This case is being handled by the Office’s National Security and International Narcotics Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sam Adelsberg, Alexander Li, and Kyle A. Wirshba are in charge of the prosecution, with assistance from Trial Attorney Christopher M. Rigali of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section.

The charges contained in the Indictment 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 Indictment and the description of the Indictment set forth herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL2Zvcm1lci1jaGllZi1maW5hbmNpYWwtb2ZmaWNlci1vc2lyaXMtdGhlcmFwZXV0aWNzLWluYy1wbGVhZHMtZ3VpbHR5LWx5aW5nLWF1ZGl0b3Jz
  Press Releases:
Joon H. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Philip R. Bartlett, Inspector-in-Charge of the New York Office of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), announced that PHILIP JACOBY, the former chief financial officer of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. (“Osiris”), a developer and producer of regenerative medicine products, was charged by criminal information (the “Information”) and pled guilty today to lying to Osiris’s auditors in connection with the auditors’ review of Osiris’s 2014 10-K and Third Quarter 2015 10-Q filings.  JACOBY pled guilty before U.S. District Judge Denise Cote.

 

Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said:  “Philip Jacoby, the former CFO of a pharmaceutical company, admitted today to lying to auditors conducting an examination of the financial well-being of his company.  Jacoby fabricated documents, made false statements, and asked others to backdate critical transactions in furtherance of his scheme to mislead auditors. For his criminal conduct, which ultimately misled those looking to invest in his publicly traded company, Jacoby faces time in federal prison.”

 

Inspector-in-Charge Philip R. Bartlett said:  “In a misguided effort to avoid a restatement of Osiris’s fourth quarter revenue numbers, Philip Jacoby lied about the conversion of $1.1 million dollars of consignment inventory to a final sale.  He wasn’t so clever when he left a paper trail of evidence Postal Inspectors followed right back to him.”

 

According to allegations contained in the Information and statements made in public Court proceedings:

 

Osiris, headquartered in Columbia, Maryland, is a publicly traded company specializing in the research, development, and marketing of regenerative medicine products.  Osiris sold its products either through its direct sales force, or, more typically, through numerous distributors.  Osiris’s securities traded under the symbol “OSIR” on the NASDAQ stock exchange. 

 

From in or about 2008 up to and including in or about September 2015, JACOBY held the position of chief financial officer (“CFO”) of Osiris.  From in or about September 2015 through in or about January 2016, JACOBY held the position of principal accounting officer.  During the period that JACOBY was the CFO of Osiris, he signed Osiris’s quarterly and yearly financial reports.  These reports were required to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and provided the investing public with information regarding Osiris’s financial performance.

 

Although Osiris was initially a research and development company, by at least in or about 2014, Osiris’s management was focused on the company’s “top line,” or gross revenue growth.  Osiris was especially focused on being able to demonstrate quarter-over-quarter revenue growth, that is, reporting revenue for each quarter that was greater than the previous quarter’s.  For example, a former CEO of Osiris (the “CEO”) regularly prepared internal presentations emphasizing the company’s historical quarter-over-quarter revenue growth and emphasizing the need to achieve future growth.  Similarly, in public earnings calls run by the CEO and in its earnings press releases, Osiris touted its revenue performance and quarter-over-quarter revenue growth. 

Improper Accounting at Osiris With Respect to Distributor-1

Between approximately 2010 and approximately 2015, Distributor-1 was a distributor for Osiris’s Ovation product, among other products.  Distributor-1 was owned in its entirety by a sole principal (“Owner-1”).

In or about September 2013, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) informed Osiris that Ovation failed to meet certain regulatory requirements and thus required pre-marketing approval from the FDA, which Ovation did not have.  Thereafter, Osiris agreed with the FDA that it would not sell Ovation after December 31, 2014. 

