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 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
Audrey Strauss, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F. Sweeny Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge, New York Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and Andriana Vamvakas, Northeastern Regional Director, U.S. Department of Labor Office of Labor-Management Standards (“DOL-OLMS”), announced the arrest of KENNETH WYNDER Jr., a former New York State Trooper and the president of the Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association (“LEEBA”), a labor union for law enforcement officers employed by the City of New York (the “City”), for defrauding union members by misappropriating money from LEEBA’s Annuity Fund. STEVEN WHITTICK, LEEBA’s treasurer and a police officer for New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), was charged separately with obstructing the investigation into fraud in connection with LEEBA and the Annuity Fund and making false statements to federal agents. Both defendants are expected to appear before U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger in Manhattan federal court this afternoon.
Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: “Today we have charged two leaders of a union that represents local law enforcement officers for engaging in criminal conduct, something they and their membership are sworn to combat. As alleged, Kenneth Wynder abused his position as the union’s president and its annuity fund’s administrator and trustee to raid his members’ retirement accounts. As further alleged, Steven Whittick, the union’s treasurer, took repeated steps to obstruct a federal investigation aimed at uncovering those financial improprieties.”
FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeny Jr. said: “As alleged, both law enforcement and civilian members of multiple city agencies had their retirement savings compromised by two individuals who prioritized their own financial well-being over that of the hardworking men and women who dedicated their livelihood to serving the public. Most people only get one chance to put aside enough money to last them into retirement. To think the money these individuals worked so hard for could allegedly be swindled by the very people who play a role in managing it is disturbing beyond belief. Today’s arrests bring us one step closer to making sure justice is served in this case.”
DOL-OLMS Northeastern Regional Director Andriana Vamvakas said: “Union officials are required to use the union’s funds only for legitimate purposes, not their own personal gain. Financial misappropriation by union officials not only breaks the law, it betrays the trust placed in them by their membership. OLMS was proud to work with its partners at the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in investigating this case.”
According to the allegations contained in the two Complaints unsealed in Manhattan federal court, publicly available information, and prior court filings:[1]
Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association and the Annuity Fund
LEEBA is a labor union that has acted as the collective bargaining representative principally for law enforcement personnel at various City agencies, and has entered into agreements on behalf of those law enforcement employees, including agreements for insurance and retirement benefits. The City agencies whose employees LEEBA represented included, at various times, the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), the Department of Sanitation (“Sanitation”), and the Department of Transportation (“Transportation”).
The Annuity Fund is a LEEBA fund that received monthly contributions from the City for the benefit of LEEBA’s members, and maintained separate accounts for each fund member. These accounts were functionally similar to employer-sponsored 401(k) retirement accounts. Both WYNDER and WHITTICK were Trustees of the Annuity Fund and signatories to agreements that governed the fund. Under the relevant agreements and plans, the money in the Annuity Fund could be used for no purpose other than funding individual members’ retirement accounts and defraying reasonable administrative expenses of the Annuity Fund itself.
WYNDER
WYNDER, a former New York State Trooper, is the President of LEEBA and a member of LEEBA’s board of directors. WYNDER has also served as the Fund Administrator of the Annuity Fund and as a member of the board of trustees of the Annuity Fund, pursuant to which he owed a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the Annuity Fund and its account holders. WYNDER also was on the board of trustees of the LEEBA Welfare Fund (the “Welfare Fund,” and collectively with the Annuity Fund, the “LEEBA Funds”), which provided supplemental insurance benefits to its members. While occupying those positions, WYNDER centralized and controlled major decision-making authority for LEEBA and the LEEBA Funds, often acting without the proper approval of their respective boards of directors or trustees. WYNDER’s de facto dominance of LEEBA and the LEEBA Funds enabled him to make decisions in his own self-interest and contrary to the interests of the Annuity Fund and individual members.
WHITTICK
WHITTICK, a DEP police officer, is the Treasurer of LEEBA, and a member of the board of directors of LEEBA and the boards of trustees of the LEEBA Annuity Fund and the LEEBA Welfare Fund. As LEEBA’s Treasurer, WHITTICK had responsibility for LEEBA’s financial matters and accounts, arranging for LEEBA to pay its payroll through an outside payroll processing firm starting in 2016, as well as having signatory authority over LEEBA’s main operating bank account.
WYNDER’s Alleged Fraud Scheme
From at least in or about 2012 up to and including the date of this Complaint, WYNDER participated in a scheme to steal, embezzle, and misappropriate money from the Annuity Fund and individual members’ retirement accounts. Specifically, WYNDER made hundreds of thousands of dollars of fraudulent transfers from the Annuity Fund to LEEBA’s operating account, which he controlled, and regularly used the funds, once transferred from the Annuity Fund, to enrich himself at union members’ expense, including through unauthorized and excessive checks to himself and cash withdrawals for his own benefit. In addition, WYNDER caused the union to pay for various personal expenses such as a second residence, clothing, travel expenses, and the purchase of a personal automobile, all paid for by the union, and none of which were contemporaneously reported to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), as required.
To accomplish this fraudulent scheme, WYNDER, acting in his capacity as the Annuity Fund’s Plan Administrator, repeatedly made false and misleading statements to a third-party retirement plan manager that served as the custodian for the Annuity Fund and the retirement accounts of individual union members, including through emails and faxes that WYNDER used to withdraw increasingly large sums of money from the Annuity Fund, effectively causing such withdrawals to be made from the retirement accounts of individual members. From in or about 2014 through in or about 2019, WYNDER caused the withdrawal of more than $500,000 from the individual retirement accounts that constitute the Annuity Fund, thereby wiping out the entire balance of certain members’ accounts. Without these improper withdrawals from the Annuity Fund, the LEEBA operating account would have been insolvent, and would have had insufficient funds to pay for WYNDER’s excessive checks to himself and cash withdrawals and the personal expenses he caused to be charged to that account.
In addition, throughout the duration of this scheme, WYNDER repeatedly made and approved false and misleading statements to LEEBA’s members and prospective members about how he was purportedly using and protecting their retirement accounts and the LEEBA Annuity Fund. WYNDER further concealed his scheme by causing LEEBA to fail to timely file mandatory reports and financial disclosures with the City and public reports to the Annuity Fund’s members, and by making false statements to the Annuity Fund’s auditors and accountants.
WHITTICK’s Alleged Obstruction of Justice
From at least in or about 2017 through in or about August 2019, while serving as LEEBA’s Treasurer, and after learning of the federal investigation into LEEBA’s finances including the embezzlement scheme described above, WHITTICK repeatedly lied to federal agents in an effort to obstruct that investigation. WHITTICK did so despite personal involvement in some of the financial improprieties with which WYNDER is charged. For example, as alleged, on at least two occasions, on or about February 1, 2018, and March 30, 2018, WHITTICK withdrew $16,000 in cash from a LEEBA bank account, and on each occasion deposited $15,000 cash into WYNDER’s personal bank account and $1,000 cash into WHITTICK’s own personal bank account.
After the FBI had executed a search warrant of LEEBA’s offices in September 2019, WHITTICK attempted to obstruct and to influence the ongoing federal investigation by making, in two different interviews with law enforcement agents, false statements about, among other subjects, cash withdrawals he made from LEEBA’s bank accounts, unauthorized withdrawals from LEEBA’s Annuity Fund and from members’ individual accounts, and LEEBA’s payment for certain travel and entertainment expenses for union officers, including WHITTICK and WYNDER.
* * *
WYNDER, 56, of Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, is charged with one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.
WHITTICK, 50, of Kingston, New York, is separately charged with one count of obstruction of justice, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, and two counts of false statements to federal investigators, each of which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison.
The maximum potential sentences in these cases are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by a judge.
Ms. Strauss praised the outstanding work of the FBI and the Department of Labor OLMS. Ms. Strauss also thanked IRS-Criminal Investigations, the New York City Comptroller’s Office, and the New York City Department of Investigation for their assistance.
The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys David Raymond Lewis and Eli J. Mark are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Complaints 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 Complaints, and the description of the Complaints set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described therein should be treated as an allegation.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the 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
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 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
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 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 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
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 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
Joon H. Kim, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, James J. Hunt, Special Agent in Charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration, New York Division (the “DEA”), and Charles Gardner, Yonkers Police Department Commissioner (the “YPD”), announced today the arrest of ANSLEY R. ESTRELLA, RONALD E. LEON, and LUIS OSCAR REYES relating to 13 kilograms of cocaine and nearly 19,000 glassines of heroin in a house in Yonkers. ESTRELLA, LEON, and REYES were all charged Friday in a complaint with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and more than one kilogram of heroin.
Acting U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said: “After receiving a call about suspicious activity near a house in suburban Yonkers, responding officers allegedly discovered massive quantities of cocaine and heroin, as well as drug paraphernalia, in that home. We commend our law enforcement partners for their swift and effective response to this potentially dangerous situation, and the citizens who notified them when something just didn’t look right. Citizens can play an important role in keeping dangerous drugs, including opioids, off our streets.”
DEA Special Agent in Charge James J. Hunt stated: “A Parent’s worst fear is a heroin dealer setting up shop next door. This case is a reminder that drug traffickers’ greed outweighs the safety of their neighbors. Law enforcement is committed to keeping a vigilant eye out for drug dealers like these whose trafficking encourages heroin abuse, crime and drug related violence, allegedly.”
Yonkers Police Commissioner Charles Gardner said: “A thorough investigation conducted by the responding Yonkers police officers resulted in the discovery of a large scale narcotics distribution operation and the arrest of three individuals. We are working with our federal law enforcement partners on the follow-up investigation and the prosecution of these males. I would like to thank the U.S Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Attorney’s office for their support and invaluable assistance.”
According to the allegations made in the Complaint:[1]
On the evening of December 7, 2017, YPD officers received a call indicating that three men had pushed a fourth man into a house in Yonkers, New York. YPD officers responded to the house, and saw ESTRELLA walk out of the house. The man said he lived in the house with his girlfriend, and that nobody was in the house. The officers could see – through the closed shades – silhouettes of people moving inside the house. Nonetheless, the man repeated that nobody was in the house.
As YPD officers approached the open front door, they saw REYES, with a surgical mask on, and then LEON, also with a surgical mask on, who had blood on his face. The YPD officers entered the house, where LEON denied being hurt.
YPD officers walked through the house to see if there were any additional people committing an ongoing crime or if there were victims in the house. In a room on the second floor, they found white powder, respiratory masks, and, in an open closet, a large number of glassine envelopes and scales.
In the garage, a YPD officer found a car with an open shopping bag, in which the YPD Officer could see what appeared to be bundles of decks of heroin.
The YPD officers placed ESTRELLA, LEON, and REYES under arrest. LEON had keys in his possession for the car in the garage.
The YPD obtained and executed a search warrant and did a full search of the house and the car in the garage, as well as two other cars. During that search, the YPD found, among other things, 13 kilogram-sized bricks of cocaine, 18,598 glassine envelopes containing heroin, 813 tan pills stamped “M30,” a number of plastic bags and clear knotted twists containing white chunky substances, a scale, five small grinders, assorted stamp pads and stamps, a metal kilogram press, and a money-counting machine.
The Complaint charges each of ESTRELLA, LEON, and REYES with one count of narcotics conspiracy, and one count of distribution and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, and aiding and abetting the same.
* * *
Mr. Kim thanked the DEA and YPD for their outstanding work on the investigation.
This case is being handled by the Office’s White Plains Division. Assistant United States Attorney Michael Maimin 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 herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as allegations.
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 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
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced the conviction of KENNETH WYNDER Jr., a former New York State Trooper and the president of the Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association (“LEEBA”), a labor union for law enforcement officers employed by the City of New York (the “City”), and ANDREW BROWN, a/k/a “Drew Brown,” the former financial advisor for LEEBA, for defrauding union members by misappropriating money from LEEBA’s Annuity Fund. WYNDER was also convicted of personal income tax evasion and conspiring to evade federal taxes, including payroll taxes owed by LEEBA and its employees. Steven Whittick, LEEBA’s former treasurer and a former police officer for New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), previously pled guilty to conspiring to commit tax evasion and making false statements to law enforcement. WYNDER and BROWN were convicted after a five-day jury trial before U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel and are scheduled to be sentenced on October 18, 2023, by Judge Castel.
U.S. Attorney Damian William said: “As the jury unanimously found, Kenneth Wynder and Andrew Brown raided a union-sponsored retirement plan for years, placing their personal interest over the union members they were duty bound to look out for. The jury also found that Wynder then evaded taxes on income he obtained from the union, including as a product of their theft from the union members’ retirement accounts.”
According to the Indictment, Superseding Indictment, the underlying complaints filed in this case, as well as other publicly available information, prior court filings, and evidence presented during the trial in Manhattan federal court:
Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association and the Annuity Fund
LEEBA is a labor union that has acted as the collective bargaining representative principally for law enforcement personnel at various City agencies and has entered into agreements on behalf of those law enforcement employees, including agreements for insurance and retirement benefits. The City agencies whose employees LEEBA represented included, at various times, DEP, the Department of Sanitation (“Sanitation”), and the Department of Transportation (“Transportation”).
The Annuity Fund is a LEEBA fund that received monthly contributions from the City for the benefit of LEEBA’s members and maintained separate accounts for each fund member. These accounts were functionally similar to employer-sponsored 401(k) retirement accounts. WYNDER was a Trustee of the Annuity Fund and signatory to agreements that governed the fund, and BROWN was a Plan Administrator and Financial Advisor of the Annuity Fund. Under the relevant agreements and plans, the money in the Annuity Fund could be used for no purpose other than funding individual members’ retirement accounts and defraying reasonable administrative expenses of the Annuity Fund itself.
WYNDER
WYNDER, a former New York State Trooper, is the founder and former President of LEEBA and a former member of LEEBA’s board of directors. WYNDER also formerly served as the Fund Administrator of the Annuity Fund and as a member of the board of trustees of the Annuity Fund, pursuant to which he owed a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the Annuity Fund and its account holders. WYNDER also was on the board of trustees of the LEEBA Welfare Fund (the “Welfare Fund,” and collectively with the Annuity Fund, the “LEEBA Funds”), which provided supplemental insurance benefits to its members. While occupying those positions, WYNDER centralized and controlled major decision-making authority for LEEBA and the LEEBA Funds, often acting without the proper approval of their respective boards of directors or trustees. WYNDER’s de facto dominance of LEEBA and the LEEBA Funds enabled him to make decisions in his own self-interest and contrary to the interests of the Annuity Fund and individual members.
BROWN
BROWN, the founder of a Westchester-based financial services company, is the former Benefits Administrator and insurance broker for LEEBA and the LEEBA Funds. As a LEEBA Annuity Fund Plan Administrator and Financial Advisor, BROWN helped manage the investments in the Annuity Fund, receiving a commission for his services, and had a responsibility to act in the best interest of LEEBA’s members.
WYNDER’s and BROWN’s Fraud Scheme
From at least in or about 2012 up to and including 2020, WYNDER and BROWN participated in a scheme to steal, embezzle, and misappropriate money from the Annuity Fund and individual members’ retirement accounts. Specifically, WYNDER and BROWN made hundreds of thousands of dollars of fraudulent transfers from the Annuity Fund to LEEBA’s operating account, which WYNDER controlled, and WYNDER regularly used the funds, once transferred from the Annuity Fund, to enrich himself at union members’ expense, including through unauthorized and excessive checks to himself and cash withdrawals for his own benefit and to pay insurance benefits for which BROWN received commissions. In addition, WYNDER caused the union to pay for various personal expenses such as the purchase of a Lexus automobile, travel expenses to Dallas to watch a Dallas Cowboys football game, and a sailing trip, all paid for by the union, and none of which were contemporaneously reported to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), as required.
To accomplish this fraudulent scheme, WYNDER and BROWN, acting in their capacity as the Annuity Fund’s Plan Administrators, repeatedly made false and misleading statements to a third-party retirement plan manager that served as the custodian for the Annuity Fund and the retirement accounts of individual union members, including through emails and faxes that WYNDER and BROWN used to withdraw increasingly large sums of money from the Annuity Fund, effectively causing such withdrawals to be made from the retirement accounts of individual members. From in or about 2014 through in or about 2019, WYNDER and BROWN caused the withdrawal of more than $500,000 from the individual retirement accounts that constitute the Annuity Fund, thereby wiping out the entire balance of certain members’ accounts. Without these improper withdrawals from the Annuity Fund, the LEEBA operating account would have been insolvent and would have had insufficient funds to pay for WYNDER’s excessive checks to himself and cash withdrawals and the personal expenses he caused to be charged to that account, as well as to pay for benefits for which BROWN made commissions as an insurance broker.
In addition, throughout the duration of this scheme, WYNDER and BROWN repeatedly made and approved false and misleading statements to LEEBA’s members and prospective members about how they were purportedly using and protecting their retirement accounts and the LEEBA Annuity Fund. WYNDER further concealed the scheme by causing LEEBA to fail to timely file mandatory reports and financial disclosures with the City and public reports to the Annuity Fund’s members and by making false statements to the Annuity Fund’s auditors and accountants.
WYNDER’s Tax Evasion
From at least in or about 2015 through 2019 WYNDER participated in a conspiracy with LEEBA’s then-Treasurer, Steven Whittick, to cause LEEBA to make payments to WYNDER and Whittick, by check and in cash, and to conceal those payments from the IRS. WYNDER further conspired to ensure that such payments were made outside of LEEBA’s payroll processor. WYNDER then concealed these payments from the IRS — including off-the-books payments of more than $400,000 — in order to evade his own personal income taxes and to evade the payroll taxes that were owed by LEEBA and certain LEEBA employees.
* * *
WYNDER, 59, of Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, and BROWN, 55, of Putnam Valley, New York, were each convicted of one count of conspiracy of commit wire fraud and one count of wire fraud, each of which carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. WYNDER was also convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and four counts of tax evasion, each of which carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison.
On November 17, 2021, Whittick was sentenced to 28 months in prison for conspiring to commit tax evasion and making false statements and was ordered to pay $179,766.80 in restitution to the IRS.
Mr. Williams praised the outstanding work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Labor Office of Labor-Management Standards, and IRS-Criminal Investigations. Mr. Williams also thanked the New York City Comptroller’s Office and the New York City Department of Investigation for their assistance.
The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eli J. Mark, Kedar S. Bhatia, Andrew Rohrbach, and David R. Lewis were assigned to the prosecution, with the assistance of Paralegal Specialists Connor Hamill and Lauren Scarff.
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Jay Clayton, and Special Agent in Charge of the Eastern Regional Office of the U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Inspector General (“SBA-OIG”), Amaleka McCall-Brathwaite, announced today that the United States has settled a civil fraud lawsuit against TCC INTERNATIONAL LLC, CORE GRAVITY LLC, and CORE CLUB MEMBERS CORP. (collectively, the “Defendants”), for falsely certifying to the SBA that they were eligible to receive two Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans and have those loans forgiven, as well as a Restaurant Revitalization Fund (“RRF”) grant in violation of the False Claims Act.Under SBA rules and regulations, private clubs were ineligible for PPP loans and restaurants that were either not-for-profits or did not primarily serve the public (such as restaurants operating within private clubs) were ineligible for RRF grants. The settlement resolves claims that TCC International LLC and Core Gravity LLC falsely certified that they were eligible to receive and have forgiven two PPP loans despite being ineligible because TCC International LLC and Core Gravity LLC intended to, and did, use the PPP funds to operate a private club; and Core Club Members Corp. falsely certified that it was eligible to receive a RRF grant despite being ineligible because it was a not-for-profit organization with no food or beverage sales to the public.Under the settlement approved today by U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, the Defendants will pay the United States a total sum of $360,000. The settlement amount is based on the Office’s assessment of the Defendants’ ability to pay, as reflected in financial information they provided. The Defendants have also executed a Consent Judgment in the amount of $8,189,172.10, which may be enforced if they do not make the payments required under the settlement agreement. Additionally, the Defendants have admitted and accepted responsibility for conduct alleged in the Government’s Complaint.“The Paycheck Protection Program and Restaurant Revitalization Fund were intended to assist small businesses suffering the financial impacts of a pandemic-related lockdown,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton. “New Yorkers supported these programs to protect their neighbors and their community. New Yorkers also want those who abused the programs held accountable. Our Office and the SBA are committed to doing so.”“Falsely certifying eligibility for Paycheck Protection Program loans and Restaurant Revitalization Fund grants undermines critical relief programs designed to support small businesses and public-facing restaurants,” said SBA-OIG Special Agent in Charge Amaleka McCall-Brathwaite. “OIG remains dedicated to protecting the integrity of SBA’s programs and holding accountable those who exploit them for personal gain.”As alleged in the Complaint filed in Manhattan federal court:Under the PPP, eligible businesses could obtain SBA-guaranteed loans; however, before receiving a PPP loan, businesses were required to certify that they were, in fact, eligible for the loan. By regulation, certain businesses, such as private clubs, were ineligible for PPP loans. The SBA also allowed for forgiveness of PPP loans. To receive forgiveness, businesses were required to submit signed loan forgiveness applications in which they certified that the PPP funds were used for eligible expenses.Under the RRF, qualifying bars and restaurants could apply for grants to offset pandemic-related revenue losses. Per the RRF rules, certain businesses were ineligible for funding, including not-for-profit entities and restaurants and bars where on-site sales to the public comprised less than 33% of gross receipts in 2019.TCC International LLC and Core Gravity LLC applied for and received two PPP loans totaling approximately $2.3 million and the SBA ultimately forgave all but $514,176.45 of those funds. Core Club Members Corp. received an RRF grant of more than $2.3 million and did not repay any of that amount. However, TCC International LLC and Core Gravity LLC were ineligible to receive their PPP loans or have them forgiven because they intended to, and did, use the funds for the benefit of a private club. Additionally, Core Club Members Corp. was ineligible to receive its RRF grant because none of its gross receipts in 2019 were derived from on-site sales to the public and it was not-for-profit.As part of the settlement, the Defendants admit, acknowledge, and accept responsibility for the following conduct:TCC International LLC d/b/a Core Gravity, through its authorized representative, certified in a first-draw PPP loan application seeking $960,400 that it was eligible for funding and that the funds would be used in accordance with PPP rules. However, TCC International LLC d/b/a Core Gravity was not eligible for a PPP loan, as it intended to, and did, use the funds to fund payment of employees of a members-only club.Core Gravity LLC sought and obtained partial forgiveness for the first-draw PPP loan in the amount of $446,223.55, after its authorized representative falsely certified in a loan forgiveness application that the funds as to which forgiveness was sought were used to pay business costs that were eligible for forgiveness.TCC International LLC d/b/a The Core Club, through its authorized representative, certified in a second-draw PPP loan application seeking $1,344,675.50 that it was eligible for funding and that the funds would be used in accordance with PPP rules. However, TCC International LLC d/b/a The Core Club was not eligible for a PPP loan, as it intended to, and did, use the funds to fund payment of employees of a members-only club.TCC International LLC sought and obtained full forgiveness for the second-draw PPP loan, after its authorized representative falsely certified in the forgiveness application that the funds as to which forgiveness was requested were used to pay business costs that were eligible for forgiveness.Core Club Members Corp. submitted an application to SBA to obtain a grant of $2,303,687.00 through the RRF, in which its authorized representative certified the applicant’s eligibility for funding and that the funds would be used in accordance with RRF rules. However, Core Club Members Corp., a not-for-profit company that did not serve food or drink to the public, was not eligible for an RRF grant.In connection with the filing of the lawsuit and settlement, the Government joined a private whistleblower lawsuit that had been filed under seal pursuant to the False Claims Act.* * *Mr. Clayton thanked the SBA-OIG for its assistance with this case.The case is being handled by the Office’s Civil Frauds Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jessica F. Rosenbaum is in charge of the case.
Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that RUVIM KRUPKIN, a New York state-licensed doctor, pled guilty today to conspiring to illegally distribute large quantities of oxycodone from a medical office in Brooklyn, New York. As part of his guilty plea, KRUPKIN also agreed to forfeit $124,000 in proceeds obtained through his illicit distribution of oxycodone. KRUPKIN pled guilty before United States District Judge Analisa Torres in Manhattan federal court.
Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: “As he admitted in court today, Ruvim Krupkin, for more than a decade, wrote thousands of medically unnecessary prescriptions for oxycodone, enriching himself at the expense of others, while the country suffered from a devastating opioid epidemic. He now awaits sentencing for his crime.”
According to the allegations contained in the Indictment and statements made during court proceedings:
KRUPKIN, a licensed internal medicine doctor with specialties in oncology and hematology, practiced at a medical office in Brooklyn. From 2006 to July 2017, KRUPKIN prescribed over four million oxycodone pills to individuals he knew had no legitimate medical need for the pills. KRUPKIN charged each patient $200 in cash for each visit, payable directly to him.
As a hematologist, KRUPKIN treated patients who had, or claimed to have, sickle cell anemia – a medical condition that can cause pain for which oxycodone, in conjunction with other treatments, may be legitimately prescribed. However, KRUPKIN wrote thousands of prescriptions for large quantities of oxycodone to patients, knowing that they in fact had no legitimate medical need for the prescriptions. KRUPKIN generally performed little to no physical examination on these patients; indeed, the medical notes for each patient were largely the same from one visit to the next.
In addition, KRUPKIN typically issued patients prescriptions for a large dose of oxycodone – typically 180 80-milligram pills, until approximately 2010, when the formula for oxycodone changed, reducing the street value of the 80-milligram pills. At that time, KRUPKIN began prescribing 180 or 240 30-milligram pills. KRUPKIN’s patients filled their prescriptions at pharmacies throughout New York, and in certain cases, sold the oxycodone pills they received to drug dealers, who in turn re-sold the pills at high value on the street. KRUPKIN knew that certain of his patients were diverting the oxycodone pills he was prescribing, but he nonetheless continued writing prescriptions of oxycodone for such individuals.
* * *
KRUPKIN, 69, of Summit, New Jersey, pled guilty to one count of participating in a conspiracy to distribute narcotics, 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.
KRUPKIN is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Torres on January 26, 2021, at 11:00 a.m.
Ms. Strauss praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI-NYPD Health Care Fraud Task Force. Ms. Strauss also thanked the New York City Human Resources Administration for its work on the investigation.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Narcotics Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Tara M. La Morte and Alexandra N. Rothman are in charge of the prosecution.
Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that KAM WONG, the former chief executive officer (“CEO”) of Municipal Credit Union (“MCU”), a non-profit financial institution, was sentenced today in Manhattan federal court to 66 months in prison for defrauding and embezzling millions of dollars from MCU during his time as CEO. WONG previously pled guilty to embezzlement from a federally insured credit union before U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl, who imposed today’s sentence.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “For years, Kam Wong, the then-CEO of New York’s oldest credit union, betrayed the credit union’s hard-working members from the perch of his executive suite by siphoning off millions of dollars in company money for his personal benefit. Wong then tried to cover up what he had done by making false statements to federal investigators and creating false and misleading documents. He will now serve a substantial prison sentence for his crime. I commend the Special Agents of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and our law enforcement partners, for their tireless efforts to protect the credit union’s members and expose misconduct in this ongoing investigation.”
According to the Complaint, the Information, other filings in Manhattan federal court, statements made in court and publicly available documents:
WONG, from 2007 until shortly after his arrest in May 2018, was the CEO and president of MCU, a non-profit financial institution headquartered in New York, New York, which is federally insured by the National Credit Union Administration (“NCUA”). MCU is the oldest credit union in New York State and one of the oldest and largest in the country, providing banking services to more than 588,000 members, including municipal, state, and federal workers in New York City. MCU’s earnings are intended to be directed back to its members in the form of more favorable rates and fewer and lower fees for products and services.
During his tenure as CEO and president, despite publicly praising credit union values, WONG engaged in a long-running multi-faceted scheme to obtain money from MCU to which he knew he was not entitled, and took steps to seek to conceal what he had done. Among other things, WONG embezzled from and defrauded MCU by submitting sham invoices for dental work never performed on him or paid by him, and, as a result, obtained reimbursement for hundreds of thousands of dollars of such nonexistent dental work. In addition, WONG fraudulently caused MCU to pay him additional monies that he knew he was not entitled to receive, including millions of dollars of payments in lieu of purported long-term disability insurance, and for purported taxes owed on these and other employment benefits. In total, WONG defrauded MCU out of at least approximately $9.9 million.
WONG also repeatedly misapplied money and other things of value from MCU, with respect to, among other things, the purchase of a Mercedes-Benz for his personal use; the leasing of multiple luxury vehicles for his personal use at the same time; the purchase of electronic devices (including, iPhones, iPads, and laptops) for personal use by WONG and others; reimbursement, as business expenses, of personal expenses, including hotel stays and expensive meals; purported reimbursement payments for repairs to luxury vehicles MCU had leased for WONG, which repair work was already covered by MCU’s insurance; cash advances to which he was not entitled; educational, housing, and living expenses for two of WONG’s friend’s adult relatives, whom WONG caused MCU to hire; and payments for leave days that did not comply with and exceeded what was provided for under his employment contract. In addition, WONG caused MCU to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to a former MCU Supervisory Committee member’s company, in violation of the MCU’s conflict of interest policy, so that the member would provide WONG with controlled substances for his personal use.
In January 2018, after WONG learned of the federal investigation, WONG sought to obstruct justice by making false statements to federal agents and creating false and misleading documents to try, after the fact, to explain and justify some of his illicit payments.
* * *
In addition to his prison term, WONG, 63, of Valley Stream, Long Island, was sentenced to three years of supervised release, and was ordered to forfeit $9,890,375 and to pay restitution in the same amount to MCU.
U.S. Attorney Berman praised the outstanding work of the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office. Mr. Berman also thanked the New York County District Attorney’s Office, the New York State Department of Financial Services, and NCUA.
The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eli J. Mark and Daniel C. Richenthal are in charge of the prosecution, with assistance of Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Alona Katz from the New York County District Attorney’s Office.
Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that KAM WONG, the former chief executive officer (“CEO”) and president of the oldest New York credit union (the “Credit Union”), a non-profit financial institution, pled guilty in Manhattan federal court today to embezzling millions of dollars from the Credit Union. WONG pled guilty before U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As he admitted in court today, Kam Wong, the former CEO and president of New York’s oldest credit union, abused his position of trust as a guardian of municipal, state, and federal workers’ financial accounts to enrich himself. In so doing, Wong stole money from the credit union that could have gone to the credit union’s members, and tried to cover up what he had done by making false statements to federal investigators and creating false and misleading documents. I commend the Special Agents of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and our law enforcement partners, for their tireless efforts in this ongoing investigation.”
According to the Complaint, the Information, statements made in court and publicly available documents:
WONG was the CEO and president of the Credit Union, a non-profit financial institution headquartered in New York, New York, which is federally insured by the National Credit Union Administration Board. The Credit Union is the oldest credit union in New York State and one of the oldest and largest in the country, providing banking services to more than 425,000 members, including municipal, state, and federal workers in New York City. The Credit Union’s earnings are intended to be directed back to its members in the form of more favorable rates and fewer and lower fees for products and services.
From 2013 through January 2018, WONG engaged in a long-running multi-faceted scheme to obtain money from the Credit Union to which he knew he was not entitled, and took steps to seek to conceal what he had done. Among other things, WONG embezzled from and defrauded the Credit Union by submitting sham invoices for dental work never performed on him or paid by him, and, as a result, fraudulently obtained reimbursement for hundreds of thousands of dollars of such nonexistent dental work. In addition, WONG fraudulently caused the Credit Union to pay him additional monies that he knew he was not entitled to receive, including millions of dollars of payments in lieu of purported long-term disability insurance, and for purported taxes owed on these and other employment benefits.
WONG also misapplied money and other things of value from the Credit Union, with respect to, among other things, reimbursement payments for repairs to luxury vehicles the Credit Union leased to WONG, which repair work was already covered by the Credit Union’s insurance; cash advances to which he was not entitled; educational, housing, and living expenses for two of WONG’s friend’s relatives; payments for his leave days that did not comply with and exceeded what was provided for under his employment contract; the purchase of a Mercedes-Benz automobile that was not provided for under his employment contract; the leasing of multiple luxury vehicles at the same time; electronic devices (including, iPhones, iPads, and laptops) for personal use by WONG and others; and reimbursement, as business expenses, of personal expenses, including hotel stays. In addition, WONG obtained controlled substances, for personal use, from a former Credit Union Supervisory Committee member.
In January 2018, after WONG learned about the investigation, WONG sought to obstruct justice by making false statements to federal investigators and creating false and misleading documents to try, after the fact, to explain and justify some of these payments.
* * *
WONG, 62, of Valley Stream, Long Island, pled guilty to one count of embezzlement from a federally insured credit union, which carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison. As a condition of his plea, WONG also agreed to forfeit at least $9,890,375 and to pay at least $9,890,375 in restitution to the Credit Union.
WONG is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Koeltl on April 5, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.
The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as the sentencing of WONG will be determined by the judge.
U.S. Attorney Berman praised the outstanding work of the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office. Mr. Berman also thanked the New York County District Attorney’s Office, the New York State Department of Financial Services, and the National Credit Union Administration.
The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eli J. Mark and Daniel C. Richenthal are in charge of the prosecution, with assistance from Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Alona Katz from the New York County District Attorney’s Office.
