Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:17-cr-00779
Case Name:   USA v. Ho
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, announced that CHI PING PATRICK HO, a/k/a “Patrick C.P. Ho,” a/k/a “He Zhiping,” was sentenced today to three years in prison for his role in a multi-year, multimillion-dollar scheme to bribe top officials of Chad and Uganda in exchange for business advantages for CEFC China Energy Company Limited (“CEFC China”).  HO was convicted of violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), money laundering, and conspiracy to commit the same, in December 2018, after a one-week jury trial before U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska, who imposed today’s sentence.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman stated:  “Patrick Ho schemed to bribe the leaders of Chad and Uganda in order to secure unfair business advantages for the Chinese energy company he served.  His actions were brazen, including offering the president of Chad $2 million in cash, hidden in gift boxes.  Foreign corruption undermines the fairness of international markets, erodes the public’s faith in its leaders, and is deeply unfair to the people and businesses that play by the rules.  Today’s sentence recognizes the severe harm caused by Ho’s actions.”

Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski stated:  “Patrick Ho bribed officials at the highest levels of government in Chad and Uganda in pursuit of lucrative oil deals and other business opportunities, all while using a U.S.-based NGO to conceal his criminal scheme.  This kind of corruption undermines world markets and tilts the playing field against law-abiding companies and individuals.  The Department will continue to investigate and prosecute individuals and corporations that engage in foreign bribery.”

According to the Indictment, evidence presented at trial, information presented in connection with sentencing, and other publicly available materials:      

Overview

HO orchestrated and executed two bribery schemes to pay top officials of Chad and Uganda in exchange for business advantages for CEFC China, a Shanghai-based multibillion-dollar conglomerate that operates internationally in multiple sectors, including oil, gas, and banking.  At the center of both schemes was HO, the secretary-general of a non-governmental organization based in Hong Kong and Arlington, Virginia, and registered as a charitable entity in the United States, the China Energy Fund Committee (“CEFC NGO”), which held “Special Consultative Status” with the United Nations (“UN”) Economic and Social Council.  CEFC NGO was funded by CEFC China.

In the first scheme (the “Chad Scheme”), HO, on behalf of CEFC China, offered a $2 million cash bribe, hidden within gift boxes, to Idriss Déby, the president of Chad, in an effort to obtain valuable oil rights from the Chadian government.  In the second scheme (the “Uganda Scheme”), HO caused a $500,000 bribe to be paid, via wires transmitted through New York, New York, to an account designated by Sam Kutesa, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Uganda, who had recently completed his term as the president of the UN General Assembly.  HO also schemed to pay a $500,000 cash bribe to Yoweri Museveni, the president of Uganda, and offered to provide both Kutesa and Museveni with additional corrupt benefits by “partnering” with them and their families in future joint ventures in Uganda.

The Chad Scheme

The Chad Scheme began in or about September 2014 when HO flew into New York to attend the annual UN General Assembly.  At that time, CEFC China – a multibillion-dollar energy company based in Shanghai, China – was working to expand its operations to Chad, and wanted to meet with President Déby as quickly as possible.  Through a connection, HO was introduced to Cheikh Gadio, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Senegal, who had a personal relationship with President Déby.  HO and Gadio met at CEFC China’s suite at Trump World Tower in midtown Manhattan, where HO enlisted Gadio to assist CEFC China in obtaining access to President Déby.

Gadio connected HO and CEFC China to President Déby.  In an initial meeting in Chad in November 2014, President Déby described to HO and CEFC China executives certain lucrative oil rights that were available for CEFC China to acquire.  Following that meeting, Gadio advised HO and CEFC China to send a technical team to Chad to investigate the oil rights and make an offer to President Déby grounded in factual data.  Instead, HO insisted on a prompt second meeting with President Déby.  The second meeting took place a few weeks later, in December 2014.  HO led a CEFC China delegation, which flew to Chad on a corporate jet with $2 million cash concealed within several gift boxes.  At the conclusion of a business meeting with President Déby, HO and the CEFC China executives presented him with the gift boxes. 

