Two Mayors and Two Lobbyists Charged in Separate Corruption Investigations Mayor of Sweetwater Received More Than $40,000 in Bribes; Mayor of Miami Lakes Received $6,750 in Bribes

Wifredo A. Ferrer, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and Michael B. Steinbach, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office, announce that four individuals have been charged in two separate complaints involving public corruption allegations. The first complaint charges Manuel L. Maroño, 41, the mayor of Sweetwater, and two lobbyists, Jorge L. Forte, 41, and Richard F. Candia, 49, all of Miami, for their alleged participation in a kickback and bribery scheme (the Maroño complaint) in connection with purported federal grants for the city of Sweetwater. The second complaint charges Michael A. Pizzi, 51, the mayor of Miami Lakes and town attorney for the town of Medley, and Richard F. Candia, in a separate kickback and bribery scheme in connection with purported federal grants for both Miami Lakes and Medley (the Pizzi complaint). Both complaints charge the defendants with conspiracy to commit extortion under color of official right, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).

U.S. Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer stated, “Our democracy suffers when, as in these cases, elected officials use their power and political influence for personal gain instead of for the public good. Public corruption, at any level of government, corrodes and undermines the public’s confidence in our system of government. We are committed to stopping this corrosion and to help restore transparency to local government.”

“For the public to have confidence in their government, they must be certain that their elected officials will not use their position for personal gain,” said Michael B. Steinbach, Special Agent in Charge, FBI Miami. “We encourage anyone who may have information about corruption to come forward and report it. This information is critical to our work. The South Florida community can be assured that public corruption will remain a top priority for the FBI.”

The defendants made their initial appearances in federal court today at 1:30 p.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrea Simonton. If convicted, the defendants face a maximum statutory penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

Investigation Background

The investigation began in approximately June 2011, when Candia began dealing with an FBI confidential source and two undercover FBI agents posing as the owners of a Chicago-based grant administration business. During meetings, the undercover agents represented to Candia that, with the aid of corrupt local public officials, they could obtain federal grant moneys, which they would then keep and distribute among themselves. After listening to the undercover agents’ proposal, Candia identified Maroño and Pizzi as potential participants in the scheme.

The Sweetwater Deal—Manuel Maroño

According to the Maroño complaint affidavit, after identifying Maroño as a potential participant in the proposed scheme, Candia introduced Maroño to the undercover agents. Maroño caused the passage of a resolution in Sweetwater that authorized the undercover agents’ company to apply for federal grant moneys on behalf of the city of Sweetwater. After the resolution was passed, Maroño and Forte personally met and negotiated with the undercover agents and accepted a series of cash payments in exchange for Maroño’s official action in support of the grant scheme. During these negotiations and meetings, Forte acted as the front man for Maroño.

To further the scheme and avoid detection, Maroño also participated in what he believed to be audit telephone calls from a federal grant auditor to confirm the grantee’s performance on the grant. During two separate audit calls, both of which were recorded, Maroño lied to and misled the auditor, who was in fact an undercover FBI agent, about the actual use of the grant money and the grantee’s performance. For their actions, Maroño and Forte received $40,000 and Candia received at least $5,000 in kickbacks in connection with the Sweetwater deal.

Lastly, Maroño, Forte, and Candia received additional payments for their assistance in identifying other public officials whom they claimed might also be interested in participating in similar grant schemes in their cities. To this end, Maroño, Forte, and Candia used Maroño’s position as President of the Florida League of Cities to introduce the scheme to other officials. Maroño and Forte received an additional $20,000 in cash for these introductions, but no other public officials ultimately participated in the scheme.

The Miami Lakes/Medley Deals—Michael Pizzi

The second complaint charges Michael Pizzi and Candia with engaging in a similar grant scheme in Miami Lakes and Medley. As more fully explained in the affidavit filed in support of the Pizzi complaint, Candia introduced Pizzi to the undercover FBI agents to help implement the grant scheme in Medley, where Pizzi was the town attorney. After a series of meetings with Candia and the undercover agents, Pizzi initially agreed to participate in the scheme in exchange for $750 in campaign contributions, which he received in three separate checks delivered to his office by the FBI confidential source.

Thereafter, to aid in the grant scheme’s success, Pizzi backdated a document that endorsed the undercover agents’ company. Pizzi also handled what he believed to be an audit telephone call from a federal grant auditor to confirm the grantee’s performance on the grant. During that call, which was recorded, Pizzi lied to and misled the auditor, who was in fact an undercover FBI agent, about the actual use of the grant money and the grantee’s performance. In return for Pizzi’s help in Medley, Pizzi received a $1,000 cash kickback and other things of value.

