Author Archives: Brad Geyer

SEC Charges Mexico-Based Homebuilder in $3.3 Billion Accounting Fraud

Posted on by
03/03/2017 09:55 AM EST

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that Mexico-based homebuilding company Desarrolladora Homex S.A.B. de C.V. has agreed to settle charges that it reported fake sales of more than 100,000 homes to boost revenues in its financial statements during a three-year period.

The SEC used satellite imagery to help uncover the accounting scheme and illustrate its allegation that Homex had not even broken ground on many of the homes for which it reported revenues.

The SEC alleges that Homex, one of the largest homebuilders in Mexico at the time, inflated the number of homes sold during the three-year period by approximately 317 percent and overstated its revenue by 355 percent (approximately $3.3 billion).  The SEC’s complaint highlights, for example, that Homex reported revenues from a project site in the Mexican state of Guanajuato where every planned home was purportedly built and sold by Dec. 31, 2011.  Satellite images of the project site on March 12, 2012, show it was still largely undeveloped and the vast majority of supposedly sold homes remained unbuilt.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Homex filed for the Mexican equivalent of bankruptcy protection in April 2014 and emerged in October 2015 under new equity ownership.  The company’s then-CEO and then-CFO have been placed on unpaid leave since May 2016.  Homex has since undertaken significant remedial efforts and cooperated with the SEC’s investigation.

“As alleged in our complaint, Homex deprived its investors of accurate and reliable financial results by reporting key numbers that were almost completely made up,” said Stephanie Avakian, Acting Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division.  “The settlement takes into account that the fraud occurred entirely under the watch of prior ownership and management, the company’s new leaders provided critical information regarding the full scope of the fraudulent conduct, and the company continues to significantly cooperate with our ongoing investigation.”

Melissa Hodgman, Associate Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division, added, “We used high-resolution satellite imagery and other innovative investigative techniques to unearth that tens of thousands of purportedly built-and-sold homes were, in fact, nothing but bare soil.”

The SEC separately issued a trading suspension in the securities of Homex.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Homex consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining the company from violating the antifraud, reporting, and books and records provisions of the federal securities laws, and the company agreed to be prohibited from offering securities in the U.S. markets for at least five years.  The settlement is subject to court approval.

The SEC’s investigation is being conducted by Alfred C. Tierney, Benjamin D. Brutlag, Andrew M. Shirley, Juan M. Migone and Richard Hong.  The case is being supervised by J. Lee Buck II.  The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Mexican Comisión Nacional Bancaria y de Valores.

Former Rutherford County Sheriff Sentenced On Federal Corruption Charges

Posted on by

Department of Justice U.S. Attorney’s Office

Middle District of Tennessee

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, May 4, 2017

Former Rutherford County Sheriff Sentenced On Federal Corruption Charges
Former Rutherford County Sheriff Robert Arnold, 41, of Murfreesboro, Tenn., was sentenced today to 50 months in prison, followed by 3 years of supervised release, after pleading guilty earlier this year to fraud and corruption charges, announced Acting U.S. Attorney Jack Smith of the Middle District of Tennessee and Acting Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Blanco of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

 

Arnold was indicted in May 2016 and in January 2017, he pleaded guilty to wire fraud, honest services fraud and extortion under color of official right. These charges resulted from an investigation into his role in the formation and operation of the electronic cigarette company, JailCigs, LLC. In his plea, Arnold admitted to using his official position as Sheriff of Rutherford County to benefit JailCigs by allowing the company’s electronic cigarettes to come into the Rutherford County jail as non-contraband and be distributed by county employees; taking steps to disguise his involvement in the company; and misrepresenting the benefits that Rutherford County was supposedly receiving from JailCigs. Additionally, Arnold admitted that he personally received over $66,000 from the company, and that he lied about his income from, and knowledge of, JailCigs when he was confronted by local media in April 2015.