To the surprise of HO and the CEFC China executives, President Déby rejected the $2 million bribe offer, but later agreed to accept the money as a charitable donation to the country.  HO subsequently drafted a letter to President Déby falsely claiming that the cash had really been intended as a donation to the people of Chad all along.

HO and CEFC China did not obtain the unfair advantage that they had sought through the bribe offer, and by mid-2015, HO had turned his attention to a different so-called “gateway to Africa”:  Uganda.

The Uganda Scheme

The Uganda Scheme began around the same time as the Chad Scheme, when HO was in New York for the annual UN General Assembly.  HO met with Sam Kutesa, who had recently begun his term as the 69th president of the UN General Assembly (“PGA”).  HO, purporting to act on behalf of CEFC NGO, met with Kutesa and began to cultivate a relationship with him.  During the year when Kutesa served as PGA, HO and Kutesa discussed a “strategic partnership” between Uganda and CEFC China for various business ventures, to be formed once Kutesa returned to Uganda.

In or about February 2016 – after Kutesa had returned to Uganda and resumed his role as Foreign Minister, and Yoweri Museveni (Kutesa’s relative) had been reelected as the president of Uganda – Kutesa solicited a payment from HO, purportedly for a charitable foundation that Kutesa wished to launch.  HO agreed to provide the requested payment, but simultaneously requested, on behalf of CEFC China, an invitation to Museveni’s inauguration, business meetings with Museveni and other high-level Ugandan officials, and a list of specific business projects in Uganda in which CEFC China could participate.

In May 2016, HO and CEFC China executives traveled to Uganda.  Prior to departing, HO caused CEFC NGO to wire $500,000 to the account provided by Kutesa in the name of the so-called “foundation,” which wire was transmitted through New York, New York.  HO also advised his boss, Ye Jianming, the then-chairman of CEFC China, to provide $500,000 in cash to Museveni, ostensibly as a campaign donation, even though Museveni had already been reelected.  HO intended these payments to influence Kutesa and Museveni to use their official power to steer business advantages to CEFC China.

HO and CEFC China executives attended President Museveni’s inauguration and obtained business meetings in Uganda with Museveni and top Ugandan officials, including with the Department of Energy and Mineral Resources.  After the trip, HO requested that Kutesa and Museveni assist CEFC China in acquiring a Ugandan bank, as an initial step before pursuing additional ventures in Uganda.  HO also offered to “partner” with Kutesa and Museveni and/or their “family businesses,” making clear that both officials would share in CEFC China’s future profits.  In exchange for the bribes offered and paid by HO, Kutesa thereafter steered a bank acquisition opportunity to CEFC China.

*                      *                      *

In imposing sentence, Judge Preska explained that, as the UN Convention Against Corruption states:  “Corruption is an insidious plague” that is “found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive.”

In addition to his prison term, HO, 69, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China who resided in Hong Kong prior to his arrest in November 2017 and has been detained since his arrest, was fined $400,000.

Mr. Berman and Mr. Benczkowski praised the outstanding work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation.  He also thanked the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations, and the Department of Justice, Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs, for their assistance.

This case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit and the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, FCPA Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Daniel C. Richenthal, Douglas S. Zolkind, and Catherine E. Ghosh, and Trial Attorney Paul A. Hayden of the Fraud Section, are in charge of the prosecution.

Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division announced that CHI PING PATRICK HO, a/k/a “Patrick C.P. Ho,” a/k/a “He Zhiping,” was found guilty today after a jury trial before U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska of participating in a multi-year, multimillion-dollar scheme to bribe top officials of Chad and Uganda in exchange for business advantages for CEFC China Energy Company Limited (“CEFC China”).  HO was convicted of violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), international money laundering, and conspiracy to commit both.  HO is scheduled to be sentenced before Judge Preska on March 14, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Patrick Ho now stands convicted of scheming to pay millions in bribes to foreign leaders in Chad and Uganda, all as part of his efforts to corruptly secure unfair business advantages for a multibillion-dollar Chinese energy company.  As the jury’s verdict makes clear, Ho’s repeated attempts to corrupt foreign leaders were not business as usual, but criminal efforts to undermine the fairness of international markets and erode the public’s faith in its leaders.”

Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski:  “Patrick Ho paid millions of dollars in bribes to the leaders of two African countries to secure contracts for a Chinese conglomerate.  Today’s trial conviction demonstrates the Criminal Division’s commitment to prosecuting those who seek to utilize our financial system to secure unfair competition advantages through corruption and bribery.”

According to the Indictment, evidence presented at trial, and other public proceedings in the case:           

Overview 

HO was involved in two bribery schemes to pay top officials of Chad and Uganda in exchange for business advantages for CEFC China, a Shanghai-based multibillion-dollar conglomerate that operates internationally in multiple sectors, including oil, gas, and banking.  At the center of both schemes was HO, the head of a non-governmental organization based in Hong Kong and Arlington, Virginia, the China Energy Fund Committee (the “CEFC NGO”), which held “Special Consultative Status” with the United Nations (“UN”) Economic and Social Council.  CEFC NGO was funded by CEFC China.

In the first scheme (the “Chad Scheme”), HO, on behalf of CEFC China, offered a $2 million cash bribe, hidden within gift boxes, to Idriss Déby, the President of Chad, in an effort to obtain valuable oil rights from the Chadian government.  In the second scheme (the “Uganda Scheme”), HO caused a $500,000 bribe to be paid, via wires transmitted through New York, New York, to an account designated by Sam Kutesa, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Uganda, who had recently completed his term as the President of the UN General Assembly.  HO also schemed to pay a $500,000 cash bribe to Yoweri Museveni, the President of Uganda, and offered to provide both Kutesa and Museveni with additional corrupt benefits by “partnering” with them in future joint ventures in Uganda.

The Chad Scheme

The Chad Scheme began in or about September 2014 when HO flew into New York, New York to attend the annual UN General Assembly.  At that time, CEFC China was working to expand its operations to Chad and wanted to meet with President Déby as quickly as possible.  Through a connection, HO was introduced to Cheikh Gadio, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Senegal, who had a personal relationship with President Déby.  HO and Gadio met at CEFC China’s suite at Trump World Tower in midtown Manhattan, where HO enlisted Gadio to assist CEFC China in obtaining access to President Déby.

Gadio connected HO and CEFC China to President Déby.  In an initial meeting in Chad in November 2014, President Déby described to HO and CEFC China executives certain lucrative oil rights that were available for CEFC China to acquire.  Following that meeting, Gadio advised HO and CEFC China to send a technical team to Chad to investigate the oil rights and make an offer to President Déby.  Instead, HO insisted on a prompt second meeting with the President.  The second meeting took place a few weeks later, in December 2014.  HO led a CEFC China delegation, which flew into Chad on a corporate jet with $2 million cash concealed within several gift boxes.  At the conclusion of a business meeting with President Déby, HO and the CEFC China executives presented President Déby with the gift boxes.

To the surprise of HO and the CEFC China executives, President Déby rejected the $2 million bribe offer.  HO subsequently drafted a letter to President Déby claiming that the cash had been intended as a donation to Chad.  Ultimately, HO and CEFC China did not obtain the unfair advantage that they had sought through the bribe offer, and by mid-2015, HO had turned his attention to a different “gateway to Africa”: Uganda.

The Uganda Scheme

The Uganda Scheme began around the same time as the Chad Scheme, when HO was in New York, New York for the annual UN General Assembly.  HO met with Sam Kutesa, who had recently begun his term as the 69th President of the UN General Assembly (“PGA”).  HO, purporting to act on behalf of CEFC NGO, met with Kutesa and began to cultivate a relationship with him.  During the year that Kutesa served as PGA, HO and Kutesa discussed a “strategic partnership” between Uganda and CEFC China for various business ventures, to be formed once Kutesa completed his term as PGA and returned to Uganda.

In or about February 2016 – after Kutesa had returned to Uganda and resumed his role as Foreign Minister, and Yoweri Museveni (Kutesa’s relative) had been reelected as the President of Uganda – Kutesa solicited a payment from HO, purportedly for a charitable foundation that Kutesa wished to launch.  HO agreed to provide the requested payment, but simultaneously requested, on behalf of CEFC China, an invitation to Museveni’s inauguration, business meetings with President Museveni and other high-level Ugandan officials, and a list of specific business projects in Uganda that CEFC China could participate in.

