Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-NY  7:18-cr-00859
Case Name:   USA v. Henning
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that STEVEN L. HENNING, a certified public accountant (“CPA”) who was a partner at a Manhattan accounting firm, was sentenced today to 51 months in prison for participating in two wire fraud schemes.  In the first, he falsely claimed to have entered into multimillion-dollar intellectual property deals and defrauded investors out of $2 million.  In the second, he falsely claimed to have entered into client engagements and defrauded an employer out of over $240,000.  HENNING was sentenced by United States District Judge Cathy Seibel.

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Over several years, Steven Henning committed brazen frauds, exploiting his stature and career accomplishments to defraud people who trusted and relied on him.  Today he has received a significant prison sentence for his crimes.”

At the sentencing hearing, Judge Seibel said that HENNING is a “thief,” he committed “blatant fraud,” and his conduct was “extremely serious.”

According to the allegations in the Information to which HENNING pled guilty, as well as other public information:

HENNING, a CPA at a Manhattan accounting firm, established his own firm called OpportunIP, which he allegedly told victims was a company specializing in assisting other entities in taking intellectual property to the market.  HENNING induced victims to invest in OpportunIP by providing them with fraudulent documents showing OpportunIP’s involvement in multimillion-dollar transactions that would reap millions of dollars in future profits.  Ultimately, the victims learned that the deals did not exist, the documents were false and forged, and they were victims of an alleged scheme to defraud them out of millions of dollars.

As further alleged in the information, after leaving the Manhattan accounting firm, HENNING sought employment with a firm in Chicago, Illinois (the “Chicago Firm”).  He induced the Chicago Firm to hire him and provide him with $240,000 in draw payments based on false and fraudulent statements about business he would bring to the Chicago Firm, including by sending the Chicago Firm fraudulent contracts.

*                *                *

In addition to his prison term, HENNING was ordered to serve three years of supervised release, pay $938,246 in restitution and forfeit $938,246.

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the U. S. Postal Inspection Service and the SEC Office of Inspector General. 

The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s White Plains Division.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Margery B. Feinzig is in charge of the prosecution.

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that STEVEN L. HENNING, a certified public accountant who was a partner at a Manhattan accounting firm, pled guilty today to participating in two wire fraud schemes.  In the first, he falsely claimed to have entered into multimillion-dollar intellectual property deals and defrauded investors out of $2 million.  In the second, he falsely claimed to have entered into client engagements and defrauded an employer out of over $270,000. 

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Steven Henning admitted today that he defrauded investors and then continued committing crime by defrauding an employer who hired him after he left his partnership at a Manhattan accounting firm.  Through the frauds, he stole over $2.2 million.  He will now have to answer for his actions.”

According to the Information filed today to which HENNING pled guilty, as well as other public information, HENNING, a CPA at a Manhattan accounting firm, established his own firm called OpportunIP, which he allegedly told victims was a company specializing in assisting other entities in taking intellectual property to the market.  Henning induced victims to invest in OpportunIP by providing them with false documents showing OpportunIP’s involvement in multi-million dollar transactions that would reap millions of dollars in future profits.  Ultimately, the victims learned that the deals did not exist and they were victims of an alleged scheme to defraud them out of millions of dollars.

As further alleged in the information, after leaving the Manhattan accounting firm, HENNING sought employment with a firm in Chicago, Illinois (the “Chicago Firm”).  He induced the Chicago firm to hire him and provide him with $240,000 in draw payments based on false and fraudulent statements, including by sending the Chicago Firm fraudulent contracts.

*                *                *

HENNING, 58, pled guilty to two counts of wire fraud, which carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense.  Sentencing before Judge Cathy Seibel has been scheduled for October 18, 2019.

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

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the U. S. Postal Inspection Service and the SEC Office of Inspector General.

The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s White Plains Division.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Margery B. Feinzig is in charge of the prosecution.

