Tag Archives: Procurement Fraud

Former Prosecutor Rich Rosenberg Joins GeyerGorey LLP

Posted on by

GeyerGorey LLP today announced that Richard S. Rosenberg, formerly a prosecutor with the Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, has joined the firm and will be resident in the firm’s Philadelphia Office.

According to GeyerGorey partner Bradford Geyer, who was a long-time colleague of Rosenberg’s at the Antitrust Division, Rosenberg was known to be a highly critical analyst who would pick apart a case as it was developing to ensure that all potential defenses had been considered and evaluated before a case was brought. Rosenberg developed a reputation for constructing “worst case” scenarios that government might face in trying a case, built upon potential case weaknesses, imperfections and even blemishes. So critical could Rosenberg be that it was not unheard of for Antitrust Division staff to be quite displeased with Rosenberg’s negative view of the merits of a Division case. At the Division, Rosenberg’s office was often referred to as “the Skunkworks” — a cozy den where Rosenberg anticipated potential defense strategies and “wargamed” the various anticipated angles of attack by the defense.

Rosenberg comes to the firm just a week after Wendy Norman, also a former Department of Justice prosecutor. According to Norman, “Rich’s creativity allowed trials staffs to better anticipate defenses and prepare for them. Although most of us appreciated Rich’s deconstruction of a case, it was often unpleasant and, for many, scary to hear.”

“Rich was notorious for the sleepless nights he would cause prosecutors,” Geyer added. “We used to joke that he was a plant by the manufacturer of Ambein. Sometimes we also joked that we didn’t know what team he worked for. We thought he might be part of a defense team strategy to scare us to death.” Norman concluded her assessment of Rosenberg by saying that “Luckily, we rarely encountered a defense as sophisticated as Rich developed, but when we did, we were ready.”

Rosenberg served in the Antitrust Division from 1979 to 2013. A graduate of Georgetown Law School, Rosenberg’s reputation within the Antitrust Division that was as important, influential and appreciated as it was closely held.

***Antitrust Monitor (Inaugural Issue): 2013 Forecast***

Posted on by

Renewed Vigilance Regarding Civil Enforcement; Continued Consolidation, Integration and Acceptance of Structural Changes at Criminal Program; Higher Morale

Baer’s Confirmation is unlikely to change momentum, policies or priorities.

As the Obama Administration prepares for a second term, Bill Baer has been confirmed as Assistant Attorney General.  The Antitrust Division’s informal profile photo of Baer captures his genuine humility and good will that many Antitrust Division attorneys will immediately recognize from numerous interactions with him when he represented clients as a partner at Arnold & Porter.  Baer’s easygoing nature is no contrivance and he will build on this long track record of good relations with many of the attorneys and mid-level managers at the Antitrust Division.  In addition to the normal productivity enhancements associated with having confirmed leadership at the helm, Baer’s tenure at the FTC suggests that he will implement an effective management style and push more expansive enforcement goals.  We also believe that Baer’s confirmation will improve morale (discussed more fully below) and Baer will quickly calm the ripples caused by programmatic changes that resulted in field office closure and attrition of seasoned prosecutors in the criminal program.

Continued Civil Enforcement Vigilance 

In its first term, the Obama Administration took some modest steps toward its goal of revitalizing civil enforcement.  The Division repudiated the Bush administration’s monopolization guidelines and expressed a greater willingness to challenge unilateral conduct and exclusionary business arrangements, although it only brought one monopolization case.  That the Obama administration managed a slight increase in second requests is significant since it occurred in the midst of significantly dampened merger activity caused by the financial crisis.  Perhaps the most telling metric was discovered by the Stanford Law Review (SLR Online, 65 STAN. L. REV. ONLINE 13, July 18, 2012):

“[t]he Bush Administration conducted 0.04 investigations per Hart-Scott filing; Obama conducted 0.05 investigations per filing. The Bush Administration made 0.013 second requests for information per Hart-Scott filing; Obama’s made 0.020—a 50% increase on a per capita basis.