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 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 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: 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 title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the third most severe
disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE3
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE3
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 fourth most
severe disposition and
Penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE4
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE4
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE4
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE4
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
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that KAM WONG, the chief executive officer and president of the oldest New York credit union (the “Credit Union”), a non-profit financial institution, was charged in Manhattan federal court with fraud, embezzlement, and aggravated identity theft offenses related to defrauding the Credit Union in connection with hundreds of thousands of sham expense reimbursements. WONG was arrested this morning and is scheduled to appear before U.S. Magistrate Judge James L. Cott in Manhattan federal court later today.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, the CEO and president of New York’s oldest credit union abused his position of trust as a guardian of municipal, state, and federal workers’ financial accounts to enrich himself. Kam Wong allegedly stole money from the credit union’s earnings that were intended to reward the credit union’s members, not line Wong’s pockets. I want to thank my Office’s Special Agents for their dedicated efforts in this ongoing investigation.”
According to the allegations contained in the Complaint[1] unsealed today in Manhattan federal court and publicly available documents:
KAM WONG, the defendant, is the CEO and president of the Credit Union, a non-profit financial institution headquartered in New York, New York, which is federally insured. The Credit Union is the oldest credit union in New York State and one of the oldest and largest in the country, providing bank services to more than 425,000 members, including municipal, state, and federal workers in New York City. The Credit Union’s earnings are intended to be directed back to its members in the form of more favorable rates and fewer and lower fees for products and services.
From at least 2013 through January 2018, WONG engaged in a long-running multi-faceted scheme to obtain money from the Credit Union to which he was not entitled, and took steps to seek to conceal what he had done. Among other things, WONG allegedly embezzled from and defrauded the Credit Union by submitting sham invoices (the “Sham Invoices”) for dental work never performed on him or paid by him, and, as a result, obtained reimbursement for hundreds of thousands of dollars of such nonexistent dental work, as well as for his alleged personal tax liability for these and other payments or benefits.
In addition to the alleged fraud in connection with dental reimbursements, the ongoing investigation has revealed that WONG obtained numerous other payments from the Credit Union under suspicious or questionable circumstances. These include millions of dollars in cash payments in lieu of a long-term disability insurance policy, as well as millions more for taxes to cover those payments; reimbursement payments for repairs to a luxury vehicle the Credit Union leased to WONG, which repair work was already covered by insurance; cash withdrawals from a Credit Union business credit card for purportedly “testing” the Credit Union’s ATMs; substantial educational, housing, and living expenses for two of WONG’s friend’s relatives, whom the Credit Union hired at his direction to be interns; tens of thousands of dollars in annual cash advances, for which WONG provided no supporting documentation; and payments for 320 days of purportedly unused sick leave, in violation of WONG’s contract and the Credit Union’s policies.
WONG generally deposited the proceeds of his scheme into a Credit Union account, from which, between July 2013 and January 2018, he then withdrew approximately $1.9 million from ATMs, over the course of more than 2,500 transactions, an average of more than one-and-a-half transactions per day. From this account, WONG also spent at least approximately $3.55 million on New York State Lottery tickets.
In or about January 2018, after WONG learned about the investigation, WONG misled federal agents and Credit Union Board members in order to, after the fact, explain and justify some of these payments. On or about February 22, 2018, WONG was placed on leave by the Credit Union’s Board of Directors upon the recommendation of a Special Committee overseeing an internal investigation prompted by this criminal investigation.
* * *
WONG, 62, of Valley Stream, Long Island, is charged with one count of embezzlement from a federally insured credit union, one count of bank fraud, one count of wire fraud, each of which carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison, and one count of aggravated identify theft, which carries a mandatory two-year consecutive term in prison.
The maximum potential sentences in these cases 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. Berman praised the work of the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eli J. Mark and Daniel C. Richenthal are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint and the description of the Complaint set forth below constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The 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 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: 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 title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the third most severe
disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE3
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE3
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 fourth most
severe disposition and
Penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE4
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE4
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE4
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE4
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
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Jay Clayton, and Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Christopher G. Raia, announced that MATTHEW MELTON was extradited from the United Kingdom to face securities fraud and wire fraud charges. The charges in the Indictment arise from an alleged scheme by MELTON to raise millions of dollars in investor money by falsely representing that his investment fund, “Price Physics,” was investing in futures contracts using a proprietary trading algorithm. In fact, MELTON was operating a Ponzi scheme in which he used investor money to fund his luxury lifestyle and make payments to earlier investors. MELTON arrived in the United States on December 19, 2025, and was presented on December 20, 2025, before Magistrate Judge Gary Stein. MELTON’s case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Arun Subramanian.“As alleged, Matthew Melton told investors he was using groundbreaking technology and cutting-edge trading techniques to generate record returns,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton. “In reality, Melton was allegedly operating one of the oldest scams around, taking new investors’ money to pay old investors and pocketing funds for himself along the way. With the assistance of our dedicated law enforcement partners, our Office will continue to aggressively prosecute financial fraud and protect our markets.”“This alleged scheme victimized many and caused millions of dollars in victim losses,” said FBI Assistant Director in Charge Christopher G. Raia. “FBI New York is committed to eradicating all unlawful schemes fueling an unearned life of luxury by those who prey on others. We remain focused on disrupting financial fraud operations and will continue to fiercely pursue those who seek to defraud others.”According to the allegations contained in the Indictment and bail hearing:[1]MELTON promoted an investment vehicle he called “Price Physics,” which purported to invest in futures contracts using a proprietary trading algorithm. He promised investors guaranteed returns of up to twelve percent per month, of which he said he would keep only two percent as compensation. In reality, there was no proprietary trading algorithm, and MELTON invested almost none of the millions of dollars he raised. The few times that MELTON did make trades, it was not in futures contracts, and the trading was generally unprofitable. For the most part, instead of trading, MELTON used his investors’ money to pay his own personal expenses—including mortgage payments and sailing excursions—and to pay earlier investors in Ponzi-like fashion.* * *MELTON, 61, of Boulder, Colorado, was charged with one count of securities fraud and one count of wire fraud, each of which carries a maximum term of 20 years in prison. The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by a judge.Mr. Clayton praised the outstanding work of the FBI and thanked the Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs for its assistance. Mr. Clayton also thanked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which previously filed a separate civil action against MELTON.This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force. Assistant United States Attorney Adam S. Hobson is 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 descriptions of the Indictment constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Michael J. Driscoll, the Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and Ivan J. Arvelo, the Special Agent in Charge of the New York Field Office of Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), announced the arrest today of GERALD SHAW, a convicted felon and disbarred attorney, in connection with his involvement in a multi-million-dollar fraud scheme. SHAW is accused of serving as the purported “Chief Compliance Officer” for a purported financial institution, Dominion Bank and Trust Company Limited (“Dominion Bank”), which claimed to be able to extend financing for small businesses but, in fact, operated an advance fee fraud scheme. SHAW was arrested this morning in Claremont, California, and will be presented later today in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “As alleged, Gerald Shaw served as the supposed ‘Chief Compliance Officer’ for Dominion Bank, which held itself out as a legitimate financial institution that could extend or facilitate millions of dollars in financing for small businesses. But in fact, Dominion Bank was also a fraud. In his role, Shaw, a disbarred attorney and convicted felon, drafted financial instruments that were worthless. Shaw knew that Dominion Bank was a fraud, but he continued to draft these financial instruments anyway. Shaw now faces serious charges for his alleged crimes.”
FBI Assistant Director in Charge Michael J. Driscoll said: “The defendant is alleged to have participated in a scheme which defrauded clients of millions of dollars through the promise of financing in exchange for an advance fee. Complex financial frauds of this nature damage faith in our financial systems and institutions, and they can cause untold harm to the victims of the fraud. The FBI is dedicated to investigating individuals who operate unscrupulous businesses and ensuring that their crimes are answered for in the criminal justice system.”
HSI Special Agent in Charge Ivan J. Arvelo said: “As Dominion Bank and Trust’s purported Chief Compliance Officer, Gerald Shaw is alleged to have participated in a conspiracy that defrauded investors of millions of dollars through the issuance of fraudulent financial instruments. These types of crimes have devastating effects on the victims and can erode trust in the financial system. HSI will aggressively pursue individuals and organizations that perpetrate these fraudulent schemes to bring justice to the victims and restore faith in our financial institutions. I am especially grateful for the dedication and investigative acumen of HSI New York’s El Dorado Task Force and HSI Los Angeles for their support in this investigation.”
According to the allegations in the Complaint:[1]
From its formation in or about late 2015 until in or about July 2020, Dominion Bank (along with its affiliates) was a purported financial institution that claimed to be able to extend and facilitate financing for small businesses in exchange for an advanced fee or deposit. In fact, Dominion Bank operated an advance fee fraud scheme (the “Scheme”). As part of the fraud, Scheme members instructed victims to wire tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to Dominion Bank as a deposit or servicing fee for future financing or credit based on representations that Dominion Bank could provide such services. Those representations were false. In fact, no financing existed; the victims did not receive the promised credit; and the victims were generally unable to get their money back, as Dominion Bank typically did not return funds to victims but, instead, kept victims’ money and, in some instances, even responded to refund requests by sending invoices for additional amounts. Dominion Bank defrauded at least approximately 60 victims in total (individual and corporate) out of more than approximately $4 million.
One way that Dominion Bank defrauded victims was by issuing them worthless financial instruments — such as a standby letter of credit (“SBLC”) — in exchange for large upfront payments. An SBLC is a legal document between a bank and its client, in which the bank vouches for the client’s creditworthiness and also becomes the guarantor, i.e., the bank promises that, if its client cannot meet its obligations, the bank will do so. Among other things, Dominion Bank lacked the assets necessary to issue such financial instruments. According to several victims of the Scheme, other financial institutions have described SBLCs issued by Dominion Bank as being worthless. As one victim explained, a potential counterparty described Dominion Bank’s SBLC as a “worthless piece of paper.” Another individual explained that a potential counterparty described Dominion Bank’s $4 million SBLC as not “worth the paper it’s printed on.”
From at least in or about October 2016 through in or about April 2020, Dominion Bank’s Chief Compliance Officer was SHAW. In that role, SHAW’s responsibilities included drafting various documents, including SBLCs, that were sent to victims in exchange for payments from the victims. In June 2018, SHAW sent an email to two Dominion Bank officers in which SHAW acknowledged that Dominion Bank lacked funds. SHAW wrote that Dominion Bank was “20 weeks behind” in paying SHAW’s “$500 a week salary,” and SHAW added that, “On several occasions, I have indicated to you that I know Dominion does not have the money to pay my $500 a week [salary].” Nonetheless, SHAW continued his involvement in the Scheme thereafter, despite his awareness that Dominion Bank was selling worthless financial instruments because it lacked the assets and ability to back up its representations. For instance, in December 2018, SHAW was involved in Dominion Bank’s issuance or sale of an approximately $50 million financial instrument and an approximately $25 million financial instrument. In each instance, Dominion Bank represented, as guarantor, that it had assets sufficient to cover each financial instrument when it did not.
* * *
SHAW, 75, of Claremont, California, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of wire fraud, each of which carry a maximum potential prison sentence of 20 years.
The maximum potential penalties 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 and HSI. He also thanked FBI Los Angeles, HSI Los Angeles, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California for their assistance.
Mr. Williams also noted that the investigation is ongoing. If you believe you have information about the defendant, this case, or if you believe you are a victim of any crimes related to Dominion Bank, please email: USANYS.DominionBankCase@usdoj.gov.
The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit and Money Laundering and Transnational Criminal Enterprises Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael D. Neff and Sheb Swett are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint and the description of the Complaint set forth below constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
Robert Khuzami, Attorney for the United States, Acting Under Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515, announced that GARY HIRST pled guilty today to defrauding a Native American tribal entity and various investment advisory clients of tens of millions of dollars in connection with the issuance of bonds by the tribal entity and the subsequent sale of those bonds through fraudulent and deceptive means. HIRST pled guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud, securities fraud, investment adviser fraud, and conspiracy to commit investment adviser fraud before U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses.
Mr. Khuzami said: “Today, Gary Hirst admitted that he and his co-conspirators placed tens of millions of dollars of Native American bonds with clients of an investment advisory firm, without telling those clients about numerous conflicts of interest surrounding the issuance and placement of the bonds. In addition, Hirst and his co-conspirators then misappropriated the bond proceeds, by failing to invest the money as promised and instead using it to finance their other business endeavors and to pay personal expenses. Now, thanks to the dedicated work of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the FBI, Hirst will have to answer for his crimes.”
According to the allegations contained in the Superseding Indictment filed against GARY HIRST and his co-conspirators and statements made in related court filings and proceedings[1]:
From March 2014 through April 2016, HIRST, along with his co-conspirators Jason Galanis, John Galanis, a/k/a “Yanni,” Hugh Dunkerley, Michelle Morton, Devon Archer, and Bevan Cooney, engaged in a fraudulent scheme to misappropriate the proceeds of bonds issued by the Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation (“WLCC”), a Native American tribal entity (the “Tribal Bonds”), and to use funds in the accounts of clients of asset management firms controlled by HIRST and others to purchase the Tribal Bonds, which the clients were then unable to redeem or sell because the bonds were illiquid and lacked a ready secondary market.
The WLCC was convinced to issue the Tribal Bonds through false and fraudulent representations by John Galanis. Once the Tribal Bonds were issued, HIRST and Morton used funds belonging to clients of two related investment advisers, Hughes Capital Management, Inc. (“Hughes”) – where HIRST served as Chief Investment Officer – and Atlantic Asset Management, LLC (“Atlantic”), to purchase the Tribal Bonds, even though HIRST and Morton were well aware that material facts about the Tribal Bonds had been withheld from clients in whose accounts they were placed, including the fact that the Tribal Bond purchases fell outside of the investment parameters set forth in the investment advisory contracts of certain Hughes clients and of the Atlantic pooled investment vehicle in which the Tribal Bonds were purchased. In addition, HIRST and his co-defendants failed to apprise clients of Hughes and Atlantic regarding substantial conflicts of interest with respect to the issuance and placement of the Tribal Bonds before the Tribal Bonds were purchased on these clients’ behalf.
Hughes and Atlantic clients were provided no prior notice that HIRST and Morton caused them to purchase the Tribal Bonds. When these clients learned about the purchase of the Tribal Bonds in their accounts, several of them demanded that the Tribal Bonds be sold. However, because there was no ready secondary market for the Tribal Bonds, no Tribal Bonds have been sold from any Hughes or Atlantic client accounts.
Documents governing the Tribal Bonds specified that an investment manager would invest the proceeds of the Tribal Bonds in investments that would generate annuity payments sufficient to pay interest on the Tribal Bonds and provide funds to the WLCC to be used for tribal economic development purposes. In fact, none of the proceeds of the Tribal Bonds were turned over to the investment manager specified in the closing documents. Instead, significant portions of the proceeds were misappropriated by the defendants for their personal and professional use.
Specifically, the proceeds of the Tribal Bonds were deposited into a bank account in the name of Wealth Assurance Private Client Corporation (“WAPCC”), an entity controlled by HIRST and Dunkerley. Dunkerley transferred more than $38 million from the WAPCC account to an account controlled by Jason Galanis, who then misappropriated more than $8.5 million of the proceeds for his personal use, including for expenses associated with his home, jewelry and clothing purchases, travel and entertainment, and restaurant meals.
In addition, a portion of the misappropriated proceeds were recycled and provided by Jason Galanis to entities affiliated with Archer and Cooney in order to enable Archer and Cooney to purchase subsequent Tribal Bonds issued by the WLCC. As a result of the use of recycled proceeds to purchase additional issuances of Tribal Bonds, the face amount of Tribal Bonds outstanding increased and the amount of interest payable by the WLCC increased, but the actual bond proceeds available for investment on behalf of the WLCC did not increase.
* * *
GARY HIRST, 65, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; one count of securities fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $5,000,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; one count of conspiracy to commit investment adviser fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; and one count of investment adviser fraud, which also which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense.
Jason Galanis, 47, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; one count of securities fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $5,000,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; and one count of conspiracy to commit investment adviser fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. On August 11, 2017, Galanis was sentenced principally to a term of 173 months in prison.
Hugh Dunkerley, 44, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; two counts of securities fraud, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $5,000,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; one count of bankruptcy fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; and one count of falsification of records with the intent to obstruct a Government investigation, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $5,000,000 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.
Trial against the remaining defendants is scheduled to begin on May 22, 2018, before U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams.
The guilty plea in this matter is HIRST’s second conviction in this District on charges of securities fraud. On September 28, 2016, HIRST was convicted following a jury trial before U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel for several offenses relating to a scheme to manipulate the market for shares of Gerova Financial Group, Ltd. (“Gerova”), a publicly traded company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. In that case, HIRST was sentenced to a term of 78 months in prison.
Mr. Khuzami praised the work of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and thanked the SEC.
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 Negar Tekeei are in charge of the prosecution.
[1] As for the defendants who have not pled guilty (John Galanis, Michelle Morton, Devon Archer, and Bevan Cooney) the description of the charges set forth herein constitute only allegations.
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 Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Anthony A. Scarpino Jr., the Westchester County District Attorney, Keith M. Corlett, Superintendent of the New York State Police (“NYSP”), and James P. O’Neill, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), announced the arrest today of 27 individuals – including five 911 operators and a uniformed police officer employed by the New York City Police Department (“the NYPD Defendants”) – in connection with a multimillion-dollar scheme to commit bribery and violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) (the “No-Fault Scheme”). Twenty-three of the 27 defendants were arrested this morning in New York and New Jersey and are scheduled to appear before U.S. Magistrate Gabriel Gorenstein in federal court later today. Defendant LATIFAH ABDUL-KHALIQ will be presented today before a U.S. Magistrate Judge in North Carolina, and defendant KOURTNEI WILLIAMS will be presented today before a U.S. Magistrate Judge in Miami, Florida. Defendant LEON BLUE, a/k/a “Boochie,” is in custody in New Jersey and will be presented in Manhattan at a later date. Defendant TARA ROSE, a/k/a “Christine Waters,” a/k/a “Christine Hinds,” a/k/a “Taylor Hinds,” was also arrested this morning, and will be presented in Manhattan at a later date. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Paul G. Gardephe.
As part of the scheme, the alleged ringleader, defendant ANTHONY ROSE, a/k/a “Todd Chambers,” and his co-conspirators bribed 911 operators, medical personnel, and police officers for the confidential information of tens of thousands of motor vehicle accident victims. Using this information, ROSE and his co-conspirators contacted victims, lied to them, and steered them to clinics and lawyers handpicked by ROSE and his associates. These clinics and lawyers then paid ROSE kickbacks for these referrals, which ROSE distributed to co-conspirators as payments and bribes.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “Anthony Rose and his associates masterminded a brazen scheme that involved bribing 911 operators, medical personnel, and police officers for the confidential information of tens of thousands of motor vehicle accident victims. These actions have undermined the integrity of our emergency and medical first responders. This Office is committed to rooting out corruption wherever it is found, and will not rest until those who seek to profit by corrupting our public institutions are bought to justice.”
FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said: “The charges alleged in today’s indictment describe a scheme that blatantly violated HIPAA laws and actively targeted those the act was established to protect. May today’s arrests be a reminder to everyone that capitalizing on the pain and suffering of others won’t win you any favors in the court of law.”
Westchester District Attorney Anthony A. Scarpino Jr. said: “This five-year-long collaborative investigation, initiated by my Office and the New York State Police, is significant as it has exposed the systematic flaws in the no-fault insurance laws and those who seek to abuse them. My Office is committed to uncovering fraud and prosecuting those who profit by abuse. The nature of this fraud and bribery results in higher insurance premiums and unnecessary medical costs which impacts us all. Hopefully, this prosecution will act as a deterrent to those who seek to profit illegally by gaming the system. I want to thank our law enforcement partners – U.S. Attorney Berman and the Southern District, the New York State Police, the National Insurance Crime Bureau, New York State Department of Financial Services and the F.B.I. – in rooting out this extensive corruption and bringing those responsible to justice.”
State Police Superintendent Keith M. Corlett said: “It is unconscionable for any entrusted public official to use their authority or position as a public servant to take advantage of others, especially in the manner alleged. I commend our State Police members and all of our law enforcement partners for their outstanding investigative work on this case. It sends a clear message that no one is above the law, and such alleged abuse of power, especially when it involves the manipulation of victims, will not be tolerated.”
NYPD Commissioner James P. O’Neill said: “Corruption, in all forms, is intolerable within the NYPD and we continue to work with our law enforcement partners to expose these sorts of schemes. Insurance fraud costs companies and policy holders millions upon millions of dollars a year and I want to thank the FBI, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York, the New York State Police, the National Insurance Crime Bureau, the NYC Department of Financial Services, the Westchester County D.A.’s office and our NYPD investigators who brought justice for victims in this case.”
According to allegations contained in the Indictment[1] unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:
Background of the Scheme
The charges in the Indictment result from a multi-year investigation of a widespread bribery, corruption, and kickback scheme relating to New York and New Jersey no fault automobile insurance. Since 2017, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, the FBI, and the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office have been investigating a criminal enterprise that utilizes the New York and New Jersey no-fault automobile insurance regime to earn millions of dollars in illegal profits.
New York and New Jersey no-fault insurance laws require a driver’s automobile insurance company to pay automobile insurance claims automatically for certain types of motor vehicle accidents, provided the claim is legitimate, and is below a particular injury or damages threshold. Pursuant to these requirements, insurance companies will often pay medical service providers directly for the treatment they provide to automobile accident victims, without the need to bill the victims themselves. This process resolves automobile claims without apportioning blame or fault for the accident, thereby avoiding protracted disputes, and the costs associated with an extended investigation of the accident. ANTHONY ROSE, a/k/a “Todd Chambers,” and his associates, exploited these procedures by bribing individuals with access to confidential information about motor vehicle accident victims, using this information to contact victims under false pretenses, and steering these victims to seek treatment at medical clinics and legal representation from lawyers who were willing to pay kickbacks for the referrals.
Since at least in or about 2014, ROSE and his co-conspirators have bribed as many as 50 people, whom they called “lead sources” who, at the time they accepted the bribes, were working for federally funded hospitals (the “Hospital Defendants”), the NYPD (the “NYPD Defendants”), and other entities. ROSE paid these lead sources as much as $4,000 per month, and continuously worked to identify new lead sources, largely through word of mouth, and through the extensive corrupt network he established. Lead sources were paid in cash and “off the books.” In return, these lead sources unlawfully disclosed protected, confidential information to ROSE and his co-conspirators including victims’ names, contact information, and medical information.
After receiving the confidential victim information from the lead sources, ROSE and his associates provided the information to co-conspirators working at Rose’s Call Center (the “Call Center Defendants”) located in Brooklyn, New York. The Call Center was staffed with 10 to 15 “employees,” who contacted the accident victims on a daily basis and steered them to seek medical treatment at clinics and law firms handpicked by ROSE. The Call Center Defendants followed a pre-established “script” during these communications. Among other things, the Call Center Defendants falsely told accident victims that they were calling from an organization affiliated with the New York Department of Transportation, and that their organization had obtained the victims’ contact information through a so-called Personal Injury Hotline. The Call Center Defendants also brazenly lied that they were calling to protect victims from people who obtain victims’ information illegally and mislead victims into seeking treatment with certain providers. In actuality, the true perpetrators of these illegal acts were none other than ROSE and his co-conspirators.
In selecting which motor vehicle accident victims to call, ROSE instructed the Call Center Conspirators to target victims from low-income neighborhoods because, in ROSE’s view, these individuals could be more easily brought into the scheme.
Scope and Participants In the Scheme
From at least in or about 2014 to the present, ROSE and his co-conspirators illegally steered more than 6,000 motor vehicle accident victims to participating clinics and lawyers, who paid kickbacks in return for the referrals. In addition, this figure is a fraction of the number of actual accident victims whose confidential information was unlawfully disclosed as part of the No-Fault Scheme. The Call Center Conspirators successfully induced approximately 1 in 10 accident victims to seek treatment or representation from participating clinics and lawyers. Thus, the No-Fault Scheme resulted in the improper disclosure of the confidential information of at least 60,000 motor vehicle accident victims. ROSE and co-conspirators further earned, on average, approximately $3,000 per successful referral.
ROSE and the co-conspirators went to elaborate lengths to conceal the No-Fault Scheme from law enforcement. Among other deceptive tactics, the co-conspirators generally referred to one another only by aliases; used “burner” phones with temporary and unidentifiable phone numbers, switched their phone every 60 days; set up numerous fictitious companies; corresponded through encrypted mobile applications; and utilized concealed spreadsheets, which tracked the bribe payments to lead sources, in secret email accounts that co-conspirators could access remotely. The members of the conspiracy also assigned unique code names to each lead source, such as “J1,” “P2,” and “G6,” and used these code names to refer to lead sources during communications rather than using their true names.
The Indictment, unsealed today, charges ROSE and the Hospital Defendants with conspiracy to violate the Travel Act, unlawful disclosure of protected health care information, and bribery. Six other leaders of the conspiracy, including members of ROSE’s family, and the five Call Center Defendants were charged with conspiracy to violate the Travel Act. In addition, the six NYPD Defendants were charged with conspiracy to violate the Travel Act and bribery. The names of the defendants, the charges against them, and other information is set forth below.
* * *
The maximum potential sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as the sentencing of the defendants will be determined by a judge.
Mr. Berman praised the work of the FBI, the New York State Police, the New York City Police Department, the New York City Department of Financial Services, the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office, and the National Insurance Crime Bureau. Mr. Berman noted that the investigation is ongoing.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit, and the White Plains Division. Assistant United States Attorneys Mathew Andrews, Louis A. Pellegrino, Celia Cohen, and Courtney Heavey are in charge of the prosecution.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the texts 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.
Defendant
Age
Hometown
Charges (Potential Maximum Term of Imprisonment)
ANTHONY ROSE,
a/k/a “Todd Chambers”
51
Jamaica, New York
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
JELANI WRAY,
a/k/a “Lani”
a/k/a “J.R.”
35
Brooklyn, New York
Travel Act Conspiracy.
(5 years)
NATHANIEL COLES,
a/k/a “Nat”
66
Cortlandt Manor, New York
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
TARA ROSE,
a/k/a “Christine Waters,”
a/k/a “Christine Hinds,”
a/k/a “Taylor Hinds”
48
Jamaica, New York
Travel Act Conspiracy.
(5 years)
ANTHONY ROSE, Jr.,
a/k/a “Sean Wells”
32
Cambria Heights, New York
Travel Act conspiracy, federal programs bribery.
(15 years)
CHRISTINA GARCIA,
a/k/a “Cindy”
35
Jersey City, New Jersey
Travel Act Conspiracy.
(5 years)
LUIS VILELLA,
a/k/a “Angel Martinez”
32
Bronx, New York
Travel Act Conspiracy.
(5 years)
LEON BLUE,
a/k/a “Boochie”
54
Brooklyn, New York
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
CLARENCE FACEY,
a/k/a “Face”
34
Brooklyn, New York
Travel Act Conspiracy.
(5 years)
ANA RIVERA,
a/k/a “Melissa Ramos”
41
Woodhaven, New York
Travel Act Conspiracy.
(5 years)
DEJAHNEA BROWN,
a/k/a “Michelle Williams”
29
Saint Albans, New York
Travel Act Conspiracy.
(5 years)
TONYA THOMAS,
a/k/a “Karen Schwartz”
48
Brooklyn, New York
Travel Act Conspiracy.
(5 years)
ANGELA MELECIO,
a/k/a “Angie,”
a/k/a “P5”
40
Amityville, New York
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
STEPHANIE PASCAL,
a/k/a “Steph,”
a/k/a “P2”
47
Brooklyn, New York
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
MAKEBA SIMMONS
29
Bridgeport, Connecticut
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
EDWARD ABAYEV,
a/k/a “Eddie”
51
Staten Island, New York
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
GRACIELA BORRERO,
a/k/a “Grace,”
a/k/a “P8”
42
Brooklyn, New York
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
BARRINGTON REID,
a/k/a “P9”
60
Bronx, New York
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
TONJA LEWIS,
a/k/a “J1”
53
Belleville, New Jersey
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
RAYMOND PARKER,
a/k/a “Andre”
a/k/a “J2”
41
Newark, New Jersey
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
BERLISA BRYAN,
a/k/a “Lisa”
53
Edison, New Jersey
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
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
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 Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Anthony A. Scarpino Jr., the Westchester County District Attorney, Keith M. Corlett, Superintendent of the New York State Police (“NYSP”), and James P. O’Neill, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), announced the arrest today of 27 individuals – including five 911 operators and a uniformed police officer employed by the New York City Police Department (“the NYPD Defendants”) – in connection with a multimillion-dollar scheme to commit bribery and violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) (the “No-Fault Scheme”). Twenty-three of the 27 defendants were arrested this morning in New York and New Jersey and are scheduled to appear before U.S. Magistrate Gabriel Gorenstein in federal court later today. Defendant LATIFAH ABDUL-KHALIQ will be presented today before a U.S. Magistrate Judge in North Carolina, and defendant KOURTNEI WILLIAMS will be presented today before a U.S. Magistrate Judge in Miami, Florida. Defendant LEON BLUE, a/k/a “Boochie,” is in custody in New Jersey and will be presented in Manhattan at a later date. Defendant TARA ROSE, a/k/a “Christine Waters,” a/k/a “Christine Hinds,” a/k/a “Taylor Hinds,” was also arrested this morning, and will be presented in Manhattan at a later date. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Paul G. Gardephe.
As part of the scheme, the alleged ringleader, defendant ANTHONY ROSE, a/k/a “Todd Chambers,” and his co-conspirators bribed 911 operators, medical personnel, and police officers for the confidential information of tens of thousands of motor vehicle accident victims. Using this information, ROSE and his co-conspirators contacted victims, lied to them, and steered them to clinics and lawyers handpicked by ROSE and his associates. These clinics and lawyers then paid ROSE kickbacks for these referrals, which ROSE distributed to co-conspirators as payments and bribes.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “Anthony Rose and his associates masterminded a brazen scheme that involved bribing 911 operators, medical personnel, and police officers for the confidential information of tens of thousands of motor vehicle accident victims. These actions have undermined the integrity of our emergency and medical first responders. This Office is committed to rooting out corruption wherever it is found, and will not rest until those who seek to profit by corrupting our public institutions are bought to justice.”
FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said: “The charges alleged in today’s indictment describe a scheme that blatantly violated HIPAA laws and actively targeted those the act was established to protect. May today’s arrests be a reminder to everyone that capitalizing on the pain and suffering of others won’t win you any favors in the court of law.”
Westchester District Attorney Anthony A. Scarpino Jr. said: “This five-year-long collaborative investigation, initiated by my Office and the New York State Police, is significant as it has exposed the systematic flaws in the no-fault insurance laws and those who seek to abuse them. My Office is committed to uncovering fraud and prosecuting those who profit by abuse. The nature of this fraud and bribery results in higher insurance premiums and unnecessary medical costs which impacts us all. Hopefully, this prosecution will act as a deterrent to those who seek to profit illegally by gaming the system. I want to thank our law enforcement partners – U.S. Attorney Berman and the Southern District, the New York State Police, the National Insurance Crime Bureau, New York State Department of Financial Services and the F.B.I. – in rooting out this extensive corruption and bringing those responsible to justice.”
State Police Superintendent Keith M. Corlett said: “It is unconscionable for any entrusted public official to use their authority or position as a public servant to take advantage of others, especially in the manner alleged. I commend our State Police members and all of our law enforcement partners for their outstanding investigative work on this case. It sends a clear message that no one is above the law, and such alleged abuse of power, especially when it involves the manipulation of victims, will not be tolerated.”
NYPD Commissioner James P. O’Neill said: “Corruption, in all forms, is intolerable within the NYPD and we continue to work with our law enforcement partners to expose these sorts of schemes. Insurance fraud costs companies and policy holders millions upon millions of dollars a year and I want to thank the FBI, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York, the New York State Police, the National Insurance Crime Bureau, the NYC Department of Financial Services, the Westchester County D.A.’s office and our NYPD investigators who brought justice for victims in this case.”
According to allegations contained in the Indictment[1] unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:
Background of the Scheme
The charges in the Indictment result from a multi-year investigation of a widespread bribery, corruption, and kickback scheme relating to New York and New Jersey no fault automobile insurance. Since 2017, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, the FBI, and the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office have been investigating a criminal enterprise that utilizes the New York and New Jersey no-fault automobile insurance regime to earn millions of dollars in illegal profits.
New York and New Jersey no-fault insurance laws require a driver’s automobile insurance company to pay automobile insurance claims automatically for certain types of motor vehicle accidents, provided the claim is legitimate, and is below a particular injury or damages threshold. Pursuant to these requirements, insurance companies will often pay medical service providers directly for the treatment they provide to automobile accident victims, without the need to bill the victims themselves. This process resolves automobile claims without apportioning blame or fault for the accident, thereby avoiding protracted disputes, and the costs associated with an extended investigation of the accident. ANTHONY ROSE, a/k/a “Todd Chambers,” and his associates, exploited these procedures by bribing individuals with access to confidential information about motor vehicle accident victims, using this information to contact victims under false pretenses, and steering these victims to seek treatment at medical clinics and legal representation from lawyers who were willing to pay kickbacks for the referrals.
