Category Archives: Antitrust Monitor by GeyerGorey LLP

Connolly’s Cartel Capers: Fugitive’s Return to U.S. Upon Indictment Admissible to Show “Consciousness of Innocence”

Posted on by

Fugitive’s Return to U.S. Upon Indictment Admissible to Show “Consciousness of Innocence”
Cartel Capers
Robert E. Connolly

We are all familiar with the doctrine of “consciousness of guilt” wherein the prosecutor may introduce evidence such as flight or cover-up that permits an inference that the defendant believed he was guilty. But, there is also a less well-known and less widely accepted doctrine of “consciousness of innocence.”

I wanted to report on a pretrial victory by Daniel M. Gitner of Lankler Siffert & Wohl LLP related to “consciousness of innocence” evidence. Mr. Gitner represents Rengan Rajaratnam, the younger brother of Raj Rajaratnam, who was indicted on charges of insider trading and is awaiting trial. US. v. Rengan Rajaratnam, No. 1-13-cr-00211 (S.D.N.Y June 6, 2014). In a pretrial motion, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled that she would allow Rajaratnam to introduce “consciousness of innocence” evidence during his upcoming trial. The judge will allow jurors to hear about Rengan’s decision to fly from Brazil to the U.S. shortly after being indicted in March 2013. The defense argues that this evidence shows Rengan knew he was innocent.

*     *     *     *

For the Rest of the Story…Click Here

Robert E. Connolly’s Cartel Capers: Second Circuit on FTAIA to Extraterritorial Anticompetitive Conduct

Posted on by

The Second Circuit Adds Its Voice to the Debate Over the Application of the FTAIA to Extraterritorial Anticompetitive Conduct

 by Robert Connolly

One of the hottest topics in cartel enforcement today is the question of how the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (“FTAIA”) limits the extraterritorial reach of the Sherman Act. The FTAIA applies to both governmental and private actions. On June 4, 2014 the Second Circuit offered its views on the subject in Lotes Co., v. Hon Hai Precision Industry, No. 13-2280, slip op. (2d Cir. June 4, 2014).

The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (“FTAIA”), 15 U.S.C. Section 6a, limits the extraterritorial reach of the Sherman Act. The Supreme Court has explained that the FTAIA initially lays down a general rule placing all (nonimport) activity involving foreign commerce outside the Sherman Act’s reach. The FTAIA then brings such conduct back within the Sherman Act’s reach provided that the conduct both (1) sufficiently affects American commerce, i.e., has a “direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect” on American domestic, import, or (certain) export commerce, and (2) has an effect of a kind that antitrust law considers harmful,i.e., the “effect” must “giv[e] rise to a [Sherman Act] claim.” F. Hoffmann‐La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155, 162 (2004) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 6a(1), (2)).  

In Lotes, a manufacturer of UBS connectors (Lotes), alleged monopolization by the defendants of the market for UBS 3.0 connectors. Lotes alleged that the defendants breached their obligation to provide RAND‐Zero licenses to adopters of the USB 3.0 standard, which included Lotes. This, Lotes claimed, gave the defendants unlawful monopoly power over the manufacture of USB 3.0 connectors in China. While the anticompetitive conduct took place in China, Lotes’s theory was that monopoly driven price increases in USB 3.0 connectors would “inevitably” be passed on to consumers in the United States. Lotes alleged, therefore, that the monopolization conduct in China would have a “direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on U.S. commerce.”

The Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of the complaint because Lotes did not satisfy the second requirement under the FTAIA that “such effect gives rise to a claim under the provisions of this Act.” The effect in the United States from the defendants’ alleged conduct was claimed to be higher consumer prices. But, Lotes’s injury, as a competitor of the defendants, was that it was allegedly wrongly denied a license to manufacture the connectors.  Higher U.S. consumer prices did not give rise to Lotes’s antitrust injury. In fact, Lotes’s injury predated the higher prices. Lotes’s complaint therefore was dismissed because any domestic effect caused by the defendants’ foreign anticompetitive conduct did not “give[] rise to” Lotes’s claims. 15 U.S.C. § 6a(2). Lotes at 47.

