Category Archives: Fraud Section

CCC’s: The Bid Rigging Whistleblower –Part 2

Posted on by

Should the Antitrust Division Have a Whistleblower Czar?

Well, no.  Without legislation to create a criminal antitrust whistleblower statute, the Czar might have little to do.  But, the Antitrust Division should make some effort, short of Czardom, to encourage bid rigging whistleblowers.  As I noted in Part I (here), there is already a mechanism for a whistleblower to claim a reward for prosecuting collusion among contractors/vendors on government contracts.  The bid rigging whistleblower can file a False Claims Act (qui tam) case on behalf of the government alleging that the government was ripped off by illegal collusion among the bidders.  If the government recovers damages, the person who brought the suit (the Relator) can receive a percentage (10-25%) of the recovery.

As I mentioned in Part I, the Antitrust Division has brought both criminal and civil suits as a result of filed whistleblower cases. This is a pretty well-kept secret because as far as I know, the Division has never encouraged anyone to come forward as a bid rigging whistleblower or done anything to publicize the fact that whistleblowers of collusion on government contracts can and have recovered a portion of the government’s damages.  The government should make some effort to attract bid rigging whistleblowers.  Doing so would benefit the Antitrust Division in obvious and non-obvious ways.  Below are a few ideas I think are worth discussing.

  1. Welcoming Bid Rigging False Claims Act cases
  • Special Counsel for False Claims Act Cases

Over the years there has been a proliferation of counselors to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division.  One counsel, with a criminal and civil background, could be designated as the Special Counsel for False Claims Act cases.  This would at least be a message to the bar that the Antitrust Division does have an interest in promoting whistleblowing on collusion on federal government contracts.  This special counsel could also oversee whatever efforts the Antitrust Division does take to encourage bid rigging whistleblowing.

  • Create a False Claims Act web page

The Antitrust Division has a page on its website for the Leniency Program.  The Antitrust Division promotes the heck out of leniency.  This page is an excellent source of information about everything one would need to know about the Corporate and Individual Leniency Programs.   There is also a Report Violations page on the Antitrust Division’s website. A False Claims Act page would signal the Division’s interest in possible False Claims cases as well as provide information a potential whistleblower might need to begin.

  • Better Coordination with Civil Division and United States Attorney’s Offices

 When a False Claim Act case is filed, notice of the case and the evidence supporting it must be filed with the Attorney General of the United States.  From there, the case will be assigned according to the subject matter of the alleged fraud: (i.e. health care, defense, antitrust).  Perhaps this is already being done, but the Antitrust Division might be more aggressive in claiming its seat at the table for bid rigging on government contracts.  A whistleblower will not file a Sherman Act case if she has information about collusion on a government contract—because there is no provision for antitrust whistleblowers.  The case will be filed as a Conspiracy to Defraud the United States with the bid rigging constituting the fraud.  A review of cases False Claims Act Cases on the Department of Justice website indicates that there have been a variety of False Claims Act matters that involved bid rigging yet were handled by local United States Attorney’s offices and the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, instead of the Antitrust Division.[1]

It would be good public policy to have all potential government bid rigging cases be referred to the Antitrust Division. Pardon the institutional pride (I worked there for 34 years), but nobody can spot, investigate and prosecute a viable criminal antitrust violation (i.e. bid rigging) better than an experienced Antitrust Division Attorney.  What may look like a bid rig too small for government intervention, may be spotted as the tip of the iceberg by an Antitrust Division prosecutor.  Likewise, a case that may appear weak to someone else, may look quite viable to a Division prosecutor that has experience investigating cartels—and tools like the leniency program.  A special counselor for False Claims Act cases would raise the profile within the Antitrust Division, the Department of Justice (and the outside bar) and may spur additional viable False Claim Act cases being referred to the Antitrust Division for a decision on whether the government should intervene and take over the prosecution.

     2.      The Benefits to the Antitrust Division of a Higher Profile for False Claims                                      Act Cases

The Antitrust Division could benefit in both obvious and non-obvious ways from a higher profile on False Claim Act cases.

