Monthly Archives: February 2017

Department of Energy OIG Enforcement under a Trump Administration

Posted on by

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is a Cabinet-level department of the United States Government. Its responsibilities include the nation’s nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, energy conservation, energy-related research, radioactive waste disposal, and domestic energy production. It also directs research in genomics; the Human Genome Project originated in an iniative between DOE, NIH and international collaborators.  DOE sponsors more research in the physical sciences than any other U.S. federal agency, the majority of which is conducted through its system of National Laboratories.

Former Governor of Texas Rick Perry has been nominated as the next Secretary of Energy, and a vote is anticipated in the next few weeks.  April Stephenson currently serves as Acting Inspector General United States Secretary of Energy and will continue to head the department,  unless Secretary Perry makes a change. As a practical matter, DOE is unlikely to get a permanent Inspector General installed for many months. This means that its roughly 70 investigative agents in roughly 12 US cities will engage in enforcement that is somewhat skewed by perceptions about what a future Secretary of Energy will want.  For these reasons, I would project that investigative agents will believe they will ultimately receive more overhead support for investigations developed now.

Based on basic familiarity with DOE contracts and DOE-OIG investigative activity in the past as well as reasonable assumptions about how agents will interpret statements made by Trump Administration officials, I see three primary areas where agents will likely focus current efforts to develop cases:

1) Clean-up Sites.

Clean-up sites are viewed as cash cows with poor oversight.  I have lost track of how many there are, but there are  more than half a dozen prime ones including Hanford, Idaho Falls and Savanah River.  The Hanford site is an example of a site that has had longstanding troubles.  CH2MHill took a hit back in 2013 for an $18.5 million qui tam and, just recently, at the same site, BNI and URS agreed to  pay $125 Million for false claims regarding deficient nuclear quality procurements and improper payments to lobby Congress.  Internal conjecture is that there are more false claims being made at these and at other clean-up sites and it would behoove any companies involved at these sites to brush up on compliance and internally investigate around vulnerabilities or weaknesses.

2) Management and Operational (M&O) Contracts

Management Operations Contractors, whether deserved or not, are a source of frustration to enforcers.  These are huge, large dollar volume contracts that are viewed by enforcers as having poor oversight.  Other sources of frustration is that enforcers believe that they have no visibility with indirect contractors.  This feeling is even generally held in regard to direct contractors where transparency is lacking and contractors are perceived as foot dragging.  Because of lack of appetite in some US Attorney’s Offices for these complex investigations, there was less support in the past few years than perhaps there could have been, but I believe this will begin to change as the Trump Administrations enforcement priorities becomes more clear.

3) Green Grants

Although these are smaller dollar volume contracts, legal theories are easier to fashion around bite-sized grants and the story around each is usually more accessible to prosecutors and potential juries.  There is lingering resentment that politics adversely affected investigations that adversely impacted potential prosecutions (see Solyndra as an often cited example in the opinion of some) and there is a view among enforcers that investigations involving more than $2 billion in green grants and associated loans guaranteed by the government were never pursued appropriately.

* * * * * Here for the Rest of the Story * * * * * 

 

Labuda on trade risks

Posted on by

Compliance: what are the trade risks (part 1)

by [email protected]

Over the last few weeks, I have written a series of short articles discussing the need for developing a compliance-based approach to transacting international trade. This will help to prepare your organization to effectively deal with the risks inherent in importing.

What are these risks that continue to be the focus of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)? There are various operational policies and programs that give insight into the agency’s concerns. The most important is the identification of Priority Trade Issues (PTIs). Currently, CBP considers the agency’s trade enforcement priorities to be:

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty case administration and enforcement;

Import Safety;

Intellectual Property Rights protection;

Revenue;

Textiles; and

Trade Agreements.

In CBP’s own words “Priority Trade Issues (PTIs) represent high-risk areas that can cause significant revenue loss, harm the U.S. economy, or threaten the health and safety of the American people. They drive risk-informed investment of CBP resources and enforcement and facilitation efforts, including the selection of audit candidates, special enforcement operations, outreach, and regulatory initiatives.”

* * * * * Click here for the rest of the story * * * * * 

 

New Jersey Plastic Surgeon Sentenced To Prison For Evading Taxes

Posted on by
Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
District of New Jersey
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, February 16, 2017

Morris County, New Jersey, Plastic Surgeon Sentenced To Three Years In Prison For Evading Taxes On More Than $5 Million In Income

NEWARK, N.J. – A plastic surgeon with a practice in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, was sentenced today to 36 months in prison for fraudulently diverting millions in corporate earnings for his personal use, costing the United States nearly $3 million in tax revenue between 2006 and 2010, U.S Attorney Paul Fishman announced.