There are several other important aspects to the Lotes decision:

1) The Second Circuit joined the Third and Seventh Circuit in holding that the requirements of the FTAIA were not jurisdictional, but were substantive elements of a Sherman Act offense. The importance of this holding is obvious. Motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction place the burden on the plaintiff to establish jurisdiction.  The plaintiff must meet its burden before discovery takes place.  Instead, because satisfying FTAIA requirements is now considered an element of the Sherman Act violation, defendants must file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and all reasonable inferences will be drawn in favor of the plaintiff.

2) The Second Circuit did not reach the issue of whether the defendants’ conduct met the FTAIA “direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable effect” requirement, but did rule that the district court used the wrong test to answer this question.The district court construed the FTAIA’s “direct effect” element to require the effect to follow “as an immediate consequence of the defendant’s activity.”   This is the rule in the Ninth Circuit. The Second Circuit, however, rejected this test. The Court adopted an alternative approach advocated by the Department of Justice and the FTC in amicus briefs. Under this more relaxed approach“the term ‘direct’ means only ‘a reasonably proximate causal nexus.’” Lotes at 35-36. The Seventh Circuit has also adopted the “reasonably proximate causal nexus” test. See Minn-Chen v. Agrium, Inc., 683 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2012).

While the Second Circuit did not reach the question of whether Lotes’s allegations of monopoly conduct in China met the “reasonably proximate causal nexus” the Court did note that, “This kind of complex manufacturing process is increasingly common in our modern global economy, and antitrust law has long recognized that anticompetitive injuries can be transmitted through multi‐layered supply chains.” Lotes at 43. The Court also observed that the “Supreme Court has held that claims by indirect purchasers are ‘consistent with the broad purposes of the federal antitrust laws: deterring anticompetitive conduct and ensuring the compensation of victims of that conduct.’” Lotes at 43, citing California v. ARC Am. Corp., 490 U.S. 93, 102 (1989).

3) It may be significant that the Second Circuit adopted the approach advocated by the DOJ and FTC that the “the term ‘direct’ means only ‘a reasonably proximate causal nexus’” and noted that this test may still be met even where the fixed-price product is manufactured overseas and becomes a component of a finished product that is later imported into the United States. By contrast, the Seventh Circuit recently found in Motorola Mobility v. AU Optronics, Case No. 14-8003, slip op. (7th Cir. Mar. 27, 2014) that the FTAIA’s requirements were not met where prices were fixed on LCD screens that were sold to Motorola’s overseas subsidiaries and then incorporated overseas into cell phones that were then imported into the United States. TheMotorola Court held that the fact that the purchasers of the price-fixed products were located overseas meant that the effect was not “direct.” The court, per Judge Posner, stated:

The effect on component price fixing on the price of the product of which it is a component is indirect, compared to the situation in Minn-Chem where “foreign sellers allegedly created a cartel, took steps outside the United States to drive the price up of a product that is wanted in the United States, and then (after succeeding in doing so) sold that product to U.S. customers.”

Continued at Robert E. Connolly’s Cartel Capers Blog

Connolly’s Cartel Capers “Auto Part Investigation Shifts Gears”

Posted on by

Auto Part Investigation Shifts Gears

 by  CartelCapers

In the last several months, the Antitrust Division has obtained indictments of a number of Japanese executives in the auto parts investigation. This is the hallmark of an investigation that is shifting gears. For the most part, but not entirely, the Division has picked the low hanging fruit with amnesty and non-prosecution agreements. It has shaken a few trees and obtained plea agreements with individuals who received substantially reduced 5K sentences in return for the plea and cooperation. Now enters the phase where individuals are indicted, either because the Division believed they were too senior to offer 5K discounts, the Division no longer needed cooperation, or because the individual declined the invitation to come to the United States and submit to US jurisdiction. Now, the investigation enters what could be likened to the “100 Years War,” depending upon the longevity of the fugitive defendant. The hostile parties keep their respective difference, with an occasional battle fought if there is an extradition or voluntary surrender.  