  • The Obvious

Filing a False Claims Act case is a risky proposition for any potential whistleblower.  The blowback from being a whistleblower will likely be severe and the chances for success, especially if the government does not intervene, are far from certain.  Modest changes like these suggestions are not going to lead to an avalanche of new cases.  (Thus, the need for an SEC like criminal antitrust whistleblower statute as I argue in this article (here)).  But, it is certainly worth a try.  Nothing suggested above, and others may have additional/better suggestions, costs the government a nickel and the return on the investment may be substantial, even if just one additional cartel is uncovered.  Also, while a different subject, many believe that the value of leniency has been decreasing and the number of viable leniency applications is down. While this may be coincidence, not causation, the Antitrust Division’s statistics for cases and jail sentences and fines are way down.  It may be an opportune time to launch a new, if modest, initiative.

  • Good Cases

One benefit of publicizing the potential benefits of being a bid rigging whistleblower is that even if only one new case emerges, these are great cases for staff to work on.  Here I speak from personal experience and my views may not be universally held, but I’m pretty sure they are held by most trial attorneys in the Antitrust Division. Government bid rigging cases are great cases to work on.  They are much lower profile than say a Forex or Libor or other international cartel matters.  These “big” cases have their own allure, but the front office, the Criminal Division, SEC, CFTC, foreign agencies, Batman and Robin and others all have a hand in these investigations.  While it is exhilarating to work on a matter that makes the front page of the Wall Street Journal, a staff member is a small cog in the big wheel. On a government contract matter, generally speaking, the staff has more responsibility and more ownership of the matter, including possible trial experience on manageable cases. It’s a great way to learn how to investigate, take chances and take ownership.  These cases also involve working with agents across the federal spectrum.  These relationships can last a career and produce results over a long period of time.

  • Deterrent Effect

Finally, one of the most important reasons for robust antitrust prosecutions is deterrence. If the Antitrust Division starts whistleblowers and prosecuting bid rigging cases, it should have a deterrent effect on all the bid riggers out there that are not currently being detected. Whistleblower awards on bid rigging matters should be well-publicized. There is great satisfaction in seeing taxpayer money restored (with appropriate penalties) if a successful case is brought.  In a cartel case like capacitors the price of an input is raised but the impact on the final cost to consumers is small.  The cumulative harm is great (and should be prosecuted), but it is very diffused.  With bid rigging on government contracts the harm is focused and the recovery can be significant with both criminal and civil penalties.  Also, many government bid rigging investigations can lead to finding more bid rigging and what often looks like a small matter can proliferate into a major investigation.  Road construction, school milk, Defense Department contracts are just a few of the government contract cases that led to uncovering “way of life” collusion in certain industries.

Part III

 Special Issues with A Big Rigging Whistleblower

 Thanks for reading. Please come back for Part III.

Bob Connolly

Utah Financial Advisor Sentenced To Prison For Tax Evasion, Securities Fraud And Wire Fraud

Posted on by

June 8, 2018

A St. George, Utah, financial advisor was sentenced to 72 months in prison on June 4th for his role in selling fraudulent tax-avoidance and investment strategies to his clients, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney John W. Huber for the District of Utah.

According to documents and information provided to the court, Henry Brock, pleaded guilty to tax evasion, securities fraud and wire fraud.  Brock founded a financial services company in 2009 and served as the president from 2009 through 2017.  As President, he marketed and sold a fraudulent tax scheme, called “IRA Exit Strategy,” to potential investors.  Brock promised investors that he could provide a way for them to avoid paying taxes on IRA withdrawals, which would otherwise be subject to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) penalties and taxes.  To implement his scheme, Brock caused his business to issue tax forms to his clients falsely representing that they were investors in his business who incurred losses, which served to offset the clients’ tax liabilities.  As a result, Brock caused clients to file fraudulent income tax returns claiming a total of approximately $3.8 million in bogus business losses and resulting in a tax loss of over $1.1 million.

During this period, Brock fraudulently raised more than $10.8 million in investments by making false representations to investors regarding the “IRA Exit Strategy,” the financial condition of his company and other matters.  On at least one occasion, Brock also transferred $196,323 of a client’s investment funds and used the money for his own personal and business expenses.

In addition to the term of imprisonment, U.S. District Court Judge Ted Stewart ordered Brock to serve three years of supervised release and to pay restitution in the amount of $12 million.

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Zuckerman and U.S. Attorney Huber thanked special agents of IRS Criminal Investigation and the Utah Division of Securities, who conducted the investigation, and AUSA Trina Higgins and Trial Attorney Matthew Hoffman of the Tax Division, who are prosecuting this case.