 

In order to maintain access to Ovation following December 31, 2014, Distributor-1 agreed to take possession of a significant quantity of Ovation prior to December 31, 2014, and by December 2014 was in possession of approximately $1.8 million worth of Ovation.  Because Distributor-1 lacked the ability to pay for such a large purchase, the Ovation was shipped to Distributor-1 on consignment.  Because the product was on consignment, under governing accounting rules Osiris could not properly recognize revenue until Distributor-1 had sold the product to an end user or Distributor-1 otherwise agreed to purchase the product.

 

In or about December 2014, JACOBY requested that Owner-1 convert some or all of the consigned inventory to inventory owned by Distributor-1 by December 31, 2014.  To the extent other revenue recognition criteria were satisfied, completion of the actual sale of the inventory to Distributor-1 by December 31, 2014, would have allowed Osiris to recognize revenue for that product in 2014 and reference that revenue in the 2014 10-K it would subsequently file.

 

Notwithstanding internal pressure to make sales, however, JACOBY and Owner-1 did not reach a final agreement regarding the conversion of the consigned inventory until at least in or about January 2015.  Despite the fact that no agreement was reached in 2014, Osiris, at the direction of JACOBY, booked approximately $1.1 million in revenue related to the conversion of consignment product in the fourth quarter of 2014 (the “Distributor-1 Transaction”).

 

Jacoby Conveys False Information to Auditors After Improper Accounting Is Questioned

 

In or about October 2015, the Company’s auditors (the “Auditors”), in connection with an inspection by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB”), requested additional documentation and information supporting Osiris’s recognition of revenue in December 2014 relating to the Distributor-1 Transaction.  In an effort to deceive the Auditors and the PCAOB, JACOBY provided or caused to be provided false, inaccurate, and misleading information to the Auditors. 

 

For example, in or about October 2015, JACOBY and others prepared a memorandum from Osiris to its Auditors attempting to justify the recognition of $1.1 million of revenue from the Distributor-1 Transaction in the fourth quarter of 2014.  In the memorandum, JACOBY falsely represented that on December 31, 2014, JACOBY had “discussed the sale terms with [Owner-1] via a conference call, and [Owner-1] agreed to purchase 933 units of Ovation for $1,072,950.”  As JACOBY well knew, no telephone call had taken place on December 31, 2014. 

 

Similarly, on or about November 5, 2015, JACOBY created a letter, backdated to December 29, 2014, purporting to memorialize an agreement between Osiris and Distributor-1 (the “Backdated Letter”).  That same day, JACOBY used his personal email account to send the Backdated Letter by email to Owner-1 stating:

 

“attached is something that I think you should find and send to me in an email saying you had this in your file from late last year, and just came across it – and that it does memorialize our several phone conversations . . . . . Call me if necessary, but write a wonderfully warm and convincing email, please – send it to my Osiris email.”

 

Owner-1 complied and sent the Backdated Letter to Jacoby’s Osiris email account.  JACOBY then forwarded Owner-1’s email containing the fraudulent Backdated Letter to the CEO and the then-CFO of Osiris, who forwarded the document to the Auditors. 

 

*                *                *

           

PHILIP JACOBY, 65, pled guilty to one count of making fraudulent statements to Osiris’s auditors, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.  The defendant also faces a maximum fine of $5 million.  Sentencing before Judge Cote has been scheduled for February 2, 2018, at 11:00 a.m.    

 

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 a judge.    

           

Mr. Kim praised the investigative work of the United States Postal Inspection Service and also thanked the SEC, which filed a parallel civil case today.

 

This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Rebecca Mermelstein, Brendan F. Quigley, and Daniel B. Tehrani are in charge of the prosecution.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:19-cr-00442
Case Name:   USA v. Mathys
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and William F. Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced today the indictment of ROLAND MATHYS for his participation in a scheme to trade on material, nonpublic information (the “Inside Information”) regarding a tender offer by Sanofi, S.A (“Sanofi”) for Bioverativ, Inc. (“Bioverativ”).  After the tender offer was announced, MATHYS’s trading yielded over $4.7 million in illegal profits.

