Score:   1
Docket Number:   WD-NY  6:19-cr-06074
Case Name:   USA v. Moses
  Press Releases:
CONTACT: Barbara Burns

PHONE: (716) 843-5817

FAX #: (716) 551-3051

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - U.S. Attorney James P. Kennedy, Jr. announced today that a Janis White, 58, of Rochester, NY, was charged by criminal complaint with defrauding and conspiring to defraud the Rochester Housing Charities and with obstructing the government’s investigation. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. 

Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard A. Resnick, who is handling the case, stated that according to the complaint, the defendant is the Executive Secretary for the Director of the Rochester Housing Authority (RHA) and the previous Board Secretary for the Rochester Housing Charities (RHC). Previously, White also acted as a bookkeeper for RHC and recorded the minutes for the RHC board meetings.

The RHA, which has an annual contract with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, provides housing opportunities and services for the Rochester community. The RHA formed the RHC to assist in advancing the purposes of the RHA.

HJJ Property Development (HJJ Property) was a business started on March 9, 2018, with an address of 21 Bock Street in Rochester. The business is owned by Margaret and Howard Jones Jr., the defendant’s mother and stepfather, but White actually controlled HJJ Property.

According to the complaint, White, on behalf of HJJ Property, billed the RHC for worked never performed by HJJ Property. The defendant submitted false invoices on behalf of HJJ Property totaling approximately $87,069.00.

White is alleged to have prepared a fraudulent invoice from HJJ Property addressed to the RHC which made it appear that HJJ Property had provided services to the RHC. Despite HJJ Property providing no services to the RHC, the defendant caused the RHC to pay HJJ Property the amount contained on the fraudulent invoice.

On other occasions, a contractor would provide the RHC with an estimate for services to be performed for the RHC. Both the person who approved the hiring of vendors for the RHC (RHC Agent) and the defendant would receive a copy of the invoice. White would then prepare a fraudulent invoice from HJJ Property addressed to the RHC, which made it falsely appear that HJJ Property would be providing the services to the RHC that were actually going to be performed by the contractor. The amount requested to be paid on the HJJ Property fraudulent invoice would be more than what the contractor had originally requested for such services. The defendant or the RHC Agent would then email HJJ Property’s fraudulent invoice to an RHC employee who would submit the invoice for payment to the RHC. The RHC Agent would authorize the RHC to pay HJJ Property the fraudulent amount. White, on behalf of HJJ Property, would then provide a cashier’s check made payable to the contractor in the amount that the contractor had originally estimated and requested for the services it performed for the RHC.  The difference between what the RHC paid HJJ Property and what HJJ Property paid the contractor, was the amount that the defendant and others caused the RHC fraudulently to overpay. Between March and July 2018, that amount was approximately $48,698.00.

On December 14, 2018, HJJ Property was served a Federal Grand Jury subpoena requesting any and all records related to HJJ Property and any work HJJ Property purportedly performed on behalf of the RHC. On February 7, 2019, HJJ Property provided its response to the subpoena. Included in that response were three fraudulent documents which purported to be satisfaction surveys signed by various tenants from three apartment complexes owned by the RHC, pertaining to work performed at such sites by HJJ Property. Also included in the subpoena response was a fraudulent invoice. The surveys and invoice were fraudulent in that they were prepared after the subpoena was served on HJJ Property and were produced in response to the subpoena to make it appear to investigators that HJJ Property was a legitimate company which had performed services for the RHC.

“Janice White is the third defendant to be charged with scheming to defraud the Rochester Housing Authority and related organizations,” stated U.S. Attorney Kennedy. “The very purpose of a housing agency, funded with federal dollars, is to provide a stable housing environment for those in our community who need assistance. When individuals entrusted to operate and run such an agency divert funds away from the laudable purposes for which such monies were earmarked and into their own pockets, the entire community is forced to pay a heavy price. This prosecution demonstrates the commitment that my Office has to rooting out corruption, to eliminating those who place their own interests before those of the public whom they are supposed to serve, and, in the process, to restoring the public trust.”  