Additional information about the Tax Division and its enforcement efforts may be found on the division’s website.

Former Charity Executive Pleads Guilty to Bribery and Embezzlement Scheme

Posted on by

June 7, 2018

A former executive of a Springfield, Missouri charity, who was also an Arkansas lobbyist, pleaded guilty in federal court today to bribing Arkansas elected officials in a multi-million-dollar scheme, and then along with other charity executives, embezzling millions of dollars from the Springfield health care organization.

Acting Assistant Attorney General John P. Cronan of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Timothy A. Garrison for the Western District of Missouri made the announcement.

Milton Russell Cranford, aka “Rusty,” 57, of Rogers, Arkansas, pleaded guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge David P. Rush to one count of federal program bribery.  Cranford was an executive at Preferred Family Healthcare Inc. (formerly known as Alternative Opportunities Inc.), a nonprofit corporation headquartered in Springfield, and oversaw the charity’s operations and lobbying efforts in the state of Arkansas. Cranford also operated three lobbying firms: The Cranford Coalition, The Capital Hill Coalition and Outcomes of Arkansas.

By pleading guilty today, Cranford admitted that he and other Preferred Family Healthcare executives paid bribes to Arkansas State Senator Jonathan Woods, Arkansas State legislator Henry Wilkins IV, a person identified in court documents as “Arkansas Senator A,” and others, to provide favorable legislative action for Cranford, his clients, and Preferred Family Healthcare. In exchange for the bribes paid by Cranford, the officials identified in the Information steered Arkansas General Improvement Fund (GIF) money to Preferred Family Healthcare and other Cranford clients; held up agency budgets; requested legislative audits; and sponsored, filed and voted for legislative bills that favored the charity and Cranford clients.

The additional income gained by Preferred Family Healthcare from Cranford’s bribes enabled Cranford and other executives of the charity to engage in multiple schemes to embezzle, steal, and unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of the charity, including, but not limited to, diverting charity funds to for-profit companies owned by the executives, causing the charity to make rental payments to properties owned by Cranford and the executives; paying for their personal expenses using corporate credit cards; and causing the charity to lend significant funds to Cranford personally, and to for-profit companies owned by other charity executives.  The executives also caused the charity to misapply its funds for unlawful contributions to the campaigns of elected public officials and causing the charity to spend substantial amounts of funds on lobbying and political advocacy.

In addition, Cranford entered into an illegal kickback scheme whereby Cranford paid over $600,000 in illegal kickbacks to a charity executive in exchange for more than $3.5 million in payments made to The Cranford Coalition.  Cranford also acknowledged his role in a second illegal kickback scheme involving the charity’s contract with Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based political operative Donald Andrew Jones, also known as “D.A.” Jones, and another charity employee, former Arkansas State Representative Eddie Wayne Cooper.  In exchange for Cranford’s role in facilitating the charity’s contract with Jones for lobbying and political advocacy, under which the charity paid Jones almost $1 million, Cranford received kickbacks totaling $219,000 from Jones, $18,000 of which Cranford provided to Cooper, and Cooper received another $45,000 directly from Jones.  In separate but related cases, both Jones and Cooper previously entered guilty pleas acknowledging their roles in that kickback scheme.

A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a presentence investigation by the U.S. Probation Office.

The case was investigated by IRS-Criminal Investigation, the FBI and the Offices of the Inspectors General from the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. This is a combined investigation with the Western District of Arkansas, the Eastern District of Arkansas, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven M. Mohlhenrich of the Western District of Missouri and Trial Attorneys Marco A. Palmieri and Sean F. Mulryne of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section.

Mississippi Physician Sentenced to Over Three Years in Prison for Role in $3 Million Compounding Pharmacy Fraud Scheme

Posted on by

June 7, 2018

A Biloxi, Mississippi physician was sentenced today to 42 months in prison for his involvement in a $3 million compounding pharmacy fraud scheme.

Acting Assistant Attorney General John P. Cronan of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney D. Michael Hurst Jr. of the Southern District of Mississippi; Special Agent in Charge Christopher Freeze of the FBI’s Jackson, Mississippi Field Division; Acting Special Agent in Charge Thomas J. Holloman III of IRS Criminal Investigation’s (IRS-CI) New Orleans Field Office and Special Agent in Charge John F. Khin of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service’s (DCIS) Southeast Field Office made the announcement.

