Score:   1
Docket Number:   D-DC  1:18-cr-00390
Case Name:   USA v. WOODS
  Press Releases:
            WASHINGTON – Latasha Moore, 39, of Washington, D.C., was sentenced today to 30 months in prison for accepting more than $140,000 in bribes from John Woods, who was a consultant and independent contractor who did business with the D.C. government. 

            The announcement was made today by U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu, Timothy M. Dunham, Special Agent in Charge, FBI Washington Field Office, and Daniel W. Lucas, District of Columbia Inspector General.

            On October 11, 2018, Moore pled guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to one count of bribery.  She was sentenced by the Honorable Dabney L. Friedrich.  Following her prison term, Moore will be placed on two years of supervised release.  As part of her sentence, Moore was ordered to forfeit the more than $140,000 in bribes that she received from Woods. 

            According to the statement of offense, Moore started working in 2002 for the D.C. Department of Human Resources (“DCHR”); in 2012, she was promoted to the position of resource allocation analyst.  In that role, among other duties, she was the main point of contact for “Company A,” which was a Maryland-based company that had agreements with DCHR to provide organizational skills training courses and human resources consulting to various D.C. government agencies.

            As noted in the statement of offense, Moore and Woods, who was a consultant employed by Company A, engaged in a scheme in which Moore agreed to protect the government contracts held by Company A and ensure that no complaints about its performance reached others in the District of Columbia government.  The scheme began in approximately July 2014 and ran through August 2017.  In return for her actions, according to the statement of offense, Moore accepted 50 checks and one PayPal money transfer from Woods totaling more than $140,000.

            According to the statement of offense, Moore had suspicions about more than $1 million in invoices that Woods submitted in March 2015 through June 2017 for work that Company A purportedly performed under its contracts with DCHR.  Nonetheless, in return for the money that Woods paid her, Moore advised other D.C. government officials to approve the invoices for payment.  As the scheme continued, according to the statement of offense, Company A discovered that Woods was acting on his own and retaining the profits for himself.  Although Moore knew of Company A’s concerns, she did not relay them to her supervisors and continued to advise other government officials to approve Woods’s invoices.

            Woods, 57, of Washington, D.C., was sentenced on December 20, 2019, by Judge Friedrich to 41 months in prison on charges of bribery and wire fraud arising from this scheme.  As part of his sentence Woods was ordered to pay $564,910.23 in restitution to Company A.

            In announcing the sentence, U.S. Attorney Liu, Special Agent in Charge Dunham, and Inspector General Lucas commended the work of those who investigated the case from the FBI’s Washington Field Office and the Office of the Inspector General of the District of Columbia.  They also expressed appreciation for the work of Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael J. Marando of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, who investigated and prosecuted the matter.

           WASHINGTON – John Woods, 57, of Washington, D.C., was sentenced today to 41 months in prison on charges that he stole more than $560,000 from the company and paid more than $140,000 in bribes to a former D.C. government employee to facilitate his theft.

           The announcement was made today by U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu, Timothy M. Dunham, Special Agent in Charge, FBI Washington Field Office, Criminal Division, and Daniel W. Lucas, District of Columbia Inspector General.

           In August 2019, Woods pled guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to one count of wire fraud.  He was sentenced by the Honorable Dabney L. Friedrich.  Following his prison term, Woods will be placed on three years of supervised release.

           As part of his sentence, Woods was ordered to pay $564,910.23 in restitution to the company from which he stole the money, identified in the statement of offense as “Company A.” 

           According to the statement of offense, Woods worked as a consultant for Company A, which had contracts with the District of Columbia Department of Human Resources (“DCHR”).   Between April 2013 and February 2015, Woods stole $214,910 in D.C. government checks that were issued to “Company A” for work performed on the DCHR contracts.  Beginning in March 2015, Woods began usurping “Company A’s” role under the contracts by purposefully failing to submit Company A’s invoices to DCHR for payment.  This led Company A to believe the D.C. government was negligent in paying its invoices, and Company A stopped seeking to perform work under its agreements with DCHR.  Woods then secretly performed the agreements without Company A’s knowledge by hiring and retaining contractors to provide the necessary work to DCHR and by submitting fraudulent invoices to DCHR, purportedly on behalf of Company A, for payment under the agreements.  DCHR would then issue payments in the form of D.C. government checks made payable to Company A, which Woods deposited into a bank account he controlled.  In all, Woods fraudulently deposited approximately 27 checks issued by the D.C. government to “Company A”, totaling approximately $1,040,023, from March 2015 through August 2017.

           According to the statement of offense, in order to keep his scheme in place, Woods paid more than $140,000 in bribes to Latasha Moore, then a DCHR employee. As a resource allocation analyst for DCHR, Moore was the main point of contact for “Company A.”  In exchange for the bribes that Woods paid to her, Moore ensured no complaints or suspicions about the contracts reached others in the government. For example, Moore failed to report problems that arose while Woods was managing the work, including complaints of contractors arriving late, leaving early or failing to show up at all for training.

           Moore, 38, of Washington, D.C., pled guilty on Oct. 11, 2018, to a federal bribery charge.  She will be sentenced on January 7, 2020.

           In announcing the sentence, U.S. Attorney Liu, Special Agent in Charge Dunham, and Inspector General Lucas commended the work of those who investigated the case from the FBI’s Washington Field Office and the Office of the Inspector General of the District of Columbia.  They also expressed appreciation for the work of Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael J. Marando of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, who investigated and prosecuted the matter.

           WASHINGTON – John Woods, a consultant and independent contractor for a company that did business with the District of Columbia Department of Human Resources, pled guilty to charges that he paid more than $140,000 in bribes to a former D.C. government employee and that he stole payments on city contracts that should have gone to his employer.