Combine this 50% increase with a few more high profile enforcement actions that included AT&T/T-Mobile, H&R Block/TaxAct, NASDAQ/NYSE, and BCBS/Physicians Health, and the Obama administration can make a plausible case that it has already reinvigorated enforcement. During his Senate confirmation hearings in July, Baer told lawmakers that he supported Congressional action to repeal the Supreme Court’s Leegin decision which imposed rule of reason analysis for resale price maintenance where per se analysis, albeit with loopholes, had sufficed in the past.

This was music to Democratic ears in the Senate that clearly prefer more aggressive enforcement.  Senator Herb Kohl, D-Wis had expressed concerns back in July regarding Google potentially using its market power in search engine technology to favor its products and services.  Baer did not answer Kohl’s question as to Google, but he did share his enforcement philosophy generally: “being vigilant whether its Microsoft or Alcoa Aluminum about firms that are successful, and we don’t want to penalize success but to make sure it’s not improperly translated into unfair advantage in other markets, is really a key part of what antitrust is all about.”  This comment suggests a revival of monopoly leveraging, always a favorite of Democrat administrations even if the courts have been less receptive.

Will Baer lead the Division on a path to reinvigoration?  He may have provided an answer last week when he came out of the box swinging against the merger between Bazaarvoice and Powerreviews Inc. (involving online customer reviews for retailers) and Oklahoma Chiropractors (which challenged joint contracting agreements with insurers).  Of these first two significant actions of Baer’s tenure, Bazaarvoice is the one that is suggestive of reinvigoration and expansion.  The customer reviews market is evolving at rocket speed, there are challenges for the government regarding market definition and it is unclear that the barriers to entry can be all that high, particularly when well-funded behemoths like Google and Facebook seem to have position for market entry.  Notably, the company was vocal in its frustration about the “six months” it spent in negotiations with the Antitrust Division, suggesting that it could have announced this challenge prior to Baer taking the helm.  The fact that Baer announced it after he assumed his duties suggests that he sees a strong case.   Certainly it would not have escaped Baer’s attention that a decision like this would allow many to interpret this is a bullish signal that Baer plans to reinvigorate, revitalize and expand the Antitrust Division’s mission regarding civil enforcement.

At the FTC, Chairman Leibowitz, a Democrat, has served as an FTC commissioner for eight years and as chairman for almost four years. As rumors circulate regarding his likely departure, President Obama must consider potential replacements. The president could appoint a new chairman from the sitting Democratic commissioners, or he could choose someone from outside the agency. The president recently nominated Joshua Wright, a Republican, to replace outgoing Republican commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, whose term expired in September. Commissioner Rosch has indicated that he will stay in his position until the Senate confirms Wright. Although no more than three of the FTC’s five commissioners, who each serve seven-year terms, can be of the same political party, President Obama’s reelection ensures a Democratic majority at the FTC. Three of the five FTC commissioners will continue to be Democrats, and the chairman, who appoints the directors of the Bureaus of Competition and Consumer Protection, will also be a Democrat.  Accordingly, there is little reason to expect a new direction in antitrust enforcement priorities.

Continued Consolidation and Integration of Structural Changes at Criminal Program 

In the first Obama term, cartel enforcement was the Division’s top criminal priority to the exclusion of things like procurement fraud.  Almost certainly, these headwinds still exist, but time will tell whether Baer can be successful at reducing impediments to opening investigations that do not present themselves on first impression as Section 1 conduct.  Although people can argue over the causes, the Antitrust Division grand jury investigations plummeted from over 150 to fewer than 60 overall and new openings fell from 66 to 29.  Most of this came at the expense of Department’s procurement fraud program and overall anti-competitive deterrence in the area of government procurements has been grievously affected as a result.

On paper, cartel enforcement was little changed from the Bush years, although some of the Division’s numbers were marginally inflated by splitting criminal information’s in non-traditional ways and there is a widespread concern that the pipeline of “small” or “bread and butter” investigations is dry.  Airline Shipping and Auto Parts are behemoth investigations that generate a wealth of statistics, but there are 90 fewer industries that are the subject of grand jury investigations and it is impossible to measure deterrence that is not happening.