Albert Diaz, M.D., was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Keith Starrett of the Southern District of Mississippi.  Restitution to TRICARE and other insurance companies will be determined at a later date. On March 2 after a five-day jury trial, Diaz was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, four counts of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to distribute and dispense a controlled substance, four counts of distributing and dispensing a controlled substance, one count of conspiracy to falsify records in a federal investigation and five counts of falsification of records in a federal investigation.

According to evidence presented at trial, between 2014 and 2015, Diaz participated in a scheme to defraud TRICARE and other insurance companies by prescribing medically unnecessary compounded medications, some of which included ketamine, a controlled substance, to individuals he had not examined.  The evidence further demonstrated that, based on the prescriptions signed by Diaz, Advantage Pharmacy in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, dispensed these medically unnecessary compounded medications and sought and received reimbursement from TRICARE and other insurance companies totaling more than $3 million. The trial evidence further demonstrated that in response to a TRICARE audit, Diaz falsified patient records to make it appear as though he had examined patients before prescribing the medications.

The FBI, IRS-CI, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics and other government agencies investigated the case.  Trial Attorneys Kate Payerle and Jared Hasten of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Mary Helen Wall of the Southern District of Mississippi are prosecuting the case.

The Fraud Section leads the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, which is part of a joint initiative between the Department of Justice and HHS to focus their efforts to prevent and deter fraud and enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country.  The Medicare Fraud Strike Force operates in nine locations nationwide.  Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force has charged over 3,500 defendants who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for over $12.5 billion.

Signature HealthCARE to Pay More Than $30 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations Related to Rehabilitation Therapy

Posted on by

June 8, 2018

Signature HealthCARE, LLC (Signature), a Louisville, Kentucky based company that owns and operates approximately 115 skilled nursing facilities, including 7 in middle Tennessee, has agreed to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by knowingly submitting false claims to Medicare for rehabilitation therapy services that were not reasonable, necessary and skilled, the Department of Justice announced today.  The settlement also resolves allegations that Signature submitted forged pre-admission certifications of patient need for skilled nursing to the state of Tennessee’s Medicaid program.  Under the settlement agreements, Signature has agreed to pay more than $30 million.  As part of the resolution, the State of Tennessee will receive a portion of the overall settlement.

“Today’s settlement demonstrates our continuing efforts to protect patients and taxpayer by ensuring that the care provided to beneficiaries of government-funded healthcare programs is dictated by clinical needs, not a provider’s fiscal interests,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Chad A. Readler for the Justice Department’s Civil Division.  “Nursing home facilities provide important services to our elderly, and those facilities must uphold the trust placed in them by billing the government only for reasonable and necessary services.”

The government alleged that Signature engaged in various practices that resulted in the submission of claims for unreasonable, unnecessary, and unskilled services to Medicare patients, including: (1) presumptively placing patients in the highest therapy reimbursement level, rather than relying on individualized evaluations to determine the level of care most suitable for each patient’s clinical needs; (2) providing the minimum number of minutes required to bill at a given reimbursement level while discouraging the provision of additional therapy beyond that minimum threshold; and, (3) pressuring therapists and patients to complete the planned minutes of therapy even when patients were sick or declined to participate in therapy.

“Health care providers who engage in deceptive practices place patients at unnecessary risk and contribute to the financial distress of our federal healthcare programs,” said U.S. Attorney Cochran for the Middle District of Tennessee.  “Our dedicated teams of civil enforcement attorneys will work tirelessly with the relators who report fraud such as this and with our law enforcement partners who investigate healthcare fraud.  When we determine that companies are cheating the taxpayers, we will hold them accountable as we have in this case.”

“Our most vulnerable citizens are put at risk when healthcare providers put their financial interests above their patients’ needs and valuable federal funds are diverted from where they are surely needed,” said U. S. Attorney Byung J. “BJay” Pak for the Northern District of Georgia. “This settlement demonstrates our commitment to pursuing healthcare providers who provide unnecessary care to advance their bottom line.”

“Signature was charged with illegally boosting profits by providing excessive amounts of therapy to patients whether they needed it or not,” said Special Agent in Charge Derrick L. Jackson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. “The decision to provide therapy should never be based on corporate financial considerations rather than a patient’s medical needs.”