Later, with the intent of expanding the grant scheme to Miami Lakes, Pizzi worked to get a resolution passed in Miami Lakes that would authorize the undercover FBI agents’ company to seek additional grant funds for the city of Miami Lakes. In exchange for his work in Miami Lakes, Pizzi received additional $2,000 and $3,000 cash pay-offs.

These cases were investigated by the FBI Miami Area Public Corruption Task Force with assistance from the City of Miami Police Department, Hialeah Police Department, Miami Beach Police Department, Miami Dade Police Department, and Customs and Border Protection-Internal Affairs. The cases are being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jared E. Dwyer.

A complaint is only an accusation and a defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven

MainJustice.Com “Former Prosecutor from Shuttered Antitrust Division Office Joins White Collar Firm”

Click Link Below:

Former Prosecutor from Shuttered Antitrust Division Office Joins White Collar Firm

Noted Antitrust and Disaster Fraud Prosecutor Joan E. Marshall Joins GeyerGorey LLP

Joan Marshall who prosecuted the worldwide vitamins cartel and brought a series of fraud cases in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, has joined the firm as a partner. Previously, Ms. Marshall was with the US DOJ Antitrust Division in the Dallas Field Office. She is the tenth former DOJ prosecutor to join the new boutique law firm in less than a year.Joan Marshall_4small

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

PRLog (Press Release) – Aug. 6, 2013 – WASHINGTON, D.C. — GeyerGorey LLP is pleased to announce that Joan E. Marshall, a former Department of Justice prosecutor, has joined the firm as partner. Ms. Marshall will open a new office for the firm, in Dallas, where she will be resident.

Ms. Marshall comes to GeyerGorey from the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, where she also served as a prosecutor on the Department’s Disaster Fraud Task Force and its predecessor, the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force. While with the Department of Justice, Ms. Marshall supervised numerous multi-agency investigations of bid rigging, price fixing, mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, bribery, perjury and obstruction of justice.

Ms. Marshall had the distinction of breaking the Dallas Field Office’s acclaimed vitamins cartel case and helped to devise, structure and carry out what became one of the most comprehensive international investigations and prosecutions of all time, resulting in more than $1 billion in collected criminal fines. She led the Antitrust Division’s bribery prosecutions involving construction of the levees surrounding New Orleans after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. Her experience spans investigations and prosecutions involving numerous industries including wholesale groceries, milk, seafood, medical equipment, oilfield supplies, military moving and storage, road and building construction, and municipal finance.

“We are thrilled that Joan has decided to join us,” said Hays Gorey. “She adds deep experience with numerous enforcement agencies and compliments our experience in key industries like oil and gas exploration, not to mention the fraud piece. Our corporate compliance and competition expertise is a perfect fit in the Dallas-Ft. Worth market, which has the largest concentration of corporate headquarters in the United States.”

Ms. Marshall is a frequent speaker on antitrust enforcement and fraud prevention and detection and has developed numerous training programs. She is a recipient of the United States Department of Justice, Assistant Attorney General’s Award and certificates of appreciation from the United States Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, and the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command, Major Procurement Fraud Unit.

Robert Zastrow, who was Verizon’s Assistant General Counsel for 15 years before co-founding the firm in October 2012, added, “Joan’s extensive background and expertise nicely complements our firm’s unique philosophy and enriches our solid bench in the White Collar world.” Co-founder, Brad Geyer added: “We are very involved in servicing the government contractor and the non-profit and non-governmental organization community and we are excited to roll in Joan’s disaster fraud experience into our overall product offerings. It is also unusual to have career prosecutors in one firm that worked on the highest profile matters on both the criminal and civil worlds. Joan will give us a strategic presence in the Dallas market, which is home to companies in the airline, technology, energy, banking, medical and defense contracting sectors.”

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., GeyerGorey LLP specializes in white collar criminal defense, particularly investigations and cases involving allegations of economic crimes, such as violations of the federal antitrust laws (price fixing, bid rigging, territorial and customer allocation agreements), procurement fraud, securities fraud, foreign bribery (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) and qui tam (False Claims Act) and other whistleblower actions. The firm also conducts internal investigations of possible criminal conduct and provides advice regarding compliance with U.S. antitrust, anti-bribery and other laws.