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Philip Bartlett, Inspector-In-Charge for the New York Division of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), announced today that STEVEN L. HENNING, a certified public accountant who was a Managing Partner at a Manhattan accounting firm, was charged with wire fraud in connection with a scheme in which he falsely claimed to have entered into multimillion-dollar intellectual property deals and defrauded investors out of $2 million.  HENNING was arrested in St. Johns, Florida, yesterday afternoon and presented before a U.S. Magistrate judge in federal court in Jacksonville, Florida, this afternoon.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Steven Henning, a CPA at a Manhattan accounting firm, established his own firm called OpportunIP, which he allegedly told victims was a company specializing in assisting other entities in taking intellectual property to the market.  Henning allegedly induced victims to invest in OpportunIP by providing them with false documents showing OpportunIP’s involvement in multi-million dollar transactions that would reap millions of dollars in future profits.   Ultimately, the victims learned that the deals did not exist and they were victims of an alleged scheme to defraud them out of millions of dollars.”

USPIS Inspector-in-Charge Philip R. Bartlett said:  “Mr. Henning’s claims were nothing more than a bag of lies.  Law enforcement reminds investors to research all investment opportunities thoroughly to avoid being scammed.”

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

HENNING, a certified public accountant, was a managing partner at an accounting firm in Manhattan (the “Accounting Firm”).  He was the Partner-in-Charge of Advisory Services and served on the firm’s Executive Committee.  Previously, HENNING was employed as a Professor of accounting at a Texas university (the “University”) and he served as an Academic Fellow in the Office of the Chief Accountant at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In June 2008, while employed at the Accounting Firm, HENNING formed what would later become known as OpportunIP, LLC (“OpportunIP”), a business that, at different times, had offices in Purchase and Tarrytown, New York.  HENNING was the Chief Executive Officer and owned an interest in OpportunIP through an entity known as the Henning Family Partnership (“HFP”).  Members of the Accounting Firm also owned interests in OpportunIP.

In May 2012, HENNING told one of his prior students from the University (“Victim-1”) about an endeavor he was involved in, OpportunIP.  HENNING described OpportunIP as a business venture through which HENNING established partnerships with owners or developers of intellectual property (“IP”) and assisted them in taking the IP to market in exchange for a substantial percentage share of future profits.  Over the next few years, HENNING provided Victim-1 with information about OpportunIP, including a series of IP opportunities that were in various stages of implementation.  For example, he claimed that OpportunIP had signed an escrow agreement with two multi-national corporations (“MNC-1” and “MNC-2”) relating to the “license-out” of certain IP that was being represented by OpportunIP (the “Escrow Agreement”).

In fall 2014, HENNING presented Victim-1 with an opportunity to invest in OpportunIP and asked Victim-1 to help secure bridge financing for an IP owner (“IP Owner-1”) who was in financial distress and needed temporary financing while he brought his IP to market.  HENNING represented that the IP owner needed a $500,000 loan to get him past certain financial hurdles and would repay the loan in six months. 

Thereafter, there were ongoing communications relating to Victim-1’s purchase of an interest in OpportunIP and, at around the same time, HENNING disclosed another multi-million dollar OpportunIP License-Out deal involving an agreement between an IP owner represented by OpportunIP and a global automobile manufacturer (“AM-1”).  HENNING provided Victim-1 with a copy of the License-Out Agreement (“AM-1 License Agreement) and an AM-1 corporate guarantee (the “AM-1 Guarantee”).  In addition, he provided an agreement in which a second global automobile manufacturer (“AM-2”) agreed to license the same technology (“AM-2 License Agreement”).

On October 31, 2014, HENNING listed IP deals for which he had “signed deals and minimum guarantees” and proposed that Victim-1 acquire 5 percent of OpportunIP for $2 million.  On November 2, 2014, Victim-1 indicated his willingness to proceed and on November 7, 2014, HENNING sent Victim-1 the purported License-in Agreement between OpportunIP and MNC-1 (“MNC-1 License Agreement”) and the “License-out Agreement” between OpportunIP and MNC-2 (“MNC-2 License Agreement”).  Three days later, on November 10, 2014, HENNING emailed Victim-1 the Escrow Agreement, in which MNC-1, MNC-2, and OpportunIP purportedly agreed that, pursuant to the license agreements, $35 million would be held in escrow and OpportunIP would receive $2 million no later than December 31, 2014.