The settlement resolves allegations filed in a lawsuit by Kristi Emerson and LeeAnn Tuesca, former Signature therapy employees, in federal court in Nashville, Tennessee.  The lawsuit was filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private individuals to sue on behalf of the government for false claims and to share in any recovery.  The Act also allows the government to intervene and take over the action, as it did in this case.  Ms. Emerson and Ms. Tuesca will receive a portion of the recovered funds.

The settlements were the result of a coordinated effort by the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, the United States Attorney’s Offices for the Middle District of Tennessee and the Northern District of Georgia, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General.  Trial Attorneys Christelle Klovers and Denise Barnes of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, Assistant United States Attorney Sarah K. Bogni of the Middle District of Tennessee, and Assistant United States Attorney Lena Amanti of the Northern District of Georgia represent the United States.  Assistant Attorney General Philip Bangle represents the State of Tennessee.

  The case is captioned United States ex rel. Emerson and Tuesca v. Signature HealthCARE, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00027 (M.D. Tenn.).  The claims resolved by the settlements are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

Transportation Operator Sentenced to 14 Months for Defrauding the State Department

Posted on by

April 6, 2018

A local transportation operator was sentenced to 14 months today for stealing federal funds intended for a foreign exchange program maintained by the U.S. Department of State.  Acting Assistant Attorney General John P. Cronan of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, Acting U.S. Attorney Tracy Doherty-McCormick of the Eastern District of Virginia, Inspector General Steve A. Linick of the U.S. Department of State and Andrew W. Vale, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office made the announcement.

Denon T. Hopkins, 49, of Germantown, Maryland, was sentenced by Senior U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis, III of the Eastern District of Virginia.  Hopkins pleaded guilty to a one-count information charging him with conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud and theft of public money on Dec. 21, 2017.

According to admissions made in connection with his plea, Hopkins was the operator and de facto owner of a transportation company that contracted with the State Department to provide bus and limousine services to a State Department component devoted to sports diplomacy and which sponsored a foreign exchange program for emerging athletes and coaches from various countries.  The exchange program was managed by George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, through a federal grant and cooperative agreement with the State Department.  During a time period when Hopkins received $247,200 in grant funds for legitimate transportation services, he and a State Department official conspired to steal portions of the federal money allocated to the exchange program by, among other things, falsifying vendor-related invoices and making fraudulent checks payable to Hopkins.  In total, Hopkins stole approximately $17,335 from the State Department.  He also admitted that he used portions of the funds to pay kickbacks to the State Department official to retain his transportation contract.

The Department of State’s Office of Inspector General and the FBI’s Washington Field Office investigated the case.  Trial Attorney Edward P. Sullivan of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Kimberly R. Pedersen of the Eastern District of Virginia are prosecuting the case.

CCC’s: DOJ Announces “Coordination of Corporate Resolution Penalties” Policy

Posted on by

 by  Leave a Comment

On May 9, 2018 Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein delivered remarks to the New York City Bar White Collar Crime Institute. He announced a new Department policy that encourages coordination among Department components and other enforcement agencies when imposing multiple penalties for the same conduct.  The full prepared remarks are here.  Below is an excerpt:

Today, we are announcing a new Department policy that encourages coordination among Department components and other enforcement agencies when imposing multiple penalties for the same conduct.

The aim is to enhance relationships with our law enforcement partners in the United States and abroad, while avoiding unfair duplicative penalties.

It is important for us to be aggressive in pursuing wrongdoers. But we should discourage disproportionate enforcement of laws by multiple authorities. In football, the term “piling on” refers to a player jumping on a pile of other players after the opponent is already tackled.

Our new policy discourages “piling on” by instructing Department components to appropriately coordinate with one another and with other enforcement agencies in imposing multiple penalties on a company in relation to investigations of the same misconduct.

In highly regulated industries, a company may be accountable to multiple regulatory bodies. That creates a risk of repeated punishments that may exceed what is necessary to rectify the harm and deter future violations.

Sometimes government authorities coordinate well.  They are force multipliers in their respective efforts to punish and deter fraud. They achieve efficiencies and limit unnecessary regulatory burdens.