Yesterday Gikou Nakajima, the highest-ranking global sales executive at Takata Corp. was indicted and charged with rigging bids for seat belts sold to various car companies.http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2014/306344.htm  Two weeks earlier, A Japanese executive was indicted on one count of bid rigging and also for obstruction of justice in a second count. http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2014/306153.htm. In April, an indictment was returned against one current executive and two former executives of Bridgestone Corp. for their roles in an international conspiracy to fix prices of automotive anti-vibration rubber parts sold in the United States and elsewhere.http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2014/305205.htm.  The return of indictments signals that the Division has secured sufficient cooperation from witnesses and reviewed enough documents to be confident enough in their facts to seek indictments.  The auto parts investigation has had many facets involving over many different parts. See USDOJ Chart, Auto Parts Targeted by Conspirators:http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2013/300969a.pdf.  As each phase of this investigation wraps up, additional indictments should be forthcoming.

What Happens Next?

Usually, nothing. The Division has foreign fugitives in most of its international cartel cases dating back to ADM. In most cases the indictments, and the defendants’ identity, are public. But, in some cases the indictment of a foreign national may be under seal. (In the 1980’s, the Philadelphia office indicted an Israeli citizen under seal and he was arrested entering the US. That saga of that case is another story.) But, typically, the Division will have a foreign fugitive placed on an Interpol “Red Notice” making travel precarious for that executive for the rest of his life. In most cases, the executives preserved by the Division for indictment are the most senior members of the company involved in the conspiracy. Foreign fugitive defendants will likely retire, fire their travel agent and stay in the home country. The Division will maintain the documents and other evidence needed to try the case should Interpol actually pick up the fugitive. (One Japanese executive was arrested in India and spent some time in an Indian prison before the India authorities decided they would not extradite him on “dual criminality” grounds.). From time to time, Division attorneys may even get false alarms—foreigners with the same or similar name as a fugitive being picked up and held for questioning. The Division will maintain the file on its foreign fugitives indefinitely because unless it is notified, it has no way of knowing if the fugitive is dead or alive.

Sentencing Guidelines Are A Huge Factor

The primary measure of culpability under the US Sentencing Guidelines is volume of commerce.  Not surprisingly, international cartels tend to press the outer boundaries of the maximum ten year prison sentence under the Sherman Act.  A look at the possible Sentencing Guidelines for a fugitive like Mr. Nakajima shows why there is strong incentive for him to say put in Japan. While these figures may be off slightly, if he were convicted of the charged indictment, he would be facing a possible prison sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines of 87- 108 months in jail:

 

Base Offense 2R1.1                           +12

Offense involves Bid Rigging           +1

Volume of Commerce                       +12 (based on likely commerce of more than $500,00   but less than 1 billion

Role in the Offense                           +4

Total Offense Level                           29

Guideline Range                                87 – 108 months

If a foreign fugitive voluntarily submitted to US jurisdiction and plead guilty, he would be eligible for a 3-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility with a resulting guideline range of 63-78 months. (The court would likely depart from the sentencing guidelines over the Division’s objections and impose a lesser sentence. There is, however, no guarantee that this would occur.) The longest sentence one of Mr. Nakajima’s subordinates received was 19 months. It is not likely Mr. Nakajima will ever voluntarily submit to US jurisdiction.

Extradition

 Yesterday, at an event in New York, Brent Snyder, Antitrust Division DAAG for Criminal Enforcement noted “More jurisdictions are adopting criminal antitrust statutes and what that will do is that it will make extradition easier to obtain. There are going to be fewer and fewer safe havens.” Also, the Division recently obtained what it called the “first of its kind” extradition on an antitrust charge against Romano Pisciotti, an Italian national who was involved in the marine hose global conspiracy. http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2014/304888.htm.  Once in the U.S., Pisciotti quickly agreed to plead guilty will serve a total of two years in prison with credit for the nine months and 16 days he was held in the custody of the German government pending his extradition.  The Pisciotti extradition has been widely covered.http://www.forbes.com/sites/mergermarket/2014/04/23/doj-flexing-muscle-on-price-fixers-worldwide/. It has been noted that Germany would not have extradited Pisciotti if he were a German citizen. But there are three main takeaways from his extraction journey that are worth repeating:

 

  • Pisciotti was indicted under seal. Foreign executives involved in a cartel who do not have some kind of agreement with the Antitrust Division may never know whether they are a fugitive
  • Pisciotti spent nine and half months in a German prison awaiting word of whether Germany would extradite him. If Interpol picks up a foreign fugitive, even if not ultimately extradited, the process can be a significant penalty in itself.
  • The Division has used the Pisciotti extradition as a platform to express its intention to work with competition agencies worldwide to shrink safe harbors for fugitives from cartel indictments.
  • To the extent that the Division is able to secure the extradition of more foreign executives to face cartel charges, the significant reductions in sentence that cooperating foreign executives receive in 5K downward departures will likely tick upward.

A Look Ahead
The country that leads the league in most executives as fugitives from US antitrust indictments is Japan. This is true overall and in the auto parts investigation. The US has not extradited any Japanese citizens for an antitrust violation. Because Japan also makes price fixing and bid rigging a criminal offense, the issue of dual criminality may not be an obstacle (though there are certain differences in the statutes of the two countries). An extradition of an executive from Japan would be an enormous development. As noted above, a Japanese auto parts executive was recently indicted on both price-fixing and obstruction. Coincidently, the first successful extradition by the Antitrust Division involved an executive indicted on both Sherman Act and obstruction charges. When I was Chief of the Philadelphia office, we indicted a British executive, Ian Norris, on both a price fixing count and three counts of obstruction. Eventually, he was extradited only on the obstruction counts. Norris was convicted on one count and sentenced to 18 months in prison. Will the Division take a page out of the same playbook here? More developments await.

Robert E. Connolly Launches New Blog: “Cartel Capers:” http://cartelcapers.com.

Posted on by

Robert E. ConnollyGeyer Gorey Partner Robert E. Connolly Announces the Debut of A New Blog: “Cartel Capers:” http://cartelcapers.com.

Robert Connolly recently joined GeyerGorey LLP as a partner in its Washington DC office. As with other GeyerGorey “former feds,” Mr. Connolly was a career federal prosecutor in the Antitrust Division. He was Chief of the Middle Atlantic Office of the Antitrust Division from 1994 until early 2013. Mr. Connolly has just launched his blog, Cartel Capers.

While at the Division, and particularly as a senior manager as Chief, Mr. Connolly had a seat at the table as the Division developed and implemented its successful leniency program.   He also had input on all major aspects of policy and procedure in the criminal program such as investigative strategies, charging decisions, trial game plans, sentencing policy issues, and extradition.   Since leaving the Division, Mr. Connolly has been a prolific author writing a number of articles for the ABA Criminal Cartel and Procedure committee, Mlex and Law 360. He has been quoted on cartel issues in Forbes, BusinessWeek, and various trade publications that focus on antitrust. He has decided to try his hand at blogging to provide more real time news, insight and analysis.

The blog, Cartel Capers, will provide current news in the cartel world. The focus will be on matters concerning the Antitrust Division, US Department of Justice, but will also cover major cartel related developments in the civil arena as well as worldwide. Besides reporting current developments, the aim of the blog is to provide insight and perspective from someone who worked at a high level in the Division for most of his career. The blog will analyze what the Division said, and what it did not say; what the Division did, and what it did not do—and what the Division is likely to do in the future. In short, the blog is intended to provide a behind the scenes look at the cartel world based on both personal experience and current contacts in the enforcement and broader antitrust community.

The blog will be enriched by contributions from other career DOJ prosecutors now at GeyerGorey. Hays Gorey, Joan Marshall and Brad Geyer will contribute both as editors and guest bloggers. Each has prosecuted a variety of high profile cartel cases and related violations in their long careers with the Division.

Please give Cartel Capers a try. Hopefully you will benefit form reading the blog and look forward to new entries. Also, any feedback or suggestions to make the blog more useful are most welcome. Cartel Capers: http://cartelcapers.com.