The AM-1 Guarantee, AM-1 Licensing Agreement, and the Escrow Agreement were all fraudulent documents and the deals never existed.  However, based on the information and documentation provided by HENNING, on November 21, 2014, Victim-1 sent HENNING $500,000, which was the beginning of the funding for HENNING’s proposal for Victim-1 to purchase an interest in OpportunIP and was a loan to HENNING.  On November 26, 2014, Victim-1 had another $500,000 wired to a bank account controlled by IP Owner-1, in order to fund the purported loan to IP Owner-1.

HENNING and Victim-1 continued to communicate about HENNING’s proposal to have Victim-1 purchase an interest in OpportunIP.  HENNING proposed forming a new company with the same goals and business model as OpportunIP.  Victim-1 brought in his relative (“Victim-2”) and Victim-2’s family.  In spring 2015, Victim-1, Victim-2, another investor (“Victim-3”), and a corporate attorney working on the transaction on their behalf (“Attorney-1”), were communicating with HENNING about the creation of a new corporate entity through which HENNING would transfer control of the company from his Accounting Firm partners to HENNING and Victim-1. 

Thereafter, the Victims’ families agreed that they, through their joint and separate investment entities, would fund an additional loan to the new HENNING venture, based largely upon confidence in the purported MNC-1 and AM-1 agreements and HENNING’s additional representations of future business opportunities. 

After discussions relating to the structure of the company and requests for information from the Victims’ corporate attorney, on June 3, 2015, HENNING sent purported electronic bank records for the months of April and May for a bank account in the name of OpportunIP (the “OpportunIP Account”).  He represented that “the April statement shows the amount coming in from [MNC-1] ($2 million plus remaining interest from the escrow account).”  The bank statements were also fraudulent and there was no deposit of over $2 million during those months.

On October 9, 2015, Victim-1 and Victim-2 had $1 million transferred to an account in the name of an entity that was set up to be the holding branch of the new OpportunIP.  Thereafter, nearly all of the $1 million was transferred to accounts controlled by HENNING. 

Meanwhile, HENNING continued to make false representations about the supposed progress he was making in securing deals for OpportunIP and he indicated that he was ready to have Victim-1 become more involved in OpportunIP’s operations.  Consequently, in Summer/Fall 2016, Victim-1 left his job at an investment bank to become Chief Operating Officer of OpportunIP.  But, despite HENNING’s representations that business was going well, he insulated his alleged business contacts from direct interaction with Victim-1 or Victim-2 and provided them with excuses for why deals were delayed.  In addition, in at least one instance in November 2016, HENNING made it appear that he had scheduled a meeting between HENNING, Victim-1 and an MNC-1 Executive (the “MNC-1 Executive”) when he actually had not.  Victim-1 traveled to New York and came to the Purchase office of OpportunIP to subsequently meet with HENNING and the MNC-1 Executive.  But, that meeting was never actually scheduled.  To make it appear that it had been, on November 18, 2016, HENNING forwarded a fabricated email to Victim-1, which was purportedly sent from the MNC-1 Executive to HENNING, and canceled the meeting.

In August 2017, during a search of HENNING’s office at the Accounting Firm, the Escrow Agreement, the AM-1 Guarantee, and the AM-1 License-out agreement were all recovered and contained taped-on signatures of executives on their signature pages.

*                *                *

HENNING, 57, is charged with wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense.  The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the USPIS and the SEC Office of Inspector General. 

The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s White Plains Division.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Margery B. Feinzig is in charge of the prosecution.