Other times, joint or parallel investigations by multiple agencies sound less like singing in harmony, and more like competing attempts to sing a solo.

Modern business operations regularly span jurisdictions and borders. Whistleblowers routinely report allegations to multiple enforcement authorities, which may investigate the claims jointly or through their own separate and independent proceedings.

By working with other agencies, including the SEC, CFTC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, OFAC, and others, our Department is better able to detect sophisticated financial fraud schemes and deploy adequate penalties and remedies to ensure market integrity.

But we have heard concerns about “piling on” from our own Department personnel. Our prosecutors and civil enforcement attorneys prize the Department’s reputation for fairness.

They understand the importance of protecting our brand. They asked for support in coordinating internally and with other agencies to achieve reasonable and proportionate outcomes in major corporate investigations.

And I know many federal, state, local and foreign authorities that work with us are interested in joining our efforts to show leadership in this area.

“Piling on” can deprive a company of the benefits of certainty and finality ordinarily available through a full and final settlement. We need to consider the impact on innocent employees, customers, and investors who seek to resolve problems and move on. We need to think about whether devoting resources to additional enforcement against an old scheme is more valuable than fighting a new one.

Our new policy provides no private right of action and is not enforceable in court, but it will be incorporated into the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual, and it will guide the Department’s decisions.

This is another step towards greater transparency and consistency in corporate enforcement. To reduce white collar crime, we need to encourage companies to report suspected wrongdoing to law enforcement and to resolve liability expeditiously.

There are four key features of the new policy.

First, the policy affirms that the federal government’s criminal enforcement authority should not be used against a company for purposes unrelated to the investigation and prosecution of a possible crime. We should not employ the threat of criminal prosecution solely to persuade a company to pay a larger settlement in a civil case.

That is not a policy change. It is a reminder of and commitment to principles of fairness and the rule of law.

Second, the policy addresses situations in which Department attorneys in different components and offices may be seeking to resolve a corporate case based on the same misconduct.

The new policy directs Department components to coordinate with one another, and achieve an overall equitable result. The coordination may include crediting and apportionment of financial penalties, fines, and forfeitures, and other means of avoiding disproportionate punishment.

Third, the policy encourages Department attorneys, when possible, to coordinate with other federal, state, local, and foreign enforcement authorities seeking to resolve a case with a company for the same misconduct.

Finally, the new policy sets forth some factors that Department attorneys may evaluate in determining whether multiple penalties serve the interests of justice in a particular case.

Sometimes, penalties that may appear duplicative really are essential to achieve justice and protect the public. In those cases, we will not hesitate to pursue complete remedies, and to assist our law enforcement partners in doing the same.

Factors identified in the policy that may guide this determination include the egregiousness of the wrongdoing; statutory mandates regarding penalties; the risk of delay in finalizing a resolution; and the adequacy and timeliness of a company’s disclosures and cooperation with the Department.

Cooperating with a different agency or a foreign government is not a substitute for cooperating with the Department of Justice. And we will not look kindly on companies that come to the Department of Justice only after making inadequate disclosures to secure lenient penalties with other agencies or foreign governments. In those instances, the Department will act without hesitation to fully vindicate the interests of the United States.

The Department’s ability to coordinate outcomes in joint and parallel proceedings is also constrained by more practical concerns.  The timing of other agency actions, limits on information sharing across borders, and diplomatic relations between countries are some of the challenges we confront that do not always lend themselves to easy solutions.

The idea of coordination is not new. The Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and many of our U.S. Attorney’s Offices routinely coordinate with the SEC, CFTC, Federal Reserve, and other financial regulators, as well as a wide variety of foreign partners. The FCPA Unit announced its first coordinated resolution with the country of Singapore this past December.

The Antitrust Division has cooperated with 21 international agencies through 58 different merger investigations during the past four years.

Here is a link to the policy on Coordination of Corporate Resolution Penalties.

As the Deputy Attorney General stated, coordination is not new.  The Antitrust Division routinely coordinates with other federal and state agencies on most investigations.  And some coordination always occurs on international investigations.  In the recent financial crimes investigations such as Libor and FOREX the amount of coordination was extensive among federal agencies such as the Antitrust Division, Criminal Division, FBI, SEC, CFTC, state AG office, as well as with many foreign jurisdictions.  It is rumored that meetings were held in the Great Hall at the Department of Justice since no conference room could hold the throngs of participating enforcers.