Charges remain pending against George Moses, former Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of the Rochester Housing Authority. Former Rochester City Councilman Adam McFadden pleaded guilty to wire fraud and filing a false tax return for his role in scheming to defraud the Rochester Housing Authority, and is awaiting sentencing.  

White made an initial appearance this morning before U.S. Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson and was released.  

The complaint is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rochester Office, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Gary Loeffert; the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Brad Geary; and the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations Division, under the direction of Jonathan D. Larsen, Special Agent-in-Charge, New York Field Office.

The fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty. 

# # # #

 

 

CONTACT: Barbara Burns

PHONE: (716) 843-5817

FAX #: (716) 551-3051

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - U.S. Attorney James P. Kennedy, Jr. announced today that a federal grand jury has returned a 28-count superseding indictment charging George H. Moses, 50, of Rochester, NY, with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft. The conspiracy and wire fraud charges carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, while the aggravated identity theft charge carries a mandatory consecutive term of two years in prison. In May 2018, the defendant was charged in a two-count indictment for making false statements to the FBI. Those charges are also part of the superseding indictment, and carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.   

Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard A. Resnick, who is handling the case, stated that according to the superseding indictment, the new charges involve alleged schemes to defraud Quad A for Kids and Rochester Housing Charities. 

Moses is the Executive Director of North East Area Development Association (NEAD) in Rochester, a not-for-profit neighborhood organization governed by a volunteer board of directors, which worked with city officials and agencies to revitalize and stabilize the Sector 8 neighborhood in the northeast quadrant of Rochester. The defendant was also the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of the Rochester Housing Authority (RHA) until 2018, and a member of the board of directors of the Rochester Housing Charities (RHC) from March 2015 to 2017.

Former Rochester City Councilmember Adam McFadden was the Executive Director of Quad A for Kids, which provided after-school and extended-day learning programs at some elementary schools in the Rochester City School District. The organization operated as an entity separate from the Rochester City School District and received funding from the Rochester Area Community Foundation Initiatives Inc. (RACF). Quad A for Kids shared some of the RACF’s administrative staff but employed its own executive director, executive assistant, and program staff. McFadden also owned Caesar Development LLC, a limited liability company located in Rochester.

Moses is accused of conspiring with Adam McFadden to defraud Quad A for Kids and the RACF. In August 2017, and February 2018, McFadden created two false invoices stating that Quad A for Kids owed NEAD $4,000 for purported training and other services NEAD provided on behalf of Quad A for Kids at various Rochester City schools. Moses and McFadden fraudulently caused the RACF, on behalf of Quad A for Kids, to pay NEAD $8,000, knowing that services were never provided. McFadden then created two invoices which falsely stated that NEAD owed his company Caesar Development LLC a total of $7,000 for purported consultation services Caesar Development LLC provided to NEAD. In fact, Caesar Development LLC did not provided such consultation services to NEAD.  Earlier this month, McFadden pled guilty in federal court for his role in the Quad A for Kids fraud and is awaiting sentencing.

Moses is also charged with defrauding the RHC by causing the RHC to overpay the RHC’s Executive Director’s salary and to make other payments to the Executive Director to which the Executive Director was not entitled. The defendant then received a portion of the funds which were overpaid to the Executive Director, either in the form of a cash payment or a wire transfer to a bank account controlled by Moses. Specifically, between January 2018 and September 2019, the defendant caused the RHC to pay to the RHC’s Executive Director $500 in salary every two weeks to which the Executive Director was not entitled. Moses then caused $380 from each fraudulent payment to be transferred to the defendant’s bank account without the knowledge of the Executive Director.

“As alleged in the superseding indictment, Mr. Moses, a public servant, unlawfully sought to divert public money to himself,” noted U.S. Attorney Kennedy. “This Office, together with our partners in law enforcement, will remain vigilant in our efforts to bring to justice all of those, like the defendant, who decide to betray the public trust in order to line their own pockets.” 

The superseding indictment is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rochester Office, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Gary Loeffert; the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Brad Geary; and the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations Division, under the direction of Jonathan D. Larsen, Special Agent-in-Charge, New York Field Office.

The fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty. 