 

In addition to his prison sentence, Senior U.S. District Judge Marvin E. Aspen of the Northern District of Illinois (sitting by designation in the Middle District of Tennessee) ordered Arnold to pay $52,500 in restitution to Rutherford County and to forfeit $66,790, an amount equal to the commission payments he received from sales at the Rutherford County jail, plus the additional payments Arnold obtained that should have been paid to the county general fund. Judge Aspen also ordered Arnold to serve a three-year term of supervised release following his prison sentence.

 

Co-defendants, former Chief Administrative Deputy Joe L. Russell II, of Rutherford County, Tennessee, and John Vanderveer, of Marietta, Georgia, pleaded guilty on Jan. 20 and Jan. 30, respectively. Vanderveer is set to be sentenced on September 6, 2017 and Russell is set to be sentenced on September 8, 2017.

 

 

This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Cecil W. VanDevender, of the Middle District of Tennessee and Trial Attorney Mark J. Cipolletti of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section. The case was investigated by special agents from the FBI and Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

Labuda on Fake News and Trade

Posted on by

Former CBP Official, Janet Labuda at FormerFedsGroup.Com, provides us with her take on the importance of verifying the accuracy of news information in an emerging world news can longer be taken at face value.

 [email protected]

Over the last few months the fake news dilemma has featured prominently in the media. Day in and day out we receive bits and bytes of information through social media and other electronic sources that many read and take to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, regardless of how outlandish the claim or the source.

Such bits of information are rarely vetted either through our own personal “common sense” filters or through other reliable filters . This usually happens because we are pressed for time and simply can’t find the few minutes needed to verify and validate the information presented to us. What is even more problematic is that many of us pass on such unfiltered misinformation through broad electronic social networks thus perpetuating and exacerbating the problem.

The same holds true for the data we collect in the area of international trade. Customs uses data to drive every element of its trade facilitation and enforcement programs. Data collection and its subsequent crunching, dicing and slicing is the bedrock of their risk management processes. Decisions by Customs to focus on certain areas of potential non-compliance, on shifting resources to contain  perceived risk, and on pinpointing companies and their transactions for audit, and further scrutiny are made on what data is reported.

The key questions for companies are: how reliable is the data that is reported, and who is responsible to ensure that the data is accurate and reliable? In addition, what internal controls are followed to vet information. Compliance means reporting accurate information on the transaction to substantiate adherence to legal and regulatory requirements. U.S. Customs and Border Protection enforces strict record keeping requirements, which state “the accuracy of import (and export) information is important not only because it affects the revenue, but because accurate trade information and statistics are important in determining trade policy, the future eligibility of certain goods or goods from certain countries for special programs, the impact of imports on domestic industries, and the effectiveness of various trade agreements and programs.”

Companies need to established sound practices of filtering data received as well as   self-generated. If data is not regularly tested and validated it leaves your company in a vulnerable position. By reporting incorrect data to regulatory agencies, whether you yourself file, or you use a broker to file on your behalf, your company may be subject to unnecessary enforcement reviews, and penalties.

When it comes to data reporting, garbage in, garbage out is not acceptable anywhere in the supply chain. Only accurate and reliable data can help to keep your company insulated from risk.

Recommended Amicus Brief on Section One Summary Judgment Standard

Posted on by

by Leave a Comment

Here is a link to a brief filed by a number of professors asking the Supreme Court to clarify the standard to be applied by districts courts to a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Section One antitrust case,  evergreen – petition for certiorari – amicus brief – filed copy – 4.21.17 – evergreen partnering group v. pactiv corp.  The petition notes:

“[C]ircuit courts are mired in an abiding difference of opinion concerning the appropriate interpretation of the summary judgment paradigm in cases brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act as applied to circumstantial evidence.”