Trustbusters Targeting Cartels Abroad Reined in by U.S. Judges

Posted on by

Trustbusters Targeting Cartels Abroad Reined in by U.S. Judges
* * *

“The ruling opens the doors to foreign cartels to shield themselves from U.S. law by selling to a third party instead of directly into the U.S., said Robert Connolly, a lawyer at GeyerGorey LLP and a former prosecutor with the Justice Department’s antitrust division.

‘No Difference’

‘People can fix prices and then use a middleman,’ he said. ‘From an American consumer point of view, there’s really no difference.'”

* * *

Antitrust Division Increasing Procurement Fraud Footprint Once Again

Posted on by

The Antitrust Division announced that a former owner and operator of a Florida-based airline fuel supply service company was sentenced today to serve 50 months in prison for participating in a scheme to defraud Illinois-based Ryan International Airlines, the Department of Justice announced.

This is a legacy case reassigned from the shuttered Atlanta Field Office suggesting a successful and a smooth transition of its assignment to the Washington 1 Criminal Office (formerly the National Criminal Enforcement Section).    For any tea leaf readers, AAG Bill Baer’s comments in this press release (reprinted below) suggest renewed focus by the Antitrust Division into procurement fraud and an increasing willingness to open, investigate and charge matters that involve non Title 15 U.S.C Section 1 offenses in all types of procurements.  The “tell” here is subtle, but it is very significant.

 Baer’s quote today:

 “Awarding government contracts in exchange for payoffs is a crime the Antitrust Division takes seriously,” said Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division.  “Today’s sentence reaffirms the division’s commitment to vigorously prosecute individuals who engage in this behavior.”

If you know the history of Title 18 procurement prosecutions, Baer’s commitment to bringing future procurement fraud cases is significant.  The Antitrust Division was a significant player during the Bush years’ National Procurement Fraud Task Force.  Besides domestic kickback and other Title 18 cases, the Division brought many overseas contingency operations (then “WarZone”) prosecutions for bidding corruption and grant fraud.  In fact, the Division had wide berth to investigate and prosecute cases that involved “corruption of the bidding or award process.”  This was a wider mandate than simply bringing cases of horizontal collusion among competitors.  The National Procurement Fraud Task Force was incorporated into the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force early in the Obama administration and resources were reallocated to new enforcement priorities in the wake of the financial crisis in 2008.  As everyone viewed their new enforcement mission through a financial crimes prism, the focus of the Antitrust Division returned to a more restrictive view of its mission, i.e., bringing Sherman Act cases under 15 U.S.C. Section 1.  At the height of this limitation, for an investigation to receive authority to be opened, it had to include evidence that on its face could be construed classic horizontal bid rigging conduct. 

It is beyond the scope of this blog entry, but there is much that goes into the press release process that provides insights into enforcement agency gestalt, resource allocation, drive to open cases, and willingness to keep cases open and to charge cases, particularly marginal ones.  A press release also can provide insight into the AAG’s mindset and, sometimes, even more importantly from an agency effectiveness perspective, what people reporting to the AAG think his mindset is.

Today’s quote from AAG Baer is instructive.  It is in an active, broad and forceful voice. In a sweeping statement it links “kickbacks” and “the Antitrust Division” in the same sentence and suggests direct Antitrust Division intervention.  Most importantly, it suggests an interest in crimes involving the payment of kickbacks to award contracts (a Title 18 offense where a Section 1 agreement between competitors is usually not present).  It then states that when offenses like these are committed they will be “tak[en] seriously…[and will be vigorously prosecut[ed]” by the Antitrust Division.

Contrast this with Baer’s statement in September 2013 regarding another case on the same investigation:

“Today’s sentence should serve as a stiff deterrent to executives who might be tempted to solicit a kickback from their supplies in exchange for their honest services,” said Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division. “The Antitrust Division is committed to ensuring that contracts are won based on competition and not collusion.”

The 2013 AAG quote literally suggests that deterrence is provided by the length of this sentence rather than by any threat of immediate action by the Antitrust Division.  It then links to a general principle that references the blanket requirement imposed earlier in the Administration that a horizontal agreement between competitors had to be present to justify resources.  It also should be recognized that “collusion” is a primarily a term of art within the Antitrust Division directed at collusion among competitors rather than collusion with a contract officer. 