# # # #

CONTACT: Barbara Burns

PHONE: (716) 843-5817

FAX #: (716) 551-3051

BUFFALO, N.Y. - U.S. Attorney James P. Kennedy, Jr. announced today that a federal grand jury has returned an indictment charging George H. Moses, 50, of Rochester, NY, with two counts of making false statements to Special Agents of the FBI. The charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard A. Resnick, who is handling the case, stated that according to the indictment and a previously filed complaint, the defendant was the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of the Rochester Housing Authority (RHA), which provides housing opportunities and services for the Rochester community and a board member of the Rochester Housing Charities (RHC). The RHA annually receives millions of dollars from HUD.

On March 25, 2015, defendant Moses, as Chairperson of the Board of RHA, caused that Board: (a) to appoint him as one of the three new board members of the RHC, and (b) to approve a loan by the RHA to the RHC in the amount of $300,000.

Subsequently, the RHC entered into an $87,500 one year contract with Capital Connection Partners LLC (CCP). CCP then contracted with Adam McFadden and his  company, Caesar Development LLC, executed a contract with CCP entitled the Pass Through Funding and Services Agreement, which provided that CCP would pass through 75% of the funds it received from the RHC to Caesar Development LLC.

In the course of an investigation into these contracts between RHC and CCP and between CCP and Caesar Development LLC, Special Agents of the FBI had occasion to interview defendant Moses regarding his knowledge of those contracts and payment of funds pursuant to them. As alleged in the indictment, during the course of those interviews Moses made the following materially false statements to the FBI:

• When asked how RHC learned of CCP, defendant Moses falsely stated that he could not recall specifically who brought CCP to the attention of the RHC, when in truth and in fact, defendant Moses knew that McFadden had brought CCP to his attention and to the attention of the RHC.

• When asked whether he knew if CCP had any subcontractors doing work under the RHC and CCP Contract, Moses stated that he was unaware of any sub-contractors that CCP utilized to execute the RHC and CCP Contract, when in truth and in fact, defendant Moses knew that McFadden and his company, Caesar Development LLC were allegedly performing work on behalf of CCP in connection with CCP’s contract with RHC.

• When told that Adam McFadden and his company received money from the RHC and CCP Contract, defendant Moses stated that he was surprised that McFadden and Caesar Development LLC received such money, when in truth and in fact, defendant Moses knew that McFadden and Caesar Development LLC, had received such money.

• When asked about an RHC board meeting held on May 12, 2015, defendant Moses stated he did not know who typed the minutes and the first time he saw the minutes of the meeting was at an RHA board meeting, when in truth and fact, he was aware that Adam McFadden typed and prepared the minutes which he received by e-mail on June 19, 2015, prior to an RHA meeting;

• When discussing a meeting held between CCP and the boards of the RHA and RHC on December 11, 2015, defendant Moses stated that he was surprised that McFadden was also at the meeting, when in truth and in fact, defendant Moses knew McFadden would be in attendance at such meeting.

The defendant was arraigned before U.S. Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson and released on conditions.

The indictment is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Gary Loeffert, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Brad Geary.

The fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

# # # #

 

 

CONTACT:   Barbara Burns

PHONE:         (716) 843-5817

FAX #:            (716) 551-3051

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - U.S. Attorney James P. Kennedy, Jr. announced today that Adam C. McFadden pleaded guilty to wire fraud and filing a false tax return before U.S. District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford. The charges carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard A. Resnick, who is handling the case, stated that McFadden was a member of the Rochester City Council, while co-defendant George H. Moses is the former Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of the Rochester Housing Authority (RHA), which provides housing opportunities and services for the Rochester community and a board member of the Rochester Housing Charities (RHC), an entity that was formed and created to advance the purposes of RHA.

Prior to May 12, 2015, McFadden contacted Capital Connection Partners LLC (CCP), an alleged consulting firm in Washington D.C., to discuss RHC hiring CCP to provide RHC with various services. McFadden advised CCP that he would provide most of the services required by RHC as a subcontractor and that he wanted CCP to act merely as a pass through, meaning, he wanted CCP to pay to him most of the funds CCP received from any future contract with Rochester Housing Charities. McFadden discussed this arrangement with co-defendant George Moses.

