Case Name: United States of America v. Keogh et al
Press Releases:
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma – A federal grand jury has charged DANIEL WEBSTER "WEB" KEOGH, 47, and DANIELLE KEOGH, 36, both of Edmond, Oklahoma, with fraud crimes against First Pryority Bank, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Commuter Air Technology, Inc., and Oklahoma State University’s Multispectral Laboratories, announced Mark A. Yancey, United States Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma.
According to the 23-count indictment, Web Keogh was Chief Executive Officer of both EMB Energy, Inc., and Triton Scientific, LLC. The first ten counts of the indictment concern a $3.2 million loan to Triton from First Pryority Bank, which has offices in Tulsa and Pryor, Oklahoma. The indictment explains that in the fall of 2010, Web Keogh signed an agreement between EMB Energy and Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC ("Livermore") concerning the development of new battery technology for electric utilities. Under the agreement, EMB Energy agreed to invest approximately $22 million in a collaborative project with Livermore. If Livermore and EMB Energy succeeded in building a small electromechanical battery prototype and scaling it to larger sizes, EMB Energy could own and commercialize a utility-sized battery.
To pursue this opportunity, Web Keogh, along with his wife Danielle Keogh, who was EMB Energy’s Senior Vice President of Finance, sought a $3.2 million loan to Triton from First Pryority Bank, secured by a battery to be purchased for $4 million. Several of the Keoghs’ statements to the bank, however, are alleged to have been false. In 2010, Web Keogh is alleged to have supported the loan application by claiming Triton would use the money to "purchase and install a significant piece of capital equipment for electrical storage." He also allegedly stated the loan would be for "equipment purchase only" and would support a project at Triton’s facility in Chilocco, Oklahoma. He later allegedly told the bank falsely that Triton had acquired the battery and substantially completed development of the battery. According to the indictment, Triton was engaging only in research and development—no battery prototype had been built, and no battery existed to serve as collateral. Furthermore, the indictment states battery research was to take place in California rather than at Chilocco. According to the indictment, identifying Chilocco as the location of the project qualified Triton for a loan guarantee by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development Administration, which supports the development of infrastructure in rural and economically depressed areas.
The indictment alleges Web and Danielle Keogh both made false statements in early 2011 when they gave the bank false invoices from EMB Energy to Triton to support the loan proceeds. In particular, these invoices made allegedly false references to a 2.0 MWh battery system, component parts, the shipment of items to Ponca City, Oklahoma, a purchase agreement between Triton and EMB Energy, and the battery’s contract value. The indictment states that EMB Energy, Triton, and Livermore never built a working electromechanical battery and that when Triton defaulted on the loan in December 2012, it owed more than $3 million to First Pryority and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Web Keogh is charged by himself with making a false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture when he stated in loan closing documents that funds would be used to purchase machinery and equipment, rather than research and development.
Count 11 concerns a $2 million line of credit Triton had secured at First Pryority. The indictment alleges that Danielle Keogh made a false statement to First Pryority in May 2012, when she sought to renew this credit line. According to the indictment, she provided a financial statement and tax return that listed the battery as a fixed asset worth $4,172,979.64, when she knew Triton did not own a $4 million working battery and the battery concept was still in a pre-prototype stage of assembly.
Counts 12 through 23 concern the Keoghs’ dealings with Oklahoma State University—University Multispectral Laboratories, LLC (“OSU-UML”), a non-profit research center wholly owned by OSU that served the Department of Defense and other entities. In 2008, Triton became OSU-UML’s managing entity. Web Keogh served as OSU-UML’s Laboratory Director until he resigned in November 2012. Danielle Keogh is alleged to have represented herself as OSU-UML’s Director of Finance. The indictment explains that from 2010 to late 2012, OSU-UML served as prime contractor for projects by the United States Special Operations Command ("SOCOM"), including work by Commuter Air Technology, Inc. ("CAT") in war zones. The federal government paid OSU-UML for CAT’s work, and, according to the indictment, OSU-UML was supposed to forward the bulk of these funds to CAT.
According to the indictment, Web Keogh failed to use a substantial portion of the government’s payments to satisfy CAT’s subcontractor invoices. In particular, he allegedly transferred $1.675 million of OSU-UML funds in September 2012 to bank accounts in New York and Ohio based on instructions from an attorney at a Washington, D.C., law firm. The attorney allegedly promised these deposits would generate millions of dollars of "donations" for OSU-UML. The indictment states neither the Executive Director nor the Board of OSU-UML approved these transfers and that OSU-UML never recovered the funds. According to the indictment, Web and Danielle Keogh also directed OSU-UML staff to use money that should have gone to CAT for payments unrelated to SOCOM’s work, including hundreds of thousands of dollars related to EMB Energy’s battery project and more than $100,000 to support Danielle Keogh’s boutique dress shop, Liberté, in Oklahoma City.
If convicted of the bank-fraud conspiracy or making a false statement to a bank, the defendants could be imprisoned for a maximum of thirty years on each count, to be followed by up to five years of supervised release. Web Keogh could be sentenced to up to five years in prison and three years of supervised release for making a false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. If convicted of the wire-fraud conspiracy relating to OSU-UML, the Keoghs could be imprisoned for a maximum of twenty years, to be followed by up to three years of supervised release. Web Keogh is charged with eight counts of wire fraud relating to OSU-UML; Danielle Keogh is also charged in three of these counts. Each count of wire fraud would carry the same penalty as the wire-fraud conspiracy. Web Keogh is also charged separately with three counts of embezzling from OSU-UML as an organization receiving federal funds, which would carry a maximum penalty of ten years in prison and three years of supervised release. Both defendants could be fined up to $1,000,000 on each of the banking crimes and up to $250,000 on each of the remaining counts. If convicted, they would also be required to pay restitution to victims.
The public is reminded these charges are merely accusations and that Web and Danielle Keogh are presumed innocent unless found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a unanimous jury.
This case is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture—Office of Inspector General. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Chris M. Stephens and K. McKenzie Anderson are prosecuting the case. Reference is made to court filings for further information.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year