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “As alleged, Roland Mathys engaged in insider trading, and profited to the tune of nearly $5 million – until his scheme was exposed.  He allegedly used confidential information about a pending acquisition of a company to purchase call options in that company, knowing that the value of these options would balloon after the acquisition was publicly announced.  Working with the FBI and the SEC, we remain committed to policing the marketplace to take the profit out of cheating.”

FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. said:  “Every time someone engages in insider trading, they illegally stack investment odds in their favor.  Mathys’s alleged behavior is not only dishonorable, but illegal.  While this type of activity might initially prove profitable, in the long run there’s nothing to be gained.”

According to the allegations contained in the Indictment filed today in Manhattan federal court[1]:

Background of Sanofi’s Tender Offer for Bioverativ

On November 3, 2017, Sanofi, a multinational pharmaceutical company headquartered in Paris, France, delivered to Bioverativ, a multinational biotechnology company headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts, a non-binding proposal offering to acquire all outstanding shares of Bioverativ at a price of $98.50 per share in cash.  Bioverativ specialized in the development and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of hemophilia, and its stock was traded under the ticker symbol “BIVV” on the NASDAQ Stock Exchange.  On December 5, 2017, Sanofi and Bioverativ entered into a confidentiality agreement regarding the acquisition negotiations.  On December 18, 2017, representatives of Sanofi and Bioverativ met in New York, New York, for a management presentation, which included a review of Bioverativ’s business, products and pipeline, operations, and projections.  On January 4, 2018, Sanofi indicated that it would be willing to pursue an acquisition of Bioverativ at a price of $105 per share, subject to Sanofi’s successful completion of due diligence and Bioverativ’s agreement to engage exclusively with Sanofi.  On January 6, 2018, Sanofi and Bioverativ executed an exclusivity agreement, which provided Sanofi with the right, through January 26, 2018, to negotiate exclusively the potential acquisition of all the outstanding shares of Bioverativ at the price of $105 per share.

The Sanofi Executive Acquires Inside Information About the Acquisition of Bioverativ and Discloses it to his Family Member

By January 7, 2018, Individual-1, in connection with his employment as an executive vice president at Sanofi, learned that an acquisition of Bioverativ by Sanofi was being negotiated, that such an acquisition was likely to happen, and that such an acquisition would take place in the near future, which Inside Information he had a duty to keep confidential.  On or about January 8, 2018, during a telephone conversation, Individual-1 disclosed to his family member, Individual-2, Inside Information regarding Sanofi’s planned acquisition of Bioverativ. Specifically, Individual-1 told Individual-2, in sum and substance, that Sanofi was acquiring a Boston-based biotech company involved in developing a hemophilia drug.

Individual-2 Discloses Inside Information about the Acquisition of Bioverativ to MATHYS

Between January 8, 2018, and January 12, 2018, Individual-2 disclosed to his friend MATHYS Inside Information regarding Sanofi’s planned acquisition and the fact that Individual-2 had learned the Inside Information from Individual-1.  Based on MATHYS’s prior dealings with Individual-1, MATHYS knew that Individual-1 was an executive vice president at Sanofi.

From January 12, 2018, through on January 19, 2018, MATHYS purchased approximately 1,607 Bioverativ call option contracts, all with an expiration date of February 16, 2018, for a total purchase price of approximately $170,071.  MATHYS’s purchases constituted a significant percentage of the trading in Bioverativ call options on each day, as shown in the table below.