Since at least in or about 2014, ROSE and his co-conspirators have bribed as many as 50 people, whom they called “lead sources” who, at the time they accepted the bribes, were working for federally funded hospitals (the “Hospital Defendants”), the NYPD (the “NYPD Defendants”), and other entities. ROSE paid these lead sources as much as $4,000 per month, and continuously worked to identify new lead sources, largely through word of mouth, and through the extensive corrupt network he established. Lead sources were paid in cash and “off the books.” In return, these lead sources unlawfully disclosed protected, confidential information to ROSE and his co-conspirators including victims’ names, contact information, and medical information.
After receiving the confidential victim information from the lead sources, ROSE and his associates provided the information to co-conspirators working at Rose’s Call Center (the “Call Center Defendants”) located in Brooklyn, New York. The Call Center was staffed with 10 to 15 “employees,” who contacted the accident victims on a daily basis and steered them to seek medical treatment at clinics and law firms handpicked by ROSE. The Call Center Defendants followed a pre-established “script” during these communications. Among other things, the Call Center Defendants falsely told accident victims that they were calling from an organization affiliated with the New York Department of Transportation, and that their organization had obtained the victims’ contact information through a so-called Personal Injury Hotline. The Call Center Defendants also brazenly lied that they were calling to protect victims from people who obtain victims’ information illegally and mislead victims into seeking treatment with certain providers. In actuality, the true perpetrators of these illegal acts were none other than ROSE and his co-conspirators.
In selecting which motor vehicle accident victims to call, ROSE instructed the Call Center Conspirators to target victims from low-income neighborhoods because, in ROSE’s view, these individuals could be more easily brought into the scheme.
Scope and Participants In the Scheme
From at least in or about 2014 to the present, ROSE and his co-conspirators illegally steered more than 6,000 motor vehicle accident victims to participating clinics and lawyers, who paid kickbacks in return for the referrals. In addition, this figure is a fraction of the number of actual accident victims whose confidential information was unlawfully disclosed as part of the No-Fault Scheme. The Call Center Conspirators successfully induced approximately 1 in 10 accident victims to seek treatment or representation from participating clinics and lawyers. Thus, the No-Fault Scheme resulted in the improper disclosure of the confidential information of at least 60,000 motor vehicle accident victims. ROSE and co-conspirators further earned, on average, approximately $3,000 per successful referral.
ROSE and the co-conspirators went to elaborate lengths to conceal the No-Fault Scheme from law enforcement. Among other deceptive tactics, the co-conspirators generally referred to one another only by aliases; used “burner” phones with temporary and unidentifiable phone numbers, switched their phone every 60 days; set up numerous fictitious companies; corresponded through encrypted mobile applications; and utilized concealed spreadsheets, which tracked the bribe payments to lead sources, in secret email accounts that co-conspirators could access remotely. The members of the conspiracy also assigned unique code names to each lead source, such as “J1,” “P2,” and “G6,” and used these code names to refer to lead sources during communications rather than using their true names.
The Indictment, unsealed today, charges ROSE and the Hospital Defendants with conspiracy to violate the Travel Act, unlawful disclosure of protected health care information, and bribery. Six other leaders of the conspiracy, including members of ROSE’s family, and the five Call Center Defendants were charged with conspiracy to violate the Travel Act. In addition, the six NYPD Defendants were charged with conspiracy to violate the Travel Act and bribery. The names of the defendants, the charges against them, and other information is set forth below.
* * *
The maximum potential sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as the sentencing of the defendants will be determined by a judge.
Mr. Berman praised the work of the FBI, the New York State Police, the New York City Police Department, the New York City Department of Financial Services, the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office, and the National Insurance Crime Bureau. Mr. Berman noted that the investigation is ongoing.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit, and the White Plains Division. Assistant United States Attorneys Mathew Andrews, Louis A. Pellegrino, Celia Cohen, and Courtney Heavey are in charge of the prosecution.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the texts 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.
Defendant
Age
Hometown
Charges (Potential Maximum Term of Imprisonment)
ANTHONY ROSE,
a/k/a “Todd Chambers”
51
Jamaica, New York
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
JELANI WRAY,
a/k/a “Lani”
a/k/a “J.R.”
35
Brooklyn, New York
Travel Act Conspiracy.
(5 years)
NATHANIEL COLES,
a/k/a “Nat”
66
Cortlandt Manor, New York
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
TARA ROSE,
a/k/a “Christine Waters,”
a/k/a “Christine Hinds,”
a/k/a “Taylor Hinds”
48
Jamaica, New York
Travel Act Conspiracy.
(5 years)
ANTHONY ROSE, Jr.,
a/k/a “Sean Wells”
32
Cambria Heights, New York
Travel Act conspiracy, federal programs bribery.
(15 years)
CHRISTINA GARCIA,
a/k/a “Cindy”
35
Jersey City, New Jersey
Travel Act Conspiracy.
(5 years)
LUIS VILELLA,
a/k/a “Angel Martinez”
32
Bronx, New York
Travel Act Conspiracy.
(5 years)
LEON BLUE,
a/k/a “Boochie”
54
Brooklyn, New York
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
CLARENCE FACEY,
a/k/a “Face”
34
Brooklyn, New York
Travel Act Conspiracy.
(5 years)
ANA RIVERA,
a/k/a “Melissa Ramos”
41
Woodhaven, New York
Travel Act Conspiracy.
(5 years)
DEJAHNEA BROWN,
a/k/a “Michelle Williams”
29
Saint Albans, New York
Travel Act Conspiracy.
(5 years)
TONYA THOMAS,
a/k/a “Karen Schwartz”
48
Brooklyn, New York
Travel Act Conspiracy.
(5 years)
ANGELA MELECIO,
a/k/a “Angie,”
a/k/a “P5”
40
Amityville, New York
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
STEPHANIE PASCAL,
a/k/a “Steph,”
a/k/a “P2”
47
Brooklyn, New York
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
MAKEBA SIMMONS
29
Bridgeport, Connecticut
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
EDWARD ABAYEV,
a/k/a “Eddie”
51
Staten Island, New York
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
GRACIELA BORRERO,
a/k/a “Grace,”
a/k/a “P8”
42
Brooklyn, New York
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
BARRINGTON REID,
a/k/a “P9”
60
Bronx, New York
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
TONJA LEWIS,
a/k/a “J1”
53
Belleville, New Jersey
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
RAYMOND PARKER,
a/k/a “Andre”
a/k/a “J2”
41
Newark, New Jersey
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
(25 years)
BERLISA BRYAN,
a/k/a “Lisa”
53
Edison, New Jersey
Travel Act conspiracy, Wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, federal programs bribery.
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 FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that MICHAEL PIZARRO, a/k/a “Eric Miller,” pled guilty today before Chief United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein to defrauding individuals (the “Victims”) by representing to them that they had qualified for a government grant, which could be accessed only upon the payment of an up-front refundable application fee. In actuality, the government grant did not exist and none of the Victims had been approved for such a grant. PIZARRO continued to perpetrate this scheme even after he was arrested and released on bail.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As he admitted in court, Michael Pizarro preyed on elderly victims and others by charging them up-front fees to get government grant money that was fictitious. In fact, there were no ‘grants’ and the ‘registration fee’ Pizarro charged his victims was just money he stole from them.”
According to allegations in the criminal complaint, the information, and other documents filed in federal court, as well as statements made in public court proceedings:
Beginning in at least February 2017 through July 25, 2019, PIZARRO called the Victims, many of whom were more than 70 years old, and told them that his name was “Eric Miller” and he was calling on behalf of a company called “National Grants.” PIZARRO informed the Victims that they had been approved for a government grant, which was being held in escrow at an account with the “Word Bank” in Washington, D.C. Before the funds could be released, however, the Victims would have to pay a registration fee. In fact, none of the Victims had been approved for a grant, the grants did not exist, and no Victim ever received any funds.
In April 2018, PIZARRO was charged in New York Supreme Court in connection with his involvement with National Grants from October 2015 through January 2017. PIZARRO pled guilty in December 2018 and was awaiting sentencing when he was arrested in connection with this scheme on May 2, 2019. After he was released on bail, PIZARRO continued to seek contact information for additional Victims in furtherance of the scheme. In total, not including the conduct charged in New York Supreme Court, PIZARRO defrauded the Victims out of approximately $270,000.
PIZARRO, 37, of Brooklyn, New York, pled guilty to one count of wire fraud while on pre-trial release. That offense carries a maximum prison term of 30 years. 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. PIZARRO is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Paul A. Crotty on December 20, 2019.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations, and the New York City Police Department.
The prosecution is being handled by the Office’s Money Laundering and Transnational Criminal Enterprises Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Kiersten A. Fletcher and Benet J. Kearney are in charge of the prosecution.
If you believe you have been a victim of the scheme described above, including a victim entitled to restitution, and you wish to provide information to law enforcement and/or receive notice of future developments in the case or additional information, please contact Wendy Olsen-Clancy, the Victim Witness Coordinator at the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, at 866-874-8900, or wendy.olsen@usdoj.gov. You may also report it to Detective Christopher Bastos at 917-480-7167 or christopher.bastos@nypd.org.
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 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
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 FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that ANTONIO DIMARCO was sentenced in Manhattan federal court today to 54 months in prison for participating in a conspiracy to commit wire fraud, based on his attempt to fraudulently acquire millions of dollars’ worth of artworks from art galleries, auction houses, and private collectors from around the world. U.S. District Judge Valerie E. Caproni presided over the defendant’s sentencing.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “Antonio DiMarco was a serial conman and deceiver who stole people’s identities, placed winning bids on renowned artworks he couldn’t afford, and defrauded lenders and insurers with false claims of ownership. As the Court noted today, DiMarco would lie to anyone if it suited his interests. DiMarco received a prison sentence commensurate with the severity of his crimes.”
As alleged in the underlying Complaint, Indictment, public filings, and statements made in open court:
From at least as early as November 2017 through and including October 2018, DIMARCO and a co-conspirator attempted to acquire millions of dollars’ worth of artworks from around the world using a variety of methods, including through appropriating the identity and financial information of a particular victim, and creating and presenting a slew of fraudulent documents.
For example, in November 2017, DIMARCO attempted to purchase artworks by Mark Rothko and Ad Reinhardt at an auction house located in New York, New York. DIMARCO obtained access to the auction through the use of an elderly victim’s identity documents, including her passport, and bank account information showing that the victim held liquid assets in excess of $7 million. DIMARCO and his co-conspirator further presented false information indicating that the victim had authorized DIMARCO to bid on her behalf, when in reality, the victim knew nothing about DIMARCO’s plan to purchase artworks in her name. DIMARCO won the auction, bidding close to $6.5 million for the Rothko work, and $1,155,000 for the Reinhardt work. As DIMARCO in fact lacked funds to pay for the art, however, the auction house suffered a loss of close to $1.4 million.
Continuing throughout late 2017 through at least May 2018, DIMARCO and his co-conspirator attempted to purchase artworks from approximately 20 galleries and collectors throughout the world. Indeed, DIMARCO and his co-conspirator entered into completed sales agreements for more than 60 artworks totaling in excess of $150 million. Among other works, DIMARCO entered into a contract for a $16.5 million Matisse painting. None of these works was ever paid for, yet to entice the galleries and collectors to continue to hold the artwork for DIMARCO and his co-conspirator, they passed strings of false excuses for non-payment. This also caused galleries and collectors to suffer monetary losses.
Having failed to obtain valuable artworks that he had contracted to buy but never paid for, DIMARCO then began to seek out ways to monetize artworks that he had not acquired, by creating a series of false documents designed to deceive financiers and insurers into believing that in fact he owned the artworks. DIMARCO did this in hopes of obtaining funds based on the value of those artworks. DIMARCO was arrested in the course of executing this scheme, after having arranged a showing of high-value artwork he convinced others that he owned.
DIMARCO further orchestrated two additional frauds conducted in the midst of the art scheme: a ploy to deprive a victim of hundreds of thousands of dollars through false representations concerning the purposes for providing the funds, and a scheme to purchase a high-end property in Manhattan using a fraudulently altered bank statement.
* * *
In addition to his prison term, DIMARCO was also sentenced to three years of supervised release and ordered to pay $2,384,050.00 in restitution.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Art Crime Team and encourages anyone with information relating to theft, looting, or fraud in the art market to contact the FBI’s Art Crime Team in New York at (212) 384-1000.
These cases are being handled by the Office’s Money Laundering and Transnational Criminal Enterprises Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Tara M. La Morte and Abigail S. Kurland are in charge of the prosecution.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced the filing of a civil complaint against SAMUEL GENTLE, who was previously convicted of preparing fraudulent federal tax returns through a tax preparation business, to prohibit him from preparing tax returns for others or engaging in activities that substantially interfere with the administration of federal tax laws.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “A tax return preparer who has repeatedly cheated the tax system by filing fraudulent tax returns should not be permitted to continue business as usual. This Office is committed to ensuring the integrity of the federal tax system that depends on truthful, accurate reporting.”
As alleged in the Government’s complaint filed in federal district court today:
From 2008 to 2014, GENTLE systematically and intentionally filed fraudulent federal tax returns on behalf of customers through his tax return preparation business, GenGen, Inc. In preparing these tax returns, GENTLE repeatedly invented charitable donations, claimed phony business losses for nonexistent businesses, and fabricated unreimbursed employee business expenses. GENTLE, who filed an average of 3,200 federal tax returns each year and whose profits depended on word-of-mouth referrals, prepared and fraudulently filed false tax returns in order to reduce his customers’ tax liabilities or obtain tax refunds to which his clients were not entitled. GENTLE’s conduct caused the United States to lose millions of dollars in understated taxes and fraudulent refunds. In 2016, a jury found GENTLE guilty of 38 counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false and fraudulent federal tax returns. The Government is now seeking an injunction against GENTLE that would, among other things, permanently bar him from preparing or filing federal tax returns on behalf of others.
* * *
Mr. Berman thanked the Internal Revenue Service for its assistance with this case.
The case is being handled by the Tax and Bankruptcy Unit in the Office’s Civil Division. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer C. Simon is in charge of the case.
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Michael J. Driscoll, Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced today the unsealing of a complaint charging RUSSELL DWAYNE LEWIS, a/k/a “Clifford Ari Getz,” a/k/a “Clifford Ari Getz Cohen,” a/k/a “Ari Getz,” a/k/a “Aryeh Getz,” with three counts of wire fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft in connection with multiple schemes to defraud victims out of millions of dollars. Over several years, LEWIS, who falsely claimed to be a billionaire, defrauded his friend and employee out of more than $3 million, money he falsely claimed was being used in business opportunities; defrauded an individual out of more than $500,000, which he falsely claimed was being directed to a real estate investment; and made a fraudulent offer to purchase a corporate entity for $290 million. LEWIS was arrested last night in California and is expected to be presented today before a United States Magistrate Judge in the Central District of California.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “As alleged, the defendant engaged in a pattern of serial fraud, lying repeatedly and blatantly to friends, associates, and a major corporation about his identity, wealth, and business activities. He did so out of greed, and he now faces serious criminal charges for his alleged conduct.”
FBI Assistant Director Michael J. Driscoll said: "As alleged, Mr. Lewis played on his victims' misplaced trust and, through a series of deceptions, cheated them out of valuable resources and money. His arrest today shows the FBI's continued determination to hold impostors accountable and force them to deal with the repercussions of their illegal activities in court.”
According to the allegations in the Complaint unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:[1]
Between 2016 and 2020, RUSSELL DWAYNE LEWIS engaged in a series of brazen schemes to misrepresent his identity, his wealth, and his professional and personal background in order to defraud multiple individuals and at least one corporate entity. For years, LEWIS lived under assumed names, using the birth date of a real individual with the name of one of his aliases, and utilizing the social security number of yet another individual. As opportunities arose, LEWIS told increasingly outrageous lies to individuals around him, including a close friend of many years, an individual who turned to him for his claimed expertise in astrology, and representatives of a major company he falsely purported to intend to purchase.
In one scheme, LEWIS befriended an individual (“Victim-1”), claiming to Victim-1 that he was a billionaire businessman. As part of their increasingly close friendship, and believing that LEWIS was a successful businessman, Victim-1 solicited professional and investment advice from LEWIS. In response, and with greater frequency over time, LEWIS solicited “investments” from Victim-1 in the tens and then hundreds of thousands of dollars. Eventually, Victim-1 went to work for LEWIS, working to explore opportunities in business and finance to assist LEWIS in identifying investment opportunities. LEWIS continued to ask Victim-1 for money, which was characterized as investments and/or loans, and which Victim-1 routinely provided. LEWIS had Victim-1 seek out investment opportunities, only to repeatedly back out of prospective deals at the last moment, claiming difficulties in accessing his vast wealth. By 2020, Victim-1 had transferred more than $3 million of loan and/or investment funds to LEWIS in less than three years, virtually none of which was ever paid back.
In addition to his purported business activities, LEWIS also separately charged some individuals for astrological readings and analyses. One such individual was a widow with four children who met LEWIS in or about 2018 (“Victim-2”). Victim-2 continued to have contact with LEWIS in the coming years, including for astrological readings. In 2020, over the course of several months, LEWIS defrauded Victim-2 out of approximately $555,000 by pressuring her into paying him money for a purported real estate investment opportunity. In truth, there was no such investment opportunity, and LEWIS spent Victim-2’s money on personal expenses, including office supplies that facilitated and promoted LEWIS’s other schemes. Victim-2 received back virtually none of her “investment.”
Finally, in August and September 2020, LEWIS fraudulently attempted to acquire a corporate entity in bankruptcy proceedings (“Corporation-1”). LEWIS made a purported all‑cash offer to purchase Corporation-1 for $290 million, which resulted in weeks of due diligence processes, legal discussions, and negotiations—including through which Getz and others had access to certain of Corporation-1’s internal business records and materials. Corporation-1 and its representatives dedicated significant time and resources to the purported offer, based on the false premise that LEWIS intended to, and could, pay hundreds of millions of dollars for Corporation‑1. In fact, LEWIS had no intention or ability to purchase Corportion-1, and ultimately he backed out of the deal.
* * *
LEWIS, 52, of Los Angeles, California, is charged with three counts of wire fraud, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; and one count of aggravated identity theft, which carries a mandatory consecutive sentence of 24 months in prison.
The statutory maximum and mandatory 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 a judge.
Mr. Williams praised the outstanding work of the FBI, and thanked the Beverly Hills Police Department for its exceptional investigative assistance.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force. Assistant United States Attorneys Alex Rossmiller and Matthew Podolsky are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint and the description of the Complaint set forth in this release constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Thomas Fattorusso, the Special Agent in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (“IRS-CI”), announced today the unsealing of a Complaint charging KEITH TAYLOR with defrauding a charity he ran by embezzling approximately $2.5 million in donations meant for low-income families and spending them instead on personal expenses including rent in a luxury apartment building in midtown Manhattan, food delivery services, cosmetic surgery, and lavish meals at some of New York City’s most expensive restaurants. TAYLOR was arrested today and will be presented in Manhattan federal court before U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “As alleged, Keith Taylor falsely claimed that donations to his charity would help working families with unexpected expenses that put them at risk of homelessness. Instead, Taylor allegedly took those donations to pay for his meals at upscale restaurants, rent for a luxury apartment in a Manhattan skyscraper, and even cosmetic surgery. Taylor allegedly defrauded the charity’s donors and unconscionably took money from the pockets of those most in need, and he is now facing federal charges for his alleged crimes.”
IRS-CI Special Agent in Charge Thomas Fattorusso said: “Taylor acted like a do-gooder, founding a charity meant to help underserved communities. But it’s alleged he later took this as an opportunity to victimize both his donors and his own charity by pocketing millions in donations to live a luxurious lifestyle. Today’s arrest means that Taylor can no longer allegedly exploit the kindness of others for his own gain, and he now faces the consequences of his alleged greed.”
As alleged in the Complaint:[1]
KEITH TAYLOR founded a charity in 2002 that used a crowd-sourcing funding model to help low-income workers pay for unexpected expenses like medical bills or broken appliances. Its mission was to provide short-term financial assistance to individuals and families that were living paycheck-to-paycheck who were faced with an unexpected crisis or expense that they could not pay.
Between at least 2016 and May 2024, TAYLOR embezzled more than $2.5 million from the charity and its donors and used that money to fund his lavish personal spending. TAYLOR regularly dined at Per Se, Jean-Georges, Masa, and Marea in midtown Manhattan, sometimes as often as twice a day, spending more than $320,000 of charity funds at New York City restaurants and steakhouses. Funds donated to the charity paid over $300,000 of TAYLOR’s rent for a luxury apartment on the 30th floor of a midtown Manhattan skyscraper. TAYLOR also used charity funds to buy himself expensive electronics, to pay over $100,000 to food delivery services, and to pay for his own cosmetic surgery. TAYLOR put over $270,000 of charity funds directly into his personal brokerage account. TAYLOR also routinely paid his other personal expenses from the charity’s bank accounts.
TAYLOR attempted to hide his embezzlement of charity funds by creating a fake board of directors and claiming it had approved his personal spending. TAYLOR used the names of his acquaintances and falsely listed them on the charity’s website as board members. TAYLOR’s acquaintances who were listed as the charity’s board members included a bartender from Jean-Georges, a friend, and his house-cleaner, none of whom ever attended a board meeting or even knew that they had been listed on the charity’s website as board members.
For at least the calendars years of 2017 through 2022, TAYLOR did not file personal income tax returns or pay income taxes on the income he received from the charity.
* * *
TAYLOR, 56, 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 aggravated identity theft, which carries a mandatory consecutive sentence of two years in prison, and six counts of tax evasion, each of which carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
The minimum and 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 exceptional investigative work of IRS-CI and the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Rebecca R. Delfiner and Eli J. Mark are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint and the description of the Complaint set forth herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described herein should be treated as an allegation.
Audrey Strauss, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced that MICHAEL PIZARRO, a/k/a “Eric Miller,” was sentenced today to 40 months in prison in connection with PIZARRO’s scheme to defraud individuals (the “Victims” ) by representing to them that they had qualified for a government grant, which could only be accessed upon the payment of an up-front refundable application fee. In actuality, the government grant did not exist and none of the Victims had been approved for such a grant. PIZARRO pled guilty to a one-count information on August 20, 2019, before United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorentstein. Today, United States District Judge Paul A. Crotty accepted PIZARRO’s guilty plea and imposed the sentence.
U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: “Michael Pizarro promised government grants to his victims under the condition they pay an up-front application fee. Regretfully, Pizarro’s victims, many of whom were over 70 years old, eventually discovered that they had fallen prey to a serial fraudster – there were no government grants, and they would not be receiving any funds. Michael Pizarro has now been sentenced to time in federal prison for his brazen fraud.”
According to allegations in the criminal complaint, the information, and other documents filed in federal court, as well as statements made in public court proceedings:
Beginning in at least February 2017 through July 25, 2019, PIZARRO called the Victims, many of whom were more than 70 years old, and told them that his name was “Eric Miller” and that he was calling on behalf of a company named “National Grants.” PIZARRO informed the Victims that they had been approved for a government grant, which was being held in escrow at an account with the “World Bank” in Washington, D.C. Before the funds could be released, however, the Victims would have to pay a registration fee. In fact, none of the Victims had been approved for a grant, the grants did not exist, and no Victim ever received any funds.
In April 2018, PIZARRO was charged in New York Supreme Court in connection with his involvement with National Grants from October 2015 through January 2017. PIZARRO pled guilty to those charges in December 2018 and was awaiting sentencing when he was arrested in connection with this scheme on May 2, 2019. After he was released on bail in connection with the federal charges, PIZARRO continued to seek contact information for additional Victims in furtherance of the scheme. In total, not including the conduct charged in New York Supreme Court, PIZARRO defrauded the Victims out of approximately $270,000.
In addition to his prison sentence, PIZARRO, 38, of Brooklyn, New York, was sentenced to three years of supervised release and ordered to pay forfeiture and restitution in the amount of $278,853.37.
Ms. Strauss praised the outstanding investigative work of the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations and the New York City Police Department.
The prosecution is being handled by the Office’s Money Laundering and Transnational Criminal Enterprises Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Kiersten A. Fletcher and Benet J. Kearney are in charge of the prosecution.
Robert Khuzami, Attorney for the United States, Acting Under Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515, announced that MICHELLE MORTON pled guilty today to defrauding a Native American tribal entity and various investment advisory clients of tens of millions of dollars in connection with the issuance of bonds by the tribal entity and the subsequent sale of those bonds through fraudulent and deceptive means. MORTON pled guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud and a substantive count of investment adviser fraud before U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams.
Mr. Khuzami said: “Michelle Morton, CEO of Atlantic Asset Management, purchased tribal bonds for the accounts of her clients knowing they were issued under false pretenses and of little or no value to clients. Today, Morton admitted to shirking her fiduciary responsibility to her financial clients for her own personal gain, and she now faces a serious term of imprisonment.”
According to the allegations contained in the Superseding Indictment filed against MORTON and her co-conspirators and statements made in related court filings and proceedings[1]:
From March 2014 through April 2016, MORTON, along with her co-conspirators Jason Galanis, John Galanis, a/k/a “Yanni,” Hugh Dunkerley, Gary Hirst, Devon Archer, and Bevan Cooney, engaged in a fraudulent scheme to misappropriate the proceeds of bonds issued by the Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation (“WLCC”), a Native American tribal entity (the “Tribal Bonds”), and to use funds in the accounts of clients of asset management firms controlled by MORTON and others to purchase the Tribal Bonds, which the clients were then unable to redeem or sell because the bonds were illiquid and lacked a ready secondary market.
The WLCC was convinced to issue the Tribal Bonds through false and fraudulent representations by John Galanis. Once the Tribal Bonds were issued, MORTON and Hirst used funds belonging to clients of two related investment advisers, Hughes Capital Management, Inc. (“Hughes”), and Atlantic Asset Management, LLC (“Atlantic”) – where MORTON served as chief executive officer – to purchase the Tribal Bonds, even though MORTON was well aware that material facts about the Tribal Bonds had been withheld from clients in whose accounts they were placed, including the fact that the Tribal Bond purchases fell outside the investment parameters set forth in the investment advisory contracts of certain Hughes clients and of the Atlantic pooled investment vehicle in which the Tribal Bonds were purchased. In addition, MORTON and her co-defendants failed to apprise clients of Hughes and Atlantic regarding substantial conflicts of interest with respect to the issuance and placement of the Tribal Bonds before the Tribal Bonds were purchased on these clients’ behalf.
Hughes and Atlantic clients were provided no prior notice that MORTON caused them to purchase the Tribal Bonds. When these clients learned about the purchase of the Tribal Bonds in their accounts, several of them demanded that the Tribal Bonds be sold. However, because there was no ready secondary market for the Tribal Bonds, no Tribal Bonds have been sold from any Hughes or Atlantic client accounts.
Documents governing the Tribal Bonds specified that an investment manager would invest the proceeds of the Tribal Bonds in investments that would generate annuity payments sufficient to pay interest on the Tribal Bonds and provide funds to the WLCC to be used for tribal economic development purposes. In fact, none of the proceeds of the Tribal Bonds were turned over to the investment manager specified in the closing documents. Instead, significant portions of the proceeds were misappropriated by the defendants for their personal and professional use.
Specifically, the proceeds of the Tribal Bonds were deposited into a bank account in the name of Wealth Assurance Private Client Corporation (“WAPCC”), an entity controlled by Hirst and Dunkerley. Dunkerley transferred more than $38 million from the WAPCC account to an account controlled by Jason Galanis, who then misappropriated more than $8.5 million of the proceeds for his personal use, including for expenses associated with his home, jewelry and clothing purchases, travel and entertainment, and restaurant meals.
In addition, a portion of the misappropriated proceeds were recycled and provided by Jason Galanis to entities affiliated with Archer and Cooney in order to enable Archer and Cooney to purchase subsequent Tribal Bonds issued by the WLCC. As a result of the use of recycled proceeds to purchase additional issuances of Tribal Bonds, the face amount of Tribal Bonds outstanding increased and the amount of interest payable by the WLCC increased, but the actual bond proceeds available for investment on behalf of the WLCC did not increase.
* * *
MICHELLE MORTON, 57, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; and one count of investment adviser fraud, which also which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $10,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. Sentencing before Judge Abrams has been scheduled for November 30, 2018, at 11:00 a.m.
Jason Galanis, 47, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; one count of securities fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $5,000,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; and one count of conspiracy to commit investment adviser fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. On August 11, 2017, Galanis was sentenced principally to a term of 173 months in prison.
Hugh Dunkerley, 44, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; two counts of securities fraud, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $5,000,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; one count of bankruptcy fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; and one count of falsification of records with the intent to obstruct a Government investigation, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $5,000,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense.
Gary Hirst, 65, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; one count of securities fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $5,000,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; one count of conspiracy to commit investment adviser fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; and one count of investment adviser fraud, which also which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $10,000 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 sentencings of the defendants will be determined by the judge.
Trial against the remaining defendants is scheduled to begin on May 22, 2018, before Judge Abrams.
Mr. Khuzami praised the work of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and thanked the SEC.
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 Negar Tekeei are in charge of the prosecution.
[1] As for the defendants who have not pled guilty (John Galanis, Devon Archer, and Bevan Cooney) the description of the charges set forth herein constitute only allegations.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that Dr. EMMANUEL LAMBRAKIS, a state licensed doctor, pled guilty today to writing medically unnecessary prescriptions for oxycodone. LAMBRAKIS pled guilty earlier today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein, and will be sentenced before U.S. District Court Judge William H. Pauley III at a later date.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “Dr. Emmanuel Lambrakis took a solemn oath to ‘first do no harm.’ Instead, as he admitted in federal court today, Lambrakis chose to write prescriptions for unnecessary, addictive, and possibly fatal opiates for his ‘patients.’ Today, this doctor who used his position as cover for what amounted to no more than a common drug dealing operation, faces serious prison time for his actions.”
According to allegations in a Complaint and other documents filed in federal court, as well as statements made in public court proceedings:
Oxycodone is a highly addictive, narcotic opioid that is used to treat severe and chronic pain conditions. Oxycodone prescriptions are in high demand and have significant cash value to drug dealers. In fact, oxycodone tablets can be resold on the street for thousands of dollars. For example, 30-milligram oxycodone tablets have a current street value of approximately $20 to $30 per tablet in New York City, with street prices even higher in other parts of the country. A single prescription for 120 30-milligram tablets of oxycodone can net an illicit distributor $2,400 in cash or more.
From at least approximately January 2011 until December 2016, LAMBRAKIS operated two medical clinics in Queens, New York, where LAMBRAKIS wrote numerous prescriptions for large quantities of oxycodone in exchange for cash payments. LAMBRAKIS typically charged $150 in cash for “patient visits,” and these visits often involved numerous “patients” being seen by LAMBRAKIS at the same time in the same examination room. During these “patient visits,” LAMBRAKIS would perform simple, perfunctory body manipulations (such as rotating the patient’s arm or leg) and engage in little or no conversation with the alleged “patient.” Nonetheless, LAMBRAKIS would then cause the patient to receive a prescription for a large quantity of oxycodone, most often 120 30-milligram tablets or more.
Between January 2011 and the present, LAMBRAKIS wrote thousands of oxycodone prescriptions, resulting in the distribution of more than a million oxycodone tablets, which have a street value in the tens of millions of dollars. On numerous occasions, LAMBRAKIS wrote 30 or more prescriptions for 30-milligram oxycodone pills in a single day. As a result of LAMBRAKIS’s actions, it is estimated that LAMBRAKIS collected more than $2 million in fees from his “patients.”
* * *
LAMBRAKIS, 70, of Manhattan, pled guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute oxycodone. This offense 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. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the DEA’s Tactical Diversion Squad, which is comprises agents and officers from the DEA, the NYPD, the New York State Police, Town of Orangetown Police Department, Rockland County Drug Task Force, Westchester County Police Department, and New York City Department of Investigation. He also acknowledged the assistance of the Department of Health & Human Services, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations, the New York City Human Resources Administration, and the National Insurance Crime Bureau.
The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Narcotics Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kimberly J. Ravener and Jessica K. Fender are in charge of the prosecution.
Alexander Mashinsky, Founder and Former Chief Executive Officer of Celsius, Charged with Defrauding Celsius Customers, and Mashinsky and Roni Cohen-Pavon, Former Celsius Chief Revenue Officer, Charged with Manipulating the Market for Celsius Crypto Token
Celsius Network LLC Accepts Responsibility and Pledges to Continue Cooperating
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 today the unsealing of an Indictment charging ALEXANDER MASHINSKY, the founder and former Chief Executive Officer of Celsius Network LLC and their affiliated entities (collectively, “Celsius”), with securities fraud, commodities fraud, and wire fraud for defrauding customers and misleading them about core aspects of the company he founded, including Celsius’s success, profitability, and the nature of the investments Celsius made using customer funds. MASHINSKY and RONI COHEN-PAVON, Celsius’s former Chief Revenue Officer, are further charged with conspiracy, securities fraud, market manipulation, and wire fraud for illicitly manipulating the price of CEL, Celsius’s proprietary crypto token, all while secretly selling their own CEL tokens at artificially inflated prices.
On June 12, 2022, Celsius announced it was halting all customer withdrawals from the Celsius platform, at which time hundreds of thousands of Celsius customers — many of whom were retail investors — still had approximately $4.7 billion worth of crypto assets on the Celsius platform, none of which they could access. On or about July 13, 2022, Celsius filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. MASHINSKY was arrested earlier today and will be presented this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang. COHEN-PAVON, an Israeli citizen and resident, is currently abroad. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl.
