Tag Archives: kickback

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.

“Upstart Start-Up” GeyerGorey LLP Opens Dallas Office

Posted on by

“Rocketing from two to eleven attorneys in eight months, GeyerGorey LLP sports over 200 years of cross-disciplinary prosecutorial experience involving a host of domestic and international industries where each of its attorneys has worked on internal investigations and high stakes cases for an average of more than 20 years.”

For more, click the link below:

-12191777-upstart-start-up-geyergorey-llp-opens-dallas-office

County Commissioner Sentenced for Attempted Extortion and Bribery

Posted on by
Al J. Hurley, a former county commissioner in Sumter County, Ga., was sentenced today to 36 months in prison stemming from his acceptance of illicit payments in exchange for his official efforts to secure government contracts for a private contractor, Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and Middle District of Georgia U.S. Attorney Michael J. Moore announced.

Hurley, 55, of Americus, Ga., was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge W. Louis Sands.  On Dec. 3, 2012, a federal jury sitting in the Albany Division of the Middle District of Georgia found Hurley guilty of one count each of attempted extortion and federal program bribery.

Hurley was first elected to the five-member Sumter County board of commissioners in 1999.  As the primary governing body for the county, the board presided over a variety of official matters, including the bidding process for and award of various county contracts.

Evidence at trial showed that from September to December 2011, Hurley, in his capacity as a county commissioner, solicited and agreed to accept cash payments – including $5,000 on Oct. 23, 2011, and $15,000 on Dec. 19, 2011 – from a private contractor, in exchange for Hurley’s repeated promises to use official action and influence to help facilitate the award of county contracting work to the contractor.

In particular, Hurley told the contractor that he would help him win a $100,000 depot renovation contract in a city within Hurley’s district.  Trial testimony also established that, in order to drive up the bribe amount, Hurley invented two inside contacts that he claimed to have at a new racetrack project in his district, and claimed the contacts could influence the award of related contracting work in favor of the contractor.  Hurley, who testified, admitted the contacts did not exist.

This case was investigated by the FBI. This case was prosecuted by Trial Attorney Eric G. Olshan of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney K. Alan Dasher of the Middle District of Georgia.

GGLLP Alert: Changes to the False Claims Act Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Posted on by

Changes to the False Claims Act Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) made a number of significant changes to the False Claims Act, including the following:

Original Source Requirement.  A plaintiff may now overcome the public disclosure if he or she qualifies as an “original source.”  The PPACA revised the definition of this term.  Previously, an original source had to have “direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations [were] based.”  Now, an original source may be a person who merely has “knowledge that is independent of and materially adds to the publicly disclosed allegations or transactions.”  See 31 U.S.C. 3730(e)(4)(B).

Changes to the Public Disclosure Bar.  Previously, relators were precluded from proceeding if there had been a public disclosure of information.  This disclosure could have occurred in news reports, a Freedom of Information Act response, court proceedings or in any number of ways.  Thus, the public disclosure bar often served as a basis for dismissal.  The PPACA amended the False Claims Act to allow the government to have the final say on whether a court could properly dismiss a case based on a public disclosure.  The statute now provides that “the court shall dismiss an action unless opposed by the Government, if substantially the same allegations or transaction alleged in the action or claim were publicly disclosed.”  See 31 U.S.C. 3730(e)(4)(A).

Overpayments.  In the prior law, there was confusion as to the “obligation” under the False Claims Act not to retain overpayments and when such overpayments had to be returned after their discovery.  Now, under the PPACA, overpayments under Medicare and Medicaid must be reported and returned within 60 days of discovery, or the date a corresponding hospital report is due.  The failure timely to report and return an overpayment exposes a provider to False Claims Act liability.

Statutory Anti-Kickback Liability. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b) (AKS), makes it a crime for any person to solicit, receive, offer or pay remuneration (monetary or otherwise) in exchange for referring patients to receive certain services that are paid for by the government.  Previously, many courts had interpreted the False Claims Act to mean that claims submitted as a result of AKS violations were false claims and therefore gave rise to liability under the False Claims Act (in addition to AKS penalties). Even though this was the majority rule, some courts held otherwise and the issue was always present in every case.  The PPACA changed the language of the AKS to provide that claims submitted in violation of the AKS automatically constitute false claims for purposes of the False Claims Act.  Further, the new language provides that “a person need not have actual knowledge … or specific intent to commit a violation” of the AKS.

Former Department of Defense Contractor Sentenced to 30 Months in Prison for Smuggling Kickback Proceeds from Afghanistan to the United States

Posted on by
A former employee of a Department of Defense contracting company at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, was sentenced today to serve 30 months in prison for attempting to smuggle $150,000 in kickback proceeds he received for steering U.S. government subcontracts to an Afghan company, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom of the District of Kansas.

 Donald Gene Garst, 51, of Topeka, Kan., was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Julie A. Robinson in Topeka.  In addition to his prison term, Garst was sentenced to serve one year of supervised release and was ordered to pay a fine of $52,117.  The department previously forfeited the $150,000 Garst had attempted to smuggle into the United States.

Garst pleaded guilty on Nov. 9, 2012, to a one-count information charging him with bulk cash smuggling.  According to court documents, Garst was employed by a private U.S. company that was contracted by the U.S. government and its armed forces at Bagram Airfield from January 2009 to May 2011.  Garst was involved in identifying, evaluating and monitoring subcontracts awarded to Afghan companies by his employer, and he used his position to meet executives of an Afghan construction company called Somo Logistics.  Garst then entered into an agreement with the Afghans under which he would receive kickback payments on a contract-by-contract basis in return for treating Somo Logisitcs favorably in the contracting process.

In December 2010, Garst accepted a kickback for $60,000 on the first subcontract awarded to Somo Logistics.  The subcontract was for the term lease of heavy equipment meant to be used for construction on Bagram Airfield.  Garst hand-carried approximately $20,000 of the kickback proceeds into the United States, and he received the remainder via a series of structured wire transfers from Somo Logistics executives.

In May 2011, Garst accepted a $150,000 kickback for a second subcontract for the lease of heavy construction equipment.  Garst shipped the $150,000 in cash to the United States, and his failure to declare the value of the shipment was discovered by law enforcement.

Garst had further agreed to receive $400,000 on a third subcontract, but his scheme was discovered by law enforcement before he could receive that payment.

This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jared Maag and Trial Attorney Wade Weems of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.  The case was investigated by Special Agents with the Army Criminal Investigations Division and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, with assistance from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction and the FBI.