Date of purchase





Number of call option contracts purchased





Strike price





Average premium paid





Percentage

of trading

by MATHYS





1/12/18





342





$65





$2.44





75%





1/12/18





370





$70





$0.79





82%





1/12/18





100





$75





$0.59





96%





1/16/18





100





$75





$0.80





97%





1/17/18





20





$65





$2.29





32.2%





1/17/18





100





$75





$0.50





95%





1/18/18





300





$75





$0.59





100%





1/19/18





275





$75





$0.56





50%



 

The Acquisition is Announced, and Bioverativ’s Share Price Increases by Approximately 62%

On the evening of Sunday, January 21, 2018, Sanofi and Bioverativ entered into a merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”).  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Sanofi would commence a tender offer no later than 15 business days after the date of the Merger Agreement, to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Bioverativ, at a purchase price of $105.00 per share (the “Tender Offer”), which represented a premium of approximately 64% over Bioverativ’s closing price the prior trading day.

On the morning of Monday, January 22, 2018, prior to the opening of the financial markets in Paris and New York, Sanofi and Bioverativ issued a joint press release announcing the signing of the Merger Agreement (the “Announcement”).

On January 22, 2018, following the Announcement, Bioverativ shares opened trading at $104.21 per share, reached an intra-day high of $104.30 per share, and closed at $103.79 per share, an increase of approximately 62% over the closing price on the prior trading day.  Since Bioverativ shares had begun trading on the NASDAQ in January 2017, they had never closed at or above $64.12.

MATHYS’s Insider Trading Generates an Illicit Profit of Over $4.7 Million

On January 22, 2018, MATHYS sold all the Bioverativ call option contracts that had a strike price of $65 or $70, for a net profit of approximately $2,518,622.70.  On January 23 and 26, 2018, he sold 325 Bioverativ call option contracts with a strike price of $75, for a net profit of approximately $711,000.81.

On January 26, 2018, at the request of his relationship manager at Credit Suisse, Ltd. (the “Relationship Manager”), MATHYS executed a declaration in which he represented that his transactions in Bioverativ call options were based only on publicly available information and/or personal market analysis, and that no Inside Information was used.  MATHYS also stated to the Relationship Manager that MATHYS was extremely surprised by the developments relating to Bioverativ, that he had nothing to do with Bioverativ or Sanofi, and that he did not have any information relating to Bioverativ’s acquisition when he purchased Bioverativ options.  

On February 8, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) obtained a preliminary injunction freezing the approximately $3,229,623.51 in proceeds that MATHYS had generated from selling a portion of the Bioverativ call options (the “Preliminary Injunction”).  On February 16, 2018, pursuant to a court order, the SEC directed the liquidation of the remaining 550 Bioverativ call option contracts, which resulted in net profits of approximately $1,568,732.47, which were also frozen pursuant to the Preliminary Injunction.

Between February 8, 2018, and February 10, 2018, MATHYS acknowledged to Individual-2, in sum and substance, that MATHYS had traded in Bioverativ based on the Inside Information that MATHYS had obtained from Individual-2.

*                    *                    *

MATHYS, 32, is a citizen and resident of Switzerland.

MATHYS is charged with one count of fraud in connection with a tender offer, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $5 million.  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 would be determined by the Court.  The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Denise Cote.

Mr. Berman praised the work of the FBI, and thanked the SEC for its assistance.

This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force. Assistant U.S. Attorney Christine I. Magdo is in charge of the prosecution.

The allegations contained in the Indictment 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 Indictment, and the description of the Indictment set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described therein should be treated as an allegation.





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o0Lg06N_D3I0EjuwjhsxcIAm5fvhupJl9omxplgBiZ0
  Last Updated: 2025-03-21 16:44:54 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 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:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL2ZhdGhlci1hbmQtc29uLXNlbnRlbmNlZC1maXZlLXllYXJzLXByaXNvbi1zZWxsaW5nLWZlbnRhbnlsLWFuZC1veHljb2RvbmUtZGFyay13ZWI
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that MICHAEL LUCIANO and PHILIP LUCIANO, a father and son, were sentenced today to five years in prison for selling fentanyl and oxycodone over the “dark web,” including on the dark web marketplace AlphaBay.  The LUCIANOS also sold fentanyl that substantially contributed to a victim’s non-fatal overdose in 2015.  Today’s sentences were imposed by U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “The defendants’ dangerous fentanyl distribution contributed to a victim’s overdose.  Fortunately, the victim survived.  After this overdose, the defendants continued to deal drugs, using the dark web – a place where some criminals think they can hide – to sell fentanyl and oxycodone, two highly addictive and potentially lethal opioids.  For their criminal conduct, this father-son duo has now been sentenced to federal prison.”