On May 15, 2015, McFadden emailed CCP a draft of the contract he wanted CCP to enter with RHC along with a draft of the pass-through agreement he wanted to enter into with CCP. On May 28, 2015, McFadden emailed these drafts to George Moses as well.

On June 19, 2015, McFadden created minutes of an RHC board meeting held on May 12, 2015. The minutes falsely stated: that RHC had contacted three vendors by telephone; that a Request for Qualifications was sent to the three vendors; that the three vendors provided bid proposals containing amounts; and that RHC selected CCP as the winning bidder. On July 7, 2015, RHC entered into a one-year $87,500.00 contract with CCP.

On July 8, 2015, the defendant, on behalf of his company, Caesar Development LLC, executed a contract with CCP entitled the Pass Through Funding and Services Agreement, which provided that CCP would pass through 75% of the funds it received from RHC to Caesar Development LLC.

On August 3, 2015, the RHA, on behalf of RHC, wire transferred a first installment payment of $43,750.00 from Rochester to CCP in Washington, D.C. On August 8, 2015, CCP paid $32,812.50 to Caesar Development LLC in Rochester, which represented 75% of the funds CCP received under the terms of its contract with RHC.

On December 18, 2015, McFadden prepared and emailed to CCP inserts which were to be placed on a revised CCP invoice that was to be sent to the RHC. Those inserts falsely alleged that CCP had performed certain services under the contract. Specifically, the inserts falsely alleged or grossly exaggerated that CCP had, among other things, provided the following services: prepared and submitted multiple grants for local funding; researched laundry business development; researched summer and after-school program development for school aged children; provided administrative support to RHC for nine months; and created a partnership with The Roberts Companies to manage cell lease buyout negotiations.

A revised invoice containing the inserts was sent to RHC, and as a result, RHC, on December 24, 2015, transferred the final installment payment totaling $43,750.00 from Rochester to CCP in Washington, D.C. On December 26, 2015, CCP wire transferred $32,812.50 from Washington, D.C. to Caesar Development LLC, which represented 75% of the funds CCP received under the terms of the contract between RHC and CCP.

In addition for the tax years 2015 through 2017, McFadden provided false information on his personal tax returns. McFadden reported false deductions, including personal expenses, on his Schedule C, which falsely reduced his taxable income. For example, McFadden reported rent expense as deductions on each return when in fact he had not paid rent. The reduction in the defendant’s taxable income resulted in the approximate tax loss of $46,865.

“Dishonest and self-indulgent people have no place in elected office at any level of government,” stated U.S. Attorney Kennedy. “Individuals like Mr. McFadden seem to forget that ‘public service’ is not synonymous with ‘public-money self-service.’ This Office will continue to seek out and to bring to justice those public officials who elevate their own personal financial interests above the interests of the public that they serve.”

“Today's plea doesn't mean our work is done, the FBI and our partners remain committed to routing out public corruption in Rochester and throughout the Western New York community,” said Supervisory Special Agent Jeremy Bell. “We ask public officials everywhere to think twice before abusing the community's trust.”

HUD OIG Special Agent-in-Charge Geary stated, “At such a critical time for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, with programs that are vital to the well-being of so many in our communities, it is critical that those entrusted to public service are completely dedicated to those in need. The HUD Office of Inspector General is committed to partnering with Federal prosecutors and fellow law enforcement to aggressively pursue those engaged in activities that harm HUD’s Public Housing programs.” 

“Today’s plea illustrates IRS Criminal Investigation’s commitment to holding public officials accountable for undermining the tax laws of the United States and violating public trust”, said Acting Special Agent-in-Charge Jonathan D. Larsen. “The deliberate failure of Mr. McFadden to report and pay taxes on income through the use of fraudulent deductions is a serious matter and cannot be tolerated by the IRS or the public he has a duty to serve.”

              

Charges remain pending against co-defendant George H. Moses. The fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

The plea is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Gary Loeffert; the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Brad Geary; and the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations Division, under the direction of Jonathan D. Larsen, Acting Special Agent-in-Charge, New York Field Office.