Coordination by the Antitrust Division with enforcers from other federal, state and international enforcers is not new, but there is a continual debate about whether such coordination prevents “piling on.”  Of course, what a defense attorney may call piling on, the prosecutors may deem to be a hard but fair hit.  There is no referee or instant replay.  The question of piling on or double counting is a subject of continuing debate in antitrust circles.  It’s a tough question as foreign jurisdictions are injured by international cartels and they have stakeholders that want a significant penalty.  Sorting out proportional penalties among sovereign nations is a particularly tough ongoing challenge. This new policy document is not going to end that debate but a written policy document (while creating no new rights) could enhance defendants’ power of persuasion with the Department of Justice if they have some credible numbers to back up a “piling on” argument.

Thanks for reading.

PS.  Several publications have reported that Richard Powers will become the next Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement in the Antitrust Division.  The Antitrust Division has made no announcement yet.  One of the many qualifications Mr. Powers will bring to the position, if he is named as the Criminal Deputy, is his experience in multi-agency, international prosecutions. He worked on both Libor and Forex while a member of the Antitrust Division’s New York Field Office.

Former Siemens Executive Pleads Guilty To Role in $100 Million Foreign Bribery Scheme

Posted on by

Thursday, March 15, 2018

The former Technical Manager of the Major Projects division of Siemens Business Services GmbH & Co. OGH (SBS), a wholly owned subsidiary of Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (Siemens AG), pleaded guilty today to conspiring to pay tens of millions of dollars in bribes to Argentine government officials to secure, implement and enforce a $1 billion contract to create national identity cards.

Acting Assistant Attorney General John P. Cronan of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman of the Southern District of New York and Assistant Director in Charge Andrew W. Vale of the FBI’s Washington, D.C. Field Office made the announcement.

Eberhard Reichert, 78, of Munich, Germany, was employed by Siemens AG from 1964 until 2001.  Beginning in approximately 1990, Reichert was the Technical Manager of the Major Projects division of SBS.  Reichert pleaded guilty today in the Southern District of New York to one count of conspiring to violate the anti-bribery, internal controls and books and records provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and to commit wire fraud.  Reichert was arraigned last December on a three-count indictment filed in December 2011 charging him and seven other individuals.  He will be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote of the Southern District of New York, who accepted his plea today.

“Far too often, companies pay bribes as part of their business plan, upsetting what should be a level playing field and harming companies that play by the rules,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Cronan.  “In this case, one of the largest public companies in the world paid staggeringly large bribes to officials at the uppermost levels of the government of Argentina to secure a billion-dollar contract.  Eberhard Reichert’s conviction demonstrates the Criminal Division’s commitment to bringing both companies and corrupt individuals to justice, wherever they may reside and regardless of how long they may attempt to avoid arrest.”

“Eberhard Reichert tried to sidestep laws designed to root corruption out of the government contracting process,” said U.S. Attorney Berman.  “As he admitted in Manhattan federal court today, Reichert helped to conceal tens of millions of dollars in bribes that were paid to unfairly secure a lucrative contract from the Argentine government.  Today’s plea should be a warning to others that our office is committed to bringing corrupt criminals to justice, no matter how long they run from the law.”

In 1998, the government of Argentina awarded to a subsidiary of Siemens AG a contract worth approximately $1 billion to create state-of-the-art national identity cards (the Documento Nacional de Identidad or DNI project).  The Argentine government terminated the DNI project in 2001.  In connection with his guilty plea, Reichert admitted that he engaged in a decade-long scheme to pay tens of millions of dollars in bribes to Argentine government officials in connection with the DNI project, which was worth more than $1 billion to Siemens.  Reichert admitted that he and his co-conspirators concealed the illicit payments through various means, including using shell companies associated with intermediaries to disguise and launder the funds.

Reichert also admitted that he used a $27 million contract between a Siemens entity and a company called MFast Consulting AG that purported to be for consulting services to conceal bribes to Argentine officials.