According to the allegations in the Complaint and the Indictment to which the LUCIANOS pled guilty, as well as statements made in court:

From at least in or about January 2015 through July 2017, MICHAEL LUCIANO and PHILIP LUCIANO conspired to distribute fentanyl, butyryl fentanyl (a fentanyl analogue), and oxycodone.  They sold narcotics both in person and – from at least February 2016 through July 2017 – over the dark web.  In March 2015, the LUCIANOS sold fentanyl to a repeat customer who overdosed, was administered naloxone, taken to the hospital, and survived.  The overdose victim sent text messages to PHILIP LUCIANO from the hospital, stating, “I called you / Your dad at the house and saw him / I got back home and shot some. I thought it might have been too much, especially considering my last dose of sub was Saturday. I became unresponsive and my friend called an ambulance. They gave me narcan and I’m at the hospital now / Can I settle up and get 60 more tomorrow?”  PHILIP LUCIANO replied, “Give me a call when u can.” 

Despite this overdose in 2015, the LUCIANOS continued to sell drugs, including over the dark web in 2016 and 2017.  On AlphaBay, they sold narcotics using the vendor name “Zane61.”  AlphaBay customers repeatedly provided positive feedback for fentanyl and oxycodone they purchased from Zane61.  One of the LUCIANOS’ AlphaBay customers wrote, for example:  “Great stealth, fast shipping, legit product. Perfect 10/10.”  In July 2017, MICHAEL LUCIANO gave a confession to agents from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”).  He admitted, among other things, that PHILIP LUCIANO had handled the technological aspects of their drug transactions over the dark web, PHILIP had reported to MICHAEL drug orders they had received online, and MICHAEL had shipped the narcotics, via the United States Postal Service, to the LUCIANOS’ customers.

*                *                *

In addition to their prison terms, MICHAEL LUCIANO, 59, and PHILIP LUCIANO, 30, both of Staten Island, were each sentenced to four years of supervised release and forfeiture money judgments of $15,953 along with certain property, such as more than 2.5 Bitcoin.

Mr. Berman praised HSI for its outstanding investigative work.  Mr. Berman also thanked the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the New York City Police Department for their valuable assistance.

This matter is being handled by the Office’s Narcotics Unit.  Assistant United States Attorney Michael D. Neff is in charge of the prosecution.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL3RocmVlLXNlbnRlbmNlZC1sb2FuLXNjaGVtZS1kZWZyYXVkLWZvdXItY2h1cmNoZXMtYW5kLWRldmVsb3Blcg
  Press Releases:
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that JEFFERY N. CROSSLAND was sentenced yesterday to 51 months in prison, RAYMOND E. ROBINSON, a pastor, was sentenced on March 18, 2022 to 42 months in prison and STEPHEN C. PARENTE was sentenced on March 19, 2022 to 33 months in prison for conspiring to defraud four churches and a real estate development company out of more than $3.5 million.

U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said:  “Crossland, Robinson, and Parente abused the trust of four churches and Crossland and Robinson victimized a real estate development company as well.  All the victims were seeking financing for building projects.  The defendants induced them to enter into loan agreements requiring the victims to transfer “deposit” money into a bank account by falsely representing that the deposit money would be safe from loss.  Based on those false representations, the victims transferred their deposits.  But the money did not remain in the account safe from loss.  Instead, the victims lost their money and their ability to fund their building construction projects.  For their crime, Crossland, Robinson, and Parente will serve a substantial sentence in prison.”