Baer’s current statement is forward-looking and reaffirms that procurement fraud as a Division priority.   For all intents and purposes, AAG Baer has indicated to line attorneys and the outside world (most importantly, investigative agencies) that the Antitrust Division is again open for cases of “corruption of the bidding or award process.”   This strongly suggests a move away from an exclusive focus on Invitation for Bids (IFB) contracting to the massively larger pie of “everything else” including cost plus contracts, prime vendor contracts, sole source contracts and even the issuance of grants.

To advise clients regarding risk analysis, GeyerGorey LLP has been tracking this progression because in many hidden, but key areas, the Antitrust Division provides disproportionate value to the government’s procurement fraud mission by supporting the agency mission, helping resource investigations and by providing continuity to long investigations and program management.  This message has been received loud and clear by Antitrust Division rank and file and it is in the process of being received by the FBI, IRS-CID and 38 Inspectors General who immediately recognize that they can bring cases to Antitrust that require extensive resourcing or which have been declined.   With history as a guide, we expect procurement fraud investigation openings to increase substantially and we expect current investigations to be prolonged or rekindled as resources are reallocated with Antitrust Division resources.  


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Former airline fuel owner sentenced in fraud scheme

Executive Sentenced to Serve 50 Months in Prison

A former owner and operator of a Florida-based airline fuel supply service company was sentenced today to serve 50 months in prison for participating in a scheme to defraud Illinois-based Ryan International Airlines, the Department of Justice announced.

Sean E. Wagner, the former owner and operator of Aviation Fuel International Inc. (AFI), was sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in West Palm Beach to serve 50 months in prison and to pay $202,856 in restitution.  On Aug. 13, 2013, a grand jury returned an indictment against Wagner and AFI, charging them for their roles in a conspiracy to defraud Ryan. On March 6, 2014, Wagner pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud.   According to court documents, from at least as early as December 2005 through at least August 2009, Wagner and others at AFI made kickback payments to Wayne Kepple, a former vice president of ground operations for Ryan, totaling more than $200,000 in the form of checks, wire transfers, cash and gift cards in exchange for awarding business to AFI.  The charges against AFI were dismissed on Feb. 21, 2014.

Ryan provided air passenger and cargo services for corporations, private individuals and the U.S. government – including the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

“Awarding government contracts in exchange for payoffs is a crime the Antitrust Division takes seriously,” said Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division.  “Today’s sentence reaffirms the division’s commitment to vigorously prosecute individuals who engage in this behavior.”

“This sentencing highlights the continuing commitment of the DCIS to thoroughly investigate and bring to justice any companies or individuals who engage in fraudulent and corrupt practices that undermine the integrity of Department of Defense procurement programs,” said John F. Khin, Special Agent in Charge of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service Southeast Field Office.

As a result of the ongoing investigation, five individuals, including Wagner, have pleaded guilty and have been ordered to serve sentences ranging from 16 to 87 months in prison and to pay more than $780,000 in restitution.  An additional individual has pleaded guilty to obstructing the investigation and is currently awaiting sentencing.

The investigation is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s Washington Criminal I office and the U.S. Department of Defense’s Office of Inspector General’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service, with assistance from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.

Executive Pleads Guilty for Role in Bid Rigging Scheme at Municipal Tax Lien Auctions

Posted on by

Investigation Has Yielded 15 Guilty Pleas to Date
A former New York-based tax liens company executive pleaded guilty today for his role in a conspiracy to rig bids at auctions conducted by New Jersey municipalities for the sale of tax liens, the Department of Justice announced.

Vinaya K. Jessani, of New York City, entered a guilty plea in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Newark to felony charges filed today.   Under the plea agreement, Jessani has agreed to cooperate with the department’s ongoing investigation.

According to the charge, from at least as early as 1994 until as late as February 2009, Jessani, a former senior vice president who supervised the purchasing of municipal tax liens at auctions in New Jersey for the company he worked for, participated in a conspiracy to rig bids at auctions for the sale of municipal tax liens in New Jersey by agreeing to, and instructing others to, allocate among certain bidders which liens each would bid on.  The department said that Jessani and those under his supervision submitted bids in accordance with the agreements and purchased tax liens at collusive and non-competitive interest rates.