David Evdokimow, 56, of Harding Township, New Jersey, was previously convicted of all eight counts of a superseding indictment charging him with one count of conspiring to defraud the United States, four counts of personal income tax evasion and three counts of corporate tax evasion. He was convicted following three-week trial before U.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman, who imposed the sentence today in Camden federal court.

According to the superseding indictment and evidence at trial:

Evdokimow ran his medical practice through a corporation called De’Omilia Plastic Surgery P.C. (De’Omilia). He conspired with others to conceal millions of dollars of taxable income from the IRS by forming shell corporations and then having trusted associates open bank accounts for those corporations. Evdokimow then convinced these associates to give him their signatures or signature stamps so that he had full access to the shell company bank accounts while at the same time being able to conceal his connection to those accounts. He and the other conspirators then funneled millions of dollars in De’Omilia income into the bank accounts of the shell corporations and falsely claimed that these transfers were legitimate business expenses. Evdokimow also used bank accounts in the name of De’Omilia to pay his personal expenses, and falsely claimed those were business expenses too.

Evdokimow used the shell corporation and De’Omilia bank accounts to pay for more than $5.8 million in personal expenses, including designer apparel, jewelry, vacations, artwork, and multiple residences, all of which he falsely claimed as business expenses.

Evdokimow also opened accounts at several banks in order to cash checks received directly from patients for professional medical services. Between 2009 and 2011, Evdokimow cashed more than $360,000 in checks from patients, which he failed to report on his federal income tax returns.

Evdokimow was convicted of concealing more than $5.8 million in income from tax years 2006 to 2010. By concealing this income, Evdokimow evaded paying almost $3 million in taxes during that period.

In addition to the prison term, Judge Hillman sentenced Evdokimow to one year of supervised release and fined $96,000. He previously paid the taxes owed.

U.S. Attorney Fishman credited special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Jonathan D. Larsen, with the investigation leading to today’s sentencing.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Paul Murphy and Justin Herring of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division in Newark.

Bradford Geyer explains we need to keep an eye on #OIG audits

Posted on by

Bradford Geyer has seen an enforcement agency storm forming around government grants and government procurement and he argues that contractors and grantees would be well served to keep an eye on OIG audit reports that often telegraph enforcement activity.  He provides a quick primer regarding a Department of State Office of Inspector General Audit Report regarding Armored Vehicles below:

For reasons I hope to explain more fully in a future column,  there could be a perfect storm forming for reinvigorated grant fraud and procurement fraud enforcement (GFPFE) in a Trump Adminisitration. Assuming that is the case, and we wont know for sure for at least another six months, it becomes very important to keep an eye on OIG audits like this one (DOS-OIG Armored Car Audit Report) because audit reports can signal the deployment of investigative resources.  Audits can also become a platform for an expanded enforcement initiative or provide a low cost basis for new investigative activity even by other agencies.  Armored vehicles is a product market where the government has found procurement problems for close to 15 years and government enforcement agencies have had success at bringing cases in these areas.  This is a toxic mix for contractors who should consider doing internal investigations and brushing up on their compliance programs.  If they find a problem they should carefully consider a voluntary disclsoure to the appropriate agency(ies).

Click Here for the Rest of the Story

Compliance: it starts at the top

Posted on by

GeyerGorey LLP draws upon Janet Labuda’s contacts and experience to understand trade enforcement trends.  Here she is with her latest on the importance of compliance. Janet can be reached at the FormerFedsGroup.

By [email protected]

Whether you are a small to medium sized enterprise, or a large multinational corporation, creating a culture of compliance starts at the top. This compliance culture should permeate your entire organization starting with the Chief Executive, the Chief Financial Officer, and the corporate counsel.

Compliance is not something that can be compartmentalized, rather, it must be ingrained in the consciousness of every employee from the executive suite to the shop floor. This is one area where a top down driven process is vital. The compliance officer is responsible for implementing the compliance focused program that is established by the corporate ownership and top management.

However, all aspects of the company, whether sourcing, transportation, production, marketing, or sales must work together to support the compliance operation. Leaving just the compliance office to establish the ethic and carry the entire company is an accident waiting to happen.

I often hear that various departments in a company do not understand the compliance aspect of the operation, which sometimes leads them to negate the guidance of the compliance department.  This can lead a company down a slippery slope.

The corporate culture must embrace compliance across the entire company and all must understand the risk of potential regulatory violations.  A once a year training program is not going to cut it.  Compliance is something that everyone must  live, day in and day out.  Workplace evaluations should include a compliance segment for each and every employee. Every department head needs to understand and communicate compliance procedures to their direct reports.

The compliance department must keep a finger on the pulse of risk.  The compliance officer should be responsible for communicating these risks throughout the organization and information should be refreshed and disseminated as often as necessary.  To this end, the CEO must make time for compliance officers, and not leave this critical function on auto-pilot.