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

 

 

 

New biofuels green case filed by USDOJ

Posted on by

New Jersey Feedstock Processor Gets Five Years for Conspiracy to Commit Biofuel Fraud

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, April 7, 2017

The owner of a New Jersey feedstock collector and processor was sentenced today for his role in a scheme that generated over $7 million in fraudulent tax credits and renewable fuels credits (RIN credits) connected to the purported production of biodiesel fuel, as well as his subsequent attempts to obstruct a Grand Jury investigation into the fraud.

Malek Jalal, 52, was sentenced to 60 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release.  He was also sentenced to pay $1,017,087 in restitution, and a $12,500 fine.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey H. Wood for the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Attorney Benjamin C. Glassman for the Southern District of Ohio, Acting Special Agent in Charge Frank S. Turner II for the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation, and Acting Special Agent in Charge John Gauthier of EPA’s Criminal Enforcement Program in Ohio announced the sentence handed down today by Senior U.S. District Court Judge James L. Graham.

The RFS program is a national policy, authorized under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and expanded under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires a certain volume of renewable fuel to be produced to replace or reduce the quantity of petroleum-based transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel.  Tax credits incentivize businesses to produce renewable fuel like biodiesel.

According to his plea, Jalal, who owned Unity Fuels of Newark, New Jersey, engaged in a scheme with other coconspirators to fraudulently claim tax credits and RIN credits multiple times on the same fuel.  Jalal did this by buying fuel from a New York-based company, blending it with other materials, and selling it back to the same New York-based company.

Jalal also admitted to obstruction of justice. According to his plea, Jalal knowingly modified and destroyed records after receiving a Grand Jury subpoena from the Southern District of Ohio. Jalal also directed an employee of Unity Fuels to fabricate false records that were provided to the Grand Jury in an attempt to hide the fraud scheme.

“Unlawful acts like those at issue in this case defraud the U.S. Government, harm American taxpayers and consumers, and undermine energy and environmental laws enacted by Congress,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Wood. “As today’s plea demonstrates, the Department of Justice will continue to pursue and prosecute those who seek to line their own pockets through RFS fraud.”

“Environmental programs are not immune from fraud,” U.S. Attorney Glassman said. “The surest way to deter this and all fraud is to catch the criminal and ensure that he is punished for the crime. That’s what we’re doing here.”

“At the IRS, protecting taxpayer money is a matter we take extremely seriously. An integral part of the agency’s mission involves detecting and catching those who claim fraudulent tax credits,” stated Frank S. Turner II, Acting Special Agent in Charge, IRS Criminal Investigation, Cincinnati Field Office. “The object of these schemes is to defraud the government and the taxpaying public.”

“Violations of renewable fuels laws can have serious impacts on the marketplace and hurt companies that play by the rules,” said Larry Starfield, Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance at EPA.  “EPA and its law enforcement partners are committed to ensuring a level playing field for businesses that follow the rules by pursuing those who blatantly violate the law.”

Assistant Attorney General Wood and U.S. Attorney Glassman commended the cooperative investigation by law enforcement, as well as Department of Justice Trial Attorney Adam Cullman, Senior Trial Attorney Jeremy Korzenik and Assistant United States Attorney J. Michael Marous, who represented the United States in this case.

Janet Labuda on: “Putting Yourself in Custom’s (CBP’s) shoes”

Posted on by

 [email protected]

Last week, President Trump signed two Executive Orders (EO) that will affect the use of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) trade resources. The first is a direct call to step up enforcement of trade laws with a special emphasis given to anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases. The second EO focuses on the trade deficit. The deficit numbers are driven by the value that is declared to CBP upon entry of goods. While there may be some minor adjustments by the Commerce Department’s Census Bureau, generally such information is gleaned from CBP entry data. Ultimately, CBP will be called upon to ensure that the value declared upon entry is correct, thus giving the Administration a more accurate accounting of the deficit. It is clear that trade law enforcement will be on agency’s front burner. After the EOs were published, Acting CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan stated “the men and women of CBP are committed to enforcing the trade laws of the United States to defend the economic competitiveness of domestic industries against unfair trade practices and dangerous counterfeits that could harm consumers.”