U.S. Attorney Williams also announced today that the United States has entered into a non-prosecution agreement (the “Agreement”) with Celsius pursuant to which Celsius has agreed to accept responsibility for its role in the fraudulent schemes. In entering into the Agreement, the Office considered the fact that Celsius is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings and is making efforts to maximize recovery for victims in connection with the bankruptcy, as well as the fact that Celsius dramatically improved its cooperation after the Government brought certain production failures to the attention of the Special Committee of Celsius’s Board of Directors.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “Exactly one year ago today, Celsius Network, a crypto platform that, at its height, managed approximately $25 billion in customer assets, filed for bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of New York. Over the course of the past year, we have worked quickly to get to the bottom of what led to Celsius’s collapse and to understand how a platform that advertised itself as the ‘safest place for your crypto’ could have left investors holding billions of dollars in losses. Today we have the answer. Today I am announcing the unsealing of an indictment charging Celsius’s founder and CEO, Alex Mashinsky, with orchestrating a scheme to defraud customers of Celsius through a series of false claims about the fundamental safety and security of the Celsius platform, and for participating in a scheme with Celsius’s Chief Revenue Officer, Roni Cohen-Pavon, to inflate the price of Celsius’s proprietary token, CEL. This case, like the others my Office has recently announced alleging fraud in the crypto economy, may appear complicated. But the message we send today is quite simple: if you rip off ordinary investors to line your own pockets, we will hold you accountable. Whether it’s old-school fraud or some new-school crypto scheme, it doesn’t matter one bit. It’s all fraud to us. And we’ll be here to catch it.”
FBI Acting Assistant Director in Charge Christie M. Curtis said: “As alleged in the indictment, Mashinsky and Cohen-Pavon knowingly engaged in complex financial schemes – deliberately misrepresenting the company’s business model and criminally manipulating the value of Celsius’s proprietary crypto token CEL – while serving in leadership roles at Celsius. The FBI will continue to ensure that anyone committing fraud and deceiving the public through the misrepresentations of a business’s financial standing or practice is held accountable.
According to the allegations in the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court and the stipulated facts in the Agreement:[1]
Celsius was a crypto asset platform that, among other things, allowed its customers to earn returns on their crypto assets in the form of weekly “rewards” payments, to take loans secured by their crypto assets, and to custody their crypto assets. Celsius billed itself as the “safest place for your crypto” and urged potential customers to “unbank” themselves by moving their crypto assets to Celsius. Celsius’s primary public offering was its “Earn” program, through which Celsius offered to deploy customers’ crypto assets to generate investment returns. In addition to its Earn program, Celsius offered retail investors a “Custody” program and a “Borrow” program, which allowed customers to receive retail loans in exchange for posting their crypto assets as collateral with Celsius.
MASHINSKY directly marketed Celsius to retail customers located in the United States and abroad. Throughout his tenure as CEO of Celsius, MASHINSKY repeatedly made public misrepresentations regarding core aspects of Celsius’s business and financial condition in order to induce retail customers to provide their crypto assets to Celsius and continue to use Celsius’s services. MASHINSKY misrepresented, among other things, the safety of Celsius’s yield-generating activities, Celsius’s profitability, the long-term sustainability of Celsius’s high rewards rates, and the risks associated with depositing crypto assets with Celsius.
As MASHINSKY falsely portrayed Celsius as a safe and secure institution, Celsius’s customer base grew exponentially. Many of those customers were retail investors rather than large institutions. By in or about the fall of 2021, Celsius had grown to become one of the largest crypto platforms in the world, purportedly holding approximately $25 billion in assets at its peak.
MASHINSKY, COHEN-PAVON, and others working at Celsius also orchestrated a yearslong scheme to mislead customers and market participants regarding the market value and interest in Celsius’s proprietary crypto token CEL. They did so by manipulating the price of CEL through causing Celsius to spend hundreds of millions of dollars purchasing CEL in the open market with the objective of artificially supporting and inflating the price of CEL. At various times during MASHINSKY’s tenure, MASHINSKY, COHEN-PAVON, and their co-conspirators also caused Celsius to use its own customer deposits to fund these market purchases of CEL in order to prop up CEL’s price, without disclosing this fact to Celsius’s customers.
Without Celsius’s aggressive and illegal price manipulation, the price of CEL would have been drastically lower. As COHEN-PAVON wrote to MASHINSKY in a private message exchanged during the scheme: “[T]he issue is that people are selling [CEL] and no one is buying except for us,” adding, “[t]he main problem was that the value was fake and was based on us spending millions (~8M a week and even more until February 2020) just to keep it where it is.”
To further the scheme to manipulate CEL, MASHINSKY also repeatedly made false and misleading public statements concerning the nature of Celsius’s market activity and the extent to which Celsius itself was responsible for artificially supporting and inflating the price of CEL. In certain instances, MASHINSKY and other Celsius executives also personally purchased CEL for the purpose of artificially supporting CEL’s price.
Artificially inflating the price of CEL allowed MASHINSKY, COHEN-PAVON, and other Celsius executives to sell their own CEL holdings for a substantial profit. MASHINSKY personally reaped approximately $42 million in proceeds from his sales of CEL, and COHEN-PAVON personally reaped at least $3.6 million in proceeds from his sales of CEL. At various times, MASHINSKY made false and misleading public statements about his own sales of CEL, claiming that he was not selling CEL, when, in reality, he was taking advantage of the upward price manipulation he had orchestrated by contemporaneously selling huge quantities of his CEL on the market, including, on occasion, to Celsius itself.
In the lead up to the June 12, 2022, “Pause” of Celsius customer withdrawals, MASHINSKY continued to assure Celsius customers that Celsius was in a strong financial position and had sufficient liquidity to meet all customer withdrawal demands. Even as he made these statements, however, MASHINSKY had removed approximately $8 million worth of his own non-CEL crypto assets from the Celsius platform.
* * *
A chart containing the names, ages, residences, charges, and maximum penalties for the individual defendants is below. 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. Williams praised the outstanding work of the FBI. Mr. Williams further thanked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, each of which today filed parallel civil actions against MASHINSKY.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Adam Hobson, Allison Nichols, and Noah Solowiejczyk 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.
Defendant
Age
Residence
Charges
Maximum Potential Sentences
MASHINSKY
57
New York, New York
Securities fraud
(Count One)
Commodities fraud
(Count Two)
Wire fraud
(Count Three)
Conspiracy to commit securities fraud, market manipulation, and wire fraud
(Count Four)
Securities fraud
(Count Five)
Market manipulation
(Count Six)
Wire fraud
(Count Seven)
20 years
10 years
20 years
Five years
20 years
20 years
20 years
COHEN-PAVON
36
Israel
Conspiracy to commit securities fraud, market manipulation, and wire fraud
(Count Four)
Securities fraud
(Count Five)
Market manipulation
(Count Six)
Wire fraud
(Count Seven)
Five years
20 years
20 years
20 years
[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.
Joon H. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that SCOTT TUCKER and TIMOTHY MUIR were convicted after a five-week jury trial on all fourteen counts against them, for operating a nationwide internet payday lending enterprise that systematically evaded state laws in order to charge illegal interest rates as high as 1000% on loans.
Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim stated: “As a unanimous jury found today, Scott Tucker and Timothy Muir targeted and exploited millions of struggling, everyday Americans by charging them illegally high interest rates on payday loans, as much as 700 percent. Tucker and Muir sought to get away with their crimes by claiming that this $3.5 billion business was actually owned and operated by Native American tribes. But that was a lie. The jury saw through Tucker and Muir’s lies and saw their business for what it was – an illegal and predatory scheme to take callous advantage of vulnerable workers living from paycheck to paycheck.”
According to the allegations contained in the Superseding Indictment, and evidence presented at trial:
The Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Crimes
From at least 1997 until 2013, TUCKER engaged in the business of making small, short-term, high-interest, unsecured loans, commonly referred to as “payday loans,” through the Internet. TUCKER’s lending enterprise, which had up to 1,500 employees based in Overland Park, Kansas, did business as Ameriloan, f/k/a Cash Advance; OneClickCash, f/k/a Preferred Cash Loans; United Cash Loans; US FastCash; 500 FastCash; Advantage Cash Services; and Star Cash Processing (the “Tucker Payday Lenders”). TUCKER, working with MUIR, the general counsel for TUCKER’s payday lending businesses since 2006, routinely charged interest rates of 600% or 700%, and sometimes higher than 1,000%. These loans were issued to more than 4.5 million working people in all fifty states, including more than 250,000 people in New York, many of whom were struggling to pay basic living expenses. Many of these loans were issued in states, including New York, with laws that expressly forbid lending at the exorbitant interest rates TUCKER charged. Evidence at trial established that TUCKER and MUIR were fully aware of the illegal nature of the loans charged and in fact prepared scripts to be used by call center employees to deal with complaints by customers that their loans were illegal.
Fraudulent Loan Disclosures
The Truth-in-Lending Act (“TILA”) is a federal statute intended to ensure that credit terms are disclosed to consumers in a clear and meaningful way, both to protect customers against inaccurate and unfair credit practices, and to enable them to compare credit terms readily and knowledgeably. Among other things, TILA and its implementing regulations require lenders, including payday lenders like the Tucker Payday Lenders, to accurately, clearly, and conspicuously disclose, before any credit is extended, the finance charge, the annual percentage rate, and the total of payments that reflect the legal obligation between the parties to the loan.
The Tucker Payday Lenders purported to inform prospective borrowers, in clear and simple terms, as required by TILA, of the cost of the loan (the “TILA Box”). For example, for a loan of $500, the TILA Box provided that the “finance charge – meaning the “dollar amount the credit will cost you” – would be $150, and that the “total of payments” would be $650. Thus, in substance, the TILA Box stated that a $500 loan to the customer would cost $650 to repay. While the amounts set forth in the Tucker Payday Lenders’ TILA Box varied according to the terms of particular customers’ loans, they reflected, in substance, that the borrower would pay $30 in interest for every $100 borrowed.
In fact, through at least 2012, TUCKER and MUIR structured the repayment schedule of the loans such that, on the borrower’s payday, the Tucker Payday Lenders automatically withdrew the entire interest payment due on the loan, but left the principal balance untouched so that, on the borrower’s next payday, the Tucker Payday Lenders could again automatically withdraw an amount equaling the entire interest payment due (and already paid) on the loan. With TUCKER and MUIR’s approval, the Tucker Payday Lenders proceeded automatically to withdraw such “finance charges” payday after payday (typically every two weeks), applying none of the money toward repayment of principal, until at least the fifth payday, when they began to withdraw an additional $50 per payday to apply to the principal balance of the loan. Even then, the Tucker Payday Lenders continued to assess and automatically withdraw the entire interest payment calculated on the remaining principal balance until the entire principal amount was repaid. Accordingly, as TUCKER and MUIR well knew, the Tucker Payday Lenders’ TILA box materially understated the amount the loan would cost, including the total of payments that would be taken from the borrower’s bank account. Specifically, for a customer who borrowed $500, contrary to the TILA Box disclosure stating that the total payment by the borrower would be $650, in fact, and as TUCKER and MUIR well knew, the finance charge was $1,425, for a total payment of $1,925 by the borrower.
The Sham Tribal Ownership of the Business
In response to complaints that the Tucker Payday Lenders were extending abusive loans in violation of their usury laws, several states began to investigate the Tucker Payday Lenders. To thwart these state actions, TUCKER devised a scheme to claim that his lending businesses were protected by sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that, among other things, generally prevents states from enforcing their laws against Native American tribes. Beginning in 2003, TUCKER entered into agreements with several Native American tribes (the “Tribes”), including the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, and the Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma. The purpose of these agreements was to cause the Tribes to claim they owned and operated parts of TUCKER’s payday lending enterprise, so that when states sought to enforce laws prohibiting TUCKER’s loans, TUCKER’s lending businesses would claim to be protected by sovereign immunity. In return, the Tribes received payments from TUCKER, typically one percent of the revenues from the portion of TUCKER’s payday lending business that the Tribes purported to own.
In order to create the illusion that the Tribes owned and controlled TUCKER’s payday lending business, TUCKER and MUIR engaged in a series of lies and deceptions. Among other things:
MUIR and other counsel for TUCKER prepared false factual declarations from tribal representatives that were submitted to state courts, falsely claiming, among other things, that tribal corporations substantively owned, controlled, and managed the portions of TUCKER’s business targeted by state enforcement actions.
TUCKER opened bank accounts to operate and receive the profits of the payday lending enterprise, which were nominally held by tribally owned corporations, but which were, in fact, owned and controlled by TUCKER. TUCKER received over $380 million from these accounts on lavish personal expenses, some of which was spent on a fleet of Ferraris and Porsches, the expenses of a professional auto racing team, a private jet, a luxury home in Aspen, Colorado, and his personal taxes.
Employees of TUCKER making payday loans over the phone told borrowers, using scripts directed and approved by TUCKER and MUIR, that they were operating in Oklahoma and Nebraska, where the Tribes were located, when in fact they were operating at TUCKER’s corporate headquarters in Kansas in order to deceive borrowers into believing that they were dealing with Native American tribes.
These deceptions succeeded for a time, and several state courts dismissed enforcement actions against TUCKER’s payday lending businesses based on claims that they were protected by sovereign immunity. In reality, the Tribes neither owned nor operated any part of TUCKER’s payday lending business. The Tribes made no payment to TUCKER to acquire the portions of the business they purported to own. TUCKER continued to operate his lending business from a corporate headquarters in Kansas, and TUCKER continued to reap the profits of the payday lending businesses, which generated over $3.5 billion in revenue from just 2008 to June 2013 – in substantial part by charging struggling borrowers high interest rates expressly forbidden by state laws.
* * *
TUCKER, 55, and MUIR, 46, were convicted in all 14 counts in the Indictment, including one count of conspiring to commit racketeering through the collection of unlawful debt, three counts of participating in a racketeering enterprise through the collection of unlawful debt, one count of conspiring to commit wire fraud, one count of wire fraud, one count of conspiring to commit money laundering, two counts of money laundering, and five counts of violating TILA.
Mr. Kim praised the outstanding investigative work of the St. Louis Field Office of the IRS-CI. Mr. Kim also thanked the Criminal Investigators at the United States Attorney’s Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Trade Commission for their assistance with the case.
If you believe you were a victim of this crime, including a victim entitled to restitution, and you wish to provide information to law enforcement and/or receive notice of future developments in the case or additional information, please contact the Victim/Witness Unit at the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, at (866) 874-8900. For additional information, go to:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nys/victimwitness.html.
The prosecution is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Niketh Velamoor, Hagan Scotten, and Sagar Ravi are in charge of the prosecution.
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that ERIN VERESPY was sentenced to 66 months in prison for her participation in a widespread, $33 million scheme to misappropriate client healthcare funds and defraud multiple lenders through her role as the Chief Financial Officer of Employee Benefit Solutions LLC (“EBS”), an insurance firm located in Wilton, Connecticut. VERESPY previously pled guilty before U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel, who imposed today’s sentence.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “For nearly two years, Erin Verespy helped manage a sophisticated, widespread scheme to steal millions of dollars of client healthcare funds, including with false and inflated invoices. As part of that scheme, Verespy also defrauded lenders out of millions. In doing so, she abused a position of trust as a fiduciary of client money that was meant to pay for important healthcare expenses. Thanks to the coordinated and tireless efforts of our law enforcement partners to untangle this fraud, Verespy will now serve a significant sentence in federal prison.”
According to the Information, the Complaint, other court filings, and statements made during court proceedings:
From at least July 2017 and continuing through 2019, ERIN VERESPY served as the CFO of EBS, which offered a variety of healthcare insurance-related services to clients. EBS, among other things, provided third party healthcare claims administration (“TPA”) services to clients that elected to “self-fund” (or self-insure) their employee healthcare plans. As a TPA, EBS would purportedly administer, process, and pay healthcare claims for its clients’ employees in exchange for an administrative fee.
Between at least 2015 and continuing through 2019, EBS represented an automobile dealership chain (“Company-1”) headquartered in Westchester County, New York. During this time period, EBS served as a TPA for Company-1’s self-funded employee healthcare program and purported to process and pay claims to medical providers that treated Company-1’s employees. To do this, EBS generated bimonthly “check register” invoices for Company-1 that listed all employee healthcare expenses from healthcare providers during that two-week period. EBS also administered a bank account on Company-1’s behalf for the express purpose of paying Company-1 healthcare claims. Company-1 would fund each check register by paying the invoiced amount, expecting that EBS would promptly pay the claims to the healthcare providers. During this time period, Company-1 transferred approximately $26 million to EBS for the payment of healthcare claims.
In reality, a significant amount of purported checks listed on the EBS “check register” invoices were never actually deposited by the healthcare providers. Instead, approximately $17.87 million in Company-1 healthcare payments were misappropriated, with the overwhelming majority simply transferred by EBS into its own operating account, where they were used for non-healthcare expenses by the managers and owners of EBS. For example, a review of bank records indicates that Company-1 healthcare funds were used by VERESPY’s co-conspirators to pay their home mortgage expenses, as well as a personal credit card account with expenses relating to boating, luxury cars, and golf. VERESPY personally made over one million dollars from her participation in the fraudulent scheme.
EBS, through VERESPY and her co-conspirators, made decisions on what few Company-1 healthcare claims they did pay based on which healthcare providers were likely to complain if they did not receive payment, or if the claims were connected to Company-1 executives. VERESPY, for example, discussed the timing of payments for Company-1 “VIPs” as well as a “Not VIP” claim that was nonetheless the subject of complaining phone calls.
The “check registers” sent to Company-1 also contained millions of dollars in fraudulent or inflated healthcare claims that were eventually paid by Company-1. EBS routinely inflated the Company-1 check registers at the direction of VERESPY and her co-conspirators. Such efforts were typically accomplished through VERESPY and her co-conspirators instructing others to manually create fraudulent entries in the EBS claims processing software, including fake claims under the name of a business controlled by VERESPY’s co-conspirators. VERESPY and her co-conspirators also took steps to conceal their fraud from Company-1 by creating and sending manipulated and fabricated bank statements and checks to create the appearance that healthcare claims were being paid by EBS, when in reality they were not.
By mid-2017, as EBS buckled under mounting outstanding fiduciary obligations, VERESPY and her co-conspirators began an elaborate effort to conceal and perpetuate the ongoing fraud on Company-1 by applying for multiple fraudulent bank loans and merchant cash advances designed in part to pay various fiduciary obligations that EBS owed to Company-1. VERESPY and her co-conspirators fraudulently applied for and received millions of dollars in loans under the auspices of financing the purchase of upgraded billing software for EBS, which included VERESPY and her co-conspirators submitting fabricated invoices from a fake company that supposedly sold the billing software.
In addition to the prison term, ERIN VERESPY, 50, of Trumbull, Connecticut, was sentenced to 5 years of supervised release. The Court also ordered VERESPY to pay $16,053,508.19 in restitution and forfeit $1,066,038.02. On April 14, 2021, VERESPY pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349.
Mr. Williams praised the outstanding investigative work of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office. Mr. Williams also thanked the U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General; and the United States Secret Service, which are assisting in the investigation, as well as the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut.
The prosecution is being handled by the Office’s White Plains Division. Assistant United States Attorney Nicholas S. Bradley is in charge of the prosecution.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and William F. Sweeney Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced today the unsealing of a criminal Complaint charging WILLIAM McFARLAND with wire fraud and money laundering, in connection with conducting a sham ticket scheme in which he purported to sell fraudulent tickets to exclusive fashion, music, and sporting events through NYC VIP Access, a company controlled by McFARLAND, and also caused the fraud proceeds to be sent to others’ financial accounts in an effort to conceal his ownership and control of the funds. McFARLAND is expected to be presented before U.S. Magistrate Gabriel W. Gorenstein today.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman said: “William McFarland, already awaiting sentencing for a prior fraud scheme, allegedly continued to conduct criminal business as usual, selling nonexistent tickets to fashion, music, and sporting events. As alleged, McFarland’s purported exclusive event ticket company, NYC VIP Access, in fact had no access to events for which he sold bogus tickets. Now McFarland faces criminal charges on top of those to which he already pled guilty.”
FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. said: “In March of 2018, William McFarland pled guilty to defrauding investors and vendors of the Fyre Festival, but it is apparent that he did not stop there. McFarland allegedly went on to sell fraudulent tickets to many grand events, totaling almost $100,000. Today’s charges depict our intolerance for such fraudulent activity, and we will continue to diligently investigate acts such as this.”
According to the allegations in the Complaint[1] unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:
On March 6, 2018, McFARLAND pled guilty before United States District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald to one count of wire fraud in connection with a scheme to defraud over 80 investors in Fyre Media and Fyre Festival LLC of over $24 million in losses, and one count of wire fraud with a scheme to defraud a ticket vendor for the Fyre Festival of $2 million in losses. United States v. William McFarland, 17 Cr. 600 (NRB). McFARLAND has been on pretrial release since July 1, 2017, and is currently awaiting sentencing in that case.
From at least in or about late 2017, up to and including at least in or about March 2018, McFARLAND owned NYC VIP Access, a company based in New York, New York, that purported to be in the business of obtaining and selling for profit tickets to various exclusive events including fashion galas, music festivals, and sporting events. NYC VIP Access purported to sell tickets to the following events, among others: the 2018 Met Gala, Burning Man 2018, Coachella 2018, the 2018 Grammy Awards, Super Bowl LII, and a Cleveland Cavaliers game and team dinner with Lebron James. McFARLAND, while on pretrial release, perpetrated a scheme to defraud attendees of the Fyre Festival and others by soliciting them to purchase tickets from NYC VIP Access to exclusive events when, in fact, no such tickets existed.
McFARLAND took steps to make NYC VIP Access appear as it if were controlled and operated by other individuals. In soliciting ticket sales, McFARLAND used an email account in the name of a then-employee (“Employee-1”) in order to hide his affiliation with NYC VIP Access. McFARLAND provided prospective customers with contracts that falsely represented that NYC VIP Access had tickets to exclusive events in fashion, music, and sports. In order to distance himself from the operation, McFARLAND directed that Employee-1 sign the contracts between NYC VIP Access and the customers. After McFARLAND induced customers to wire money for tickets, McFARLAND either did not provide tickets at all, or did not provide tickets as advertised. McFARLAND charged at least approximately $100,000 in fraudulent tickets to at least approximately 15 customer-victims. McFARLAND instructed and caused ticket sale proceeds to be sent to a bank account belonging to Employee-1, to which McFARLAND had access and control, or a mobile payment service account belonging to another employee (“Employee-2”), for the purpose of concealing his ownership and control of the funds.
* * *
McFARLAND, 26, of New York, New York, is charged with one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and one count of money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence 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.
Mr. Berman praised the investigative work of the FBI’s New York Field Office.
The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Assistant United State Attorney Kristy J. Greenberg 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 phase 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.
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 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
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 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
Joon H. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that there is insufficient evidence to pursue federal criminal charges in connection with the fatal shooting of Kenneth Chamberlain. Mr. Chamberlain was killed during an encounter with police officers from the White Plains Police Department (“WPPD”) on November 19, 2011. Mr. Chamberlain was 68 years old at the time.
Our Office opened an investigation following the decision by a New York State grand jury not to indict any of the officers involved. On November 17, 2016, a federal jury in a civil case filed by Mr. Chamberlain’s family concluded that the City of White Plains and the officer who shot Mr. Chamberlain were not liable for the death of Mr. Chamberlain. After conducting a thorough and independent investigation, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has determined that there is insufficient evidence to meet the high burden of proof required for a federal criminal civil rights prosecution. To prove a violation of the federal criminal civil rights statute, prosecutors must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a law enforcement officer willfully deprived an individual of a constitutional right, meaning that the officer acted with the deliberate and specific intent to do something the law forbids. This is the highest standard of intent imposed by law, and is different from and higher than the intent standard under relevant state statutes. Accident, mistake, fear, negligence, or bad judgment is not sufficient to establish a federal criminal civil rights violation.
The evidence from the investigation reveals the following: At approximately 5:00 a.m. on November 19, 2011, a medical alert company, Life Aid, received an alert from the console in Mr. Chamberlain’s apartment in the Winbrook Houses complex on South Lexington Avenue in White Plains. In response to the alert, a Life Aid operator called the console and asked if Mr. Chamberlain needed medical assistance. Receiving no response, the operator then called the WPPD and informed the dispatcher that she had received a medical alert from Mr. Chamberlain’s apartment and that Mr. Chamberlain had not responded to her call. An ambulance and a police officer were dispatched to the scene. The WPPD dispatcher also ran a computer check on Mr. Chamberlain and his address, and learned that there had previously been calls from that address that had been described as involving a person who was potentially emotionally disturbed. Based on that information, the dispatcher sent two additional police officers, including Sergeant Keith Martin, to the building as back-up and informed them of the possibility of encountering an emotionally disturbed person. Upon arriving at Mr. Chamberlain’s apartment, the officers banged on the door and asked to be admitted to confirm he did not need assistance, but Mr. Chamberlain refused to allow the officers to enter the apartment. The officers called for additional back-up, and four additional officers were dispatched to the apartment with tactical gear, including Police Officers Anthony Carelli and Steven Hart, and Sergeant Stephen Fottrell. Officers Carelli and Hart were part of the Neighborhood Conditions Unit, a tactical unit of the WPPD assigned to patrol the Winbrook Houses, and were able to obtain a master key to the apartment. The officers used the key to open the door to the apartment, but were only able to open the door a few inches because Mr. Chamberlain had engaged a safety lock on the door.
At approximately 5:25 a.m., Life Aid received a second call from Mr. Chamberlain, who stated, “I have the White Plains Police Department banging on my door and I did not call them, and I am not sick.” Life Aid attempted to cancel the dispatch, but the WPPD dispatcher informed Life Aid that the police officers needed to enter the apartment to make sure Mr. Chamberlain was not in distress. The Life Aid operator stayed on the line for approximately 40 minutes while also attempting to contact Mr. Chamberlain’s sister. Because Life Aid records its calls, there are audio recordings of Mr. Chamberlain’s conversations with the police officers from 5:25 a.m. until approximately 6:08 a.m., when the Life Aid call ended in order to allow Mr. Chamberlain’s sister to call the home phone. During that time period, the recordings captured the near constant communications between the police officers trying to enter the apartment and Mr. Chamberlain, who refused to open the door. For example, the recordings show that the officers at the door repeatedly told Mr. Chamberlain that they could not leave until they could see him and make sure he was “okay,” and Mr. Chamberlain responded that he was “okay” and “fine,” but also cursed at the officers, and at one point said he would “kill” whoever came through the door.
Between 5:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., the police officers worked with various tools to pry open the apartment door. While they were trying to open the door, Mr. Chamberlain poked a kitchen knife through the door opening. Officer Carelli grabbed the knife with bolt cutters and tossed it out of reach. While the officers were trying to open the door, Life Aid was able to reach Mr. Chamberlain’s sister, who spoke to Officer Carelli on a cell phone. As captured on the Life Aid recording, Mr. Chamberlain’s sister informed Officer Carelli that Mr. Chamberlain had a “mental problem,” and Officer Carelli responded that the officers wanted to enter the apartment to make sure Mr. Chamberlain was “okay.” The recording also indicates that as the officers continued to try to open the door, Mr. Chamberlain became increasingly agitated; he at times threatened the officers; and he told the Life Aid operator that he had a weapon. Throughout this time period, the officers continued to explain that they were not there to hurt him, but just wanted to see him to make sure he was fine before they could leave. While one of the officers was alleged to have used a racial slur in communicating with Mr. Chamberlain, that officer was not involved in the shooting, and none of the other officers present heard the use of such a slur.
At some point between 6:13 a.m. and 6:29 a.m., one of the officers kicked the apartment door open. At the time this occurred, Sergeant Fottrell had turned on his Taser, which automatically activated the video recording device on the Taser. As seen on the video recorded by Sergeant Fottrell’s Taser, Mr. Chamberlain was standing about six to seven feet from the doorway when the door was opened and there appeared to be an object in his right hand. According to all four officers who entered the apartment, the object in Mr. Chamberlain’s right hand was a knife. The Taser also recorded Sergeant Fottrell instructing Mr. Chamberlain to “put the knife down” and Mr. Chamberlain responding “shoot me, come on motherfucker, shoot me.” Sergeant Fottrell deployed his Taser twice from the hallway. After the second Taser was deployed, the Taser automatically ceased recording. The Tasers failed to incapacitate Mr. Chamberlain, as only one of the two barbs fired from the weapon connected with Mr. Chamberlain’s body. After the Tasers were deployed, one of the officers fired non-lethal beanbag ammunition rounds, striking Mr. Chamberlain in his chest and thigh. The non-lethal rounds did not incapacitate Mr. Chamberlain and he started to advance toward Sergeant Martin with the knife. At that point, Officer Carelli shot his pistol twice from inside the doorway. One of the bullets shot by Officer Carelli hit Mr. Chamberlain and fatally wounded him. Once Mr. Chamberlain fell to the ground, Officer Steven Demchuk used his baton to strike Mr. Chamberlain’s wrist to make him drop the knife. The autopsy report indicates that Mr. Chamberlain’s death was caused by the bullet shot by Officer Carelli.
In the context of this case, to establish a violation of federal law, the Department of Justice would be required to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the time of the shooting, Officer Carelli lacked probable cause to believe that Mr. Chamberlain posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to others, and that Officer Carelli willfully deprived Mr. Chamberlain of his right to be free from excessive force. The weight of the evidence indicates that, at the time the shooting took place, the WPPD officers believed that Mr. Chamberlain was threatening Sergeant Martin with a knife and that Officer Carelli believed that Sergeant Martin was in danger of being seriously injured by Mr. Chamberlain.
The investigation revealed no evidence to refute Officer Carelli’s testimony that he shot Mr. Chamberlain in response to his belief that Sergeant Martin was in danger of being seriously physically injured by Mr. Chamberlain. The statements of the other officers present corroborate Officer Carelli’s account – namely, that Mr. Chamberlain had a knife and that he advanced toward Sergeant Martin with that knife before Officer Carelli shot his pistol. There is no physical or other evidence that contradicts these accounts, nor is there any video of the shooting itself, as the Taser video stopped recording after the Tasers were deployed. Accordingly, the Department of Justice cannot conclude or prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a federal criminal civil rights violation.
Accordingly, this Office’s investigation into Mr. Chamberlain’s death has been closed.
This Office analyzed these issues under the standard applicable to criminal cases, which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Office expresses no view regarding any claims made against any party under the standard applicable to civil cases, which is proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
Mr. Kim expressed his deep sympathy to the family of Mr. Chamberlain for their tragic loss.
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Lisa F. Garcia, the Regional Administrator for Region 2 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), announced today that the United States has filed a civil lawsuit against THOMAS PUSHKAL, JENNIFER VANOVER, EDWARD PUSHKAL, FRANCES PUSHKAL, and MAPLEWOOD WARMBLOODS, LLC (collectively, the “defendants”) for allegedly filling wetlands in Orange County protected by the federal Clean Water Act. The Complaint asks the Court to award injunctive relief and civil penalties for the violations.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “As alleged, the defendants violated the Clean Water Act by discharging concrete, metal, glass, and other fill material into wetlands that are part of the waters of the United States. This lawsuit will hold the defendants accountable for allegedly violating our environmental laws and require them to remedy the alleged significant damage they have caused to protected wetlands.”
EPA Regional Administrator Lisa F. Garcia said: “Wetlands serve a vital role in decreasing water pollution, providing habitat for fish and wildlife, and reducing risks from flooding and storm surges. Unlawful and unmitigated dredging and filling activities can destroy wetlands. EPA will continue to protect these vulnerable ecosystems and fight for the health of wetlands by enforcing the law under the Clean Water Act.”
As alleged in the Complaint filed today in White Plains federal court:[1]
From 2015 to 2019, defendants THOMAS PUSHKAL, JENNIFER VANOVER, and their business MAPLEWOOD WARMBLOODS, LLC discharged fill material without a federal permit into approximately 3.5 acres of wetlands, in areas referred to in the Complaint as the Bart Bull Road Site and the Expansion Site. These discharges were made in the course of operating and expanding their horse breeding, boarding, and training facility in the Town of Wallkill, Orange County.
Specifically, from in or about June 2015 to March 2016, these defendants directed or permitted construction and demolition material to be trucked in and deposited at the Bart Bull Road Site and directed or permitted the use of heavy machinery to spread the fill material to level and raise the grade of the property.
At the end of November 2018, EPA learned of the potential development activity at the Expansion Site and, in December 2018, cautioned defendant THOMAS PUSHKAL by phone that if he was filling protected wetlands on any additional properties, he would need a federal permit.
Nonetheless, beginning in or about December 2018 and continuing to April 2019, without a permit, these defendants used dump trucks and other heavy machinery to engage in extensive earthmoving, grading, and filling activities to construct private access roads through the Expansion Site. The construction of these roads caused fill to be discharged into 1.5 acres of wetlands at the Expansion Site. Some wetlands filled at the Expansion Site are on property owned by defendants EDWARD PUSHKAL and FRANCES PUSHKAL, who, at a minimum, knew or should have known of, but failed to exercise their authority to prevent, the discharges.
The wetlands that are the subject of the Complaint are adjacent to the Wallkill River, a traditional navigable water. The fill material discharged into the wetlands included, among other things, dirt, rock, brick, wood, electrical wiring, ceramic, asphalt, concrete, rebar, PVC piping, metal, and glass.