“Today’s guilty plea demonstrates the Antitrust Division’s continuing effort to prosecute those who manipulate the competitive process in order to harm home and property owners,” said Brent Snyder, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program.  “The division will continue to be vigilant in rooting out conspiracies that harm already distressed property owners.”

The department said that the primary purpose of the conspiracy was to suppress and restrain competition in order to obtain selected municipal tax liens offered at public auctions at non-competitive interest rates.  When the owner of real property fails to pay taxes on that property, the municipality in which the property is located may attach a lien for the amount of the unpaid taxes.  If the taxes remain unpaid after a waiting period, the lien may be sold at auction.  New Jersey state law requires that investors bid on the interest rate delinquent property owners will pay upon redemption.  By law, the bid opens at 18 percent interest and, through a competitive bidding process, can be driven down to zero percent.  If a lien remains unpaid after a certain period of time, the investor who purchased the lien may begin foreclosure proceedings against the property to which the lien is attached.

According to court documents, the conspiracy permitted the conspirators to purchase tax liens with limited competition and each conspirator was able to obtain liens which earned a higher interest rate.  Property owners were therefore made to pay higher interest on their tax debts than they would have paid had their liens been purchased in open and honest competition, the department said.

A violation of the Sherman Act carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine for individuals.  The maximum fine for a Sherman Act violation may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims if either amount is greater than the $1 million statutory maximum.

Today’s plea is the 15th guilty plea resulting from an ongoing investigation into bid rigging or fraud related to municipal tax lien auctions.  Including Jessani, 12 individuals and three companies have pleaded guilty.  Additionally, four individuals and two entities have been indicted for their roles in the conspiracy to rig bids at tax lien auctions.

 

Today’s case was done in connection with the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.  The task force was established to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.  With more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. attorneys’ offices and state and local partners, it’s the broadest coalition of law enforcement, investigatory and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat fraud.  Since its formation, the task force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and prosecution of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among federal, state and local authorities; addressing discrimination in the lending and financial markets and conducting outreach to the public, victims, financial institutions and other organizations.  Over the past three fiscal years, the Justice Department has filed nearly 10,000 financial fraud cases against nearly 15,000 defendants including more than 2,900 mortgage fraud defendants.

Philly.Com: Comcast-TWC Back on Capitol Hill for Deal Scrutiny Read

Posted on by

“Comcast executive vice president David Cohen testified for the company, and his voice grew hoarse over time.

The strongest comments against the deal came from Allen P. Grunes, a former federal antitrust investigator and now a Washington, D.C., attorney. He said the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 says a deal would be anti-competitive if it “may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.”

A merged Comcast and Time Warner Cable could thwart online video competition because of its large share of the residential broadband market, Grunes said. He also was concerned about Comcast/Time Warner Cable’s economic power in local cable-TV advertising markets and regional sports networks that could be used as leverage against pay-TV competitors.”


Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20140509_Before_a_House_committee__Comcast_exec_fields_more_questions_on_Time_Warner_merger.html#8mSQgBfTjUyS2Hj3.99

Comcast-TWC Back on Capitol Hill for Deal Scrutiny Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20140509_Before_a_House_committee__Comcast_exec_fields_more_questions_on_Time_Warner_merger.html#8mSQgBfTjUyS2Hj3.99

Washington Post: Three things expected from Comcast-TWC merger hearing

Posted on by

The Washington Post

“Three things to expect from Thursday’s Comcast-TWC merger hearing” by Brian Fung

#3:
Revisiting the NBC Universal merger: Allen Grunes, a former Justice Department antitrust lawyer, is expected to say that the conditions that applied to Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal — such as a commitment to respect net neutrality and to help promote media diversity — won’t be enough to ensure adequate competition in a Comcast deal. “The most comprehensive study to date has shown that merger-specific regulation, like regulation as a whole, often does not work,” Grunes says in his prepared testimony.

Link to Comcast House Judiciary Hearing with GGLLP’s Allen Grunes Airing Now

Posted on by

For Comcast House Judiciary Hearing:  Click Here