According to the allegations contained in the Indictment, court filings, and statements made during court proceedings:       

CROSSLAND was a managing member of Crossland Capital Partners, LLC, a purported broker dealer focused on “real estate related capital raising,” located in Santa Monica, California.  He also controlled JC Funding Group, also located in Santa Monica, which was represented to be a corporate entity overseeing various subsidiary lending companies under the JC Funding name.  PARENTE controlled Eagle Capital Investment Partners, LP (“Eagle Capital”), a purported private financial advisory consultancy practice based in Georgia.  ROBINSON was a minister.  He was employed by a church-building company based in Missouri and he ran Ray Robinson Ministries – a purported consulting firm for churches.  ROBINSON, along with PARENTE, had an ownership interest in Eagle Capital.

In or about early 2013, the defendants met in California and planned their strategy, which was to target churches and market to them by capitalizing on ROBINSON’s background as a minister and church builder.  They represented that they were in the business of providing “unconventional loans” for churches and that CROSSLAND funded loans through capital he obtained from other clients who invested in his projects.  To effectuate the scheme to defraud, the three defendants drafted and modified term sheets and loan agreements that required the Victims to provide “deposits” as security for their loans.  To induce the Victims to enter into the loan agreements and provide these deposits, they agreed to and then made various other false representations about the Victims’ deposit money.  Through their communications with the Victims and language they drafted together and included in loan documents, they led the Victims to believe the deposit money would be held in a bank account (the “Account”) and that it would be safe from loss.  As the Victims ultimately learned, that was false and their money was not actually being used as the “deposit” they thought it was. Instead, it was being invested in what the defendants understood to be “trading programs” involving overseas investors.

In order to perpetuate the scheme and conceal the fraud, CROSSLAND had others transfer some of Victims’ deposit money to other Victims and falsely represented that these money transfers were loan draw payments.  In actuality, CROSSLAND never had the money to fund the Victims’ loans.  In addition to providing certain Victims with funds the defendants claimed to be loan draw payments, in order to perpetuate the scheme and conceal the fraud, CROSSLAND and ROBINSON had communications with the Victims, with the intention of (a) lulling them into believing that their loans would be funded and/or their deposits returned, and (b) preventing them from reporting their conduct to law enforcement authorities and/or taking legal action against them.

In this way, from April 2013 through March 2015, CROSSLAND, ROBINSON, and PARENTE fraudulently induced Victims to transfer more than $3.5 million to the Escrow Account.  The purported loans were never funded and millions of dollars in deposits were lost.

*                *                *

In imposing CROSSLAND’S sentence, U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Karas noted that the crime was “really serious and it required a great deal of planning and heartlessness.” 

CROSSLAND, 65, of Glendale, California, ROBINSON, 70, of Leander, Texas, and PARENTE, 54, of Buford, Georgia, each pled guilty to a one count Indictment charging them with conspiracy to commit wire fraud. CROSSLAND previously pled guilty to the one count Indictment on September 17, 2021.  ROBINSON and PARENTE previously pled guilty on September 8, 2021 and July 15, 2021, respectively. 

In addition to the prison terms, CROSSLAND was sentenced to three years of supervised release and ordered to pay forfeiture of $37,873 and restitution of $3,226, 950. ROBINSON was also sentenced to three years of supervised release and ordered to pay forfeiture of $17,750 and restitution of $3,226, 950.  PARENTE was sentenced to three years of supervised release and ordered to pay forfeiture of $33,230 and restitution of $2,986,950. 

Mr. Williams praised the outstanding investigative work of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office.  Mr. Williams also thanked the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee, the Knoxville, Tennessee, field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office for their assistance.