Once a vibrant internal compliance driven operation is rooted in the day-to-day operation, companies must push their ethic out to their entire supply chain.  This includes interaction with foreign suppliers, agents, and transporters.  Everyone in the supply chain needs to understand that by doing business with your company, they accept the strict standards that support adherence to the laws and regulations governing trade and all aspects of how the business conducts itself.  This should be reflected in all corporate negotiations, contracts, and purchasing agreements.

By taking this position, senior corporate management supports the highest levels of business ethics and integrity throughout the supply chain.  Compliance is not a skate on thin ice, or a fly by the seat of your pants exercise.  A culture of compliance provides that  sure footing needed when regul

Founder of Non-Profit Charged with Bribing Former Prince George’s County Official in Exchange for Grant Funds

Posted on by
A Maryland man has been charged with bribery and making false statements as part of an alleged scheme to obtain government grants for a charitable organization of which he was the founder. The  case was brought via a criminal complaint filed by the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland. It alleges that the defendant made three annual payments of $5000 each to a member of the Prince George’s County Council to secure annual grants of $25,000 for the Salvadoran Business Caucus, which claimed to award scholarships to high school and college students.
The agent affidavit accompanying the criminal complaint describes conversations  that allegedly occurred between the council member and  the defendant in sufficient detail as to indicate that tape recordings of the conversations exist.
Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
District of Maryland
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Greenbelt, Maryland – A criminal complaint has been filed charging

, of Rockville, Maryland, late yesterday with bribery and making false statements in connection with a scheme to engage in bribery in order to influence a public official in the performance of his official duties in Prince George’s County. Ayala’s initial appearance is scheduled today at 1:45 p.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Sullivan in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland.

The criminal complaint was announced by United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein; Special Agent in Charge Gordon B. Johnson of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Baltimore Field Office; Acting Special Agent in Charge Thomas J. Holloman of the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation, Washington, D.C. Field Office; and Chief Hank Stawinski of the Prince George’s County Police Department.

According to affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, Ayala was an accountant and founder of Ayala and Associates Public Accountants in Washington, D.C. Ayala was also the founder of the Salvadoran Business Caucus, a non-profit organization also known as the Caucus Salvadoreno Empresarial, Inc. (CSE). CSE’s website stated that CSE awarded scholarships to high school and college students.

The affidavit alleges that Ayala paid bribes to former Prince George’s County Council Member Will Campos in exchange for grant funding. Specifically, the affidavit alleges that Ayala paid Campos $5,000 for each of County fiscal years 2012 through 2015, in exchange for $25,000 in grants to CSE in each of those years. For example, on August 13, 2014, Campos met with Ayala for lunch in Washington, D.C. During the meeting, Ayala asked Campos what would happen after Campos left his position on the County Council and assumed his position within the Maryland General Assembly. According to the affidavit, Ayala advised, “The arrangement is still on,” and Campos asked if Ayala had anything for Campos. Ayala asked Campos to give him two weeks, and “I [Ayala] call you and I’ll say let’s, let’s have a drink and you know what it’s for.” Campos asked for $5,000, “like last time,” and Ayala agreed.

According to the affidavit, on September 23, 2014, Ayala had dinner with Campos at a restaurant in Silver Spring, Maryland, and discussed the grant money. Specifically, Campos advised that he would push for Ayala to still receive grant money after Campos left office. At the conclusion of the meal, Ayala walked Campos out of the restaurant and allegedly handed Campos an envelope bearing a label for CSE and containing a cashier’s check for half the agreed upon amount. The affidavit alleges that Ayala explained, “I was unable to obtain cash. It’s better like this. This comes from – from a third party who knows me, so it’s better.” Campos joked that Ayala was paying “half now, half later,” and Ayala responded, “I would say that.”

According to the affidavit, on January 8, 2015, Ayala met with Campos at Ayala’s office in Washington, D.C. Ayala reached into his desk and retrieved an envelope. Ayala handed the envelope to Campos, who asked if it was “the rest that we talked about? 2,500?” and Ayala responded, “Yeah.” The affidavit alleges that inside the envelope, Ayala had placed $2,500 in cash.

On January 5, 2017, Ayala was interviewed by federal law enforcement agents. The affidavit alleges that Ayala denied providing anything of value to Campos in exchange for receiving Prince George’s County grant money for CSE. Thereafter, agents showed Ayala still photographs from videos taken while Ayala was making bribe payments to Campos on September 23, 2014 and January 8, 2015.

If convicted, Ayala faces a maximum sentence of ten years in prison for bribery, and a maximum of five years in prison for false statements. An individual charged by criminal complaint is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty at some later criminal proceedings.

United States Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein commended the FBI, IRS-CI, and Prince Georges County Police Department for their work in the investigation. Mr. Rosenstein thanked Assistant U.S. Attorneys Thomas P. Windom, Mara Zusman Greenberg, and James A. Crowell IV, who are prosecuting the case.