In May 2016, HO and CEFC China executives traveled to Uganda.  Prior to departing, HO caused the CEFC NGO to wire $500,000 to the account provided by Kutesa in the name of the so-called “foundation,” which wire was transmitted through banks in New York, New York.  HO also advised his boss, the Chairman of CEFC China, to provide $500,000 in cash to President Museveni, ostensibly as a campaign donation, even though Museveni had already been reelected.  HO intended these payments as bribes to influence Kutesa and Museveni to use their official power to steer business advantages to CEFC China.

HO and CEFC China executives attended President Museveni’s inauguration and obtained business meetings in Uganda with President Museveni and top Ugandan officials, including at the Department of Energy and Mineral Resources.  After the trip, HO requested that Kutesa and Museveni assist CEFC China in acquiring a Ugandan bank, as an initial step before pursuing additional ventures in Uganda.  HO also explicitly offered to “partner” with Kutesa and Museveni and/or their “family businesses,” making clear that both officials would share in CEFC China’s future profits.  In exchange for the bribes offered and paid by HO, Kutesa thereafter steered a bank acquisition opportunity to CEFC China.

*                      *                      *

HO, 69, of Hong Kong, China, was convicted of one count of conspiring to violate the FCPA, four counts of violating the FCPA, one count of conspiring to commit international money laundering, and one count of committing international money laundering.  The maximum penalties for these charges are as follows: five years in prison for conspiring to violate the FCPA; five years in prison for each violation of the FCPA; 20 years in prison for conspiring to commit international money laundering; and 20 years in prison for committing international money laundering.  HO was acquitted of one count of international money laundering.

The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as the sentencing of HO will be determined by the judge.

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation.  He also thanked the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations, and the Department of Justice, Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs.

This case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit and the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, FCPA Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Douglas S. Zolkind, Daniel C. Richenthal, and Catherine E. Ghosh, and Trial Attorney Paul A. Hayden of the Fraud Section, are in charge of the prosecution.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16R6eVqzvyzSgU1msMaGi98AM2X5eIM8eirI5Rablhqs
  Last Updated: 2024-04-09 13:34:30 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: 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:   SD-NY  1:17-mj-08611
Case Name:   USA v. Ho et al
  Press Releases:
Joon H. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Kenneth A. Blanco, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, William F. Sweeney Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), James D. Robnett, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (“IRS-CI”), and Angel M. Melendez, Special Agent in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), announced today the unsealing of a Complaint charging CHI PING PATRICK HO, a/k/a “Patrick C.P. Ho,” and CHEIKH GADIO with participating in a multi-year, multimillion-dollar scheme to bribe high-level officials in Chad and Uganda in exchange for business advantages for a Chinese oil and gas company (the “Energy Company”).  HO and GADIO were charged with violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), international money laundering, and conspiracy to commit both.  GADIO was arrested in New York on Friday afternoon and presented on Saturday before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox.  HO was arrested on Saturday afternoon and was presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck and ordered detained.

 

Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said:  “In an international corruption scheme that spanned the globe, Chi Ping Patrick Ho and Cheikh Gadio allegedly conspired to bribe African government officials on behalf of a Chinese energy conglomerate.  Wiring almost a million dollars through New York’s banking system in furtherance of their corrupt schemes, the defendants allegedly sought to generate business through bribes paid to the President of Chad and the Ugandan Foreign Minister.  As alleged, Ho’s Ugandan scheme was hatched in the halls of the United Nations in New York, when the country’s current Foreign Minister served as the President of the U.N. General Assembly, and then continued unabated upon his return to Uganda.  International bribery not only harms legitimate businesses and fair competition, but it also destroys public faith in the integrity of government.  And when this type of international corruption and bribery touches our shores and our financial system, as the alleged schemes did, federal criminal charges in an American court may very well be the end result.”

 

Acting Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Blanco said:  “This alleged scheme involved bribes at the highest levels of the governments of two nations.  The Criminal Division is committed to investigating and prosecuting corrupt individuals who put at risk a level playing field for corporate competitiveness, regardless of where they live or work.  Their bribes and corrupt acts hurt our economy and undermine confidence in the free marketplace.”

