Score:   1
Docket Number:   WD-WA  3:20-cr-05220
Case Name:   USA v. Bradken Inc.
  Press Releases:
Seattle – The Department of Justice announced today that Bradken Inc. (Bradken), a subsidiary of Hitachi Construction Machinery, has paid $10,896,924 to resolve allegations that Bradken produced and sold substandard steel components for installation on U.S. Navy submarines, announced Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Civil Division Jody H. Hunt and U.S. Attorney Brian T. Moran for the Western District of Washington.  Bradken and Bradken’s former lab director have also been charged criminally. 

The United States Attorney’s Office filed a criminal complaint charging Elaine Thomas, Bradken’s former Director of Metallurgy, with Major Fraud Against the United States.  Thomas will make her initial appearance in federal court in Tacoma on June 30, 2020.  Also today, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington filed a criminal information charging Bradken with Major Fraud Against the United States.  Under a deferred prosecution agreement, Bradken has accepted responsibility for the offense and has agreed to take remedial measures.  If Bradken complies with the agreement, the government will dismiss the charge after three years.  

According to the court filings, Bradken is the U.S. Navy’s leading supplier of high-yield steel for naval submarines.  Bradken’s Tacoma foundry produces castings that prime contractors use to fabricate submarine hulls.  The Navy requires that the steel meets certain standards for strength and toughness to ensure that it does not fail under certain circumstances, such as a collision.  The court filings allege that, for 30 years, the Tacoma foundry (which was acquired by Bradken in 2008), produced castings that had failed lab tests and did not meet the Navy’s standards.  The filings allege that Elaine Thomas, as Director of Metallurgy, falsified test results to hide the fact that the steel had failed the tests.  Thomas falsified results for over 200 productions of steel, which represent a substantial percentage of the castings Bradken produced for the Navy.  As part of the deferred prosecution agreement, Bradken admitted these allegations. 

The court filings state there is no evidence that Bradken’s management was aware of the fraud until May 2017.  At that time, a lab employee discovered that test cards had been altered and that other discrepancies existed in Bradken’s records.  While Bradken initially disclosed these findings to the Navy, it then made misleading statements suggesting that the discrepancies were not the result of fraud.  Bradken admits that these misleading statements hindered the Navy’s investigation and its efforts to remediate the risks presented by Bradken’s fraud. 

The civil settlement resolves allegations that some of the castings Bradken produced did not conform to the Navy’s specifications.  In addition to the allegations concerning the altered test results, the United States contended that Bradken invoiced shipbuilders for the parts as if they were made to the demanding military specification when they were not, causing the shipbuilders to invoice the Navy for parts that did not meet specifications.

“Bradken placed the Navy’s sailors and its operations at risk.  Further, after Bradken’s management discovered the falsified data, they misled the Navy about the scope and nature of the fraud.  Government contractors must not tolerate fraud within their organizations, and they must be fully forthcoming with the government when they discover it,” said U.S. Attorney Brian T. Moran.  “The Navy has taken extensive steps to ensure the safe operation of the affected submarines.  Those measures will result in increased costs and maintenance.  Our agreement with the company is aimed at ensuring they improve their procedures and inform their peer companies about how their systems failed to detect the fraud.  We hope such steps will improve the military procurement system.” 

Secretary of the Navy Kenneth J. Braithwaite stated that “U.S. Navy suppliers must meet the very highest standards of quality.  Our Sailors and Marines depend upon them to provide the very best equipment thereby enabling the Navy to meet world-wide commitments.  While the Navy remains dedicated to maintaining and revitalizing our industrial base, we will aggressively investigate and pursue all possible recoveries from suppliers who do not meet standards.”

The deferred prosecution agreement describes substantial steps taken by Bradken to cooperate with the government’s investigation and overhaul to its quality control and compliance procedures.  These steps include entering into a compliance agreement with the Navy, creating new positions devoted to oversight of lab testing and tracking, creating an audit and risk committee to oversee the compliance issues, and implementing of a new lab information system with anti-fraud controls.  The company will also publish a detailed account of its missteps in the Casteel Reporter, a trade publication, to educate other government contractors.  In addition, Bradken has made changes to the management team in place at the Tacoma Foundry.  If Bradken complies with all of the deferred prosecution agreement’s requirements, the government will dismiss the charge after three years. 

Bradken is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri, operating as a wholly owned subsidiary of Bradken Ltd. of Newcastle, Australia, which is a subsidiary of Hitachi Construction Machinery.  Elaine Thomas, 66, is a resident of Auburn, Washington. 

The charges contained in the complaint against Thomas are only allegations.  A person is presumed innocent unless and until he or she is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

“This settlement demonstrates the commitment of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and our law enforcement partners to hold companies accountable for supplying substandard products, especially products that could impact the Department of Navy (DON) war fighting ability, battlefield superiority and the safety of our Sailors and Marines. NCIS will continue to work diligently with our law enforcement partners to safeguard DON major acquisition programs. The success of the DON war fighting ability is dependent upon a sound and reliable acquisition process” said Charles P. King, Special Agent in Charge, NCIS Northwest Field Office. 

“The announced settlement is representative of the law enforcement community's relentless efforts to hold accountable those who engage in unethical business practices that endanger America's warfighters, corrupts the defense procurement process, and inexcusably wastes taxpayer dollars,” said Bryan Denny, Special Agent in Charge of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), Western Field Office.  “This case clearly demonstrates that any unscrupulous actions by government contractors and subcontractors will be reviewed and, if appropriate, vigorously investigated by DCIS and its law enforcement partners.”

The civil settlement, deferred prosecution agreement with Bradken, and pending criminal case against Thomas are the result of a coordinated effort among the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington, the Department of Defense’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency. 

The cases are being handled by Assistant United States Attorneys Kayla Stahman, Seth Wilkinson, and David Reese Jennings for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Washington, and Art Coulter of DOJ’s Civil Division Commercial Litigation Branch.

bradken_information.pdfbradken_signed_civil_settlement.pdfbradken_dpa.pdfthomas_elaine_m_complaint.pdf

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hJ6ad8s2M7U-ZGeMr7J5C-JTxhzAeF4rdGUcL1YJuwA
  Last Updated: 2023-08-11 08:12:55 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 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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3

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

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8

Description: The 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