Man Ordered To Pay More than $2.9 Million in Disgorgement and a Civil Monetary Penalty for Engaging in Precious Metals Transactions

Posted on by

 

Court Earlier Entered a Default Judgment Order against His Company, Oakmont Financial, Inc.

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced that Judge William P. Dimitrouleas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered an Order of Final Judgment by Default (Order) against Defendant Joseph Charles DiCrisci of Henderson, Nevada, an owner and principal of Oakmont Financial Inc. (Oakmont), for engaging in in illegal, off-exchange precious metals transactions (see CFTC Complaint and Press Release 7317-16, February 3, 2016). The Court previously, on November 8, 2016, entered a Default Judgment Order against Oakmont (Oakmont Order).

The Court’s Order requires DiCrisci to pay $735,329 in disgorgement and a $2,205,987 civil monetary penalty. The Order also imposes permanent trading and registration bans against DiCrisci and prohibits him from engaging in illegal, off-exchange precious metals transactions, as charged. Similar prohibitions were entered against Oakmont in the Oakmont Order.

The Court’s Order stems from a CFTC Complaint filed on January 12, 2016 that charged DiCrisci and Oakmont with engaging in illegal, off-exchange precious metals transactions on a leveraged, margined or financed basis. The Complaint also charged Oakmont with acting as a Futures Commission Merchant (FCM), without being registered as such. The Complaint charged, and the Order finds, that DiCrisci was Oakmont’s controlling person who knowingly induced the underlying violation of the Commodity Exchange Act, or failed to act in good faith, and therefore was liable for Oakmont’s violations of the Act.

In the Order, the Court further finds that, from at least July 16, 2011 and continuing through at least July 27, 2012, Oakmont, by and through its employees, solicited retail customers by telephone to engage in financed precious metals transactions, which constitute illegal off-exchange retail commodity transactions and acted as an FCM without being so registered.

The Order also finds that precious metals were never delivered to any customers with respect to the leveraged metals transactions made on behalf of Oakmont’s customers. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, leveraged, margined or financed transactions, such as those conducted by Oakmont, are illegal off-exchange transactions unless they result in actual delivery within 28 days.

The CFTC cautions that Orders requiring repayment of funds to victims may not result in the recovery of any money lost because the wrongdoers may not have sufficient funds or assets.  The CFTC will continue to fight vigorously for the protection of customers and to ensure the wrongdoers are held accountable.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this action are Kara Mucha, Erica Bodin, Kassra Goudarzi, James A. Garcia, Michael Solinsky, Charles Marvine, and Rick Glaser.

* * * * * *

 

Trade compliance–why bother?

Posted on by

by Janet Labuda

I worked in Customs for over thirty years and met regularly with importers to discuss trade risk, compliance, and enforcement. Often, companies would express their concerns about the cost of compliance–the proverbial cost benefit analysis. If money is spent to create a compliance department, what will the benefits be? Do the risks of possibly getting caught by Customs outweigh the investment in corporate trade compliance? How can there be an effective response to risk without the associated high costs?

Just as with most things, there are rules that govern our behavior. When we drive to work there are lane markings on major thoroughfares, and traffic light systems, and posted speed limits to guide us in an orderly fashion. The same can be said for international trade rules. They are meant to make order out of potential chaos. No person or company can operate successfully in an atmosphere of chaos. Business seeks out predictability, and stability. The rules and regulations governing trade provide a needed stable structure that can help companies weather shifts in the global economy or changes to the legal or regulatory framework.

More importantly, the rules help to level the playing field, and enhance and improve the competitive business dynamic. When companies fail to operate using these rules the underpinnings of trade policy collapse. Trade preference program become endangered, national economies become threatened, sourcing models get upended, business relationships are uprooted.

In addition, companies can get swept up in enforcement actions. Customs assesses risk using somewhat broad parameters. It could be driven by product, country of origin, manufacturer, preferential trade program usage, or combinations of these elements. There are also those instances when very specific information reaches the agency.

The better question to ask is what price is paid if my company does not invest in a culture of compliance? Getting enmeshed in Customs or other regulatory enforcement actions can tarnish your brand, lead to expensive law suits and penalty actions, and divert your resources away from your corporate mission and goals.

Ensuring a strong compliance structure in your organization ensures greater facilitation of product entering the commerce which supports just in time inventory practices. Costs are reduced for both government and business by focusing limited resources to enhancing productivity. A compliance driven operation is a win-win.

Latest GrantFraud.Com post involves a $200 million credit card fraud scheme

Posted on by

Bradford L. Geyer is reading enforcement agency tea leaves and he is seeing signs of enhanced enforcement involving grant fraud and procurement fraud at grantfraud.com.  His latest note regarding an extensive credit card fraud scheme can be found here.