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

Green Grants and Grantees are now in #GFPFE crosshairs and there is no bag limit

Posted on by

The Economist’s handy graph showing the breakdown of the Trump Administration’s Proposed Budget shows in stark budgetary terms what US government agencies are facing.  I have reviewed the proposed budget and have concluded that it is the strongest indicator yet that the Trump Administration intends to reinvigorate Grant Fraud and Procurement Fraud Enforcement (#GFPFE).  The graph shows a change in overall agency funding and portends an intra-agency reorientation that is likely to effect grantees or contractors that have been awarded or are currently working on Grants or Contracts awarded by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Department of Energy (Energy).

Let’s review:

  • Review and Recap of Current Posture:

I have previously laid out  here out about why conditions are perfect for a renaissance in Grant Fraud and Procurement Fraud Enforcement (GFPFE). I took the Department of Energy’s enforcement temperature here, I looked at an EPA-OIG audit of laboratories here, and I noticed a NASA-OIG audit announcement of ground and ocean temperatures here. Last week there was an NPR story on case by case review of individual EPA scientists while newly minted EPA Administer Scott Pruitt made statements here questioning the connection between human activity and climate change while raising questions about the measurement of global temperatures. Then a top level EPA transition official, David Schnare, resigned, but not before acknowledging that while ” the vast majority of career staff at the EPA… are dedicated public servants,…there are a small handful “who were definitely antagonistic” to Trump and Administrator Scott Pruitt. “They’re here for some other reason. They’re here for a cause,” he was quoted as saying in The Hill.

  • Presidential Shift in Priorities Always Wins:

EPA career civil servants who think nobility of purpose protects them in the face of an overwhelming Presidential Administration shift in priorities should pay a visit to the Antitrust Division’s field offices in Atlanta, Cleveland, Dallas and Philadelphia (punch line: they no longer exist).  The Antitrust Division Criminal Program’s Senior Litigators, who woke up on 911 in the World Trade Center Marriott, eagerly supported a GFPFE initiative whose purpose was to “protect the supply chain of goods and services to the nation’s warfighter.” Their tireless work and willingness to support other components of USDOJ in GFPFE efforts became a liability when a new Presidential Administration changed the definition of success from number of cases filed to the number of cases not filed (for anyone wanting to learn about the important competition enforcement function Antitrust Division Field Offices performed can start with the dearly departed Philadelphia Field Office’s Chief Robert E Connolly’s column here). The bottom line is Presidential shift in priorities always wins over perceived nobility of purpose of career public servants.

  • Nobility of Purpose in combatting CO2 is going to be challenged

I know it will come as a shock to many, but there are many scientists–legitimate scientists–who do not come to the same conclusions about the connection between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures.  I have no idea what the truth is, but I recognize that when you have a President and heads of the EPA and Energy who doubt the warming narrative and view expenditures in that regard to be a waste of money. It would behoove everyone in the risk assessment business to understand what they think and read what they read.  If you restrict your news to the Washington Post and the New York Times, you are flying blind.  Worse, your clients will be flying blind. It is important to recognize that the outgoing administration saw this coming and adorned future budgets with global warming money that will be hard to cut out.  That will stimulate efforts to try.

  • Let’s Look At the Proposed Budget for Department of Energy:

The preamble states:

[The Budget] reflects an increased reliance on the private sector to fund later-stage research, development, and commercialization of energy technologies and focuses resources toward early-stage research and development. It emphasizes energy technologies best positioned to enable American energy independence and domestic job-growth in the near to mid-term.

My translation: Grants for developing green technologies are drying up.  No more Solyndras.