* * *
This case is being handled by the Office’s Environmental Protection Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Zachary Bannon and Alyssa O’Gallagher are in charge of the case.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint and the description of the Complaint set forth herein constitution 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, announced today that JOHN PIERRE DUPONT, a/k/a “John Gary Rinaldo,” was arrested this morning and charged with wire fraud and aggravated identity theft for his role in a years-long, nationwide scheme to defraud thousands of donors who believed they were donating to political action committees and political campaigns. The defendant is expected to be presented this afternoon in the District Court of Arizona.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, John Pierre Dupont operated multiple fake political action committees and falsely claimed to be raising money to support more than a dozen campaigns. Thousands of donors believed their hard-earned money was being used to support the causes described in solicitations, but in reality, the scam PACs had no operations beyond the fundraising itself, and no funds were used to support candidates. My Office will continue to ensure that fraudulent fundraising does not pay – indeed, will result in criminal prosecution – by rooting out scam PACs wherever we find them.”
According to the Complaint[1] unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:
From at least in or about 2015 up to and including the present, JOHN PIERRE DUPONT defrauded thousands of donors who believed they were donating to three political action committees established by DUPONT (the “Scam PACs”),[2] or to campaigns the Scam PACs falsely claimed to support. DUPONT’s scheme resulted in more than $250,000 being donated through websites he controlled and operated, all of which was retained by DUPONT, both to enrich himself personally and to perpetuate the alleged crime.
The websites purported to be raising money in support of Democratic congressional and senate campaigns generally, as well as approximately 10 particular Senate candidates, a candidate for governor, and a candidate for president. None of the money raised went either to those campaigns or to support those candidates whatsoever. Another website operated by DUPONT purported to be raising money “to unite immigrant families” and provide services in connection with certain immigration policies. In particular, the Foundation for Sanity in Politics PAC website claimed that donations would “go to help pay our volunteer attorneys’, doctors’, nurses’ and social workers’ costs and pay for transportation to unite immigrant families.” In fact, that PAC had no volunteers, and dedicated no funds to paying for doctors, social workers, or any other professionals, advocacy, or political operations.
The scheme targeted victims across the country, raising funds on the basis of fraudulent representations that the donations would support the relevant causes, candidates, and campaigns. Instead, virtually all of the money raised was paid to DUPONT or used to perpetuate the fraud through additional fundraising and overhead expenditures. None of the money donated to the Scam PACs was spent on political contributions during the relevant time period, and DUPONT failed to report the donations, as required, in filings with the Federal Election Commission.
Donations collected by DUPONT during the relevant period totaled more than $250,000, none of which went to campaigns or support for any candidate or cause.
* * *
JOHN PIERRE DUPONT, 80, is charged with one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and aggravated identity theft, which carries a mandatory two years in prison consecutive to any other sentence imposed.
The statutory maximum and mandatory penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencings of the defendants would be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
If you think you are a victim of the scheme alleged in this press release, please contact Wendy Olsen, Victim & Witness Services for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, at 866-874-8900.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alex Rossmiller and Ryan Finkel are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint constitutes only allegations, and every fact described herein should be treated as an allegation.
[2] Businessmen for a Businessman President PAC, Foundation for Sanity in Politics PAC, and Democrats for Congress PAC.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that JOHN PIERRE DUPONT, a/k/a “John Gary Rinaldo,” was arrested this morning and charged with wire fraud and aggravated identity theft for his role in a years-long, nationwide scheme to defraud thousands of donors who believed they were donating to political action committees and political campaigns. The defendant is expected to be presented this afternoon in the District Court of Arizona.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, John Pierre Dupont operated multiple fake political action committees and falsely claimed to be raising money to support more than a dozen campaigns. Thousands of donors believed their hard-earned money was being used to support the causes described in solicitations, but in reality, the scam PACs had no operations beyond the fundraising itself, and no funds were used to support candidates. My Office will continue to ensure that fraudulent fundraising does not pay – indeed, will result in criminal prosecution – by rooting out scam PACs wherever we find them.”
According to the Complaint[1] unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:
From at least in or about 2015 up to and including the present, JOHN PIERRE DUPONT defrauded thousands of donors who believed they were donating to three political action committees established by DUPONT (the “Scam PACs”),[2] or to campaigns the Scam PACs falsely claimed to support. DUPONT’s scheme resulted in more than $250,000 being donated through websites he controlled and operated, all of which was retained by DUPONT, both to enrich himself personally and to perpetuate the alleged crime.
The websites purported to be raising money in support of Democratic congressional and senate campaigns generally, as well as approximately 10 particular Senate candidates, a candidate for governor, and a candidate for president. None of the money raised went either to those campaigns or to support those candidates whatsoever. Another website operated by DUPONT purported to be raising money “to unite immigrant families” and provide services in connection with certain immigration policies. In particular, the Foundation for Sanity in Politics PAC website claimed that donations would “go to help pay our volunteer attorneys’, doctors’, nurses’ and social workers’ costs and pay for transportation to unite immigrant families.” In fact, that PAC had no volunteers, and dedicated no funds to paying for doctors, social workers, or any other professionals, advocacy, or political operations.
The scheme targeted victims across the country, raising funds on the basis of fraudulent representations that the donations would support the relevant causes, candidates, and campaigns. Instead, virtually all of the money raised was paid to DUPONT or used to perpetuate the fraud through additional fundraising and overhead expenditures. None of the money donated to the Scam PACs was spent on political contributions during the relevant time period, and DUPONT failed to report the donations, as required, in filings with the Federal Election Commission.
Donations collected by DUPONT during the relevant period totaled more than $250,000, none of which went to campaigns or support for any candidate or cause.
* * *
JOHN PIERRE DUPONT, 80, is charged with one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and aggravated identity theft, which carries a mandatory two years in prison consecutive to any other sentence imposed.
The statutory maximum and mandatory penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencings of the defendants would be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
If you think you are a victim of the scheme alleged in this press release, please contact Wendy Olsen, Victim & Witness Services for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, at 866-874-8900.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alex Rossmiller and Ryan Finkel are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint constitutes only allegations, and every fact described herein should be treated as an allegation.
[2] Businessmen for a Businessman President PAC, Foundation for Sanity in Politics PAC, and Democrats for Congress PAC.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Ashan M. Benedict, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”), James P. O’Neill, the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), and Daniel A. Nigro, the Commissioner of the New York City Fire Department (“FDNY”), announced today the arrest of JAMAL DEESE in connection with a string of arsons in New York, which occurred from August 5, 2018, through August 7, 2018. DEESE was arrested yesterday evening, and was presented today in Manhattan federal court before the U.S. Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, Jamal Deese set more than a dozen fires in midtown Manhattan locations during a three-day span. His alleged serial arsons threatened public safety and necessitated the deployment of valuable firefighting and law enforcement resources. Thanks to the work of the ATF, NYPD, and FDNY, Deese is in custody and will be prosecuted.”
ATF Special Agent-in-Charge Ashan M. Benedict said: “The defendant’s alleged conduct placed New Yorkers, commuters, and visitors at extreme and indiscriminate risk of injury or worse, and had the potential to cause extensive damage to businesses and property. While we are fortunate that there were no known injuries, the defendant will nonetheless face the consequences for his alleged arson spree. I’d like to thank the members of ATF’s SEAR Task Force and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for their efforts thus far in this investigation.”
NYPD Commissioner James P. O’Neill said: “The potential for serious injury or death was very real as Jamal Deese allegedly went on a spree across a swath of Midtown Manhattan. Fortunately, the collaborative efforts of our city and federal partners stopped him before further mayhem could occur. Today’s arrest is the result of the type of quick and effective investigative work performed each day in New York City.”
FDNY Commissioner Daniel A. Nigro said: “I’m proud of the outstanding collaborative investigation by the Arson Response Task Force to apprehend an individual whose alleged crimes needlessly put many lives in danger. Arson is a dangerous, potentially deadly crime; and thanks to our Fire Marshals, NYPD Detectives and ATF agents, an alleged serial arsonist has been stopped before anyone could be injured.”
According to the allegations in the Complaint sworn out in Manhattan federal court:[1]
From August 5, 2018, through August 7, 2018, DEESE set trashcan fires in the bathrooms of at least four midtown restaurants. He also set trashcan fires outside and inside the Amtrak terminal at Penn Station. During the course of his arson spree, DEESE ignited at least 14 fires at Penn Station and in the restaurants. DEESE was apprehended when he returned to one of the restaurants in which he had previously ignited a fire.
* * *
DEESE, 24, of Brooklyn, New York, is charged with four counts of arson, each of which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum 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. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of ATF, NYPD, FDNY, and the Strategic Explosive and Arson Response Task Force.
This case is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Unit. Assistant United States Attorney Kyle A. Wirshba 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.
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 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: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Ashan M. Benedict, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”), James P. O’Neill, the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), and Daniel A. Nigro, the Commissioner of the New York City Fire Department (“FDNY”), announced today the arrest of JAMAL DEESE in connection with a string of arsons in New York, which occurred from August 5, 2018, through August 7, 2018. DEESE was arrested yesterday evening, and was presented today in Manhattan federal court before the U.S. Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, Jamal Deese set more than a dozen fires in midtown Manhattan locations during a three-day span. His alleged serial arsons threatened public safety and necessitated the deployment of valuable firefighting and law enforcement resources. Thanks to the work of the ATF, NYPD, and FDNY, Deese is in custody and will be prosecuted.”
ATF Special Agent-in-Charge Ashan M. Benedict said: “The defendant’s alleged conduct placed New Yorkers, commuters, and visitors at extreme and indiscriminate risk of injury or worse, and had the potential to cause extensive damage to businesses and property. While we are fortunate that there were no known injuries, the defendant will nonetheless face the consequences for his alleged arson spree. I’d like to thank the members of ATF’s SEAR Task Force and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for their efforts thus far in this investigation.”
NYPD Commissioner James P. O’Neill said: “The potential for serious injury or death was very real as Jamal Deese allegedly went on a spree across a swath of Midtown Manhattan. Fortunately, the collaborative efforts of our city and federal partners stopped him before further mayhem could occur. Today’s arrest is the result of the type of quick and effective investigative work performed each day in New York City.”
FDNY Commissioner Daniel A. Nigro said: “I’m proud of the outstanding collaborative investigation by the Arson Response Task Force to apprehend an individual whose alleged crimes needlessly put many lives in danger. Arson is a dangerous, potentially deadly crime; and thanks to our Fire Marshals, NYPD Detectives and ATF agents, an alleged serial arsonist has been stopped before anyone could be injured.”
According to the allegations in the Complaint sworn out in Manhattan federal court:[1]
From August 5, 2018, through August 7, 2018, DEESE set trashcan fires in the bathrooms of at least four midtown restaurants. He also set trashcan fires outside and inside the Amtrak terminal at Penn Station. During the course of his arson spree, DEESE ignited at least 14 fires at Penn Station and in the restaurants. DEESE was apprehended when he returned to one of the restaurants in which he had previously ignited a fire.
* * *
DEESE, 24, of Brooklyn, New York, is charged with four counts of arson, each of which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum 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. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of ATF, NYPD, FDNY, and the Strategic Explosive and Arson Response Task Force.
This case is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Unit. Assistant United States Attorney Kyle A. Wirshba 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.
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 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: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total 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
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Jay Clayton, and Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Christopher G. Raia, announced today the unsealing of an Indictment charging JAY LUCAS, the founder and managing partner of Lucas Brand Equity LLC (“LBE”), a private equity fund based in Manhattan, with securities fraud, investment adviser fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. The charges in the Indictment arise from an alleged scheme by LUCAS to raise more than $50 million from investors by falsely representing that their money would be invested in early-stage health and wellness companies, when in fact it was diverted to cover personal expenses, promote unrelated ventures, and make Ponzi-like payments to earlier investors. LUCAS was arrested today and will be presented in the District of New Hampshire. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon.“As alleged, Jay Lucas promised investors he would use their hard-earned money to grow wellness businesses, with everyone sharing in the profits,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton. “Instead, Lucas allegedly lied, frittered away investor money on personal vanity projects, and betrayed his obligations to his investors. With the assistance of our dedicated law enforcement partners, our Office will continue to aggressively prosecute fraud in our public and private markets.”“Jay Lucas allegedly systematically misappropriated millions of dollars from his investors, diverting their money to personal expenses, repayments to other investors, and his wife’s business,” said FBI Assistant Director in Charge Christopher G. Raia. “As the fund’s managing partner, Lucas’s alleged deceit not only failed to sustain his company’s operations but also betrayed the trust of his clients and employees. The FBI remains committed to investigating any business executive who abuses their authority to satisfy selfish interests at the cost of others.”According to the allegations contained in the Indictment unsealed today:[1]LUCAS is the founder and managing partner of LBE and three private funds: Lucas Brand Equity LP (“Fund One”), L.B. Equity Emerging Growth LP (“Fund Two”), and L.B. Equity Wellness Growth L.P. (“Fund Three”). Since 2017, LUCAS has defrauded investors through fabricated credentials and systematic misappropriation of their funds.LUCAS falsely claimed to have co-founded a well-known private equity firm, which he did not, eventually prompting a cease-and-desist demand from that firm’s lawyers. He told investors that LBE’s “core strategy is to invest in these small to mid-size emerging brands, provide value-added services to differentiate them and catalyze growth to a sufficient scale for exit.” In reality, LUCAS spent investor money on personal expenses including alimony, rent, a vanity newspaper project in his hometown, and political consultants. He used new investor money to pay earlier investors in Ponzi-like fashion, enriching himself while starving the Funds and portfolio companies of capital. LUCAS also funneled investor money to Immunocologie, a luxury skincare business run by LUCAS’s wife. Most purported investments in Immunocologie went to “marketing” expenses, such as parties and trips to luxury resorts where LUCAS’s wife promoted “brand awareness.” Investors were unaware that LUCAS was using their money to fund his wife’s social calendar, and many investors did not even know that the person operating Immunocologie was married to LUCAS. Moreover, LUCAS arranged for LBE, not the Funds, to take majority ownership interest in Immunocologie, giving himself and not his clients an equity interest in the business.LUCAS’s misconduct left the Funds chronically undercapitalized and unable to cover basic fund expenses, including salaries for LBE employees. When LBE employees confronted LUCAS about his misuse of investor funds, he dismissed their complaints. Internally, employees continued to express frustration about LUCAS’s misuse of investor money, writing that LUCAS’s spending was “not spending on LBE,” was “literally fraudulent,” and was “a huge betrayal of investor trust and most likely illegal.” After multiple confrontations, employees feared pressing further would cost them their jobs.As of the date of this Indictment, none of the Funds’ investments have paid off, and no investors have received returns. The Funds and their portfolio companies have hemorrhaged cash and been unable to cover basic expenses while LUCAS and his family have taken the Funds’ money to serve their own interests.* * *LUCAS, 71, of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, was charged in an Indictment with one count of securities fraud, one count of wire fraud, and one count of money laundering, each of which carries a maximum term of 20 years in prison, and one count of investment adviser fraud, which carries a maximum term of five years in prison. The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by a judge.Mr. Clayton praised the outstanding work of the FBI. Mr. Clayton also thanked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for their assistance and cooperation in the investigation.This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Adam S. Hobson and David J. Robles 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 descriptions of the Indictment constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that DJONIBEK RAHMANKULOV was sentenced today to 121 months in prison for laundering millions of dollars in criminal proceeds obtained from computer hacking, healthcare fraud, and Small Business Administration loan fraud, as well as operating an international unlicensed money transmitting business. The defendant was convicted at trial on September 1, 2022, of money laundering conspiracy, bank fraud, and conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business. U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams imposed today’s sentence.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “Djonibek Rahmankulov laundered money for a living. He exploited the financial system to launder millions of dollars from multiple fraudulent schemes and repeatedly lied to banks to operate his illegal enterprise. Once caught — and even after he was convicted — the defendant continued to show that he believed he was above the law by threatening a witness and submitting false information to the Court. Today’s sentence reflects that this Office will find and prosecute those who seek to abuse the U.S. financial system to launder dirty money.”
According to the superseding Indictment, evidence at trial, and statements made in Court:
Between 2017 and September 2020, RAHMANKULOV operated a network of shell companies that were used to launder millions of dollars of criminal proceeds from multiple types of criminal activity. RAHMANKULOV worked with computer hackers who fraudulently gained control of the bank accounts of victims located throughout the United States and executed millions of dollars in fraudulent wire transfers into bank accounts opened by RAHMANKULOV and his co-conspirators. RAHMANKULOV received wire transfers into bank accounts he created and bank accounts he instructed others to create and laundered these proceeds through multiple additional bank accounts to prevent the victims and the banks from recovering the stolen funds.
In addition, RAHMANKULOV worked with a network of pharmacies engaged in Medicare and Medicaid fraud. These pharmacies submitted millions of dollars of fraudulent billing for HIV medications that they did not dispense or obtained illegally, including by repurchasing medications from HIV patients who were Medicaid recipients. RAHMANKULOV created companies to receive these criminal proceeds from the pharmacies and laundered them through a variety of means, including by using them to fund an unlicensed money transmitting business that illegally moved money to and from multiple countries, including Iran.
In 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic began, RAHMANKULOV filed fraudulent applications for COVID relief loans from the Small Business Administration for multiple companies he controlled. He laundered the proceeds of loans and grants through these companies. RAHMANKULOV also made a number of materially false statements to financial institutions in connection with his money laundering schemes, both when opening bank accounts and when executing financial transactions with those bank accounts.
RAHMANKULOV sought to obstruct justice during the pendency of his case. In the months before trial, RAHMANKULOV instructed a witness to lie to law enforcement. When the witness later informed RAHMANKULOV that the witness would tell the truth to law enforcement, RAHMANKULOV threatened the witness, stating, among other things, that if he went to prison, “I will drag all of you with me, and once you are there, then I will have my revenge.” Nonetheless, the witness testified at trial. RAHMANKULOV continued seeking to obstruct justice after his conviction. In advance of his sentencing, he submitted multiple letters to the Court purporting to show support from members of the community, but two of these letters were in fact fraudulent and had not been written by the purported authors.
* * *
In addition to the prison term, RAHMANKULOV, 35, of Queens, New York, was sentenced to three years of supervised release. RAHMANKULOV was further ordered to pay a forfeiture of $5,413,278 and a $40,000 fine.
Mr. Williams praised the outstanding investigative work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s New York Money Laundering Investigation Squad.
The prosecution is being handled by the Office’s Money Laundering and Transnational Criminal Enterprises Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Cecilia Vogel, Thane Rehn, and Samuel Raymond, with the assistance of Paralegal Specialist Nerlande Pierre, are in charge of the prosecution.
William Barr, the Attorney General of the United States, Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Brian Benczkowski, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, Uttam Dhillon, Acting Administrator of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), and Alysa D. Erichs, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Acting Executive Associate Director for Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), announced the unsealing of two separate indictments charging current and former Venezuelan officials and FARC leadership. One Superseding Indictment includes narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, and weapons charges against NICOLÁS MADURO MOROS, Diosdado CABELLO RONDÓN, HUGO ARMANDO CARVAJAL BARRIOS, a/k/a “El Pollo,” CLÍVER ANTONIO ALCALÁ CORDONES, LUCIANO MARÍN ARANGO, a/k/a “Ivan Marquez,” and SEUXIS PAUCIS HERNÁNDEZ SOLARTE, a/k/a “Jesús Santrich.” The other Superseding Indictment alleges violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) and the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”), and a related conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), against TARECK ZAIDAN EL AISSAMI MADDAH, JOSELIT RAMIREZ CAMACHO, and SAMARK LOPEZ BELLO. The charges are contained in separate Superseding Indictments unsealed today in Manhattan federal court. Both cases are pending before U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.
The U.S. Department of State, through its Narcotics Rewards Program, is offering rewards of up to $15 million for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of MADURO MOROS, up to $10 million for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of CABELLO RONDÓN, CARVAJAL BARRIOS, and ALCALÁ CORDONES, and up to $5 million for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of MARÍN ARANGO. Anyone with information that may lead to the arrest and/or conviction of Maduro Moros, Cabello Rondón, Carvajal Barrios, or Marín Arango can email the DEA at CartelSolesTips@usdoj.gov, or message the DEA at 1-202-681-8187 using text messages, WhatsApp, or Signal.
The U.S. Department of State is also offering rewards of up to $10 million for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of EL AISSAMI MADDAH. Anyone with information that may lead to the arrest and/or conviction of EL AISSAMI MADDAH can contact HSI 1-866-347-2423.
Attorney General William Barr said: “The Venezuelan regime, once led by Nicolás Maduro Moros, remains plagued by criminality and corruption. For more than 20 years, Maduro and a number of high-ranking colleagues allegedly conspired with the FARC, causing tons of cocaine to enter and devastate American communities. Today’s announcement is focused on rooting out the extensive corruption within the Venezuelan government – a system constructed and controlled to enrich those at the highest levels of the government. The United States will not allow these corrupt Venezuelan officials to use the U.S. banking system to move their illicit proceeds from South America nor further their criminal schemes.”
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “Today we announce criminal charges against Nicolas Maduro for running, together with his top lieutenants, a narco-terrorism partnership with the FARC for the past 20 years. The scope and magnitude of the drug trafficking alleged was made possible only because Maduro and others corrupted the institutions of Venezuela and provided political and military protection for the rampant narco-terrorism crimes described in our charges. As alleged, Maduro and the other defendants expressly intended to flood the United States with cocaine in order to undermine the health and wellbeing of our nation. Maduro very deliberately deployed cocaine as a weapon. While Maduro and other cartel members held lofty titles in Venezuela’s political and military leadership, the conduct described in the Indictment wasn’t statecraft or service to the Venezuelan people. As alleged, the defendants betrayed the Venezuelan people and corrupted Venezuelan institutions to line their pockets with drug money.”
DEA Acting Administrator Uttam Dhillon said: “These indictments expose the devastating systemic corruption at the highest levels of Nicolas Maduro’s regime. These officials repeatedly and knowingly betrayed the people of Venezuela, conspiring, for personal gain, with drug traffickers and designated foreign terrorist organizations like the FARC. Today’s actions send a clear message to corrupt officials everywhere that no one is above the law or beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement. The Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration will continue to protect the American people from ruthless drug traffickers – no matter who they are or where they live.”
ICE Acting Executive Associate Director for HSI Alysa D. Erichs said: “The collaborative nature of this investigation is representative of the ongoing work HSI and international law enforcement agencies perform each day, often behind the scenes and unknown to the public, to make our communities safer and free from corruption. Today’s announcement highlights HSI’s global reach and commitment to aggressively identify, target and investigate individuals who violate U.S. laws, exploit financial systems, and hide behind cryptocurrency to further their illicit criminal activity. Let this indictment be a reminder that no one is above the law - not even powerful political officials.”
According to the allegations contained in the Superseding Indictment charging MADURO MOROs and others, other court filings, and statements made during court proceedings[1]:
Since at least 1999, MADURO MOROS, DIOSDADO CABELLO RONDÓN, HUGO CARVAJAL BARRIOS, a/k/a “El Pollo,” and CLÍVER ALCALÁ CORDONES, acted as leaders and managers of the Cártel de Los Soles, or “Cartel of the Suns.” The Cartel’s name refers to the sun insignias affixed to the uniforms of high-ranking Venezuelan military officials. MADURO MOROS and the other charged Cartel members abused the Venezuelan people and corrupted the legitimate institutions of Venezuela – including parts of the military, intelligence apparatus, legislature, and the judiciary – to facilitate the importation of tons of cocaine into the United States. The Cártel de Los Soles sought not only to enrich its members and enhance their power, but also to “flood” the United States with cocaine and inflict the drug’s harmful and addictive effects on users into the United States.
MARÍN ARANGO and HERNÁNDEZ SOLARTE are leaders of the FARC. Beginning in approximately 1999, while the FARC was purporting to negotiate toward peace with the Colombian government, FARC leaders agreed with leaders of the Cártel de Los Soles to relocate some of the FARC’s operations to Venezuela under the protection of the Cartel. Thereafter, the FARC and the Cártel de Los Soles dispatched processed cocaine from Venezuela to the United States via transshipment points in the Caribbean and Central America, such as Honduras. By approximately 2004, the United States Department of State estimated that 250 or more tons of cocaine were transiting Venezuela per year. The maritime shipments were shipped north from Venezuela’s coastline using go-fast vessels, fishing boats, and container ships. Air shipments were often dispatched from clandestine airstrips, typically made of dirt or grass, concentrated in the Apure State. According to the United States Department of State, approximately 75 unauthorized flights suspected of drug trafficking activities entered Honduran airspace in 2010 alone, using what is known as the “air bridge” cocaine route between Venezuela and Honduras.
In his role as a leader of the Cártel de Los Soles, MADURO MOROS negotiated multi-ton shipments of FARC-produced cocaine; directed that the Cártel de Los Soles provide military-grade weapons to the FARC; coordinated foreign affairs with Honduras and other countries to facilitate large-scale drug trafficking; and solicited assistance from FARC leadership in training an unsanctioned militia group that functioned, in essence, as an armed forces unit for the Cártel de Los Soles.
The Defendants
MADURO MOROS is the former president of Venezuela. He previously held a seat in the Venezuelan National Assembly between approximately 2000 and approximately 2006, acted as the Venezuelan foreign minister between approximately 2006 and approximately 2013, and acted as the vice president of Venezuela in approximately 2013. MADURO MOROS succeeded to the Venezuelan presidency after Hugo Chávez died in 2013 and, during his presidency, continued to participate in cocaine trafficking with the Cártel de Los Soles and the FARC. In approximately 2018, MADURO MOROS declared victory in a presidential election in Venezuela. In approximately 2019, the National Assembly of Venezuela invoked the Venezuelan constitution and declared that MADURO MOROS had usurped power and was not the president of Venezuela. Since approximately 2019, more than 50 countries, including the United States, have refused to recognize MADURO MOROS as Venezuela’s head of state and instead recognized Juan Guaidó as the interim president of Venezuela. In approximately January 2020, the U.S. State Department certified the authority of Guaidó, as the interim president of Venezuela, to receive and control property in accounts at the United States Federal Reserve maintained by the Venezuelan government and the Central Bank of Venezuela.
CABELLO RONDÓN is president of Venezuela’s National Constituent Assembly, and a member of the Venezuelan armed forces. CABELLO RONDÓN previously acted as chief of staff to Chávez in approximately 2001, vice president of Venezuela in approximately 2002, governor of Venezuela’s Miranda State between approximately 2004 and approximately 2008, and president of Venezuela’s National Assembly between approximately 2012 and approximately 2016.
CARVAJAL BARRIOS is a Venezuelan citizen and was the director of Venezuela’s military intelligence agency, which was known as the Dirección de Inteligencia Militar (“DIM”), between approximately 2004 and approximately 2011. In approximately April 2011, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York filed the original indictment in this case, charging CARVAJAL BARRIOS with drug trafficking, 11 Cr. 205 (AKH). Nonetheless, in approximately 2013, MADURO MOROS made CARVAJAL BARRIOS the director of the DIM for a second time. Between approximately January 2014 and approximately June 2014, CARVAJAL BARRIOS held the title of Venezuela’s consul general to Aruba. In approximately January 2016, despite being a fugitive on the above-described drug trafficking charges, CARVAJAL BARRIOS was elected to the Venezuelan National Assembly. As of today, CARVAJAL BARRIOS remains a fugitive on pending charges in underlying indictments in the Southern District of New York and subject to a lawful order of extradition issued by Spain in approximately 2019.
ALCALÁ CORDONES is a former general in the Venezuelan military.
MARÍN ARANGO joined the FARC in approximately 1985. In approximately 2006, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York filed a drug trafficking charge against 50 leaders of the FARC, including MARÍN ARANGO. As of today, MARÍN ARANGO is a fugitive on that charge and a member of the FARC’s Secretariat, which is the FARC’s highest leadership body.
HERNÁNDEZ SOLARTE joined the FARC in approximately 1991. As of today, HERNÁNDEZ SOLARTE is a member of the FARC’s Central High Command, which is the FARC’s second-highest leadership body. As described below, in approximately 2018, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York filed drug trafficking charges against HERNÁNDEZ SOLARTE. HERNÁNDEZ SOLARTE remains a fugitive on those charges.
* * *
MADURO MOROS, 57, CABELLO RONDÓN, 56, CARVAJAL BARRIOS, 59, ALCALÁ CORDONES, 58, MARÍN ARANGO, 64, and HERNÁNDEZ SOLARTE, 53, have each been charged with: (1) participating in a narco-terrorism conspiracy, which carries a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence and a maximum of life; (2) conspiring to import cocaine into the United States, which carries a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence and a maximum of life; (3) using and carrying machine guns and destructive devices during and in relation to, and possessing machine guns and destructive devices in furtherance of, the narco-terrorism and cocaine importation conspiracies, which carries a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence and a maximum of life; and (4) conspiring to use and carry machine guns and destructive devices during and in relation to, and to possess machine guns and destructive devices in furtherance of, the narco-terrorism and cocaine importation conspiracies, which carries a maximum sentence of life. The potential mandatory minimum and maximum sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and 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 the DEA’s Special Operations Division Bilateral Investigations Unit, New York Strike Force, and Miami Field Division, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs and the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Amanda L. Houle, Matthew J. Laroche, Jason A. Richman, and Kyle A. Wirshba are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges in the Superseding Indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
* * *
A separate Superseding Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court charges TARECK ZAIDAN EL AISSAMI MADDAH, Venezuela’s vice president for the economy, JOSELIT RAMIREZ CAMACHO, Venezuela’s superintendent of cryptocurrency (Sunacrip), and SAMARK LOPEZ BELLO, a Venezuelan businessman, with violations of IEEPA, the Kingpin Act, and other offenses related to efforts to evade sanctions imposed by OFAC against MADURO MOROS, EL AISSAMI MADDAH, and LOPEZ BELLO.
According to the allegations contained in the Superseding Indictment charging EL AISSAMI MADDAH and others, other court filings, and statements made during court proceedings[2]:
From February 2017 until March 2019, EL AISSAMI MADDAH and RAMIREZ CAMACHO worked with U.S. persons and U.S.-based entities to provide private flight services for the benefit of MADURO MOROS’s 2018 presidential campaign, in violation of OFAC’s sanctions targeting MADURO MOROS after he organized elections for the illegitimate National Constituent Assembly that CABELLO RONDÓN now leads.
* * *
EL AISSAMI MADDAH, 45, RAMIREZ CAMACHO, 33, and LOPEZ BELLO, 45, are charged with: (1) conspiracy to obstruct the lawful governmental functions of OFAC, which carries a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment; (2) conspiracy to violate the Kingpin Act, which carries a maximum of 30 years’ imprisonment; and (3) four substantive violations of the Kingpin Act, each of which carries a maximum of 30 years’ imprisonment. EL AISSAMI MADDAH and RAMIREZ CAMACHO are also charged with: (4) conspiracy to violate IEEPA, which carries a maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment; and (5) conspiracy to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment. The potential mandatory minimum and maximum sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and 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 HSI’s New York Field Office, as well as OFAC, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs, and the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of the Department of Justice’s National Security Division.
This case is also being handled by the Office’s Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sam Adelsberg and Amanda L. Houle are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges in the Superseding 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 Superseding Indictment, and the description of the Superseding Indictment set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
[2] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Superseding Indictment, and the description of the Superseding 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, William F. Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and James P. O’Neill, the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), announced the unsealing of an indictment charging RUVIM KRUPKIN, a New York state-licensed doctor, with writing medically unnecessary prescriptions for oxycodone over at least an 11-year period. KRUPKIN is expected to be presented before U.S. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang later today. The case has been assigned to United States District Judge Analisa Torres.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, for more than a decade, as the nationwide opioid crisis mushroomed and left death and destruction in its wake, Ruvim Krupkin wrote thousands of medically unnecessary prescriptions for oxycodone. He allegedly charged $200 per prescription. Now he will learn the true cost of his alleged crime.”
FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney said: “While society continues to grapple with a solution to end the plague of drug addiction throughout this country, Ruvim Krupkin, as alleged, was complicit in prescribing medically unnecessary doses of oxycodone pills to patients under his care. Those with access to a now-virtual prescription pad carry a heavy responsibility to uphold the ethics of their profession. Those who don’t will be held accountable.”
NYPD Commissioner James P. O’Neill said: “As alleged, the doctor who’s charged in this case not only broke the law, he betrayed his oath and his ethical obligations for millions in personal profit – and he did this at a time when the nation and our city was in the throes of an opioid epidemic. I want to thank the investigators who worked to bring federal charges in this case. Whether you purport to be a medical professional or you’re a street-level drug dealer, the NYPD and its law enforcement partners will find you and hold you accountable.”
According to the allegations in the Indictment unsealed today in federal court:[1]
From in or about 2006 up to and including July 2017, RUVIM KRUPKIN wrote prescriptions resulting in the unlawful distribution of more than four million oxycodone pills to individuals he knew had no legitimate medical need for this medication. In exchange for writing these medically unnecessary oxycodone prescriptions, KRUPKIN received over $3.8 million in cash payments.