The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s White Plains Division.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Margery Feinzig and Derek Wikstrom are in charge of the prosecution.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL2xlYWRlci1ibWItc3RyZWV0LWdhbmctc2VudGVuY2VkLTE1MC1tb250aHMtcHJpc29uLXJhY2tldGVlcmluZy1jaGFyZ2Vz
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that NICO BURRELL, a/k/a “Zico Nico,” a leader of a violent street gang in the Bronx called the “Big Money Bosses” (“BMB”) was sentenced yesterday to 150 months in prison on racketeering charges.  BURRELL was sentenced by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan.

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “Burrell played a leadership role in the violent BMB street gang, and himself participated in the gang’s violence and drug dealing.  This violence included a shooting in February 2009 in which Burrell shot a rival gang member and an innocent bystander.  In addition, Burrell was responsible for BMB’s extensive distribution of oxycodone.  Yesterday’s sentence serves as a reminder that, together with our law enforcement partners, we will continue to aggressively prosecute all those who engage in these senseless acts of violence and drug dealing in our communities.”

According to the Indictment and other documents filed in the case, as well as statements made during the public proceedings in this case:

BMB is a subset of the “Young Bosses,” or “YBz” street gang, which operates throughout New York City.  Between 2007 and 2016, members and associates of BMB committed numerous acts of violence against rival gang members in the Bronx—including murders, attempted murders, and armed robberies—and sold crack cocaine, marijuana, and oxycodone.   

BURRELL was a leader of BMB.  On February 11, 2009, he attempted to murder a rival gang member by shooting him in the back.  One of BURRELL’s bullets also struck a woman waiting at a bus stop.  Both victims survived.  BURRELL was also responsible for the distribution of significant quantities of oxycodone by BMB.

BURRELL, 25, was arrested in this case as a result of a multi-year investigation by the New York City Police Department’s Bronx Gang Squad (the “Bronx Gang Squad”), the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations Violent Gang Unit (“HSI”), the New York Field Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), and the Joint Firearms Task Force of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) into gang violence in the Northern Bronx.  On April 27, 2016, Indictment 15 Cr. 95 (AJN) was unsealed, charging 63 members and associates of BMB with racketeering conspiracy, narcotics conspiracy, narcotics distribution, and firearms charges.  One defendant remains in the case, scheduled for trial in May 2018.

*                      *                     *

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding work of NYPD’s Bronx Gang Squad, HSI, DEA, and ATF.  He also thanked the Bronx County District Attorney’s Office, the Department of Investigation, NYCHA Inspector General’s Office, and the New York State Department of Parole for their ongoing support in this investigation.

 

This case is being handled by the Office’s Violent and Organized Crime Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Rachel Maimin, Micah W.J. Smith, Hagan Scotten, Jessica Feinstein, and Drew Skinner are in charge of the prosecution.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1lZG1vL3ByL21hbi13aG8tc3RhZ2VkLWF1dG8tYWNjaWRlbnRzLWFuZC1jb21taXR0ZWQtaW5zdXJhbmNlLWZyYXVkLXNlbnRlbmNlZC0xOC1tb250aHMtcHJpc29u
  Press Releases:
ST. LOUIS – U.S. District Judge Henry E. Autrey on Monday sentenced a man who defrauded insurance companies by staging vehicle accidents and injuries to 18 months in prison and ordered him to pay $107,951 in restitution.From September 2021 to January 2023, Adrian Peebles staged auto accidents, usually at night and in remote areas to minimize his chances of getting caught. Peebles nearly always claimed to have been injured and went to the emergency room complaining of “pain that required expensive tests that never identified any particular injury,” according to his plea agreement. Peebles insisted that the resulting payments from the vehicle insurance companies be made to him rather than the hospital and then did not pay his medical bills. His scheme cost two insurance companies $107,951.Peebles, now 32, pleaded guilty in January to one count of mail fraud.The FBI investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Ware prosecuted the case.
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZG55L3ByL3R3by1kZWZlbmRhbnRzLXNlbnRlbmNlZC1tYW5oYXR0YW4tZmVkZXJhbC1jb3VydC1pbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsLWZyYXVkLXNjaGVtZQ
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that MARTINS APSKALNS and IGORS PIRINS were sentenced to 108 months and 66 months in prison, respectively, for their leadership roles in a broad scheme that defrauded victims of millions of dollars.  APSKALNS and PIRINS previously pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud before United States District Judge Jesse M. Furman, who imposed the sentences.  APSKALNS was sentenced on January 31, 2020, and PIRINS was sentenced on February 10, 2020.