In 2008, Siemens AG, a German entity, pleaded guilty to violating the books and records provisions of the FCPA; Siemens Argentina pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the books and records provisions of the FCPA; and Siemens Bangladesh Limited and Siemens S.A. – Venezuela each pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery and books and records provisions of the FCPA.  As part of the plea agreements, the Siemens companies paid a total of $450 million in criminal fines.  The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also brought a civil case against Siemens AG alleging that it violated the anti-bribery, books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA.  In resolving the SEC case, Siemens AG paid $350 million in disgorgement of wrongful profits.  The Munich Public Prosecutor’s Office also resolved similar charges with Siemens AG that resulted in a fine of $800 million.  In August 2009, following these corporate resolutions with U.S. and German authorities, Siemens AG withdrew its claim to the more than $200 million arbitration award.

The FBI’s International Corruption Squad in Washington, D.C. is investigating the case.  The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Michael Culhane Harper of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Niketh Velamoor of the Southern District of New York.  The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs, the SEC, Croatian authorities and the Munich Public Prosecutor’s Office also provided significant assistance.

The Criminal Division’s Fraud Section is responsible for investigating and prosecuting all FCPA matters.  Additional information about the Justice Department’s FCPA enforcement efforts can be found at www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa.

Los Angeles Dentist Charged in Health Care Fraud Scheme

Posted on by

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

A Los Angeles, California-based dentist was charged in an indictment unsealed on Monday for his alleged participation in a health care fraud and identity theft scheme.

Acting Assistant Attorney General John P. Cronan of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Nicola T. Hanna of the Central District of California, Assistant Director in Charge Andrew W. Vale of the FBI’s Washington, D.C. Field Office and Assistant Director in Charge Paul D. Delacourt of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office made the announcement.

Benjamin Rosenberg, D.D.S., 58, of Los Angeles, was charged with six counts of health care fraud and two counts of aggravated identity theft.  Rosenberg was arrested yesterday morning and made his initial court appearance yesterday before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jean Rosenbluth of the Central District of California.

The indictment alleges that Rosenberg billed various insurance companies, including Medicaid-funded Denti-Cal, for dental procedures that were never provided.  Rosenberg allegedly billed the insurance companies by using patients’ identification without their permission.

An indictment is merely an allegation and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

This case was investigated by the FBI’s Washington and Los Angeles Field Offices.  Trial Attorney Emily Culbertson of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section is prosecuting the case.

The Fraud Section leads the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, which is part of a joint initiative between the Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to focus their efforts to prevent and deter fraud and enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country.  The Medicare Fraud Strike Force operates in nine locations nationwide. Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force has charged over 3,500 defendants who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for over $12.5 billion.

Three Miami-Area Home Health Agency Owners Charged for Role in Health Care Fraud Scheme

Posted on by

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Three Miami, Florida-area home health agency owners were charged in an indictment unsealed yesterday for their alleged participation in a health care fraud scheme involving a now-defunct home health agency in Miami.

Acting Assistant Attorney General John P. Cronan of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Benjamin G. Greenberg of the Southern District of Florida, Special Agent in Charge Robert F. Lasky of the FBI’s Miami Field Office and Special Agent in Charge Shimon R. Richmond of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General’s (HHS-OIG) Miami Regional Office made the announcement.

Ailin Consuelo Rodriguez Sigler, 39; Zoila C. Rios, 57; and Tomas A. Rodriguez, 66, were charged in an indictment filed in the Southern District of Florida with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, and three counts of health care fraud.  Sigler, Rios and Rodriguez were arrested yesterday morning and appeared yesterday afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes.

The indictment alleges that from approximately January 2011 through November 2014, Sigler, Rios and Rodriguez, owners of Florida Patient Care Corp. of Miami, Florida, were involved in a fraudulent scheme whereby they agreed with the owners and operators of multiple home health therapy staffing companies and others to bill Medicare for services that were medically unnecessary, not eligible for Medicare reimbursement, or were never provided.

According to the indictment, Sigler, Rios, Rodriguez and their co-conspirators allegedly caused the submission of false and fraudulent claims to Medicare for home health therapy care, and physical and occupational therapy services purportedly provided by Florida Patient Care Corp.

An indictment is merely an allegation and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

This case was investigated by the FBI and HHS-OIG and was brought as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, supervised by the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.  Fraud Section Trial Attorney Yisel Valdes is prosecuting the case.

The Fraud Section leads the Medicare Fraud Strike Force.  Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, now operating in nine cities across the country, has charged nearly 3,500 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $12.5 billion.  In addition, the HHS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with HHS-OIG, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.