 

FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. said:  “The scheme described in this case boils down to these subjects allegedly trying to get their hands on the rights to lucrative opportunities in Africa.  They were allegedly willing to throw money at the leaders of two countries to bypass the normal course of business, but didn’t realize that using the U.S. banking system would be their undoing.  The FBI, our partners in the IRS and the law enforcement community work diligently day after day to protect the integrity of our financial institutions, and stop foreign entities corrupting international commerce.”

 

IRS-CI Special Agent in Charge James D. Robnett said:  “IRS Criminal Investigation operates worldwide and has the expertise to identify bribery schemes such as alleged in the Criminal Complaint.  Our Special Agents are especially skilled at piecing together these financial puzzles, even those that involve such high level participants.”

 

HSI Special Agent in Charge Angel M. Melendez said:  “These individuals allegedly offered millions of dollars in bribes to foreign officials, disguised as charitable donations, in order to seek business advantages. One used his position with a United Nations Council to further this scheme.  We will continue to aggressively investigate financial crimes committed by corrupt foreign officials while working collaboratively with our counterparts at the FBI and IRS.” 

 

According to the allegations in the Complaint[1] and other statements in the public record:

           

Overview

 

This case involves two bribery schemes to pay high-level officials of Chad and Uganda in exchange for business advantages for the Energy Company, a Shanghai-headquartered multibillion-dollar conglomerate that operates internationally in the energy and financial sectors.  At the center of both schemes is CHI PING PATRICK HO, a/k/a “Patrick C.P. Ho,” the head of a non-governmental organization based in Hong Kong and Virginia (the “Energy NGO”) that holds “Special Consultative Status” with the United Nations (“UN”) Economic and Social Council.  The Energy NGO is funded by the Energy Company.

 

In the first scheme (the “Chad Scheme”), HO, with GADIO’s assistance, caused the Energy Company to offer a $2 million bribe to the President of Chad in exchange for securing business advantages for the Energy Company in its efforts to obtain valuable oil rights from the Chadian government.  In particular, in exchange for the bribe, the President of Chad provided the Energy Company with, among other things, an exclusive opportunity to obtain particular oil rights in Chad without facing international competition.  GADIO, who is the former Foreign Minister of Senegal and who operated an international consulting firm, played an instrumental role in the Chad Scheme by, among other things, connecting HO with the President of Chad and conveying the $2 million bribe offer to the President of Chad.  HO compensated GADIO by paying him $400,000 via wires transmitted through New York, New York.

 

In the second scheme (the “Uganda Scheme”), HO caused a $500,000 bribe to be paid, via wires transmitted through New York, New York, to an account designated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Uganda, who had recently completed his term as the President of the UN General Assembly (the “Ugandan Foreign Minister”).  HO also provided the Ugandan Foreign Minister, as well as the President of Uganda, with gifts and promises of future benefits, including offering to share the profits of a potential joint venture in Uganda involving the Energy Company and businesses owned by the families of the Ugandan Foreign Minister and the President of Uganda.  These payments and promises were made in exchange for assistance from the Ugandan Foreign Minister in obtaining business advantages for the Energy Company, including the potential acquisition of a Ugandan bank.

 

The Chad Scheme

 

As alleged in the Complaint, the Chad Scheme began in or about October 2014, when HO and GADIO met at the UN in New York, New York.  At that time, the Energy Company wanted to expand its oil operations to Chad, and to do so, it wanted to enter into a joint venture with a Chinese government-owned oil and gas company (the “Chinese State Oil Company”) that was already operating in Chad.  Earlier that year, the Chinese State Oil Company had been fined $1.2 billion by the government of Chad for environmental violations.  HO enlisted GADIO – who had a personal relationship with the President of Chad – to assist the Energy Company in gaining access to the President of Chad, with the initial goal of resolving the dispute between the government of Chad and the Chinese State Oil Company, and the ultimate goal of obtaining oil opportunities for the Energy Company in Chad.

