Score:   1
Docket Number:   WD-TN  2:19-cr-20025
Case Name:   United States of America v. Jones et al
  Press Releases:
 

Memphis, TN – Mark J. Whitaker, 49, has pleaded guilty to misprision of wire fraud. U.S. Attorney D. Michael Dunavant announced the guilty plea today.

According to information presented in court, from 2004 until August 13, 2014, Whitaker actively concealed a scheme directed by his co-defendant, Charles "Chuck" Jones, to defraud the federal E-Rate Program. The E-Rate Program is a Federal Communications Commission program that distributes money to schools and libraries for internet access, telecommunication services, and related equipment. There are specific rules and regulations that govern schools’ and vendors’ participation in that program, which include requiring vendors to certify that no kickbacks have been paid to participating schools or their agents, and requiring vendors to certify that participating schools have been invoiced for their share of the contracted-for services and equipment.

Whitaker helped manage two of Jones' companies: Integrated Computer Solutions ("ICS") and Technology Associates. Those companies participated as E-Rate Program vendors for several public school districts in Tennessee and Missouri. Whitaker's job was to submit false certifications to the E-Rate Program at Jones’ direction.

Those certifications falsely stated that Jones' companies had complied with the E-Rate Program’s rules and regulations, including: (1) falsely certifying that the schools had been invoiced for their required E-Rate Program "co-pay"; and (2) falsely certifying that Jones' companies had not paid any kickbacks to the schools or their agents.

Whitaker submitted those false certifications despite knowing that Jones paid the schools’ consultant, "A.J.," bribes and gave A.J. valuable gifts while A.J. worked with and for the schools in Crockett County, Tennessee and Missouri. He also knew that Technology Associates and ICS did not bill the Missouri schools for their full required co-pays. Despite that knowledge, Whitaker did not report the fraud to the E-Rate Program

or to law enforcement. If the E-Rate Program had known that the schools were not being invoiced for their correct co-pays and that Jones was paying kickbacks to A.J., the program would not have paid ICS and Technology Associates.

According to the Superseding Indictment, the E-Rate Program allegedly paid Jones and his companies approximately $6.9 million as a result of the fraud. Wire fraud and conspiracy charges against Chuck Jones are still pending.

Sentencing for Whitaker is scheduled for July 23, 2020, before U.S. District Court Judge Mark S. Norris, where Whitaker faces a maximum of 3 years imprisonment, 1 year supervised release and a fine of $250,000.

U.S. Attorney D. Michael Dunavant said, "Protection of federal grant programs that provide needed services and equipment to our schools in West Tennessee is a top priority of this office. When dishonest offenders conspire to defraud these programs for their own selfish gain and unjust enrichment, they not only steal tax dollars, but also hurt local schools in the process. We will continue to work with our federal partners to root out and expose such fraud against the government, to hold offenders accountable, and to recover ill-gotten gains."

This case was investigated by the Federal Communications Commission - Office of Inspector General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Tony Arvin and Murre Foster are prosecuting this case on behalf of the government.

###

Memphis, TN – Charles A. "Chuck" Jones, the part owner of two now-dissolved technology companies, Technology Associates, Inc. and Integrated Computer Solutions, Inc., and Mark J. Whitaker of Murray, Kentucky, were indicted on federal criminal charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud. U.S. Attorney D. Michael Dunavant announced the indictment today.

According to the indictment, under the Federal Communications Commission’s E-rate Program, the government provides funding to qualified schools to purchase internet access and other telecommunications services and equipment for their students. The E-rate Program pays up to 90% of the cost of these technology services and equipment. Two of the Program’s core eligibility requirements are that applicant schools conduct a fair and open competitive bidding process and that each applicant school pay some percentage of the cost of the internet access and other telecommunications services and equipment. The E-rate Program pays the balance of that cost, which ranges from 20% to as high as 90%. As described in the indictment, the reason the schools are required to pay a portion of the costs are: a) to ensure that schools have a financial incentive to negotiate for the most favorable prices so that E-rate Program funds are not wasted; and b) to ensure that schools purchase only those items and services they truly need.

The indictment further charges that Jones and Whitaker conspired with an individual identified as A.J., to whomJones gave money and other things of value in return for A.J.’s assistance. The co-conspirators used A.J. and A.J.’s position with schools in Crockett County, Tennessee and Missouri to violate Program rules. Additionally, the co-conspirators submitted and caused to be submitted fabricated documents and made false statements and representations to the E-rate Program administrator, which included assertions that Jones’ companies had invoiced schools for the proper co-payment amounts. These actions were taken to circumvent E-rate Program rules and review and to obtain payments from the E-rate Program administrator to Jones’ companies. Jones’ companies received approximately $8.5 million from the E-rate Program and Jones used funds from the companies’ bank accounts for his own benefit.

U.S. Attorney D. Michael Dunavant said, "Protection of federal grant programs that provide needed services and equipment to our schools in West Tennessee is a top priority of this office. When dishonest offenders conspire to defraud these programs for their own selfish gain and unjust enrichment, they not only steal tax dollars, but also hurt local schools in the process. We will continue to work with our federal partners to root out and expose such fraud against the government, to hold offenders accountable, and to recover ill-gotten gains."

FCC Inspector General David Hunt stated: "Today’s charges allege that Mr. Jones and Mr. Whitaker knowingly and willfully violated the bedrock requirements of the FCC’s E-rate Program while hiding these violations from the Program’s administrator, all with the goal of enriching Mr. Jones with E-rate funds, thus depriving students of the benefits of this program – up-to-date telecommunications services. I thank U.S. Attorney Dunavant for prosecuting this case. We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to pursue those who seek to illegally take money from the FCC’s programs."

This case was investigated by the FCC Office of Inspector General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Assistant United States Attorneys Tony Arvin and Murre Foster are prosecuting this case on the government’s behalf.

The charges contained in the indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X6HVXFLWO_v8A00lGG7aSIRLQ3gkeZI2NRfPZetHkik
  Last Updated: 2024-04-14 08:38:30 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: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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