The charge contained in the Complaint is merely an accusation, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

 



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





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18vaOzKckExzKC15nKx6InwvnDHBAxvXdzRQApcAT-sc
  Last Updated: 2024-03-22 01:32:42 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-NY  7:18-mj-08398
Case Name:   USA v. Henning
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Philip Bartlett, Inspector-In-Charge for the New York Division of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), announced today that STEVEN L. HENNING, a certified public accountant who was a Managing Partner at a Manhattan accounting firm, was charged with wire fraud in connection with a scheme in which he falsely claimed to have entered into multimillion-dollar intellectual property deals and defrauded investors out of $2 million.  HENNING was arrested in St. Johns, Florida, yesterday afternoon and presented before a U.S. Magistrate judge in federal court in Jacksonville, Florida, this afternoon.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Steven Henning, a CPA at a Manhattan accounting firm, established his own firm called OpportunIP, which he allegedly told victims was a company specializing in assisting other entities in taking intellectual property to the market.  Henning allegedly induced victims to invest in OpportunIP by providing them with false documents showing OpportunIP’s involvement in multi-million dollar transactions that would reap millions of dollars in future profits.   Ultimately, the victims learned that the deals did not exist and they were victims of an alleged scheme to defraud them out of millions of dollars.”

USPIS Inspector-in-Charge Philip R. Bartlett said:  “Mr. Henning’s claims were nothing more than a bag of lies.  Law enforcement reminds investors to research all investment opportunities thoroughly to avoid being scammed.”

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

HENNING, a certified public accountant, was a managing partner at an accounting firm in Manhattan (the “Accounting Firm”).  He was the Partner-in-Charge of Advisory Services and served on the firm’s Executive Committee.  Previously, HENNING was employed as a Professor of accounting at a Texas university (the “University”) and he served as an Academic Fellow in the Office of the Chief Accountant at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In June 2008, while employed at the Accounting Firm, HENNING formed what would later become known as OpportunIP, LLC (“OpportunIP”), a business that, at different times, had offices in Purchase and Tarrytown, New York.  HENNING was the Chief Executive Officer and owned an interest in OpportunIP through an entity known as the Henning Family Partnership (“HFP”).  Members of the Accounting Firm also owned interests in OpportunIP.

In May 2012, HENNING told one of his prior students from the University (“Victim-1”) about an endeavor he was involved in, OpportunIP.  HENNING described OpportunIP as a business venture through which HENNING established partnerships with owners or developers of intellectual property (“IP”) and assisted them in taking the IP to market in exchange for a substantial percentage share of future profits.  Over the next few years, HENNING provided Victim-1 with information about OpportunIP, including a series of IP opportunities that were in various stages of implementation.  For example, he claimed that OpportunIP had signed an escrow agreement with two multi-national corporations (“MNC-1” and “MNC-2”) relating to the “license-out” of certain IP that was being represented by OpportunIP (the “Escrow Agreement”).

In fall 2014, HENNING presented Victim-1 with an opportunity to invest in OpportunIP and asked Victim-1 to help secure bridge financing for an IP owner (“IP Owner-1”) who was in financial distress and needed temporary financing while he brought his IP to market.  HENNING represented that the IP owner needed a $500,000 loan to get him past certain financial hurdles and would repay the loan in six months. 

Thereafter, there were ongoing communications relating to Victim-1’s purchase of an interest in OpportunIP and, at around the same time, HENNING disclosed another multi-million dollar OpportunIP License-Out deal involving an agreement between an IP owner represented by OpportunIP and a global automobile manufacturer (“AM-1”).  HENNING provided Victim-1 with a copy of the License-Out Agreement (“AM-1 License Agreement) and an AM-1 corporate guarantee (the “AM-1 Guarantee”).  In addition, he provided an agreement in which a second global automobile manufacturer (“AM-2”) agreed to license the same technology (“AM-2 License Agreement”).

On October 31, 2014, HENNING listed IP deals for which he had “signed deals and minimum guarantees” and proposed that Victim-1 acquire 5 percent of OpportunIP for $2 million.  On November 2, 2014, Victim-1 indicated his willingness to proceed and on November 7, 2014, HENNING sent Victim-1 the purported License-in Agreement between OpportunIP and MNC-1 (“MNC-1 License Agreement”) and the “License-out Agreement” between OpportunIP and MNC-2 (“MNC-2 License Agreement”).  Three days later, on November 10, 2014, HENNING emailed Victim-1 the Escrow Agreement, in which MNC-1, MNC-2, and OpportunIP purportedly agreed that, pursuant to the license agreements, $35 million would be held in escrow and OpportunIP would receive $2 million no later than December 31, 2014.