During the time period charged in the Indictment, KRUPKIN was an internal medicine doctor with specialties in oncology and hematology. KRUPKIN practiced out of a medical office located in Coney Island, New York. As a hematologist, KRUPKIN treated patients who had, or claimed to have, sickle cell anemia – a medical condition that can cause pain for which oxycodone, in conjunction with other treatments – may be legitimately prescribed. However, KRUPKIN wrote thousands of prescriptions for large quantities of oxycodone to patients, knowing that they in fact had no legitimate medical need for the prescriptions. KRUPKIN generally performed little to no physical examination on these patients; indeed, the medical notes for each patient were largely the same from one visit to the next. KRUPKIN charged each patient $200 in cash for each visit, payable directly to him.
Notwithstanding having performed little to no physical examination of the patients, KRUPKIN typically issued them prescriptions for a large dose of oxycodone – typically 180 80-milligram pills, until approximately 2010, when the formula for oxycodone changed, reducing the street value of the 80-milligram pills. At that time, KRUPKIN began prescribing 180 or 240 30-milligram pills. KRUPKIN’s patients filled their prescriptions at pharmacies throughout New York, and in certain cases, sold the oxycodone pills they received to drug dealers, who in turn re-sold the pills at high value on the street. KRUPKIN knew that certain of his patients were diverting the oxycodone pills he was prescribing, but he nonetheless continued writing prescriptions of oxycodone for such individuals.
* * *
KRUPKIN, 68, of Summit, New Jersey, is charged with one count of participating in a conspiracy to distribute narcotics, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The maximum potential penalty is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant would be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI-NYPD Health Care Fraud Task Force. Mr. Berman also thanked the New York City Human Resources Administration for its work on the investigation.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Narcotics Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Tara M. La Morte and Alexandra Rothman 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 below constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The 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
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Jay Clayton, announced that KEITH TAYLOR, the founder and former chief executive officer of Modest Needs Foundation (“Modest Needs”), a charitable organization, pled guilty today before U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon to defrauding the charity and its donors by stealing millions in donations meant for low-income families and spending them instead on personal expenses—including rent in a luxury apartment building in midtown Manhattan, food delivery services, and lavish meals at some of New York City’s most expensive restaurants—and lying about the charity’s oversight and governance. TAYLOR also pled guilty to evading more than a million dollars in federal income taxes and is scheduled to be sentenced on January 20, 2026.“Keith Taylor preyed on the trust of New Yorkers who gave generously to help struggling families,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton. “Those who use charitable dollars to line their own pockets undermine the work of our many great charities and the special tax status charities enjoy. They must be brought to justice.”According to the Superseding Indictment, the Complaint, filings, and court proceedings:In or about 2002, TAYLOR founded Modest Needs, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization that used a crowdsourcing model to help low-income workers pay for unexpected expenses like medical bills or broken appliances. Its mission was to provide short-term financial assistance to individuals and families living paycheck-to-paycheck who were faced with an unexpected crisis or expense that they could not pay.Since at least 2015, TAYLOR embezzled more than $2.5 million from the charity and its donors and used that money to fund his lavish personal spending. TAYLOR regularly dined at Per Se, Jean-Georges, Masa, and Marea in midtown Manhattan, sometimes as often as twice a day, spending more than $320,000 of charity funds at New York City restaurants and steakhouses. Funds donated to the charity paid over $300,000 of TAYLOR’s rent for a luxury apartment on the 30th floor of a midtown Manhattan skyscraper. TAYLOR also used charity funds to buy himself expensive electronics, pay over $100,000 to food delivery services, and pay for his own medical expenses. TAYLOR put over $270,000 of charity funds directly into his personal brokerage account. TAYLOR also routinely paid his other personal expenses from the charity’s bank accounts.TAYLOR continued to defraud Modest Needs and its donors, even after his arrest in June 2024 on these charges. Even though he purportedly resigned his employment with Modest Needs and no longer was supposed to have access to Modest Needs’ bank accounts, as a condition of his pretrial release, TAYLOR continued to use Modest Needs’ funds for his personal expenses, including to pay for meals, medical expenses, and rent for his luxury apartment, all in violation of the conditions of his pretrial release in this case.TAYLOR attempted to hide his embezzlement of charity funds by creating a fake board of directors and claiming it had approved his personal spending and provided oversight over the organization. TAYLOR used the names of his acquaintances and falsely listed them on the charity’s tax forms and website as board members. TAYLOR’s acquaintances who were listed as the charity’s board members included a bartender from Jean-Georges, a friend, and his house-cleaner, none of whom ever attended a board meeting or even knew that they had been listed on the charity’s website or tax forms as board members.For at least the calendar years of 2017 through 2024, TAYLOR did not file personal income tax returns or pay income taxes on the millions of dollars in income he received from the charity, evading more than a million dollars in federal income taxes.* * *TAYLOR, 58, of New York, New York, pled guilty to one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison because he committed the offense while on pretrial release, and eight counts of tax evasion, each of which carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison.The minimum and maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by a judge.Mr. Clayton praised the exceptional investigative work of Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation and the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office. My office and our law enforcement partners will continue to do all that we can to protect the community from the devastating consequences of pernicious fraud schemes. If you believe you are a victim of Taylor's fraud, please contact USANYS.Taylor.Victims@usdoj.gov.If you are a victim, and would like to send the Judge presiding over this case a victim impact statement, which describes how this crime impacted you and your family, your statement can be emailed to USANYS.Taylor.Victims@usdoj.gov. The Court will consider any statements sent in connection with sentencing of defendant Keith Taylor.If you are a victim, and would like to speak at Keith Taylor’s sentencing hearing, to describe to the Judge how Keith Taylor’s crimes impacted you and your family please email USANYS.Taylor.Victims@usdoj.gov.This case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eli J. Mark, Rebecca R. Delfiner, and James G. Mandilk are in charge of the prosecution.
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and James Smith, 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 Victor Bozzo, former Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Commercial Officer of Pareteum Corporation, and EDWARD O’DONNELL, Pareteum’s former Chief Financial Officer, with conspiracy, securities fraud, making false Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings, and improperly influencing the conduct of audits for their roles in a scheme to overstate Pareteum’s revenue by tens of millions of dollars. BOZZO and O’DONNELL were arrested earlier today and will be presented this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian.
Also unsealed is the guilty plea of STANLEY STEFANSKI, Pareteum’s former Controller. STEFANSKI pled guilty before U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter on September 14, 2023, to charges arising from his participation in the scheme to fraudulently inflate Pareteum’s revenue and related crimes, and he is cooperating with the Government.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “Victor Bozzo, the former CEO of Pareteum, and Edward O’Donnell, the former CFO, and their co-conspirators allegedly schemed to inflate the company’s revenue, thereby making the company appear more profitable than it was and allowing Bozzo and O’Donnell to obtain performance bonuses they had not earned. To conceal their alleged fraud, Bozzo and O’Donnell then took steps to mislead the independent certified public accountants engaged to audit Pareteum’s financial statements. With today’s Indictment, Bozzo and O’Donnell’s alleged deceit comes to an end.”
FBI Assistant Director in Charge James Smith said: “This indictment reflects the serious harm executives caused by deliberately misleading shareholders, auditors, and the general public about the financial strength of a public company. The FBI remains committed to fighting white-collar crime, protecting investors, and holding fraudsters who degrade the integrity of our markets accountable.”
According to the allegations in the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:[1]
The defendants, and other senior executives at the company, engaged in a scheme to improperly and misleadingly recognize revenue at Pareteum, which owned and managed a mobile device network platform. The defendants and their co-conspirators made the revenue appear to have been earned in its records based on aspirational, non-binding purchase orders that did not impose any obligation on customers to pay Pareteum. The defendants, and other senior executives at Pareteum, knew that in many cases Pareteum was recognizing revenue before Pareteum had delivered any products or services to its customers. In order to conceal Pareteum’s fraudulent accounting practices, BOZZO, O’DONNELL, and other senior executives at Pareteum took steps to mislead the independent certified public accountants engaged to audit Pareteum’s financial statements.
Pareteum’s inflated revenue gave the appearance that Pareteum was meeting aggressive revenue and growth projections, which served the ultimate goal of increasing Pareteum’s share price. In press releases accompanying Pareteum’s quarterly filings, Pareteum provided guidance on its expected revenue and revenue growth for the year. During each period, Pareteum touted its quarter-over-quarter revenue and revenue growth. Pareteum publicly identified revenue as the principal metric demonstrating its growth and touted its consistent record of quarter-over-quarter revenue growth and meeting or exceeding revenue guidance, which itself typically increased quarter-over-quarter. However, this ostensible pace of revenue growth was only possible because of the fraud orchestrated by the defendants.
In order to carry out the fraud, the defendants and their co-conspirators improperly recognized revenue from customers based on non-binding contracts. Specifically, Pareteum’s customers were cellular providers that paid to use Pareteum’s platform to monitor, meter, and bill their own individual customers, who were individual cellphone or connected device end users. Typically, before a customer could use Pareteum’s platform, the customer and Pareteum would sign a Master Services Agreement, which set forth Pareteum’s obligations to provide the customer with SIM cards that provided cellphone users, who obtained cellphone service through Pareteum’s customer, access to Pareteum’s mobile network. At this stage, the customer did not owe Pareteum any money and no revenue had been earned by Pareteum; instead, Pareteum had first to develop and implement a platform for the customer and ensure that it functioned such that the customer could go “live” on the Pareteum network. Once the Pareteum customer was live on the network and sold a SIM card to an actual cellphone user, that user could put the SIM card into his or her phone and begin making calls or consuming mobile data. It was only at that point that Pareteum’s customer would be required to pay Pareteum for the data usage.
BOZZO and O’DONNELL understood that purchase orders were not sales contracts because, as they and others at Pareteum well knew, and Paretuem’s customers understood, the purchase orders did not reflect binding commitments. Instead, purchase orders typically reflected anticipated future sales. Purchase orders typically set forth the customer’s intention to purchase SIM cards from Pareteum and to generate usage fees if and when the customer was able to sell the SIMs to end users who then activated the SIM cards and used Pareteum’s platform.
However, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, Pareteum executives, including VICTOR BOZZO and EDWARD O’DONNELL, caused Pareteum at times to recognize revenue at the time a purchase order was signed for the full projected value of the purchase order, even though they were aware that typically the relevant counterparties were obligated to pay that amount only if and when in the future all SIM cards in the purchase order had been shipped, were activated by Pareteum’s customers, and were used for one month on Pareteum’s network. As BOZZO and O’DONNELL were also aware, in many cases, pervasive technical and operational issues meant that Pareteum was actually incapable of satisfying its performance obligations under the terms of its agreements with customers.
As a result of this fraudulent revenue recognition practice, from at least in or about 2018 through the first half of 2019, Pareteum improperly recognized and reported to the investing public more than $40 million of revenue that it should not have.
As to one customer, referred to in the Indictment as Customer-4, Pareteum recognized revenue totaling $4.4 million based on an unsigned, draft purchase order for €6.3 million, which Customer-4 had not accepted. Instead, Customer-4 had signed a purchase order, which itself did not reflect a binding commitment but merely reflected anticipated future sales, for only €630,000 – in other words, one tenth of the draft €6.3 million purchase order and far less than the revenue Pareteum recognized. Pareteum nonetheless recognized $4.4 million in revenue for Customer-4 in three tranches, and at the time it recognized each of those tranches, Customer-4’s platform was not yet live and so it could not yet use Pareteum’s services.
* * *
BOZZO, 54, of Ringoes, New Jersey, and O’DONNELL, 58, of East Atlantic Beach, New York, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, make false SEC filings, and improperly influence the conduct of audits, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison; one count of securities fraud under Title 15, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison; one count of false SEC filings, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; and one count of improperly influencing the conduct of audits, which carries a maximum penalty 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 defendants 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 BOZZO and O’DONNELL and also announced settled charges against STEFANSKI.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kiersten A. Fletcher, Margaret Graham, and Allison Nichols 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 in this release constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Naomi Gruchacz, the Special Agent in Charge of the New York Regional Office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“HHS-OIG”), announced today a settlement of a civil fraud lawsuit against RIVERSPRING LIVING HOLDING CORP. and ELDERSERVE HEALTH, INC., d/b/a RiverSpring at Home (“RIVERSPRING”), New York not-for-profit corporations that, among other things, administer a Managed Long Term Care Plan (the “RiverSpring MLTCP”) for Medicaid beneficiaries. In connection with the RiverSpring MLTCP, RIVERSPRING arranges for health and long-term care services and is reimbursed by Medicaid through per-member payments on a monthly basis (“Capitation Payments”).
The settlement resolves allegations that RIVERSPRING submitted false claims to Medicaid for months during which RIVERSPRING failed to provide, or failed to adequately document, certain long-term care services to RiverSpring MLTCP members as obligated by the applicable contract between RIVERSPRING and the New York State Department of Health (“DOH”).
Under the terms of the settlement approved today by U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel, RIVERSPRING must pay a total sum of $10,159,130.95, with $4,063,652.38 paid to the United States and the remaining amount paid to the State of New York. As part of the settlement, RIVERSPRING admits that it either did not provide RiverSpring MLTCP members with qualifying services as required by the applicable contract with DOH or did not adequately maintain documentation of the provision of such services during some or all of their enrollment in the RiverSpring MLTCP. As a result, RIVERSPRING obtained Medicaid payments to which it was not entitled.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “RiverSpring collected millions of dollars in Medicaid payments to provide long-term care services as part of its managed care plan, but in many cases either failed to deliver these services or failed to maintain adequate documentation showing that it did so. This Office is committed to holding recipients of government health care funds accountable when they fail to provide the care and services the government pays them to provide.”
HHS-OIG Special Agent in Charge Naomi Gruchacz said: “As a part of this settlement, the defendants acknowledged that they obtained funds from the Medicaid program to which they were not entitled. Individuals and entities that participate in the federal health care system are required to obey the laws meant to preserve the integrity of program funds and the provision of appropriate, quality services to patients.”
As alleged in the Complaint filed in Manhattan federal court:
RIVERSPRING administers a managed long-term care plan for Medicaid beneficiaries pursuant to applicable contracts with DOH (the “Contract”). To be eligible for enrollment into a managed long-term care plan, a Medicaid beneficiary must, among other things, be assessed as needing at least one of the community-based long-term care services listed in the Contract (“Qualifying Services”) for more than 120 days from the effective date of enrollment. These services include nursing services in the home, therapies in the home, home health aide services, personal care services in the home, and adult day health care. In order to receive Capitation Payments from Medicaid for members of the RiverSpring MLTCP, RIVERSPRING was required to ensure that RiverSpring MLTCP members received Qualifying Services during their enrollment or otherwise remained appropriately enrolled in the RiverSpring MLTCP consistent with the Contract and DOH disenrollment practices. In exchange for arranging and providing these services, RIVERSPRING received Capitation Payments averaging between $4,000 and $4,500 for each member.
As part of the settlement, RIVERSPRING admits, acknowledges, and accepts responsibility for the following conduct:
In many instances, RIVERSPRING either did not provide RiverSpring MLTCP members with Qualifying Services or did not adequately maintain documentation of the provision of such Qualifying Services during some or all of their enrollment in the RiverSpring MLTCP. Nonetheless, RIVERSPRING received Capitation Payments to which it was not entitled for these RiverSpring MLTCP members for the months in question.
In many of these instances, RIVERSPRING collected Capitation Payments for RiverSpring MLTCP members despite the fact that RIVERSPRING either did not provide or did not maintain documentation reflecting the provision of Qualifying Services to these members for three or more consecutive months during their enrollment in the RiverSpring MLTCP.
In other instances, RIVERSPRING collected Capitation Payments for RiverSpring MLTCP members despite the fact that RIVERSPRING either did not provide or did not maintain documentation reflecting the provision of Qualifying Services to these members during the entirety of their enrollment in the RiverSpring MLTCP.
In connection with the filing of the lawsuit and settlement, the Government joined a private whistleblower lawsuit that had been filed under seal pursuant to the False Claims Act.
* * *
Mr. Williams thanked HHS-OIG for its assistance. Mr. Williams also thanked the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the New York State Attorney General’s Office for its investigative efforts and work on the case.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Civil Frauds Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Samuel Dolinger and Jacob M. Bergman are in charge of the case.
Joon H. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that DARYL CAMPBELL, a/k/a “Taxstone,” pled guilty yesterday to two federal weapons charges in connection with his possession of a semiautomatic handgun at Irving Plaza on May 25, 2016, the night a man was shot and killed there and three others were wounded.
Acting U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said: “As he has now admitted, Daryl Campbell illegally carried a semiautomatic handgun into the Irving Plaza music venue. That night Ronald McPhatter was shot and killed there, and three others were wounded. We will continue to work with the NYPD, the FBI, and all our partners in law enforcement to protect New Yorkers from gun violence.”
According to the Indictment, Complaint, other documents filed in the case, and statements made during the plea proceedings:
Sometime between October 2015 and May 25, 2016, CAMPBELL unlawfully received a Keltec 9mm semiautomatic handgun from outside the State of New York. Although his prior felony conviction made it a federal crime for CAMPBELL to possess firearms, CAMPBELL nonetheless carried that gun to the Irving Plaza music venue on May 25, 2016. At Irving Plaza, CAMPBELL confronted a rap music artist with whom CAMPBELL had been engaged in a long-running feud. After that confrontation, the rap artist’s bodyguard and friend, Ronald McPhatter, was shot and killed, and the rap artist and two innocent bystanders were wounded.
* * *
CAMPBELL, 31, of Brooklyn, New York, was arrested on January 17, 2017, in Brooklyn, and has been in federal custody since. CAMPBELL pled guilty today to both counts of the Indictment, which charged him with receiving a firearm in interstate commerce with the intent to commit another felony, and possessing a firearm after having previously been convicted of a felony. The maximum sentence for each count is 10 years in prison. The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as the defendant’s sentence will be determined by the court.
Mr. Kim praised the outstanding work of the NYPD’s Manhattan South Homicide Squad and the 13th Precinct Detective Squad, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Violent and Organized Crime Unit and the White Plains Division. Assistant United States Attorneys Hagan Scotten, Andrew Adams, and Christopher Clore are in charge of the prosecution.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that ISAI SCHEINBERG, the founder and former executive of PokerStars, an online poker company, pled guilty today to running a multimillion-dollar unlawful internet gambling business. SCHEINBERG pled guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “Ten years ago, this Office charged 11 defendants who operated, or provided fraudulent payment processing services to, three of the largest online poker companies then operating in the United States – PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, and Absolute Poker – with operating illegal gambling businesses and other crimes. As Isai Scheinberg’s guilty plea today shows, the passage of time will not undermine this Office’s commitment to holding accountable individuals who violate U.S. law.”
As alleged in the Indictment filed in March 2011 in Manhattan federal court, PokerStars was founded in approximately 2001, with headquarters in the Isle of Man. PokerStars offered online poker games to players around the world, including in New York, New York. SCHEINBERG was PokerStars’ founder and principal. On October 13, 2006, the United States enacted the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (“UIGEA”), making it a federal crime for gambling businesses to “knowingly accept” most forms of payment “in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling.” With the enactment of UIGEA, leading internet gambling businesses – including the leading internet poker company doing business in the United States at that time – terminated their United States operations. However, PokerStars, along with Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker, continued illegally to make internet poker available to U.S. customers through March 2011.
In pleading guilty today, SCHEINBERG admitted that he knew operating a business that offered internet poker to New Yorkers violated state law, and that it was the clear position of the U.S. government that offering online poker in the United States violated federal law. Nonetheless, Scheinberg decided to continue running his multimillion-dollar online poker business in the United States.
In 2012, PokerStars and its related companies (the “PokerStars Companies”) agreed to settle a civil forfeiture and civil money laundering action brought by the Office. That settlement involved, among other things, the PokerStars Companies forfeiting $547 million to the United States and assuming approximately $184 million in foreign player liabilities of another online poker company subject to the settlement. Additionally, in June 2013, Mark Scheinberg, ISAI SCHEINBERG’s son, agreed to forfeit to the United States an additional $50 million of distributions he received from the operation of the PokerStars Companies.
* * *
SCHEINBERG, 73, a dual Canadian and Israeli national, was arrested in Switzerland on June 7, 2019, based on the U.S. charges. In early October 2019, SCHEINBERG was ordered to be extradited to the United States by the Swiss Federal Office of Justice, a decision he initially appealed. SCHEINBERG subsequently withdrew his appeal and surrendered to U.S. federal agents on January 17, 2020. He was arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on the same day.
SCHEINBERG pled guilty to one count of operating an illegal gambling business, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955. SCHEINBERG faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison. He is scheduled to be sentenced by United States District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on a date to be determined.
The maximum sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentence for the defendant will be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman thanked the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Homeland Security Investigations for their outstanding work and perseverance in the investigation and prosecution of this case, and Swiss authorities and the Department of Justice Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs for their assistance with SCHEINBERG’s arrest and extradition proceedings.
With SCHEINBERG’s guilty plea, all 11 defendants – including Raymond Bitar, Scott Tom, Brent Beckley, Nelson Burtnick, Paul Tate, Ryan Lang, Bradley Franzen, Ira Rubin, Chad Elie, and John Campos – originally charged in the Indictment have now pled guilty. All but SCHEINBERG have been sentenced.
This matter is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Olga Zverovich, Sarah Lai, and Jason Cowley 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 Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced that ANTONIO DIMARCO pled guilty in Manhattan federal court today to participating in a conspiracy to commit wire fraud, based on his attempt to fraudulently acquire millions of dollars’ worth of artworks from art galleries, auction houses, and private collectors from around the world. U.S. District Judge Valerie E. Caproni presided over the defendant’s guilty plea.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As he admitted in court today, Antonio DiMarco was a serial swindler, using stolen identities to access auctions, place winning bids on multimillion-dollar artworks, and defraud lenders and insurers into believing that he owned artworks he never actually acquired. Now the self-portrait DiMarco painted has been revealed to be a sham.”
FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said: “Allegedly preying on an elderly woman, stealing her identity and using her financial information to commit a crime is simply despicable behavior. Mr. DiMarco is accused of trying to get money based on the value of artwork he didn’t own, and in his attempts he is alleged to have caused the victims in this investigation millions of dollars in losses. Whether it’s a scheme to steal a few dollars, or millions in precious works of art, criminals deserve to face justice and pay for their crimes.”
As alleged in the underlying Complaint, Indictment, public filings, and statements made in open court:
From at least as early as November 2017 through and including October 2018, DIMARCO and a co-conspirator attempted to acquire millions of dollars’ worth of artworks from around the world using a variety of methods, including through appropriating the identity and financial information of a particular victim, and creating and presenting a multitude of fraudulent documents.
For example, in November 2017, DIMARCO attempted to purchase artworks by Mark Rothko and Ad Reinhardt at an auction house located in New York, New York. DIMARCO obtained access to the auction through the use of an elderly victim’s identity documents, including her passport, and bank account information showing that the victim held liquid assets in excess of $7,000,000. DIMARCO and his co-conspirator further presented false information indicating that the victim had authorized DIMARCO to bid on her behalf, when in reality, the victim knew nothing about DIMARCO’s plan to purchase artworks in her name. DIMARCO won the auction, bidding close to $6,500,000 for the Rothko work, and $1,155,000 for the Reinhardt work. However, because DIMARCO in fact lacked funds to pay for the art, the auction house suffered a loss of close to $1,400,000.
Continuing throughout late 2017 through at least May 2018, DIMARCO and his co-conspirator attempted to purchase artworks from approximately 20 galleries and collectors throughout the world. Indeed, DIMARCO and his co-conspirator entered into completed sales agreements for more than 60 artworks totaling in excess of $150,000,000. Among other works, DIMARCO entered into a contract for a $16,500,000 Matisse painting. None of these works was ever paid for, yet to entice the galleries and collectors to continue to hold the artwork for DIMARCO and his co-conspirator, they provided strings of false excuses for non-payment. This caused galleries and collectors to suffer monetary losses.
Having failed to obtain valuable artworks that he had contracted to buy but never paid for, DIMARCO then began to seek out ways to monetize artworks that he had not acquired. DIMARCO created a series of false documents designed to deceive financiers and insurers into believing that in fact he owned the artworks. DIMARCO did this in hopes of obtaining funds based on the value of those artworks. DIMARCO was arrested in the course of executing this scheme, after having arranged a showing of high-value artwork he convinced others that he owned.
Through his plea today, DIMARCO further acknowledged two additional frauds conducted in the midst of the art scheme: a ploy to deprive a victim of hundreds of thousands of dollars through false representations concerning the purposes for providing the funds, and a scheme to purchase a high-end property in Manhattan using a fraudulently altered bank statement.
* * *
DIMARCO, 43, of Florida, was arrested on December 6, 2018, by law enforcement authorities in Florida, and subsequently transferred to federal custody. DIMARCO pled guilty to one count of conspiring to commit wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. 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.
DIMARCO is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Caproni on February 7, 2020.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
These cases are being handled by the Office’s Money Laundering and Transnational Criminal Enterprises Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Noah Falk, Tara M. La Morte, and Abigail S. Kurland are in charge of the prosecution.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: 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 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
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 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
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that JOHN GERACI pled guilty in Manhattan federal court today to conspiring to commit securities and wire fraud. GERACI’s plea stems from his participation in a scheme to defraud clients of his company, Meridian Capital Asset Management. GERACI caused two clients (“Victim-1” and “Victim-2”) to invest in a hedge fund called the Meridian Matrix Long Short Fund (the “Meridian Matrix Fund”). Between in or about December 2015 and November 2016, GERACI provided fictitious account statements and updates to Victim-1 and Victim-2, telling them that their investment was worth millions when, in reality, GERACI knew that large portions of it had been stolen by the Meridian Matrix Fund’s administrator. GERACI eventually liquidated the Meridian Matrix Fund and misappropriated significant portions of the remaining funds. Although he had recovered over $1 million of Victim-1 and Victim-2’s investment, GERACI falsely told them that their entire investment had been lost, and improperly used their money to pay his own personal and business expenses.
GERACI was arrested on August 7, 2018, and pled guilty today before United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As he admitted today, John Geraci lied to his clients about how much of their money was lost in investments with Nicholas Mitsakos. What wasn’t actually lost to Mitsakos was stolen by Geraci. Now Geraci, like Mitsakos, is a convicted felon.”
According to the Complaint, the Indictment, and other statements made in open court:
JOHN GERACI was the principal and founder of Meridian Capital Asset Management. In or about February 2015, GERACI was introduced to another individual, Nicholas Mitsakos, who purported to operate a hedge fund called Matrix Capital (“Matrix”). Mitsakos told GERACI that Matrix had tens of millions of dollars under management and had achieved annual returns between 19.4% and 66.3% from 2012 to 2014. GERACI and Mitsakos subsequently entered into an arrangement whereby GERACI would raise money for Mitsakos, Mitsakos would manage that money through a new vehicle, the Meridian Matrix Fund, and GERACI and Mitsakos would then split any fees that the Meridian Matrix Fund generated. As part of this arrangement, GERACI solicited Victim-1 and Victim-2 to invest approximately $2 million in the Meridian Matrix Fund, in large part by relying on Mitsakos’s claims about his supposed fund’s assets under management and performance returns.
In or about December 2015, however, GERACI learned that Mitsakos had only invested approximately $1.2 million of Victim-1 and Victim-2’s investment, and had misappropriated significant portions of the remaining money. GERACI also learned that Mitsakos never had any actual assets under management, and that his performance returns were accordingly fictitious and misleading. Nonetheless, GERACI never told Victim-1 or Victim-2 that their investment was in jeopardy or had been solicited with misleading information. To the contrary, GERACI sent Victim-1 and Victim-2 updates that hid Mitsaskos’s misappropriation and falsely claimed that their investment had appreciated. GERACI sent these fictitious updates even after GERACI had liquidated the Meridian Matrix Fund’s trading positions in or about June 2016.
In or about August 2016, Mitsakos was charged in this District with securities fraud and other offenses. In or about September 2016, GERACI changed course: instead of providing fictitious account updates to Victim-1 and Victim-2, GERACI told them, in substance and in part, that their entire investment had been wiped out through Mitsakos’s fraud. GERACI did this even though he had ultimately received approximately $1.1 million of Victim-1 and Victim-2’s investment back from Mitsakos after liquidating the Meridian Matrix Fund’s trading positions. Rather than returning this amount to Victim-1 and Victim-2, GERACI used it to pay for his own personal and business expenses, including, for example, payments on a BMW automobile, a gym membership, gas, groceries, travel expenses, and his cellphone bill.
In addition to sending false account updates to Victim-1 and Victim-2 even after learning that Mitsakos had lied about his fund’s assets and performance and that Mitsakos had stolen significant portions of Victim-1 and Victim-2’s investment, GERACI continued to try to raise money for an investment related to Meridian Matrix Fund from others. In attempting to do so, moreover, GERACI relied on the same representations about Matrix’s assets and performance that he knew to be false.
Mitsakos pled guilty to conspiring to commit securities fraud and wire fraud on May 25, 2017, and on November 7, 2017, was sentenced to 30 months in prison by the Honorable Denny Chin, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit who was sitting by designation in the Southern District of New York.
* * *
GERACI, 62, pled guilty to one count of conspiring to commit securities and wire fraud. This charge carries a maximum term of five years in prison. 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.
GERACI will be sentenced on January 23, 2020.
Mr. Berman praised the investigative work of the United States Postal Inspection Service and thanked the Securities and Exchange Commission for its assistance.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force. Assistant United States Attorneys Jared Lenow and Drew Skinner are in charge of the prosecution.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced the arrest and unsealing of a complaint charging JOHN GERACI with investment adviser fraud, securities fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy in connection with a scheme to defraud clients of his company, Meridian Capital Asset Management. GERACI caused two clients (“Victim-1” and “Victim-2”) to invest in a hedge fund called the Meridian Matrix Long Short Fund (the “Meridian Matrix Fund”). Between in or about December 2015 and November 2016, GERACI provided fictitious account statements and updates to Victim-1 and Victim-2, telling them that their investment was worth millions when, in reality, GERACI knew that large portions of it had been stolen by the Meridian Matrix Fund’s administrator. GERACI eventually liquidated the Meridian Matrix Fund and misappropriated significant portions of the remaining funds. Although he had recovered over $1 million of Victim-1 and Victim-2’s investment, GERACI falsely told them that their entire investment had been lost, and improperly used their money to pay his own personal and business expenses.
In a separate action, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed civil charges against GERACI.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, when John Geraci realized that Nicholas Mitsakos was a con artist, he withheld this fact from investors he had solicited for the purportedly high-yield fund run by Mitsakos. Geraci allegedly concealed Mitsakos’s fraud because it was lucrative for him. Mitsakos is now a convicted felon in this district, and Geraci faces prosecution for his alleged crimes.”
According to the allegations in the Complaint unsealed in Manhattan federal court:[1]
JOHN GERACI was the principal and founder of a company called Meridian Capital Asset Management, which provided investment advice to clients. In or about February 2015, GERACI was introduced to another individual, Nicholas Mitsakos, who purported to operate a hedge fund called Matrix Capital (“Matrix”). Mitsakos told GERACI that Matrix had tens of millions of dollars under management and had achieved annual returns between 19.4% and 66.3% from 2012 to 2014. GERACI and Mitsakos subsequently entered into an arrangement whereby GERACI would raise money for Mitsakos; Mitsakos would manage that money through a new vehicle, the Meridian Matrix Fund; and GERACI and Mitsakos would then split any fees that the Meridian Matrix Fund generated. As part of this arrangement, GERACI convinced Victim-1 and Victim-2 to invest approximately $2 million in the Meridian Matrix Fund, in large part by relying on Mitsakos’s claims about his supposed fund’s assets under management and performance returns.
In or about December 2015, however, GERACI learned that Mitsakos had only invested approximately $1.2 million of Victim-1 and Victim-2’s investment, and had misappropriated significant portions of the remaining money. GERACI also learned that Mitsakos never had any actual assets under management, and that his performance returns were accordingly fictitious and misleading. Nonetheless, GERACI never told Victim-1 or Victim-2 that their investment was in jeopardy or had been solicited with misleading information. To the contrary, GERACI sent Victim-1 and Victim-2 updates that hid Mitsaskos’s misappropriation and falsely claimed that their investment had appreciated. GERACI sent these fictitious updates even after Mitsakos sustained significant trading losses and even after GERACI himself had liquidated the Meridian Matrix Fund’s trading positions in or about June 2016.
In or about August 2016, Mitsakos was charged in this District with securities fraud and other offenses. In or about September 2016, GERACI changed course: instead of providing fictitious account updates to Victim-1 and Victim-2, GERACI told them, in substance and in part, that their entire investment had been wiped out through Mitsakos’s fraud. GERACI did this even though he had ultimately received approximately $1.1 million of Victim-1 and Victim-2’s investment back from Mitsakos after liquidating the Meridian Matrix Fund’s trading positions. Rather than returning this amount to Victim-1 and Victim-2, GERACI used it to pay for his own personal and business expenses, including, for example, payments on a BMW automobile, a gym membership, gas, groceries, travel expenses, and his cellphone bill.
In addition to sending false account updates to Victim-1 and Victim-2 even after learning that Mitsakos had lied about his fund’s assets and performance and that Mitsakos had stolen significant portions of Victim-1 and Victim-2’s investment, GERACI continued to try to raise money for the Meridian Matrix Fund. In attempting to do so, moreover, GERACI relied on the same representations about Matrix’s assets and performance that he knew to be false.