 

GADIO successfully connected HO and the Energy Company to the President of Chad and to other Chadian officials.  HO, acting on GADIO’s advice, then caused the Energy Company to pledge a $2 million bribe to the President of Chad, in what was characterized as a “donation” for charitable causes.  GADIO later solicited from HO a $500,000 payment for GADIO’s firm, arguing that he should receive a percentage of the $2 million “gift” from the Energy Company to the President of Chad.

 

In reality, this “donation” was a bribe intended to influence the award of oil rights in favor of the Energy Company.  Following this $2 million pledge to the President of Chad, the Energy Company obtained a business advantage in its negotiations to acquire oil rights in Chad, in particular, by having the exclusive opportunity to purchase particular oil rights without facing international competition.  Ultimately, the Energy Company did not complete this acquisition, but instead purchased other oil rights in Chad from a Taiwanese company.  In exchange for GADIO’s efforts to facilitate the bribery of the President of Chad, HO caused $400,000 to be paid to GADIO’s firm, via two wires that were transmitted through a bank in New York, New York.

 

The Uganda Scheme

 

As alleged in the Complaint, the Uganda Scheme began in or about October 2014, when HO met at the UN in New York, New York with the Ugandan Foreign Minister, who had recently begun his term as the 69th President of the UN General Assembly (“PGA”).[2]  HO, purporting to act on behalf of the Energy NGO, met with the Ugandan Foreign Minister and began to cultivate a relationship with him.  During the year that the Ugandan Foreign Minister served as PGA, HO and the Ugandan Foreign Minister discussed a “strategic partnership” between Uganda and the Energy Company for various business ventures, to be formed once the Ugandan Foreign Minister completed his term as PGA and returned to Uganda.

 

In or about February 2016 – after the Ugandan Foreign Minister had resumed his role as Foreign Minister of Uganda, and his in-law had been reelected as the President of Uganda – the Ugandan Foreign Minister solicited a payment from HO, purportedly for a charitable foundation that he wished to launch.  HO caused a $500,000 payment to be wired to an account in Uganda designated by the Ugandan Foreign Minister, through a bank in New York, New York.  In his communications, HO variously referred to this payment as a “donation” to the reelection campaign of the President of Uganda (who had already been reelected) and as a “donation” to “support” the Ugandan Foreign Minister.

 

In fact, this payment was a bribe to obtain business advantages for the Energy Company in its efforts to secure contracts and ventures in Uganda’s financial and energy sectors.  HO also provided the Ugandan Foreign Minister, as well as the President of Uganda, with promises of future benefits, including proposing to partner with both officials’ family businesses in potential joint ventures.  In exchange, the Ugandan Foreign Minister assisted the Energy Company in obtaining business in Uganda, including by facilitating the Energy Company’s interest in potentially acquiring a bank.

 

*                      *                      *

 

HO, 68, of Hong Kong, China, and GADIO, 61, of Senegal, are each charged with conspiring to violate the FCPA, violating the FCPA, conspiring to commit international money laundering, and committing international money laundering.  The maximum penalties for these charges are as follows: five years in prison for conspiring to violate the FCPA; five years in prison for each violation of the FCPA; 20 years in prison for conspiring to commit international money laundering; and 20 years in prison for each charge of committing international money laundering.  The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.

 

Mr. Kim praised the outstanding work of the FBI and IRS-CI, who jointly conducted this investigation.  He also thanked the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), and the Department of Justice, Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs, which provided critical assistance.  Mr. Kim noted that the investigation is ongoing.

 

This case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit and the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Douglas S. Zolkind, Thomas McKay, Daniel C. Richenthal, and Shane T. Stansbury, and Trial Attorneys David A. Last and Paul A. Hayden of the Fraud Section, are in charge of the prosecution.

 

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

 



[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint and the description of the Complaint set forth below constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





[2] Although the Complaint refers to the “Ugandan Foreign Minister” throughout for clarity, during the year that he served as PGA, he did not simultaneously serve as Foreign Minister of Uganda.  Rather, he resumed as Foreign Minister of Uganda shortly after his term as PGA ended.





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YdKk6TRPzdT1StpIeo5dRUvOzLtfe3nZomZVpIbLz-E
  Last Updated: 2024-04-09 13:32:25 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