The AM-1 Guarantee, AM-1 Licensing Agreement, and the Escrow Agreement were all fraudulent documents and the deals never existed.  However, based on the information and documentation provided by HENNING, on November 21, 2014, Victim-1 sent HENNING $500,000, which was the beginning of the funding for HENNING’s proposal for Victim-1 to purchase an interest in OpportunIP and was a loan to HENNING.  On November 26, 2014, Victim-1 had another $500,000 wired to a bank account controlled by IP Owner-1, in order to fund the purported loan to IP Owner-1.

HENNING and Victim-1 continued to communicate about HENNING’s proposal to have Victim-1 purchase an interest in OpportunIP.  HENNING proposed forming a new company with the same goals and business model as OpportunIP.  Victim-1 brought in his relative (“Victim-2”) and Victim-2’s family.  In spring 2015, Victim-1, Victim-2, another investor (“Victim-3”), and a corporate attorney working on the transaction on their behalf (“Attorney-1”), were communicating with HENNING about the creation of a new corporate entity through which HENNING would transfer control of the company from his Accounting Firm partners to HENNING and Victim-1. 

Thereafter, the Victims’ families agreed that they, through their joint and separate investment entities, would fund an additional loan to the new HENNING venture, based largely upon confidence in the purported MNC-1 and AM-1 agreements and HENNING’s additional representations of future business opportunities. 

After discussions relating to the structure of the company and requests for information from the Victims’ corporate attorney, on June 3, 2015, HENNING sent purported electronic bank records for the months of April and May for a bank account in the name of OpportunIP (the “OpportunIP Account”).  He represented that “the April statement shows the amount coming in from [MNC-1] ($2 million plus remaining interest from the escrow account).”  The bank statements were also fraudulent and there was no deposit of over $2 million during those months.

On October 9, 2015, Victim-1 and Victim-2 had $1 million transferred to an account in the name of an entity that was set up to be the holding branch of the new OpportunIP.  Thereafter, nearly all of the $1 million was transferred to accounts controlled by HENNING. 

Meanwhile, HENNING continued to make false representations about the supposed progress he was making in securing deals for OpportunIP and he indicated that he was ready to have Victim-1 become more involved in OpportunIP’s operations.  Consequently, in Summer/Fall 2016, Victim-1 left his job at an investment bank to become Chief Operating Officer of OpportunIP.  But, despite HENNING’s representations that business was going well, he insulated his alleged business contacts from direct interaction with Victim-1 or Victim-2 and provided them with excuses for why deals were delayed.  In addition, in at least one instance in November 2016, HENNING made it appear that he had scheduled a meeting between HENNING, Victim-1 and an MNC-1 Executive (the “MNC-1 Executive”) when he actually had not.  Victim-1 traveled to New York and came to the Purchase office of OpportunIP to subsequently meet with HENNING and the MNC-1 Executive.  But, that meeting was never actually scheduled.  To make it appear that it had been, on November 18, 2016, HENNING forwarded a fabricated email to Victim-1, which was purportedly sent from the MNC-1 Executive to HENNING, and canceled the meeting.

In August 2017, during a search of HENNING’s office at the Accounting Firm, the Escrow Agreement, the AM-1 Guarantee, and the AM-1 License-out agreement were all recovered and contained taped-on signatures of executives on their signature pages.

*                *                *

HENNING, 57, is charged with wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense.  The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the USPIS and the SEC Office of Inspector General. 

The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s White Plains Division.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Margery B. Feinzig is in charge of the prosecution.

The charge contained in the Complaint is merely an accusation, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

 



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





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lX2pJm-rP02-3YG2RVlDI5D1MWhD5fGEDGIdN8GNDEM
  Last Updated: 2023-10-16 00:48:00 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
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