Sentencing is scheduled for June 27, 2019, at 3:00 p.m. before Judge Wolford.

# # # #

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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   WD-NY  6:18-mj-04156
Case Name:   USA v. Moses
  Press Releases:
CONTACT: Barbara Burns

PHONE: (716) 843-5817

FAX #: (716) 551-3051

BUFFALO, N.Y. - U.S. Attorney James P. Kennedy, Jr. announced today that George H. Moses, 50, of Rochester, NY, was charged by criminal complaint with making false statements to Special Agents of the FBI. The charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard A. Resnick, who is handling the case, stated that according to the complaint, the defendant is the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of the Rochester Housing Authority (RHA), which provides housing opportunities and services for the Rochester community and a board member of the Rochester Housing Charities (RHC). The RHA has an annual contract with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development from which it receives millions of dollars.

As alleged in the criminal complaint, on March 25, 2015, defendant Moses, as Chairperson of the Board of RHA, caused that Board: (a) to appoint him as one of the three new board members of the RHC, and (b) to approve a loan by the RHA to the RHC in the amount of $300,000.

On July 7, 2015, the RHC entered into an $87,500 one year contract with Capital Connection Partners LLC (CCP) for various services including: (a) advocating at the local, state and federal level of government for policy and legislation, reviewing best practices, and issuing presentations to elected officials; and (b) finding self-sufficient resources to include creating entrepreneurial opportunities and workforce development, developing revenue streams for residents, and applying for federal home loan bank grants.

The following day, on July 8, 2105, Adam McFadden, on behalf of his company, Caesar Development LLC, executed a contract with CCP entitled the Pass Through Funding and Services Agreement, which provided that CCP would pass through 75% of the funds it received from the RHC to Caesar Development LLC.

On August 3, 2015, the RHA on behalf of the RHC paid CCP $43,750, which represented the first installment payment under the terms of the RHC and CCP Contract.  Thereafter, on August 8, 2015, CCP paid $32,812.50 to Caesar Development LLC, which represented 75% of the funds CCP had just received from the RHA.

Subsequently, on December 23, 2015, the RHC paid $43,750 to CCP, which represented the second installment payment under the terms of the RHC and CCP Contract. On the following day, December 24, 2015, CCP paid $32,812.50 to Caesar Development LLC, which represented 75% of the funds CCP had just received from the RHC.

In the course of an investigation into these contracts between RHC and CCP and between CCP and Caesar Development LLC, Special Agents of the FBI had occasion to interview defendant Moses regarding his knowledge of those contracts and payment of funds pursuant to them.

As alleged in the criminal complaint, during the course of those interviews Moses made the following materially false statements to the FBI:

• When asked how RHC learned of CCP, defendant Moses falsely stated that he could not recall specifically who brought CCP to the attention of the RHC, when in truth and in fact, defendant Moses knew that McFadden had brought CCP to his attention and to the attention of the RHC.

• When asked whether he knew if CCP had any subcontractors doing work under the RHC and CCP Contract, Moses stated that he was unaware of any sub-contractors that CCP utilized to execute the RHC and CCP Contract, when in truth and in fact, defendant Moses knew that McFadden and his company, Caesar Development LLC were allegedly performing work on behalf of CCP in connection with CCP’s contract with RHC.

• When told that Adam McFadden and his company received money from the RHC and CCP Contract, defendant Moses stated that he was surprised that McFadden and Caesar Development LLC received such money, when in truth and in fact, defendant Moses knew that McFadden and Caesar Development LLC, had received such money.

• When discussing a meeting held between CCP and the boards of the RHA and RHC on December 11, 2015, defendant Moses stated that he was surprised that McFadden was also at the meeting, when in truth and in fact, defendant Moses knew McFadden would be in attendance at such meeting.

 

The defendant made an initial appearance before U.S Magistrate Judge Payson and was released.

The complaint is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Gary Loeffert, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Brad Geary.

The fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

 

# # # #

 

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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   WD-NY  6:19-mj-04158
Case Name:   United States v. White
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
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