The preamble states:

It also ensures continued progress on cleaning up sites contaminated from nuclear weapons production and energy research and includes a path forward to accelerate progress on the disposition of nuclear waste. At the same time,the Budget demonstrates the Administration’s strong support for the UnitedStates’ nuclear security enterprise and ensures that we have a nuclear force that is second to none. The President’s 2018 Budget requests $28.0 billion for DOE, a$1.7 billion or 5.6  percent decrease from the 2017 annualized CR level. The Budget would strengthen the Nation’s nuclear capability by providing a $1.4 billion increase above the 2017 annualized CR level for the National Nuclear SecurityAdministration, an 11 percent increase.

My translation: Grants for development of nuclear energy capabilities and military nuclear applications are back in vogue.  $6.5 billion in clean-up funds will be oriented towards nuclear.  The important factor to consider is that, in all likelihood, this changes the mix of responsive contractors.

  • Let’s look at EPA proposed budget:

The Compliance Assurance budget is lowered to $419 million, which is $129 million below the 2017 annualized CR level. It “better targets” EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) at a level of approximately $250 million, which would result in a savings of $233 million from the 2017 annualized CR level. ORD would prioritize activities that support decision-making related to core environmental statutory requirements, as opposed to extramural activities, such as providing STAR grants.

It supports Categorical Grants with $597 million, a $482 million reduction below 2017 annualized CR levels. These lower levels are in line with the broader strategy of streamlining environmental protection. This funding level eliminates or substantially reduces Federal investment in State environmental activities that go beyond EPA’s statutory requirements.

It eliminates funding for specific regional efforts such as the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the Chesapeake Bay, and other geographic programs. These geographic program eliminations are $427 million lower than the 2017 annualized CR levels. The Budget returns the responsibility for funding local environmental efforts and programs to State and local entities, allowing EPA to focus on its highest national priorities.

It eliminates more than 50 EPA programs, saving an additional $347 million compared to the2017 annualized CR level.

My translation: Grants for development of green technologies and reducing CO2 emissions are slashed.  EPA is being oriented around traditional toxins to land, water and air.  Its administration of $100 million to fix Flint Michigan’s water problems and orientation around poisoning will help with the repositioning. 

So while Energy moves onto new contractors for a nuclear spend, EPA moves towards traditional environmental problems and even NASA will now move, happily for many, toward an ambitious space program, all three agencies move away from green and CO2 mitigation programs.  Current contractors and grantees in these areas have a dual problem.  First, the funding in these areas is drying up.  Second, any problems that are found in the award or administration of grants or contracts in these now shuttered programs have a lower risk of causing collateral damage to supporters of the new Administration and they undermine the case against shuttering those programs.  Within the investigative agent community and auditing community examining procurements and grants in these shuttered program areas, investigation carries even lower risk and even higher reward (imagine how an indictment early next week alleging a massive fraud scheme involving a company that had been administering a major grant would be received by the Administration that is looking to justify a shift in funding priorities).  Investigative agents, many of whom in the prior Administration felt professionally stunted because of managerial interference against developing fraud and corruption cases have now been unshackled.  Inquiries that could never blossom into full blown investigations using IG subpoenas and active grand juries can now be taken out from from the back of desk drawers or they can be reopened with the support of career mid-level management looking to take action that will be looked upon favorably when the permanent Inspector General arrives later in the year.

 

People for People (PFP), DOJ-OIG and #GFPFE

Posted on by

By [email protected]

Changes in enforcement priorities dictate when grant irregularities are referred to enforcement agencies.  This case involving People for People (PFP) provides a good example of that principal.  In reviewing the reports and correspondence, it appears that the matter remained bottled up in DOJ OIG-Audit.  Had it been referred to the investigative agents within the agency you can see how the alleged conduct referenced in the 2013 audit report could have stimulated investigation perhaps with the support of a US Attorney’s Office. Here are the report’s conclusions:

