Ariana Fajardo Orshan, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and Justin Green, Special Agent in Charge, Miami Field Office, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Office of Criminal Investigations (FDA-OCI), announced the convictions of five defendants for various offenses relating to a global fraud scheme that relied upon false claims about the United States military and the Government of Afghanistan.
Six individuals were charged for their involvement in the global fraud scheme (Case No. 18-20668-CR-DMM). Byramji Javat, a citizen of Pakistan and Chairman of the Dubai-based Uniworld Group, pleaded guilty on August 19, 2019, to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section1349. Javat faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, plus potential restitution and a fine of up to $250,000. Sunil Chopra and William Armando, both residents of California, each pleaded guilty on August 19, 2019, to one count of conspiracy to obtain pre-retail medical products worth $5,000 or more by fraud or deception, in violation of Title18, United States Code, Section 670(a)(6). They face a maximum statutory penalty of 15 years in prison. Emanuel Daskos, pleaded guilty on July 16, 2019, to also violating Title 18, United States Code, Section 670(a)(6). Luis Soto, a customs broker residing in Miami, Florida, was convicted by a trial jury on August 23, 2019, of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to obtain pre-retail medical products worth $5,000 or more by fraud or deception, two counts of wire fraud contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, and two counts of obtaining pre-retail medical products by fraud or deception, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 670(a)(1). The defendants have not yet been sentenced. One defendant, James Sipprell, a resident of Georgia, is awaiting trial and is presumed innocent.
According to the superseding indictment, between 2014 and 2017, Javat orchestrated a fraud scheme to purchase FDA-regulated products including medical devices from manufacturers in the United States at deeply discounted prices by lying to them about the destination and purpose of the goods. Javat represented that he was a large supplier of medical and food products to United States troops in Afghanistan, and sought deep discounts from the manufacturers by claiming that he could provide their goods to American troops in Afghanistan or to the Afghan people. In truth, Javat wanted to obtain these products at prices not generally offered in the United States in order to sell those products himself in this country – not abroad, and not to the military – at a significant profit.
To execute this scheme, the conspirators insisted that products be packaged for the United States market, falsely claiming to the manufacturers that this was required by the U.S. military, the Afghan government, or the “Buy American Act.” When the products nonetheless had stickers or other packaging on them stating that the items were for export only, the conspirators secretly removed those labels. After acquiring the products, Javat and the co-conspirators arranged for the diversion of the products to various locations in the United States. To conceal this activity, the conspirators typically shipped the products abroad and then had them immediately shipped back to the United States, or provided the victims with fraudulent shipping documentation showing that the products were exported when actually they had never left this country.
Javat admitted the allegations of the superseding indictment during his guilty plea. During Soto’s trial, the government proved these allegations to the jury and presented additional evidence about the defendants’ scheme. For example, the conspirators often represented that they were purchasing items on behalf of the Afghanistan Reconstruction and Development Services (“ARDS”), which at one time was an agency of the Afghan Government funded in part by the United States. That agency ceased to exist after 2014, yet the conspirators provided victims with fake documents supposedly from ARDS imposing extravagant demands that in reality only suited the conspirators’ needs. In 2016, Uniworld prepared an internal Powerpoint presentation expressly informing its staff that they had to be “good at lying.” Finally, because these goods were moving outside normal channels, they often were mishandled; for example, according to the conspirators’ own emails at the time, the defendants disregarded temperature requirements when transshipping over-the-counter pain medicines, one of the defendants kept a shipment of diabetic test strips that required refrigeration in his car trunk overnight and another shipment of medical products became covered in bird droppings. The products involved in Javat’s scheme included surgical instruments, professional dental care devices, bandages, and aspirin.
The evidence at trial demonstrated that Soto knew about Javat’s fraud scheme yet knowingly helped him by supplying paperwork to federal agencies including the FDA to facilitate the re-entry of the diverted products into the United States through the Port of Miami or Miami International Airport. Chopra, Armando and Daskos also knowingly furthered the scheme by helping to transport the products and remove export labels.
U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FDA-OCI. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys David Turken and John Shipley.
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 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