           John Woods, 57, of Sterling, Va., pleaded guilty on August 23 to one count of wire fraud in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. As part of his guilty plea, Woods agreed to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $564,910.23. The Honorable Dabney L. Friedrich scheduled sentencing for December 16, 2019.

           The announcement was made by U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu, Timothy M. Dunham, Special Agent in Charge, Criminal Division, FBI Washington Field Office, and District of Columbia Inspector General Daniel W. Lucas.

            According to the statement of offense submitted at the plea hearing, Woods worked as a consultant for a firm identified in the court documents as “Company A.”  The firm had agreements with the District of Columbia Department of Human Resources (DCHR) to provide organizational skills training courses and human resources consulting to various D.C. government agencies. Woods was Company A’s main point of contact with DCHR and handled the submission of invoices.

           According to the statement of offense, beginning in April 2013, and continuing through August 2017, Woods schemed to defraud “Company A” and the D.C. government.

            As noted in the statement of offense, between April 2013 and February 2015, Woods stole $214,910 in D.C. government checks that were issued to “Company A.” Beginning in March 2015, Woods began usurping “Company A’s” role under the contracts by purposefully failing to submit Company A’s invoice to DCHR for payment.  This led Company A to believe the D.C. government was negligent in paying its invoices, and Company A stopped seeking to perform work under its agreements with DCHR.  Woods then secretly performed the agreements without Company A’s knowledge by hiring and retaining contractors to provide the necessary work to DCHR and by submitting fraudulent invoices to DCHR, purportedly on behalf of Company A, for payment under the agreements.  DCHR would then issue payments in the form of D.C. government checks made payable to Company A, which Woods deposited into a bank account he controlled.  In all, according to the statement of offense, Woods fraudulently deposited approximately 27 checks issued by the D.C. government to “Company A”, totaling approximately $1,040,023, from March 2015 through August 2017.

            According to the statement of offense, in order to keep his scheme in place, Woods paid more than $140,000 in bribes to Latasha Moore, then a DCHR employee. As a resource allocation analyst for DCHR, Moore was the main point of contact for “Company A” and in a position to ensure that no complaints or suspicions about the contracts reached others in the government. For example, Moore failed to report problems that arose while Woods was managing the work, including complaints of contractors arriving late, leaving early or failing to show up at all for training.

            Moore, 38, of Washington, D.C., pled guilty on Oct. 11, 2018, to a federal bribery charge. She is awaiting sentencing.

            This case was investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office and Office of the Inspector General of the District of Columbia.

           In announcing the plea, U.S. Attorney Liu commended the work of Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Marando, who prosecuted the case.

            WASHINGTON – A consultant and independent contractor for a company that did business with the District of Columbia Department of Human Resources was indicted today on charges that he paid more than $140,000 in bribes to a former D.C. government employee and that he stole payments on city contracts that should have gone to his employer.

            John Woods, 56, of Sterling, Va., was indicted by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on three counts of wire fraud, four counts of mail fraud, one count of bribery, and two counts of engaging in illegal monetary transactions. The indictment also includes a forfeiture allegation seeking all proceeds of the alleged crimes. Woods will be arraigned on the charges on a date to be determined by the Court.

            The announcement was made by U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu, Nancy McNamara, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, and District of Columbia Inspector General Daniel W. Lucas.

            According to the indictment, Woods worked as a consultant and independent contractor for a firm identified in the court documents as “Company A.”  The firm had agreements with the District of Columbia Department of Human Resources (DCHR) to provide organizational skills training courses and human resources consulting to various D.C. government agencies. Woods was the company’s main point of contact with DCHR and handled the submission of invoices.

            The indictment alleges that, beginning in April 2013, and continuing through August 2017, Woods schemed to defraud “Company A” and the D.C. government.

            As part of the scheme, according to the indictment, between April 2013 and February 2015, Woods stole $214,910 in D.C. government checks that were issued to “Company A.” Beginning in March 2015, the indictment alleges, Woods began usurping “Company A’s” role under the contracts and keeping the profits for himself. The indictment alleges that Woods fraudulently deposited approximately 27 checks issued by the D.C. government to “Company A” into a bank account he controlled, totaling approximately $1,040,023, from March 2015 through August 2017.

            In order to keep his scheme in place, the indictment alleges that Woods paid more than $140,000 in bribes to Latasha Moore, then a DCHR employee. As a resource allocation analyst, Moore was the main point of contact for “Company A” and in a position to ensure that no complaints or suspicions about the contracts reached others in the government. For example, Moore failed to report problems that arose while Woods was managing the work, including complaints of contractors arriving late, leaving early or failing to show up at all for training.

            Moore, 38, of Washington, D.C., pled guilty on Oct. 11, 2018 to a federal bribery charge. She is awaiting sentencing.

            An indictment is merely a formal charge that a defendant has committed a violation of criminal laws and every defendant is presumed innocent until, and unless, proven guilty.

            Mail fraud and wire fraud charges carry statutory maximum of 20 years in prison. The bribery charge carries a statutory maximum of 15 years in prison, and the charge involving illegal monetary transactions carries a statutory maximum of 10 years. The charges also carry potential financial penalties. The maximum statutory sentence for federal offenses is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. The sentencing will be determined by the court based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

            This case is being investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office and Office of the Inspector General of the District of Columbia. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Marando, of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

 

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wP574ynlxqqJJxMy3f4mMJehhtMCPbsntfHDtHoyuRg
  Last Updated: 2024-03-30 19:46:11 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 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 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:   D-DC  1:18-mj-00134
Case Name:   USA v. WOODS
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JiqAyriss1nI0KA0j03-YOZCqsETq3jlubMhjDaZLVY
  Last Updated: 2024-03-30 19:41:13 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 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 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