“PFP did not fully comply with the grant requirements we tested. We found material weaknesses in PFP’s internal controls, expenditures, drawdowns, FFRs, progress reports, budget, and program performance resulting in the questioned costs totaling $893,445. These weaknesses resulted in PFP providing multiple sets of accounting records during the audit, even though the grants had ended. We found that PFP charged $420,729 to the grant for personnel and fringe benefit costs that were unallowable. We found that PFP charged direct costs of $34,834 to the grant for unallowable expenditures, and $9,631 to the grant that could not be adequately supported. PFP also charged indirect costs of $232,754 to the grant for unallowable expenditures. PFP drew down $195,497 in grant funds in excess of the accounting records. We found PFP could not support the amounts drawn down or reported on the Federal Financial Reports. PFP could also not provide a correct account of grant charges per grant budget category to ensure proper budget management. Additionally, we found that PFP did not have procedures in place to ensure the timely submission of Federal Financial Reports and progress reports, nor did it ensure that progress reports provided supported information. We also determined that PFP did not meet the goals and objectives of the grants.”   

The Grantee here received grant payments from the government for $893,445 based on unallowable and unsupported grant expenditures.  This would have been seen by agents as a major problem. The “multiple sets of accounting records” (whether or not ultimately defensible) would have attracted attention.   Agents might have seen another red flag and opportunity in what seems to be a reference in the audit report to a redacted executive who abruptly exited the grantee.  A quick interview of this exited executive or some interviews around the subject of the exit would be seen as possibly carrying a beneficial reward risk ratio.   We can’t know for sure, but the file doesn’t seem to indicate that agents were copied on the correspondence or reports so they may not have known about it.   

Under many enforcement regimes the conclusions above might have caused an immediate referral  from audit to investigative agents within the OIG and likely to a US Attorney’s Office.  Instead, People for People was permitted to implement what looks like an informal corporate integrity agreement drafted by the government while it was permitted to pay back one half million dollars over a period of years.  As someone who represents grantees I understand how honest, ethical and well-intentioned grantees can find themselves in situations comparable to this one,  but investigative agents within enforcement agencies are rarely persuaded by benign explanations for otherwise suspicious conduct.  I also can see how this result may have been extraordinarily evolved while it maximized public welfare benefits.  It is just I know from first hand experience that agents and prosecutors rarely seem to be motivated by such notions.  

It would be interesting to understand the factors that were considered within DOJ-OIG that dictated that this matter to remain “in house” within an audit component rather than being referred to the US Attorney’s Office or USDOJ Criminal Division.  While patience and forgiveness are wonderful traits we don’t often see those traits exhibited as strongly as they seem to have been exhibited here and matters like these when reviewed by new leadership could contribute to a view that there was somewhat lax enforcement of grant spending in recent years.

Update: DOJ OIG Audit of People for People, Inc., Results in Repayments Totaling More Than $554,000 Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz announced today that People for People, Inc., of Philadelphia, PA, has made cash repayments of more than $554,000 to the DOJ as a result of a DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) grant audit. The OIG’s audit report, which we released in 2013, assessed People for People’s management of two grants from the DOJ Office of Justice Programs (OJP). These grants were intended to fund mentoring programs for children of prisoners. We concluded that People for People had not complied with various grant requirements, and we identified $893,445 in unallowable and unsupported grant expenditures. The report included 13 recommendations to improve People for People’s grant management and address these questioned costs. Since the audit, People for People has worked closely with OJP to implement all of our recommendations for management improvements and provided us with additional documentation sufficient to address approximately $339,000 of the questioned costs. The more than $554,000 in cash repayments announced today were made to address the balance of the questioned costs, which primarily related to expenses for which accounting records were insufficient, salary payments that were unallowable, and payments for rent, telephone bills, and other indirect costs that had not been approved by OJP. The OIG’s August 2013 report is available on the OIG’s website at the following link: https://www.oig.justice.gov/reports/2013/g7013007r.pdf.