* * *
GERACI, 61, of Miami, Florida, is charged with one count of investment adviser fraud, one count of securities fraud, one count of wire fraud, and one count of conspiring to commit securities and wire fraud. The investment adviser fraud and conspiracy charges each carry a maximum term of five years in prison. The securities and wire fraud charges each carry a maximum term of 20 years in prison. The charges also carry a maximum fine of $5 million, 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 defendant will be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman praised the exceptional work of the Office’s Special Agent criminal investigators and thanked the SEC for its assistance.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force. Assistant United States Attorney Robert Allen 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.
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 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 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
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 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 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
Audrey Strauss, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced the guilty plea today of JOHN PIERRE DUPONT, a/k/a “John Gary Rinaldo,” in connection with a years-long scheme to defraud thousands of donors to scam political action committees that impersonated numerous U.S. Senate campaigns and candidates. DUPONT pled guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft before U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman.
U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: “In impersonating campaigns and candidates to raise money for fake political action committees, John Pierre Dupont took advantage of thousands of vulnerable individual donors who believed they were contributing to causes they believed in. Instead, hundreds of thousands of dollars that were intended to be legitimate donations were instead stolen by the defendant for his own personal enrichment. With today’s guilty plea, Dupont has admitted to his scheme and now faces a significant term of incarceration.”
According to the allegations in the Indictment, court filings, and statements made during court proceedings:
From 2015 through 2019, DUPONT defrauded thousands of donors who believed they were donating to three political action committees established by DUPONT (the “Scam PACs”), or to campaigns the Scam PACs falsely claimed to support. DUPONT’s scheme resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars being donated through websites he controlled and operated, none of which was donated to campaigns or causes.
The websites purported to be raising money in support of senate campaigns and candidates, a candidate for governor, and a candidate for president. Another website operated by DUPONT purported to be raising money “to unite immigrant families,” falsely claiming that donations to the Foundation for Sanity in Politics PAC would “go to help pay our volunteer attorneys’, doctors’, nurses’ and social workers’ costs and pay for transportation to unite immigrant families.” In fact, that PAC had no volunteers or staff, and dedicated no funds to paying for any action or advocacy.
DUPONT’s scheme targeted victims throughout the country, raising funds based on fraudulent representations that the donations would support the relevant causes, candidates, and campaigns. In reality, all of the money raised was kept and used by DUPONT, including to continue perpetrating the fraud through additional fundraising and overhead expenditures. None of the money donated to the Scam PACs was spent on political contributions, and DUPONT failed to report the donations, as required, in filings with the Federal Election Commission.
* * *
DUPONT, 82, of Blythe, Ca, pled guilty to one count of wire fraud, which carried a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and one count of aggravated identity theft, which carries a mandatory two years in prison consecutive to any other sentence imposed. The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as the defendant’s sentence will be determined by the judge. Sentencing before Judge Berman is scheduled for October 21, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.
Ms. Strauss praised the outstanding investigative work of the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
If you think you are a victim of the scheme alleged in this press release, please contact Wendy Olsen, Victim & Witness Services for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, at 866-874-8900.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorney Alex Rossmiller is in charge of the prosecution.
The United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Jay Clayton, announced today the conviction of TED ALBIN for his role in orchestrating a multimillion-dollar Medicare fraud scheme. ALBIN was convicted following a 12-day jury trial before U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl.“Ted Albin brazenly defrauded our Medicare system using fake and fraudulent prescriptions,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton. “He cheated Medicare out of millions meant for real patients with every taxpayer footing the bill. Today’s verdict makes clear: if you cheat Medicare, you will be prosecuted.”According to court documents and evidence presented at trial:From approximately 2016 through April 2021, ALBIN operated Grapevine Professional Services (“Grapevine”), a medical billing company, which he used to submit fraudulent reimbursement claims for durable medical equipment (“DME”), including back braces, knee braces, wrist braces, and shoulder braces. ALBIN submitted thousands of fraudulent claims on behalf of DME supply companies that had engaged Grapevine for its billing services, including at least three DME supply companies owned and controlled by ALBIN and his sister, Erin Foley—Liberty Bell Medical, Skye Medical, and Priority Medical. ALBIN’s fraudulent claims were based on prescriptions for DME which he knew had been illegally bought with kickbacks paid by the DME supply companies. At least some of the kickback-tainted prescriptions billed by ALBIN were generated with forged doctor’s signatures and without regard to the medical need of the patients for whom braces had been prescribed. ALBIN knew of the fraudulent nature of the claims he submitted to Medicare and nonetheless continued to submit such claims, over and over, for years. In total, the DME companies that ALBIN submitted claims for billed Medicare for over $38 million, on which Medicare paid out over $12 million.* * *ALBIN, 48, of Stuart, Florida, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years; one count of health care fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years; one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years; and one count of conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute, which carries a maximum sentence of five years. ALBIN is scheduled to be sentenced on December 10, 2025.Mr. Clayton praised the outstanding investigative work of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services – Office of Inspector General.This case is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys William Kinder, Jackie Delligatti, Brandon Thompson, and Ryan Finkel are in charge of the prosecution.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that ELIZABETH ANN PIERCE, the former chief executive officer (“CEO”) of Quintillion, a telecommunications company in Alaska, was sentenced today in Manhattan federal court to 60 months in prison for defrauding investors in New York of more than $270 million during her time as CEO. PIERCE previously pled guilty before U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos, who imposed today’s sentence.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “Elizabeth Ann Pierce, the then-CEO of Quintillion, placed her ambition above the law. In order to raise over $270 million to build a fiber optic cable system in northern Alaska, she repeatedly lied to her investors and forged the signatures of her customers’ executives on fake revenue contracts. When her scheme started to unravel, she tried to delay exposure with yet more lies and forged documents. She will now serve five years in prison for her crime.”
According to the Complaint, the Indictment, statements made in court, and publicly available documents:
Until July 2017, PIERCE was the chief executive officer of Quintillion, a telecommunications company based in Anchorage, Alaska, that built, operates, and markets a high-speed fiber optic cable system (the “Quintillion System”). The Quintillion System consists of three segments: a subsea segment that spans the Alaskan Arctic, a terrestrial segment that runs north to south along the Dalton Highway, and a land-based network of fibers that connects the subsea and terrestrial segments. The Quintillion System is connected to the lower 48 states through other existing networks.
Between May 2015 and July 2017, PIERCE engaged in a scheme to induce two New York-based investment companies to provide more than $270 million to construct the Quintillion System by providing them with eight forged broadband capacity sales contracts and related order forms under which Quintillion would obtain guaranteed revenue once the Quintillion System was built (the “Fake Revenue Agreements”). Under the Fake Revenue Agreements, four telecommunications services companies appeared to have made binding commitments to purchase specific wholesale quantities of capacity from Quintillion at specified prices. The cumulative value of the Fake Revenue Agreements was approximately $1 billion over the life of the Fake Revenue Agreements. In reality, the Fake Revenue Agreements were completely worthless because PIERCE had forged the counterparties’ signatures.
Certain of the Fake Revenue Agreements never existed at all, while others were falsified versions of genuine revenue agreements. PIERCE fabricated the terms of the false versions of the agreements to make them more favorable to Quintillion and, therefore, more appealing to investors than the genuine agreements. For example, under one of the Fake Revenue Agreements, the customer purportedly agreed to buy from Quintillion increasing quantities of gigabits per second of capacity over a period of 20 years. That agreement, if genuine, would have assured Quintillion hundreds of millions of dollars in future revenue. In reality, negotiations over that deal had ended unsuccessfully, a fact that PIERCE never disclosed to the investors. Under another Fake Revenue Agreement, the customer purportedly agreed to buy a fixed, predetermined amount of capacity from Quintillion regardless of subsequent market conditions. In truth, that customer was not obligated to buy any capacity.
Over the course of the scheme, PIERCE tried to cover up her fraud, by continuing to negotiate with the telecommunications companies in hopes of reaching agreements identical to the ones she forged. Her efforts were mostly unsuccessful. PIERCE completely failed to secure any revenue contract with one of those telecommunications companies, and the agreements she reached with the other three companies contained less favorable terms for Quintillion than the Fake Revenue Agreements, such as a smaller mandatory capacity purchase commitment, or no commitment at all. PIERCE hid these genuine, but inferior, contracts from the investment companies and her own staff. When Quintillion and the investment companies ultimately discovered the fraud in mid-2017, they learned that the real contracts PIERCE actually negotiated would generate only a fraction of the anticipated guaranteed revenue of the Fake Revenue Agreements she forged.
As part of PIERCE’s overall scheme, she also swindled two individual investors (together, the “Individual Victims”) out of a total of $365,000. PIERCE led these individuals to believe that they would acquire ownership interests in Quintillion when, in fact, she used half of one victim’s money and all of the other victim’s investment for her own personal benefit. These individuals have received no shares and none of their money back from PIERCE.
After the terrestrial system was built, PIERCE attempted to prevent the discovery of the Fake Revenue Agreements by accelerating the timing of incoming payments under certain genuine agreements to make those payments appear to be based on the Fake Revenue Agreements. PIERCE also sought to prevent Quintillion from invoicing one of the customers that had no real contract with Quintillion by fabricating email correspondence that gave the impression she was terminating a contractual relationship, when in fact no such relationship existed. PIERCE’s scheme started to unravel when another customer disputed invoices that it received from Quintillion pursuant to one of the Fake Revenue Agreements. Shortly thereafter, in the midst of Quintillion’s internal investigation, PIERCE abruptly resigned. Quintillion self-reported PIERCE’s conduct to the Department of Justice.
* * *
In addition to her term of imprisonment, PIERCE, age 55, now of Austin, Texas, was sentenced to three years of supervised release, and was ordered to forfeit $896,698.00 and all of her interests in Quintillion and a property in Texas. PIERCE will also be subject to a restitution order to her victims to be entered at a later date.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
This case is prosecuted by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sarah Lai and Vladislav Vainberg are in charge of the prosecution.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that ELIZABETH ANN PIERCE, the former Chief Executive Officer of a telecommunications company based in Anchorage, Alaska, pled guilty today in Manhattan federal court to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in connection with a scheme to use forged guaranteed revenue contracts fraudulently to induce investors to invest more than $250 million into her company for the construction of a fiber optic cable network in Alaska. PIERCE pled guilty before U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As she admitted today, Elizabeth Ann Pierce engaged in a brazen, multi-year scheme to obtain over $250 million from investors by misrepresenting that she had guaranteed revenue contracts with multiple telecommunications services companies. But in fact, the defendant faked those contracts, forged other people’s signatures on them, and then lied to cover up her fraud. She abused her executive position and is now being held accountable for her crimes.”
According to the Complaint, the Indictment, statements made in court, and publicly available documents:
Until July 2017, PIERCE was the chief executive officer of Quintillion, a telecommunications company based in Anchorage, Alaska that built, operates, and markets a high-speed fiber optic cable system (the “Fiber Optic Cable System”). This System consists of three segments: a subsea segment that spans the Alaskan Arctic; a terrestrial segment that runs north to south along the Dalton Highway; and a land-based network of fibers that connects the subsea and terrestrial segments. The Fiber Optic Cable System is connected to the lower 48 states through other existing networks.
Between May 2015 and July 2017, PIERCE engaged in a scheme to induce two investment companies to provide more than $250 million to construct the Fiber Optic Cable System by providing them with eight forged broadband capacity sales contracts and related order forms under which Quintillion would obtain guaranteed revenue once the Fiber Optic Cable System was built (the “Fake Revenue Agreements”). Under the Fake Revenue Agreements, four telecommunications services companies appeared to have made binding commitments to purchase specific wholesale quantities of capacity from Quintillion at specified prices. The cumulative value of the Fake Revenue Agreements was more than $24 million during the first year of the subsea segment’s operation, approximately $10 million during the first year of the terrestrial segment’s operation, and approximately $1 billion over the life of the Fake Revenue Agreements. In reality, the Fake Revenue Agreements were completely worthless because PIERCE had forged the counterparties’ signatures.
Certain of the Fake Revenue Agreements never existed at all, while others were falsified versions of genuine revenue agreements. PIERCE fabricated the terms of the false versions of the agreements to make them more favorable to Quintillion and, therefore, more appealing to investors than the genuine agreements. For example, under one of the Fake Revenue Agreements, the customer purportedly agreed to buy increasing amounts of gigabits per second of capacity over a period of 20 years from Quintillion. That agreement, if genuine, would have assured Quintillion hundreds of millions of dollars in future revenue. In reality, negotiations over that deal had ended unsuccessfully, which fact PIERCE never disclosed to the investors. Under another Fake Revenue Agreement, the customer purportedly agreed to buy a fixed, predetermined amount of capacity from Quintillion regardless of subsequent market conditions. In truth, that customer was not obligated to buy any capacity.
After the terrestrial system was built, PIERCE attempted to prevent the discovery of the Fake Revenue Agreements by accelerating the timing of incoming payments under certain genuine agreements to make those payments appear to be based on the Fake Revenue Agreements. PIERCE also sought to prevent Quintillion and the investors from invoicing one of the customers that had no real contract with Quintillion by fabricating e-mail correspondence PIERCE purportedly had with that customer. PIERCE’s scheme started to unravel when a customer disputed invoices that it received from Quintillion pursuant to one of the Fake Revenue Agreements. Shortly thereafter, in the midst of Quintillion’s internal investigation, PIERCE abruptly resigned. Quintillion self-reported PIERCE’s conduct to the Department of Justice.
* * *
PIERCE, age 55, now of Austin, Texas, pled guilty to one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and eight counts of aggravated identity theft, each of which carries a mandatory 2-year term of imprisonment, of which at least 2 years must be consecutive to any term of imprisonment imposed on the wire fraud count.
PIERCE is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos on May 16, 2019, at 11:00 a.m.
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 the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The prosecution of this case is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sarah Lai and Vladislav Vainberg are in charge of the prosecution.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: 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
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
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that BRADLEY PIERRE pled guilty today to conspiracy to commit bribery and conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in connection with his orchestration of a $60 million fraud targeting No-Fault automobile insurance companies. PIERRE pled guilty before the Honorable Paul G. Gardephe and is scheduled to be sentenced on May 7, 2024.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “For over a decade, Bradley Pierre led one of the largest No-Fault insurance frauds in the history of New York, bribing medical professionals and others, scamming insurance companies, defrauding the IRS, and ultimately denying many accident victims fair and proper treatment because of his rigged system. But innocent victims will not stand alone. Those who seek to shamelessly reap the benefits of scams like this will be brought to justice.”
According to the Indictment, the plea agreement, and statements made in court:
New York and New Jersey No-Fault insurance laws require a driver’s automobile insurance company to pay automobile insurance claims automatically for certain types of motor vehicle accidents, provided that the claim is legitimate and below a particular monetary threshold. Pursuant to these requirements, insurance companies will often pay medical service providers directly for the treatment they provide to automobile accident victims without the need to bill the victims themselves. This process resolves automobile claims without apportioning blame or fault for the accident, thereby avoiding protracted disputes and the costs associated with an extended investigation of the accident.
From at least in or about 2008 through in or about 2021, PIERRE agreed with others (the “Clinic Controllers”) to unlawfully own and run medical clinics located in the New York area including, among others, Veda Medical, Sky Medical, Sun Medical, and Rutland Medical (the “Clinics”). PIERRE knew that clinics are unable to bill insurance companies for No-Fault benefits if the medical facilities are controlled by non-physicians. PIERRE nonetheless agreed with others, including doctors, to submit bills to insurance companies falsely representing that the Clinics were owned and operated by licensed doctors, and for doctors to lie under oath during Examinations under Oath (“EUOs”) about the ownership, control, and finances of the Clinics. PIERRE personally coached doctors to lie under oath in these EUOs.
PIERRE used his control of the Clinics for personal profit. Between 2008 and 2021, PIERRE took over $20,000,000 from the Clinics by either transferring the funds directly to bank accounts under his control or using the Clinics' bank accounts to pay his personal finances. PIERRE also used his control of the Clinics to steer prescriptions to pharmacies in return for over a million dollars in kickbacks and to steer patients to seek legal representation from his wife’s law firm, the Law Firm of Nonna Shikh (the“Shikh Firm”). The Shikh Firm then filed lawsuits against insurance companies on these patients’ behalf. PIERRE maintained an office at the Shikh Firm and was actively involved in the legal practice as a “manager.”
PIERRE used his control of the Clinics and his managerial role at the Shikh Firm to also steer patients to seek MRIs at a medical facility over which he exercised substantial control (the “MRI Facility”). PIERRE also agreed with the purported sole owner of the MRI Facility, who was a doctor, that the doctor would falsely report injuries in MRI reports. These falsified injuries allowed the Clinics to bill insurance companies for additional, unnecessary medical services and allowed attorneys to falsely claim injuries in lawsuits against insurance companies. PIERRE and the doctor agreed that the doctor would lie to insurance companies during EUOs about PIERRE’s role in the MRI Facility.
PIERRE hid his control over several of the Clinics and the MRI Facility using phony loan arrangements. These agreements claimed that PIERRE was making non-recourse loans to the Clinics and the MRI Facility, which would only have to be paid back if insurance companies paid the medical practices’ claims. The agreements also set PIERRE’s “fee” as twice the amount loaned to the practices. However, in reality, PIERRE took almost $10,000,000 in excess of what these purported loan agreements permitted.
PIERRE further agreed to pay bribes to fill the Clinics and the MRI Facility with patients. From at least in or about 2015 up to and including 2021, PIERRE agreed with others to pay bribes to hospital employees, 911 dispatchers, and other individuals (collectively, “lead sources”) for the confidential names and numbers of motor vehicle accident victims. PIERRE agreed that others, including Anthony Rose, a/k/a “Todd Chambers,” would then call victims and lie to them to induce victims to receive medical treatment at the Clinics and legal representation from the Shikh Firm. PIERRE helped Rose expand his bribery operation to New Jersey by recommending clinics and attorneys in the state that would pay kickbacks for referrals. PIERRE also recommended that Rose open a shell company to hide the illegality of the payments, which Rose in fact did. PIERRE paid Rose over $800,000 as part of the bribery scheme.
PIERRE further recruited his own lead sources to participate in the bribery scheme. For instance, in or about 2017, PIERRE recruited Andrew Prime, knowing that Prime was bribing 911 operators and a hospital employee for confidential information. PIERRE paid Prime over $800,000 as part of the bribery scheme. PIERRE also personally recruited and bribed several of his own lead sources, including 911 operators and a source in 2019 that PIERRE codenamed the “Motherload” or “ML.”
PIERRE also agreed to bribe medical offices to send patients to the MRI Facility for MRIs. These medical offices included, among others, Epione Medical Center and Modern Brooklyn Medical. PIERRE facilitated these bribe payments through several intermediaries, including Anthony Rose, Jelani Wray, and others. PIERRE paid Jelani Wray over $800,000 in connection with these bribes.
PIERRE then engaged in tax evasion. PIERRE utilized two companies in connection with the healthcare fraud and bribery schemes: Medical Reimbursement Consultants (“MRC”) and Marketing 4 You (“M4Y”). PIERRE hid income from the IRS by concealing multiple bank accounts for MRC and using a series of check cashers for checks made out to MRC and M4Y. PIERRE also paid personal expenses from MRC and M4Y’s bank accounts but improperly reported these payments as “business expenses.” These included payments for his wedding, home renovations, jewelry, furniture, luxury clothing, travel, and gifts. In total, PIERRE underreported income, falsely reported expenses of over $4 million, and deprived the IRS of approximately $1.5 million in taxes due.
* * *
BRADLEY PIERRE, 41, of Closter, New Jersey, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bribery, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, and one count of conspiracy to defraud the IRS, which carries a maximum 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 a judge.
Mr. Williams praised the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit and the White Plains Division. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Mathew Andrews, Qais Ghafary, and Michael Lockard are in charge of the prosecution.
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that KENNETH WYNDER Jr., a former New York State Trooper and the president of the Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association (“LEEBA”), a labor union for law enforcement officers employed by the City of New York (the “City”), was sentenced to 40 months in prison, and ANDREW BROWN, a/k/a “Drew Brown,” the former financial advisor for LEEBA, was sentenced to 18 months in prison, for defrauding union members by misappropriating money from LEEBA’s Annuity Fund. WYNDER was also sentenced for personal income tax evasion and conspiring to evade federal taxes, including payroll taxes owed by LEEBA and its employees. WYNDER and BROWN were convicted after a five-day jury trial before U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel, who imposed today’s sentence. In addition, STEVEN WHITTICK, LEEBA’s former treasurer and a former police officer for New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), previously pled guilty to conspiring to commit tax evasion and making false statements to law enforcement and was sentenced to 28 months in prison.
U.S. Attorney Damian William said: “Kenneth Wynder and Andrew Brown raided union-sponsored retirement accounts for years, placing their self interest over the hard-working public servants they represented as the president and financial advisor of the union, respectively. Wynder also evaded taxes on cash, checks, and other income he obtained from the union, including as a product of their theft from the union members’ retirement accounts. Union officials and advisors who violate their duties to the union members they represent will face serious consequences for their abuse of trust.”
According to the Indictment, Superseding Indictment, the underlying complaints filed in this case, as well as other publicly available information, prior court filings, and evidence presented during the trial in Manhattan federal court:
Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association and the Annuity Fund
LEEBA is a labor union that has acted as the collective bargaining representative principally for law enforcement personnel at various City agencies and has entered into agreements on behalf of those law enforcement employees, including agreements for insurance and retirement benefits. The City agencies whose employees LEEBA represented included, at various times, DEP, the Department of Sanitation (“Sanitation”), and the Department of Transportation (“Transportation”).
The Annuity Fund is a LEEBA fund that received monthly contributions from the City for the benefit of LEEBA’s members and maintained separate accounts for each fund member. These accounts were functionally similar to employer-sponsored 401(k) retirement accounts. WYNDER was a Trustee of the Annuity Fund and signatory to agreements that governed the fund, and BROWN was a Plan Administrator and Financial Advisor of the Annuity Fund. Under the relevant agreements and plans, the money in the Annuity Fund could be used for no purpose other than funding individual members’ retirement accounts and defraying reasonable administrative expenses of the Annuity Fund itself.
WYNDER
WYNDER, a former New York State Trooper, is the founder and former President of LEEBA and a former member of LEEBA’s board of directors. WYNDER also formerly served as the Fund Administrator of the Annuity Fund and as a member of the board of trustees of the Annuity Fund, pursuant to which he owed a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the Annuity Fund and its account holders. WYNDER also was on the board of trustees of the LEEBA Welfare Fund (the “Welfare Fund,” and collectively with the Annuity Fund, the “LEEBA Funds”), which provided supplemental insurance benefits to its members. While occupying those positions, WYNDER centralized and controlled major decision-making authority for LEEBA and the LEEBA Funds, often acting without the proper approval of their respective boards of directors or trustees. WYNDER’s de facto dominance of LEEBA and the LEEBA Funds enabled him to make decisions in his own self-interest and contrary to the interests of the Annuity Fund and individual members.
BROWN
BROWN, the founder of a Westchester-based financial services company, is the former Benefits Administrator and insurance broker for LEEBA and the LEEBA Funds. As a LEEBA Annuity Fund Plan Administrator and Financial Advisor, BROWN helped manage the investments in the Annuity Fund, receiving a commission for his services, and had a responsibility to act in the best interest of LEEBA’s members.
WYNDER’s and BROWN’s Fraud Scheme
From at least in or about 2012 up to and including 2020, WYNDER and BROWN participated in a scheme to steal, embezzle, and misappropriate money from the Annuity Fund and individual members’ retirement accounts. Specifically, WYNDER and BROWN made hundreds of thousands of dollars of fraudulent transfers from the Annuity Fund to LEEBA’s operating account, which WYNDER controlled, and WYNDER regularly used the funds, once transferred from the Annuity Fund, to enrich himself at union members’ expense, including through unauthorized and excessive checks to himself and cash withdrawals for his own benefit and to pay insurance benefits for which BROWN received commissions. In addition, WYNDER caused the union to pay for various personal expenses such as the purchase of a Lexus automobile, travel expenses to Dallas to watch a Dallas Cowboys football game, and a sailing trip, all paid for by the union, and none of which were contemporaneously reported to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), as required.
To accomplish this fraudulent scheme, WYNDER and BROWN, acting in their capacity as the Annuity Fund’s Plan Administrators, repeatedly made false and misleading statements to a third-party retirement plan manager that served as the custodian for the Annuity Fund and the retirement accounts of individual union members, including through emails and faxes that WYNDER and BROWN used to withdraw increasingly large sums of money from the Annuity Fund, effectively causing such withdrawals to be made from the retirement accounts of individual members. From in or about 2014 through in or about 2019, WYNDER and BROWN caused the withdrawal of more than $500,000 from the individual retirement accounts that constitute the Annuity Fund, thereby wiping out the entire balance of certain members’ accounts. Without these improper withdrawals from the Annuity Fund, the LEEBA operating account would have been insolvent and would have had insufficient funds to pay for WYNDER’s excessive checks to himself and cash withdrawals and the personal expenses he caused to be charged to that account, as well as to pay for benefits for which BROWN made commissions as an insurance broker.
In addition, throughout the duration of this scheme, WYNDER and BROWN repeatedly made and approved false and misleading statements to LEEBA’s members and prospective members about how they were purportedly using and protecting their retirement accounts and the LEEBA Annuity Fund. WYNDER further concealed the scheme by causing LEEBA to fail to timely file mandatory reports and financial disclosures with the City and public reports to the Annuity Fund’s members and by making false statements to the Annuity Fund’s auditors and accountants.
WYNDER’s and WHITTICK’s Tax Evasion Scheme
From at least in or about 2015 through 2019, WYNDER participated in a conspiracy with LEEBA’s then-Treasurer, WHITTICK, to cause LEEBA to make payments to WYNDER and WHITTICK, by check and in cash, and to conceal those payments from the IRS. WYNDER and WHITTICK further conspired to ensure that such payments were made outside of LEEBA’s payroll processor. WYNDER and WHITTICK then concealed these payments from the IRS — including off-the-books payments to WYNDER of more than $400,000 — in order to evade their own personal income taxes and to evade the payroll taxes that were owed by LEEBA and certain LEEBA employees.
WHITTICK’s False Statements to Federal Agents
In or about October 2019, while serving as LEEBA’s Treasurer and after learning of a federal investigation into LEEBA’s finances – including the investigation of an alleged embezzlement scheme that ultimately resulted in wire fraud charges against WYNDER – WHITTICK repeatedly lied to federal agents in an effort to obstruct that investigation. WHITTICK did so despite personal involvement in some of the financial improprieties with which WYNDER was convicted. For example, on at least two occasions, on or about February 1, 2018, and March 30, 2018, WHITTICK withdrew $16,000 in cash from a LEEBA bank account and on each occasion deposited $15,000 cash into Wynder’s personal bank account and $1,000 cash into WHITTICK’s own personal bank account.
After the FBI executed a search warrant of LEEBA’s offices in September 2019, WHITTICK attempted to obstruct and to influence the ongoing federal investigation by making, in two different interviews with law enforcement agents, false statements about, among other subjects, cash withdrawals he made from LEEBA’s bank accounts, unauthorized withdrawals from LEEBA’s Annuity Fund and from the individual retirement accounts of Fund participants, and LEEBA’s payment for certain travel and entertainment expenses for union officers, including WHITTICK and WYNDER.
* * *
In addition to his prison term, WYNDER, 60, of Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, was ordered to forfeit $529,000 and to pay $838,683 in restitution.
In addition to his prison term, BROWN, 56, of Putnam Valley, New York, was ordered to forfeit $3,049 and to pay $529,000 in restitution.
On November 17, 2021, WHITTICK, 54, of Kingston, New York, was sentenced to 28 months in prison and ordered to pay $179,766 in restitution.
Mr. Williams praised the outstanding work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Labor Office of Labor-Management Standards, and IRS, Criminal Investigation. Mr. Williams also thanked the New York City Comptroller’s Office and the New York City Department of Investigation for their assistance.
The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorney Eli J. Mark is in charge of the prosecution, with the assistance of Paralegal Specialists Connor Hamill and Lauren Scarff.
Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today the conviction of SYLVIA ASH, a justice of the New York State Supreme Court, and former chair of the Board of Directors of Municipal Credit Union (“MCU”), for conspiracy to obstruct justice, obstruction of justice, and making a false statement to a federal agent. These charges arose from a scheme to impede the federal criminal investigation into fraud and corruption at MCU, a non-profit, multibillion-dollar financial institution, including misconduct committed by Kam Wong, the former chief executive officer (“CEO”), and Joseph Guagliardo, a former New York City Police Department Officer and member of MCU’s Supervisory Committee. Wong and Guagliardo were charged separately and previously pled guilty to embezzlement from MCU. ASH was convicted after a two-week jury trial before U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan and is scheduled to be sentenced on April 20, 2022 by Judge Kaplan.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “Today’s conviction demonstrates our resolve in uncovering criminal conduct at the highest levels of MCU and ensuring that those who attempt to thwart a federal investigation face consequences for that corrosive conduct. As the jury unanimously found, Sylvia Ash took repeated steps, over multiple months, to seek to obstruct the federal criminal investigation into financial misconduct at MCU that took place during Ash’s tenure as chair of the Board of Directors. Obstruction of justice, particularly by a sitting state court judge, is a serious crime, and Ash now faces punishment for her obstruction scheme.”
According to the Complaint, Indictment, Superseding Indictment, publicly-available information, court filings, and evidence presented during the trial in Manhattan federal court:
Municipal Credit Union
MCU is a non-profit financial institution headquartered in New York, New York, which is federally insured by the National Credit Union Administration (“NCUA”). MCU is the oldest credit union in New York State and one of the oldest and largest in the country, providing banking services to more than 500,000 members, and with more than $4 billion in member accounts, each of which is insured for at least $250,000 by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund, which is administered by the NCUA. Membership in MCU is generally available to employees of New York City and its agencies, employees of the federal and New York state governments who work in New York City, and employees of hospitals, nursing homes, and similar facilities located within New York State.
At all relevant times, MCU was overseen by a Board of Directors (the “Board”) and a Supervisory Committee (the “Supervisory Committee”), each of which was composed of members of MCU, who were not supposed to be compensated. As a result of severe deficiencies in the Board’s and the Supervisory Committee’s oversight of the credit union, which came to light in connection with the federal investigation, the New York Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) removed the members of the Supervisory Committee in May 2018 and the Board in June 2018. Subsequently, DFS appointed NCUA as the conservator for the credit union.
ASH
ASH is a sitting New York State Supreme Court Justice in Kings County. ASH has served as a judge in the New York State court system since approximately 2006, first as a Kings County Civil Court Judge, and then, starting in 2011, as a Kings County Supreme Court Justice. In or about January 2016, ASH was appointed as the presiding judge in the Kings County Supreme Court’s Commercial Division. After the charges in this case were unsealed, ASH was suspended from her position.
ASH served on MCU’s Board from in or about May 2008 until on or about August 15, 2016, when she resigned. From in or about May 2015 until her resignation, ASH served as the chair of the Board. ASH resigned after a complaint was filed against her by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct arising from a conflict of interest between her position as a state judge and her membership on MCU’s Board. More than a year before her resignation, ASH had been instructed to resign from MCU’s Board by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, which instruction she disregarded.
From at least in or about 2012 through 2016, while serving as an MCU Board member and while Wong was CEO, ASH received annually tens of thousands of dollars in reimbursements and other benefits from MCU, including airfare, hotels, food and entertainment expenses for her and a guest to attend conferences both domestically and abroad, annual birthday parties at a minor league baseball stadium, payment for phone and cable bills, and electronic devices. Even after her resignation from the Board, Wong continued to provide or cause MCU to provide ASH with benefits, such as Apple devices and sports tickets. As a sitting state judge, ASH was required to report both her board service and gifts and benefits she received from any outside sources on an annual state disclosure form. But between at least 2012 and 2018, ASH never reported her board service nor any gifts or benefits from MCU.
ASH’s Obstruction of Justice
In January 2018, after Wong, MCU’s then-CEO, had been approached by federal law enforcement agents investigating apparent financial misconduct by Wong, in an attempt to protect Wong, ASH agreed to and did sign a false and misleading memorandum purporting to explain and justify millions of dollars Wong had received from MCU. Wong subsequently provided that false and misleading memorandum to federal agents in an attempt to demonstrate that the millions of dollars had purportedly been orally approved for him to receive by ASH in June 2015, when she was chair of the Board. However, in truth, neither ASH nor the Board had approved the payment of those funds.
On March 1, 2018, shortly after Wong was placed on administrative leave by MCU, ASH was interviewed about the memorandum she signed for Wong. During that interview, ASH admitted that the memorandum was not accurate, but attempted to justify the money that Wong received by stating that MCU’s then-current general counsel had told her that Wong’s employment contract gave him the option of receiving such money. That statement was false.
On March 13, 2018, ASH was served with a federal grand jury subpoena (the “First Subpoena”), which required the production of documents related to various matters, including Wong’s compensation, and any communications with Wong through the date of the First Subpoena. On April 6, 2018, during a telephonic interview with a federal agent, ASH falsely stated that she did not have any materials responsive to the First Subpoena.
On June 8, 2018—after Wong was charged with embezzlement from MCU and the Government executed a judicially-authorized search of the residence of Guagliardo—ASH was interviewed by telephone for a second time about the First Subpoena. During that interview, ASH again falsely stated that she did not have any materials responsive to the First Subpoena.