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Martins Apskalns and Igors Pirins were ringleaders in an international conspiracy that victimized people who thought they were buying classic cars on legitimate internet auction and trading sites.  They admitted to bilking millions of dollars from their victims, and now they are both headed to prison for their crimes.”

According to the allegations in the Indictments, other documents filed in federal court, and statements made in public court proceedings:

From at least January 2016 through December 2018, the defendants participated in a fraudulent scheme that most commonly operated as follows:  First, co-conspirators impersonated automotive dealers and collectors and claimed to be selling classic cars on various well-known internet auction and trading websites.  Victims responding to the ads were in fact corresponding with a fraud scheme participant.  After the victims and co-conspirators came to terms on a sale price, including down payment and shipping costs, victims were next directed to purported automotive transportation companies and were told that these companies would accept payment and transport the cars.  These companies were in fact shell corporations established by the conspiracy to help perpetrate the fraud, whose corporate bank accounts were established and controlled by the defendants and co-conspirators, awaiting wired funds from the fraud’s victims.  After victims had wired payment, the defendants and co-conspirators went to the banks to drain the victim’s funds, often starting the same day payment had been transmitted, withdrawing from different bank branches in numerous withdrawals on the same day, and withdrawing in denominations that were varied and often kept to an amount that they believed would prevent the financial institutions from recording and reporting the fraud.  The defendants and other co-conspirators then sent the fraud proceeds outside the United States to Eastern European countries, from where the defendants and many of their co-conspirators originated.  Some of the defendants maintained managerial roles, recruiting co-conspirators to participate and providing directions and victim information to scheme participants once the co-conspirators were inside the United States.  Victims never received the goods they believed they had purchased, and many were unable to recover their money or were left paying loans for cars that were never truly for sale. 

APSKALNS and PIRINS served as managers in this scheme, who, in addition to opening bank accounts of their own that received victim funds, directed and coordinated the activities of cells of co-conspirators in the United States.  APSKALNS and PIRINS continued their criminal activity and management role when they left the United States and returned to Latvia. 

APSKALNS and PIRINS were arrested in Latvia in November 2018.  At the time of their arrest, evidence recovered from APSKALNS revealed that he was continuing to direct co-conspirators until the time of his arrest.  This information led to the arrest of four co-conspirators in the United States as they attempted to flee the United States from John F. Kennedy airport.  APSKALNS and PIRINS were extradited to the United States in December 2018.

*                *                *

In addition to their prison terms, APSKALNS was also sentenced to three years of supervised release, ordered to pay $4,952,172.37 in restitution, and ordered to forfeit $164,900.04.  PIRINS was also sentenced to three years of supervised release, ordered to pay $3,095,000.94 in restitution, and ordered to forfeit $166,251.94.

Mr. Berman praised the investigative work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Customs and Border Protection, and the New York City Police Department.

The investigation was conducted in close cooperation with the International Cooperation Department and the Criminal Investigation Department of the Central Criminal Police Department, State Police of Latvia; Prosecutor’s General Office of Latvia, International Cooperation Division; Police Department of Lithuania, Vilnius County Police Headquarters, Crimes Against Property Board; Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau, International Liaison Board; Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania; Vilnius Regional Prosecution Office; and the National Bureau of Investigation of Finland.  The Department of Justice’s Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs also provided significant assistance. 

The prosecution is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Matthew Hellman, Emily Johnson, and Daniel Nessim are in charge of the prosecution.

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