Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:18-cr-00737
Case Name:   USA v. Wong
  Press Releases:
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.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H4dRjlGbI2UhQyHGhtvCb8kLxgBDuoaMJnn5tTZwOzs
  Last Updated: 2024-03-25 21:19:09 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The 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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:18-mj-03876
Case Name:   USA v. Wong
  Press Releases:
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.





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GuHDd_cmKgYtBGJ80sw_vjHDXo8Ck_m5ckZAhFg52pM
  Last Updated: 2024-04-09 13:59:56 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The 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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E