 

Trade Risks (Part 3): Trade Preference Programs

Posted on by

by Janet Labuda

In recent hearings on Capitol Hill, Peter Navarro of the National Trade Council talked about the need for free, fair, and reciprocal trade agreements. According to Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, the United States, Canada, and Mexico will engage in discussions to modernize the North American Free Trade Agreement starting in early summer.

As we all know, the United States canceled its participation in the multi-lateral Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, stating that any new agreements would most likely be bi-lateral in nature. Regardless of how the state of play turns out, the ability to administer, monitor, and enforce these agreements will be crucial to their success.

Currently, the United States has free trade agreements with twenty countries. In addition, there are legislative initiatives such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act,  the Caribbean Basin Initiative, and the Haiti HOPE Act that are meant to provide an economic stimulus to the foreign countries involved, if certain conditions are met.

There are two rules of origin that enter into the trade process, one for non-preferential treatment, and one for preferential treatment of goods. What is basic to the use of any preferential agreement is the description of the product to enable an accurate classification in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The classification, linked to the country of origin, will be key to meeting the requirements or conditions necessary to claim a benefit under a preferential trade program. It should be noted that origin, or where the product was made, as opposed to where the product was purchased or obtained is what drives preference.

In general, legislative trade programs tend to have easier preference requirements compared to negotiated Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). Most FTAs contain similar origin requirements which include:

  • Employing the “wholly obtained” criterion for goods that are wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of a particular country. On the other hand, for goods that consist in whole or in part of materials from more than one country, the majority of U.S. preferential rules of origin schemes are based:
    • on a change in name, character, and use (substantial transformation) and
    • on a required minimum local value content; unless specified otherwise, the cost of foreign materials may not be included in local value content unless they undergo a double substantial transformation.
  • Other preferential rules of origin (e.g., NAFTA preferential rules of origin) are based on a tariff-shift method and/or regional value-content method for goods that are not wholly obtained from the applicable region or country.

Therefore knowledge of the origin of various components will be key to obtaining preferential treatment.

One of the more complex rules involves the manufacturing of wearing apparel. While many exceptions can be negotiated, the basic rule for textile imports claiming preference include a yarn forward rule of origin. This means that the yarn must originate in a partner country, the downstream fabric production must be originating in a partner country, and the assembly must occur in a partner country.

It does not matter which rule of origin you are claiming or for what product. What matters is that everyone in the supply chain understands the conditions of preference and possesses documentary evidence supporting the preferential claim of reduced, or duty free, treatment. It is imperative that all participants in the supply chain know that a claim of preference under a special trade rule will be made.  Each participant in the supply chain needs to understand what documents are required to show production, to support the claim. Enforcement of trade preference programs is complex; traditionally non-compliance has often exceeded 20% of claims reviewed.  In most instances the participants in the supply chain failed to maintain adequate records.

It is recommended that for every product for which a preference will be claimed, a manufacturing log be created and updated as any changes to the production occurs.  Begin with the purchase order that provides an in-depth description of the final product. Identify components used and their origin.  Describe each step of the manufacturing process, and maintain backup documents showing the process from beginning to end.  This will go a long way in effectively dealing with Customs inquiries as both Congress and the Administration are calling for stepped up enforcement of U.S. trade laws.

NJ Doctor Convicted Of Taking Bribes In Test-Referral Scheme With New Jersey Clinical Lab

Posted on by

LNEWARK, N.J. – A family doctor practicing in Bergen County, New Jersey, was convicted today of all 10 counts of an indictment charging him with accepting bribes in exchange for test referrals as part of a long-running and elaborate scheme operated by Biodiagnostic Laboratory Services LLC (BLS), of Parsippany, New Jersey, its president and numerous associates, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman announced.
Bernard Greenspan, 79, of River Edge, New Jersey, was convicted of one count of conspiring to commit violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute, the Federal Travel Act and wire fraud; three substantive violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute; three substantive violations of the Federal Travel Act; and three substantive violations of wire fraud. Greenspan was convicted following a 11-day trial before U.S. District Judge William H. Walls in Newark federal court. The jury deliberated just over four hours before returning the guilty verdict.