On June 18, 2018, ASH was served with a second federal grand jury subpoena (the “Second Subpoena”), which required the production of, among other things, all correspondence with Wong and Guagliardo; all documents regarding any criminal investigation, internal investigation, or audit related to Wong; and all documents regarding items of value ASH received from MCU, Wong, or Guagliardo. Shortly afterward, ASH went to an Apple store and wiped an iPhone X that Wong had provided her in January 2018. In addition, ASH deleted emails from her Gmail account, including all of her emails with Guagliardo, none of which she produced in response to either of the two federal grand jury subpoenas directed to her. ASH also later wiped two MCU-issued iPads she had received.
On July 6, 2018, on ASH’s behalf, her then-counsel produced materials to the Government in response to the Second Subpoena. This production was materially incomplete, and did not contain text messages, emails, and other documents ASH possessed or had under her custody or control that were responsive to the Second Subpoena.
On July 9, 2018, ASH attended a voluntary interview with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. During this interview, while accompanied by her then-counsel, ASH made multiple false statements, including repeating false statements regarding her purported conversations with MCU’s former general counsel about Wong’s receipt of cash payments and falsely claiming that she and her aunt took a trip to Las Vegas paid for by MCU, including airfare, lodging, and entertainment expenses, after she resigned because all of her travel arrangements were paid for by MCU before she resigned, when in truth all of the expenses were paid for after she resigned.
On or about October 11, 2019, ASH was arrested and her cellphone was seized. After obtaining a judicially-authorized search warrant, ASH’s phone was searched, which revealed, among other things, numerous text messages, including with Wong and Guagliardo, that were concealed in response to the First and Second Subpoenas.
* * *
ASH, 64, of Brooklyn, New York, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison; one count of obstruction of justice, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison; and one count of making false statements, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. The maximum potential penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as sentencing of the defendant will be determined by Judge Kaplan.
On June 4, 2019, Wong was sentenced to 66 months in prison for embezzlement from MCU and was ordered to forfeit $9,890,375 and to pay restitution in the same amount to MCU.
On July 23, 2020, Guagliardo was sentenced to 27 months in prison for embezzlement from MCU and was ordered to forfeit $425,514 and to pay $468,189 in restitution to MCU.
U.S. Attorney Williams praised the outstanding work of the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office. Mr. Williams also thanked the New York County District Attorney’s Office and DFS for their assistance.
The case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eli J. Mark, Daniel C. Richenthal, and Jonathan Rebold are in charge of the prosecution, with the assistance of Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Alona S. Katz from the New York County District Attorney’s Office.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that JASON GALANIS pled guilty today for his participation in multiple fraudulent schemes. In particular, GALANIS pled guilty for his role in a scheme to manipulate the market for Gerova Financial Group, Ltd. (“Gerova”), a publicly traded company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, and to defrauding the shareholders of that company (the “Gerova Scheme”), as well as to defraud the clients of an investment advisory firm. GALANIS also pled guilty today to defrauding a Native American tribal entity and the investing public of tens of millions of dollars in connection with the issuance of bonds by the tribal entity (the “Tribal Bond Scheme”). GALANIS pled guilty to three counts of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, two counts of securities fraud, one count of investment adviser fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit investment adviser fraud before U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel. GALANIS had previously pled guilty, in July 2016, for his participation in the Gerova Scheme and, in January 2017, for his participation in the Tribal Bond Scheme, but those convictions were subsequently vacated.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As he admitted today, Jason Galanis orchestrated two multimillion-dollar fraud schemes, and put together a team of co-conspirators to carry them out. He and his codefendants engaged in market manipulation and the defrauding of shareholders, and they stole a large portion of the proceeds of tribal bonds that were intended to fund economic development projects. The overriding theme was victimizing others to enrich themselves. Now Jason Galanis awaits sentencing for his criminal greed.”
According to the allegations contained in the Information filed against GALANIS, charging documents filed against GALANIS’s co-conspirators, and statements made in related court filings and proceedings:
The Gerova Scheme
From 2009 to 2011, GALANIS, along with his co-conspirators John Galanis, Gary Hirst, Derek Galanis, Ymer Shahini, and Gavin Hamels, engaged in a scheme to defraud the shareholders of Gerova and the investing public, by effecting securities transactions in Gerova stock for the purpose of conferring millions of dollars of undisclosed remuneration to GALANIS and his co-conspirators, without adequate disclosure of GALANIS’s role in directing the transactions or the benefits received by GALANIS and his co-conspirators.
As a part of the scheme to defraud, GALANIS obtained sufficient control over Gerova so as to be able to cause Gerova to enter into transactions of his design, and for his benefit, including the issuance of Gerova stock. GALANIS obtained this control without causing himself to be identified as an officer or director of Gerova so as to purport to abide by an SEC-imposed bar that forbade him from holding such positions at publicly traded companies. Among other means and methods, GALANIS, with the assistance of Hirst, caused over 5,000,000 shares of Gerova stock, which represented nearly half the company’s public float and which were intended for GALANIS’s ultimate benefit, to be issued to and held in the name of Ymer Shahini, who knowingly served as a foreign nominee for GALANIS. GALANIS, John Galanis, Jared Galanis, Derek Galanis, Hirst, and Shahini understood that the purpose of the stock grant to Shahini was to disguise GALANIS’s ownership interest in the stock, and to evade the SEC’s regulations for issuing unregistered shares of stock.
At the same time, and as a further part of the scheme to defraud, GALANIS’s co-conspirators, with his knowledge and approval, opened and managed brokerage accounts in the name of Shahini (the “Shahini Accounts”), effected the sale of Gerova stock from the Shahini Accounts, and received and concealed the proceeds, knowing that this activity was designed to conceal from the investing public GALANIS’s ownership of and control over the Gerova stock.
GALANIS, among others, also fraudulently induced investment advisers, including Gavin Hamels, to purchase shares of Gerova stock in the investment advisers’ client accounts by offering compensation and/or other benefits to the respective investment adviser. By causing the purchase of Gerova stock at the time, quantity, and/or price of their choosing, GALANIS and others were able to, among other things, effectuate the sale of large quantities of Gerova stock from the Shahini Accounts that GALANIS controlled while artificially maintaining the price of Gerova stock through coordinated match trading. Such coordinated trading served to manipulate the market for Gerova stock and deceive the investing public. As a result, GALANIS and his co-conspirators reaped nearly $20 million in profits.
The Scheme to Defraud Clients of Investment Firm-1
From 2007 to 2010, GALANIS along with an investment adviser identified in the Information as “CC-2,” participated in a scheme to defraud the clients of CC-2’s investment advisory firm, identified in the Information as “Investment Firm-1.” Oftentimes in exchange for compensation from GALANIS, CC-2 caused Investment Firm-1 clients to invest in notes issued by entities associated with GALANIS.
When obligations owed by entities associated with GALANIS became due, CC-2 used client funds to purchase either notes issued by other entities associated with GALANIS or publicly traded shares held by such entities. The funds generated were then used to pay the original obligations owed to other Investment Firm-1 clients. Through these securities trades, funds in client accounts of one set of Investment Firm-1 investors were used to pay obligations owed to a different set of Investment Firm-1 investors by entities associated with GALANIS.
The Tribal Bond Scheme
From March 2014 through April 2016, GALANIS, along with his co-conspirators Gary Hirst, John Galanis, a/k/a “Yanni,” Hugh Dunkerley, Michelle Morton, Devon Archer, and Bevan Cooney, engaged in a fraudulent scheme to misappropriate the proceeds of bonds issued by the Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation (“WLCC”), a Native American tribal entity (the “Tribal Bonds”), and to use funds in the accounts of clients of asset management firms controlled by GALANIS and his codefendants to purchase the Tribal Bonds, which the clients were then unable to redeem or sell because the bonds were illiquid and lacked a ready secondary market.
Documents governing the Tribal Bonds specified that an investment manager would invest the proceeds of the Tribal Bonds in investments that would generate annuity payments sufficient to pay interest on the Tribal Bonds and provide funds to the WLCC to be used for tribal economic development purposes. In fact, none of the proceeds of the Tribal Bonds were turned over to the investment manager specified in the closing documents. Instead, significant portions of the proceeds were misappropriated by GALANIS and his codefendants for their own personal use.
Specifically, the proceeds of the Tribal Bonds were deposited into a bank account in the name of Wealth Assurance Private Client Corporation (“WAPCC”), an entity controlled by Dunkerley and Hirst. Dunkerley transferred more than $38 million from the WAPCC account to an account controlled by GALANIS, who then misappropriated more than $8.5 million of the proceeds for his personal use, including for expenses associated with his home, jewelry and clothing purchases, travel and entertainment, and restaurant meals.
There was no ready secondary market for the Tribal Bonds. Nonetheless, without prior notice to their clients, Morton and Hirst, acting at the direction of GALANIS, used funds belonging to clients of two related investment advisers, Hughes Capital Management, Inc. (“Hughes”), and Atlantic Asset Management, LLC (“Atlantic”), to purchase the Tribal Bonds, even though GALANIS, Hirst, and Morton were well aware that material facts about the Tribal Bonds had been withheld from clients in whose accounts they were placed, including the fact that the Tribal Bond purchases fell outside the investment parameters set forth in the investment advisory contracts of certain Hughes clients and of the Atlantic pooled investment vehicle in which the Tribal Bonds were purchased. When Hughes and Atlantic clients learned about the purchase of the Tribal Bonds in their accounts, several of them demanded that the Tribal Bonds be sold. However, because there was no ready secondary market for the Tribal Bonds, no Tribal Bonds have been sold from any Hughes or Atlantic client accounts. In addition, GALANIS and his codefendants failed to apprise clients of Hughes and Atlantic regarding substantial conflicts of interest with respect to the issuance and placement of the Tribal Bonds before the Tribal Bonds were purchased on these clients’ behalf.
In addition, a portion of the misappropriated proceeds was recycled and provided by GALANIS to entities affiliated with Archer and Cooney in order to enable Archer and Cooney to purchase subsequent Tribal Bonds issued by the WLCC. As a result of the use of recycled proceeds to purchase additional issuances of Tribal Bonds, the face amount of Tribal Bonds outstanding increased and the amount of interest payable by the WLCC increased, but the actual bond proceeds available for investment on behalf of the WLCC did not increase.
* * *
GALANIS, 49, pled guilty to three counts of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, each carrying a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; two counts of securities fraud, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $5,000,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; one count of investment adviser fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $10,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; and one count of conspiracy to commit investment adviser fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $10,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. GALANIS will be sentenced by Judge Castel on May 12, 2020.
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.
Mr. Berman praised the work of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and thanked the SEC.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Brian Blais, Rebecca Mermelstein, and Negar Tekeei are in charge of the prosecution.
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 Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and Dennis Rosen, Inspector General of the New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (“OMIG”), announced the unsealing today of a superseding indictment charging physicians MUSTAK Y. VAID, PAUL J. MATHIEU, and EWALD J. ANTOINE, as well as health-care executives MARINA BURMAN, ASHER OLEG KATAEV, a/k/a “Oleg Kataev,” and ALLA TSIRLIN with operating a $33 million health care fraud scheme through the operation of eight fraudulent medical clinics in Brooklyn, as well as the operation of related suppliers of medical equipment, tests, and services. As part of the fraud scheme, the defendants’ co-conspirators paid cash kickbacks to elderly and financially disadvantaged patients (the “Paid Patients”) who were insured by Medicare and/or Medicaid, and the defendants and their co-conspirators then billed Medicare and Medicaid for unnecessary medical services, tests, and supplies related to the Paid Patients.
VAID was previously indicted and arrested on these charges in November 2016. MATHIEU, ANTOINE, BURMAN, KATAEVE, and TSIRLIN were arrested earlier today and presented and arraigned this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield.
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “These defendants allegedly operated fraudulent medical clinics and suppliers in a scheme that bilked Medicare and Medicaid out of more than $30 million. As alleged, three of the defendants were doctors who, in violation of their Hippocratic oath, signed medical charts for patients they never treated and prescribed unnecessary medications, procedures, and supplies. Medicare and Medicaid were established to assist the elderly and economically disadvantaged, not to serve as cash cows for allegedly corrupt professionals.”
FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. said: “In this case, as alleged, Medicare and Medicaid programs suffered millions of dollars in losses when a group of physicians and health-care executives created, operated, or became associated with eight fraudulent medical clinics. As charged, their litany of crimes included paying a series of kickbacks, writing scripts for unnecessary medical tests, and arranging transportation services for patients who didn’t need a ride. Today’s charges certainly won’t prove to be a cure for all ills, but they are a step in the right direction when it comes to confronting the threats faced by the health care system.”
Medicaid Inspector General Dennis Rosen said: “This joint investigation and today's arrests send an unmistakable message. Those who seek personal gain by preying upon vulnerable New Yorkers and exploiting the Medicaid program will be held fully accountable. My office will continue to work closely with our partners in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, FBI and other state and federal agencies to root out fraud, waste and abuse in the Medicaid program.”
As alleged in the Indictment unsealed today and according to statements made in Court today: [1]
Aleksandr Burman, an individual with no medical license, established eight medical clinics in Brooklyn (the “Related Clinics”), which operated between 2007 and 2013. For each clinic, Aleksandr Burman hired one of three doctors – VAID, MATHIEU, or ANTOINE – to pose as the nominal owner of the clinic, since New York State law requires that a professional services corporation providing medical care must be owned by a medical professional. In fact, however, VAID, MATHIEU, and ANTOINE were each simply hired by Aleksandr Burman to pose as the owner of one or more of the clinics, and to come to the clinic periodically, in order to sign medical charts falsely stating that the doctor had examined a number of Paid Patients. VAID posed as the owner of one such clinic, while MATHIEU posed as the owner of four others, and ANTOINE posed as the owner of the remaining three. The three doctors were also paid to provide a large number of prescriptions and referrals for medically unnecessary supplies. Such unnecessary prescriptions included referrals for more than $3.5 million worth of durable medical equipment (“DME”), consisting mostly of incontinence supplies such as adult diaper sets ordered from a DME supply company (“USD”) owned jointly by BURMAN and Aleksandr Burman of the Related Clinics.
Many of the Paid Patients who received such prescriptions and referrals did not need or receive the diapers and other supplies. Instead, BURMAN and USD arranged for the Paid Patients to exchange their diaper prescriptions for valuable merchandise, such as bed linens, tablecloths, dishes, kitchen appliances, and other housewares. BURMAN and USD nonetheless filed Medicaid claims for such DME, seeking more than $3.5 million in reimbursement. BURMAN also transported cash to the Related Clinics to be used to pay kickbacks to the Paid Patients.
VAID, MATHIEU, ANTOINE, and their co-conspirators also provided medical referrals for transportation services to hundreds of Paid Patients, even though such transportation was not medically necessary. This practice generated more than $4 million in losses to Medicaid. In addition, VAID, MATHIEU, and ANTOINE provided referrals and prescriptions for medically unnecessary diagnostic tests, including MRIs, as well as prescriptions for medications such as expensive ointment compounds. The defendants and their co-conspirators then sent such medical referrals to specific medical testing companies, which in turn provided kickbacks to Aleksandr Burman.
In 2012, KATAEV and TSIRLIN became business partners of Aleksandr Burman, and operated as the managers of two of the Related Clinics. Their activity as managers included paying cash kickbacks directly to Paid Patients, and employing MATHIEU and ANTIONE to pose as the owners of the two clinics.
In or about March 2016, Aleksandr Burman pled guilty for his role in these offenses. He is scheduled to be sentenced on February 15, 2017, before the Honorable Paul G. Gardephe.
* * *
VAID, 43, of Brownstown Township, Michigan, MATHIEU, 51, of Morristown, New Jersey, ANTOINE, 66, of Valley Stream, New York, BURMAN, 54, of Manhattan, KATAEV, 48, of Staten Island, and TSIRLIN, 46, of Brooklyn, are all charged with: (1) conspiring to commit health care fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; (2) the substantive offenses of mail fraud and wire fraud, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; (3) the substantive offense of health care fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison; and (4) conspiring to make false statements relating to a federal health care program, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. BURMAN, KATAEV, and TSIRLIN are also charged with conspiring to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute, which has a maximum penalty of five years in prison.
The statutory maximum sentences are prescribed by Congress and provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants would be determined by the judge.
Mr. Bharara praised the investigative work of the New York FBI’s Health Care Fraud Task Force.
The prosecution of this case is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorney David Raymond Lewis is 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.
Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that SYLVIA ASH, a former justice of the New York State Supreme Court and chair of the Board of Directors of Municipal Credit Union (“MCU”), was sentenced today in Manhattan federal court to 15 months in prison for conspiracy to obstruct justice, obstruction of justice, and making a false statement to a federal agent. These charges arose from a scheme to impede the federal criminal investigation into fraud and corruption at MCU, a non-profit, multibillion-dollar financial institution, including misconduct committed by Kam Wong, the former chief executive officer (“CEO”), and Joseph Guagliardo, a former New York City Police Department Officer and member of MCU’s Supervisory Committee. Wong and Guagliardo were charged separately and previously pled guilty to embezzlement from MCU. ASH was convicted in December 2021 after a two-week jury trial before U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who imposed today’s sentence.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “While serving as a sitting state judge, Sylvia Ash took repeated steps, over multiple months, to seek to obstruct the federal criminal investigation into misconduct at MCU that took place during Ash’s tenure as chair of its Board of Directors. Ash agreed to do so with the now imprisoned former CEO of the credit union, who provided her with a steady stream of benefits from MCU, including after she was directed to resign from MCU’s board. Today’s sentence sends a clear message that those who attempt to thwart a federal investigation face serious consequences for that corrosive conduct.”
In pronouncing the sentence, Judge Kaplan said ASH’s “crimes struck at the heart of the criminal justice system.”
According to the Complaint, Indictment, Superseding Indictment, publicly available information, court filings, and evidence presented during the trial in Manhattan federal court:
Municipal Credit Union
MCU is a non-profit financial institution headquartered in New York, New York, which is federally insured by the National Credit Union Administration (“NCUA”). MCU is the oldest credit union in New York State and one of the oldest and largest in the country, providing banking services to more than 590,000 members, and with more than $4.2 billion in member accounts, each of which is insured for at least $250,000 by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund, which is administered by the NCUA. Membership in MCU is generally available to employees of New York City and its agencies, employees of the federal and New York state governments who work in New York City, and employees of hospitals, nursing homes, and similar facilities located within New York State.
At all relevant times, MCU was overseen by a Board of Directors (the “Board”) and a Supervisory Committee, each of which was composed of members of MCU, who were not supposed to be compensated. As a result of severe deficiencies in the Board’s and the Supervisory Committee’s oversight of the credit union, which came to light in connection with the federal investigation, the New York Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) removed the members of the Supervisory Committee in May 2018 and the Board in June 2018. Subsequently, DFS appointed NCUA as the conservator for the credit union. In or about February 2022, MCU successfully emerged from conservatorship under new leadership.
ASH
ASH served as a judge in the New York State court system from approximately 2006 through March 2022, first as a Kings County Civil Court Judge, and then, starting in 2011, as a Kings County Supreme Court Justice. In or about January 2016, ASH was appointed as the presiding judge in the Kings County Supreme Court’s Commercial Division. After the charges in this case were unsealed, ASH was suspended from her position. In or about March 2022, after ASH was convicted, she vacated her judicial office.
ASH served on MCU’s Board from in or about May 2008 until on or about August 15, 2016, when she resigned. From in or about May 2015 until her resignation, ASH served as the chair of the Board. ASH resigned after a complaint was filed against her by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct arising from a conflict of interest between her position as a state judge and her membership on MCU’s Board. More than a year before her resignation, ASH had been instructed to resign from MCU’s Board by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, which instruction she disregarded.
From at least in or about 2012 through 2016, while serving as an MCU Board member and while Wong was CEO, ASH received annually tens of thousands of dollars in reimbursements and other benefits from MCU, many of which were personal in nature, and not business-related, including airfare, hotels, food and entertainment expenses for her and a guest to attend conferences both domestically and abroad, annual birthday parties at a minor league baseball stadium, payment for phone and cable bills, and electronic devices. Even after her resignation from the Board, Wong continued to provide or cause MCU to provide ASH with benefits, such as Apple devices and sports tickets. As a sitting state judge, ASH was required to report both her board service and gifts and benefits she received from any outside sources on an annual state disclosure form. But between at least 2012 and 2018, ASH never reported her board service nor any gifts or benefits from MCU.
ASH’s Obstruction of Justice
In January 2018, after Wong, MCU’s then-CEO, had been approached by federal law enforcement agents investigating apparent financial misconduct by Wong, in an attempt to protect Wong, ASH agreed to and did sign a false and misleading memorandum purporting to explain and justify millions of dollars Wong had received from MCU. Wong subsequently provided that false and misleading memorandum to federal agents in an attempt to demonstrate that the millions of dollars had purportedly been orally approved for him to receive by ASH in June 2015, when she was chair of the Board. However, in truth, neither ASH nor the Board had approved the payment of those funds.
On March 1, 2018, shortly after Wong was placed on administrative leave by MCU, ASH was interviewed about the memorandum she signed for Wong. During that interview, ASH admitted that the memorandum was not accurate, but attempted to justify the money that Wong received by stating that MCU’s then-current general counsel had told her that Wong’s employment contract gave him the option of receiving such money. That statement was false.
On March 13, 2018, ASH was served with a federal grand jury subpoena (the “First Subpoena”), which required the production of documents related to various matters, including Wong’s compensation, and any communications with Wong through the date of the First Subpoena. On April 6, 2018, during a telephonic interview with a federal agent, ASH falsely stated that she did not have any materials responsive to the First Subpoena.
On June 8, 2018—after Wong was charged with embezzlement from MCU and the Government executed a judicially-authorized search of the residence of Guagliardo—ASH was interviewed by telephone for a second time about the First Subpoena. During that interview, ASH again falsely stated that she did not have any materials responsive to the First Subpoena.
On June 18, 2018, ASH was served with a second federal grand jury subpoena (the “Second Subpoena”), which required the production of, among other things, all correspondence with Wong and Guagliardo; all documents regarding any criminal investigation, internal investigation, or audit related to Wong; and all documents regarding items of value ASH received from MCU, Wong, or Guagliardo. Shortly afterward, ASH went to an Apple store and wiped an iPhone X that Wong had provided her in January 2018. In addition, ASH deleted emails from her Gmail account, including all of her emails with Guagliardo, none of which she produced in response to either of the two federal grand jury subpoenas directed to her. ASH also later wiped two MCU-issued iPads she had received.
On July 6, 2018, on ASH’s behalf, her then-counsel produced materials to the Government in response to the Second Subpoena. This production was materially incomplete, and did not contain text messages, emails, and other documents ASH possessed or had under her custody or control that were responsive to the Second Subpoena.
On July 9, 2018, ASH attended a voluntary interview with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. During this interview, while accompanied by her then-counsel, ASH made multiple false statements, including repeating false statements regarding her purported conversations with MCU’s former general counsel about Wong’s receipt of cash payments and falsely claiming that she and her aunt took a trip to Las Vegas paid for by MCU, including airfare, lodging, and entertainment expenses, after she resigned because all of her travel arrangements were paid for by MCU before she resigned, when in truth all of the expenses were paid for after she resigned.
On or about October 11, 2019, ASH was arrested, and her cellphone was seized. After obtaining a judicially authorized search warrant, ASH’s phone was searched, which revealed, among other things, numerous text messages, including with Wong and Guagliardo, that were concealed in response to the First and Second Subpoenas.
* * *
In addition to her prison term, ASH, 64, of Brooklyn, New York, was sentenced to a $80,000 fine, and two years of supervised release, including a special condition of twenty hours of community service per week while on supervised release. The court reserved the decision on restitution to MCU.
On June 4, 2019, Wong was sentenced to 66 months’ imprisonment for embezzlement from MCU and was ordered to forfeit $9,890,375 and to pay restitution in the same amount to MCU.
On July 23, 2020, Guagliardo was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment for embezzlement from MCU and was ordered to forfeit $425,514 and to pay $468,189 in restitution to MCU.
U.S. Attorney Williams praised the outstanding work of the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office. Mr. Williams also thanked the New York County District Attorney’s Office and DFS for their assistance.
The case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eli J. Mark, Daniel C. Richenthal, and Jonathan Rebold are in charge of the prosecution, with the assistance of Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Alona S. Katz from the New York County District Attorney’s Office.
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Naomi Gruchacz, the Special Agent in Charge of the New York Office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“HHS-OIG”), announced today that the United States has filed and settled a civil fraud lawsuit against KLAUS PETER RENTROP and his medical practice GRAMERCY CARDIAC DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES P.C. (“GRAMERCY CARDIAC”) for paying millions of dollars in kickbacks to physicians and their practices for patient referrals. The kickbacks took the form of inflated office “rental payments” and fees paid to contracted cardiologists. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, from 2010 to 2021, RENTROP and Gramercy Cardiac entered into office space rental agreements, often in excess of fair market value, with primary care and other physicians (or their medical practices) in order to induce these physicians to refer patients to GRAMERCY CARDIAC-contracted cardiologists who saw patients at the rented office space. These cardiologists then regularly ordered diagnostic tests and procedures that were performed at GRAMERCY CARDIAC locations and were paid a flat fee for each referral. GRAMERCY CARDIAC provides cardiac diagnostic imaging services, including PET and SPECT scans, and previously operated four offices in New York City. RENTROP founded and owns GRAMERCY CARDIAC and serves as its President.
Under the settlement approved today by U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman, RENTROP and GRAMERCY CARDIAC will pay $4,510,678 to the United States and have admitted and accepted responsibility for conduct alleged in the Complaint as further described below. RENTROP and GRAMERCY CARDIAC have also agreed to pay $1,989,362 to the State of New York to resolve the State’s claims, for a total recovery of $6.5 million. The settlement amount is based on the Office’s assessment of RENTROP’s and GRAMERCY CARDIAC’s ability to pay based on the financial information they provided. The parties have also executed a Consent Judgment in the amount of $64,416,515, which may be enforced if Defendants do not make the payments required under the settlement agreement. In addition, RENTROP has agreed to relinquish his ownership and control over GRAMERCY CARDIAC by the end of the calendar year and will pay a portion of the proceeds of any sale of the practice to the United States. Further, RENTROP is indefinitely barred from working for any entity that bills federal healthcare programs. He also entered into a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement with HHS-OIG, which prohibits him from, among other things, participating in Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal healthcare programs for five years.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “Over more than a decade, Klaus Peter Rentrop and Gramercy Cardiac paid millions of dollars to doctors and their medical practices in exchange for patient referrals for cardiac testing and procedures. The Anti-Kickback Statute is meant to ensure that when making medical decisions, a doctor considers only the patient’s best interests — not the doctor’s or others’ financial interests. The defendants violated those doctor-patient relationships through their kickback arrangements, and now they are being held to account.”
HHS-OIG Special Agent in Charge Naomi Gruchacz said: “Individuals and entities that participate in the federal healthcare system are required to obey the laws meant to preserve the integrity of program funds and the provision of appropriate, quality services to patients. Certain violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute can induce medically unnecessary testing and influence physicians’ decision-making inappropriately.”
According to the Complaint, from 2010 through 2021:
RENTROP and GRAMERCY CARDIAC offered and paid physicians and their practices millions of dollars in kickbacks in the form of inflated “rental payments” and referral fees to induce them to refer patients to Gramercy-contracted cardiologists and to Gramercy Cardiac for diagnostic tests and procedures, in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law.
RENTROP and GRAMERCY CARDIAC’s scheme worked as follows. RENTROP and GRAMERCY CARDIAC entered into office space rental agreements, often in excess of fair market value, with primary care and other physicians or their medical practices (the “Rental Practices”). These agreements typically provided for the use of an exam room once or twice a month, as well as for the use of basic equipment (e.g., a telephone and a computer) and front desk staff to assist with scheduling. The defendants often agreed to pay thousands of dollars each month in rent. RENTROP and GRAMERCY CARDIAC also entered into independent contractor agreements with dozens of cardiologists (the “Gramercy-Contracted Cardiologists”) who were sent to see patients at the Rental Practices. In exchange for the purported “rental payments,” the Rental Practices referred patients to the Gramercy-Contracted Cardiologists, who in turn referred many of these patients to a GRAMERCY CARDIAC office to undergo cardiac diagnostic tests and procedures. RENTROP and GRAMERCY CARDIAC paid the Gramercy-Contracted Cardiologists a flat fee for each test or procedure performed on referred patients at a Gramercy Cardiac location, with larger fees paid for tests and procedures for which GRAMERCY CARDIAC received a greater reimbursement. These per-procedure fees were the only compensation paid to some Gramercy-Contracted Cardiologists.
To ensure the kickbacks paid to the Rental Practices were working, RENTROP directed his staff to calculate GRAMERCY CARDIAC’s return on investment from the “rental payments” paid to each Rental Practice. RENTROP insisted on a minimum return on investment of at least 300% from the kickbacks.
These Rental Practices referred tens of thousands of patients to the Gramercy-Contracted Cardiologists, who in turn referred more than 23,000 patients for PET and SPECT scans at GRAMERCY CARDIAC. A significant proportion of these patients were Medicare or Medicaid beneficiaries: GRAMERCY CARDIAC billed Medicare or Medicaid for tests or procedures provided to tens of thousands of Medicare or Medicaid beneficiaries who were referred by the Rental Practices, including for PET and SPECT scans for many thousands of these beneficiaries. As a result, the claims submitted for payment for these tests and procedures were false and violated the federal False Claims Act.
As part of the settlement, RENTROP and GRAMERCY CARDIAC each admits, acknowledges, and accepts responsibility for the following conduct:
From 2010 through 2021, GRAMERCY CARDIAC, at RENTROP’s direction, entered into rental agreements (the “Rental Agreements”) with more than 130 physicians and medical practices (the “Rental Practices”) under which GRAMERCY CARDIAC leased a portion of the practice’s office space, usually one or two exam rooms for certain days or hours each month. RENTROP took part in the negotiation of the Rental Agreements and signed them on behalf of GRAMERCY CARDIAC. GRAMERCY CARDIAC paid a total of more than $11 million to the Rental Practices pursuant to the Rental Agreements.
From 2010 through 2021, GRAMERCY CARDIAC, at RENTROP’s direction, entered into independent contractor agreements (the “Independent Contractor Agreements”) with more than 50 cardiologists (the “Gramercy-Contracted Cardiologists”) or their medical practices. RENTROP took part in the negotiation of the Independent Contractor Agreements and signed them on behalf of GRAMERCY CARDIAC.
GRAMERCY CARDIAC sent the Gramercy-Contracted Cardiologists to the rented office space one or more times each month to see patients who were referred for an assessment by the healthcare providers at the Rental Practice. The Gramercy-Contracted Cardiologists in turn referred these patients to GRAMERCY CARDIAC to undergo diagnostic tests and procedures, such as PET and SPECT scans.
GRAMERCY CARDIAC paid many of the Gramercy-Contracted Cardiologists a flat fee for each diagnostic test or procedure which the cardiologist referred to GRAMERCY CARDIAC provided that the patient received the test or procedure at a GRAMERCY CARDIAC location. These “per procedure” fees were the only compensation GRAMERCY CARDIAC provided to the Gramercy-Contracted Cardiologists.
Certain versions of Independent Contractor Agreements stated that the Gramercy-Contracted Cardiologist was to be paid not for the referrals to GRAMERCY CARDIAC, but rather for the “[a]dministration and supervision” of the PET and SPECT scans to be performed at GRAMERCY CARDIAC. However, in many cases, the Gramercy-Contracted Cardiologists did not, in fact, administer and supervise the PET and SPECT scans and were nonetheless paid by GRAMERCY CARDIAC based solely on the number of tests and procedures referred.
At the time the Rental Agreements were executed, it was understood that the Rental Practices would refer their patients to the Gramercy-Contracted Cardiologists. Indeed, GRAMERCY CARDIAC calculated the number of hours per month that GRAMERCY CARDIAC leased the office space based on the volume of expected patient referrals.
GRAMERCY CARDIAC calculated its return on investment from its Rental Agreements — which it internally referred to as the “efficiency” of the Rental Agreements — by comparing the revenue GRAMERCY CARDIAC generated from the patient referrals to the payments it made to the Rental Practice.
When a Rental Agreement’s return on investment fell below the minimum threshold, GRAMERCY CARDIAC, at RENTROP’s direction, would often refuse to pay the Rental Practice the amounts due under the Rental Agreement. In addition, at RENTROP’s direction, GRAMERCY CARDIAC Physician Liaisons advised Rental Practice physicians that if the volume of referrals to Gramercy-Contracted Cardiologists did not increase, rent would be decreased, or the Rental Agreement would be terminated. GRAMERCY CARDIAC terminated a number of Rental Agreements because the return on investment through patient referrals was too low.
When negotiating or re-negotiating the monthly rental payment to be made under a Rental Agreement, GRAMERCY CARDIAC took into account the expected or historic return on investment based on the volume of patient referrals generated from the Rental Practice.
The rental fees paid by GRAMERCY CARDIAC under the Rental Agreements were in excess of fair market value for at least some Rental Agreements.
In connection with the filing of the lawsuit and settlement, the Government joined a private whistleblower lawsuit that had been filed under seal pursuant to the False Claims Act.
* * *
Mr. Williams praised the outstanding investigative work of HHS-OIG, and he thanked the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit at the New York State Attorney General’s Office for its extensive collaboration in the investigation.
The case is being handled by the Office’s Civil Frauds Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacob Lillywhite is in charge of the case.