 

 

 

 

 

   

Phillip Zane’s Game Theory: Ten Years On

Ten years ago this spring, Zane published his definitive work on game theory which changed the way law-and-economics scholars and sophisticated prosecutors and defense counsel analyze whether, when, and how corporations and executive management teams should disclose white collar criminal conduct.

Phillip Zane be the only attorney whose colleagues and clients might expect to see an open book on games and strategy on his desk.

Ten years ago this spring, Zane published The Price Fixer’s Dilemma:  Applying Game Theory to the Decision of Whether to Plead Guilty to Antitrust Crimes, 48 Antitrust Bull. 1 (2003), which changed the way law-and-economics scholars and sophisticated prosecutors and defense counsel analyze whether, and when, to settle high-stakes antitrust cases.

Zane’s article strongly suggested that in a number of common situations, pleading guilty (or even seeking the protections of the corporate leniency program) is not always justified.  Zane’s article used a repeated, or iterative, version of the prisoner’s dilemma to demonstrate that pleading guilty was not always the best strategy for antitrust defendants facing criminal prosecution and civil liability in multiple proceedings or jurisdictions.

At the time, a few of the brainier Antitrust Division prosecutors breathed a sigh of relief when the defense bar did not seem to notice and they failed to incorporate Zane’s research into their negotiating strategies.

In 2007, Zane published “An Introduction to Game Theory for Antitrust Lawyers,” which he used in a unit of an antitrust class he taught at George Mason University School of Law. That paper was another milestone on the way to making game theory concepts accessible and useful to the antitrust defense bar.

Zane’s work, which now used game theory to criticize the settlement of the second Microsoft case and the Government’s approach to conscious parallelism, as well as the leniency program, was met with official grumblings within the Antitrust Division.

GeyerGorey LLP was founded on the principle that the chances for achieving the best possible outcome are maximized by having access to multiple, top-notch, cross-disciplinary legal minds that are synced together by an organizational and compensation structure that encourages sharing of ideas and information in client relationships.

As international enforcement agencies sprouted and developed criminal capabilities and as more hybrid matters included prosecutors from US enforcement agency components with sometimes overlapping jurisdictions, such as the Antitrust, Criminal, Civil and Tax Divisions of the Department of Justice, and the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies, particularly the Securities and Exchange Commission, it became apparent that Zane’s game-theoretic approach has application in almost every significant decision we could be called upon to make.  Since Zane has joined us we have been working to factor in the increased risks associated with what we call hybrid conduct (conduct that violates more than a single statute).  Our tools of analysis for identifying risks for violations of competition laws, anti-corruption laws, anti-money-laundering laws, and other prohibitions, include sophisticated game-theoretic techniques, as well as, of course, the noses of former seasoned prosecutors, taking into account, each particular client’s tolerance for risk.

To take one example, an internal investigation might show both possible price fixing and bribery of foreign government officials.  How, given the potential for multiple prosecutions, should decisions to defend or cooperate be assessed?  And how might such decisions trigger interest by the Tax Division, the SEC, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or other regulators.  When should a corporation launch an internal investigation?  When should it make a mandatory disclosure?  What should it disclose and to which agency, in what order?  When should it seek leniency and when should it instead stand silent?  These tools are valuable in the civil context as well:  When should it abandon a proposed merger or instead oppose an enforcement agency’s challenge to a proposed deal?

These are truly the most difficult questions a lawyer advising large corporations is required to address.  We are well positioned to help answer these questions.

DLA Piper’s Robert Connolly pens MLEX article regarding “The DOJ Antitrust Division’s policy on independent compliance monitors: is it misguided?”

Friend of the Firm, Robert Connolly, former Chief of the Philadelphia Field Office of the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice, now resident in DLA Piper’s Philadelphia Office last week penned an important contribution for MLEX regarding DOJ’s evolving policy regarding compliance monitors:  “The DOJ Antitrust Divsion’s policy on independent compliance monitors: is it misguided?”

 

Maurice Stucke: Looking at Monopsony in the Mirror 62 Emory L.J. 1509 (2013)

Although still a distant second to monopoly, buyer power and monopsony are hot topics in the competition community. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), International Competition Network (ICN), and American Antitrust Institute (AAI) have studied monopsony and buyer power recently. The U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission pay more attention to buyer power in their 2010 merger guidelines than they did in their earlier guidelines. With growing buyer concentration in commodities such as coffee, tea, and cocoa, and among retailers, buyer power is a human rights issue. (Continue Reading)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

More Biographical Information for Maurice E. Stucke