“We rightfully expect doctors to make their medical decisions based solely on what’s in the best interest of a patient,” U.S. Attorney Fishman said. “Whether they are dealing with a routine procedure or grappling with a potentially serious condition, patients should never have to worry that a doctor has violated that trust for personal greed. As we showed at trial – and the jury agreed – Greenspan abused his position and broke a wide range of federal laws when he accepted cash bribes and other illicit services in return for blood test referrals to BLS.”

“Patients have every right to insist that their physician is making medical referrals based on what is best for the patient—not what’s best for the doctor’s bank account,” said Special Agent in Charge Timothy Gallagher of the Newark FBI Field Office. “Bernard Greenspan decided to accept bribes in exchange for referrals and deprived patients of their right to honest services. These types of kickback arrangements cripple the healthcare industry and severely impact patient care. The FBI remains committed to investing its resources to combat these types of schemes.”

According to the indictment and testimony at trial, between March 2006 and April 2013, Greenspan received bribes totaling approximately $200,000 from BLS employees and associates. Greenspan periodically solicited and received monthly bribe payments in the form of sham rental, service agreement, and consultant payments.

In addition, Greenspan solicited and received other bribes, including payment for holiday parties for Greenspan and his office staff and additional cash bribes for ordering specific blood tests. In addition, BLS hired – at Greenspan’s specific request –a patient of Greenspan’s with whom he was having a sexual relationship. Greenspan’s referrals generated approximately $3 million in lab business for BLS.

The investigation has thus far resulted in 43 convictions – 29 of them of doctors – in connection with the bribery scheme, which its organizers have admitted involved millions of dollars in bribes and resulted in more than $100 million in payments to BLS from Medicare and various private insurance companies. It is believed to be the largest number of medical professionals ever prosecuted in a bribery case.

“This verdict should serve as a warning to any health care provider that dares to put personal profit ahead of proper patient care,” said Scott J. Lampert, Special Agent in Charge, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “HHS-OIG, along with our law enforcement partners, will continue to aggressively pursue those who seek to undermine the federally funded health care programs intended for our most vulnerable Americans.”

“Dr. Greenspan violated the Hippocratic Oath taken by medical professionals when he pledged to ‘come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice,” said Inspector in Charge James V. Buthorn of U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Newark Division. “The culture of kickbacks and bribery have no place in our healthcare system, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service was proud to do our part, working with our law enforcement partners to ensure justice was served today. Congratulations on the successful outcome to the agents and prosecutors who untiringly worked on investigating this case and preparing for trial.”

The investigation has recovered more than $12 million through forfeiture. On June 28, 2016, BLS, which is no longer operational, pleaded guilty and was required to forfeit all of its assets.

The conspiracy, Anti-Kickback, and Federal Travel Act counts are each punishable by a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison. The wire fraud charges are punishable by a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison per count. Each count also carries a maximum $250,000 fine, or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. Greenspan’s sentencing is scheduled for June 20, 2017.

U.S. Attorney Fishman credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gallagher; inspectors of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, under the direction of Inspector in Charge Buthorn; IRS–Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Jonathan D. Larsen; and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Lampert with the ongoing investigation.

The government was represented at trial by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph N. Minish and Danielle Alfonzo Walsman of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Health Care and Government Fraud Unit in Newark.

U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman reorganized the health care fraud practice at the New Jersey U.S. Attorney’s Office shortly after taking office, including creating a stand-alone Health Care and Government Fraud Unit to handle both criminal and civil investigations and prosecutions of health care fraud offenses. Since 2010, the office has recovered more than $1.32 billion in health care fraud and government fraud settlements, judgments, fines, restitution and forfeiture under the False Claims Act, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and other statutes.