In procurement fraud, the Bush administration gave the Antitrust Division a long leash and authorized its use of resources in most allegations that affected the pre-award contract process.  As the Obama Administration strained its resources to support invigorated civil enforcement and it pushed investigative resources toward financial crimes, the administration implemented a series of policy changes that significantly reduced Antitrust Division criminal investigations.  First, it was made much more difficult for attorneys to open grand jury investigations involving matters that did not present themselves on first impression as suspected antitrust conspiracies.  Since very few antitrust criminal cases ever “present” as fully-fledged antitrust conspiracies (i.e.. evident participation by more than one competitor), investigation requests plummeted.  This effect was particularly pronounced in procurement because so few government contracts are awarded through an invitation for bid (”IFB”) process and more are awarded sole source, best value and through a request for proposal procedure where price is not the only factor.  These contracting schemes make it difficult, if not impossible as a matter of law, to use the Sherman Act to prosecute schemes affecting contracts that were not awarded through an IFB process.

Second, the Antitrust Division implemented a new, computerized tracking system that made it harder to keep open investigations that were not being actively investigated.  Because grand jury authority is held at the AAG level in contrast to the Criminal Division (delegated to the DAAG) and the United States Attorneys’ Offices (delegated to line assistants), getting grand jury investigations opened takes the Antitrust Division greater resources than other components.  Line attorneys refer to this process with dread as “the investigation to get grand jury investigative authority.”  Because the Antitrust Division has to invest greater resources into securing grants of grand jury authority and because this authority requires higher levels of approval, it is relatively unusual to reopen a grand jury investigation after closure.  In the past, keeping investigations “on the books” might allow a staff to focus on another industry or to offer help to another investigative staff on an investigation that had “gone hot.”  It also might allow another contract to be awarded or another coordinated price increase to be implemented that might significantly further the investigation.  For these and other reasons, putting open cases on the back burner became verboten and if investigations did not hit success early on they got closed.  The new case matter tracking system often pushes staffs to make tactical decisions that would be better made later after the emergence of new leads, information or evidence.  Ironically, in some respects, the Antitrust Division now pursues an operations policy that reminds line attorneys of some partner investigative agencies who years ago would have to close investigations and then struggle to reopen them if a staff determined that a three month delay was advisable.  Because case filings (i.e. stats) are the paramount metric, this provides disincentives to working any case that is at all considered “marginal” and the Division’s deterrence footprint has shrunk.

Third, by January 30, 2013, the Division will have closed four of its seven field offices, a move that has adversely impacted morale.  Although this was sold as a serious consolidation plan for which many employees would avail themselves and relocate to Washington D.C. or the remaining field offices (San Francisco, New York, and Chicago), this does not seem to be happening in any great numbers.  Using the Philadelphia and Cleveland Field Offices as examples, we count a total of three attorneys who will be staying with the Division.

Baer’s mission is not an easy one.  He joins the Antitrust Division just prior to the formal shut down of four offices and significant attrition; he joins an Antitrust Division that has fewer raw materials in the investigations pipeline.  Still we have caucused Antitrust Division attorneys who are staying with the agency and there is reason for optimism.  As word filters back that Antitrust Division attorneys who severed or retired were dealt with fairly and considerately, active concerns will dissipate and we believe Baer can drive a newly structured criminal program to fire on all cylinders by the end of this fiscal year.   There could be reinvigorated activity as a rumored new section formed in Washington D.C. (staffed by detailees and transferring attorneys) and offices in San Francisco, Chicago (currently slated for one additional expat prosecutor) and New York receive transferring prosecutors and lateral hires to stem attrition, and we expect to see vibrant competition by attorneys for investigations.  Most notably, the rumored new section in Washington D.C., that will be comprised of expats from some of the closed field offices, will see the National Criminal Enforcement Section (NCES) as its main competition and we expect fierce competition to develop creative strategies for generating new cases.

Former FEMA Executive Pleads Guilty to Federal Conflict of Interest Charge Defendant Sought Job From Company That Did Work for FEMA

Posted on by

WASHINGTON—Timothy W. Cannon, 63, the former director of human resources at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), pleaded guilty today to a charge of conflict of interest for negotiating employment with a polling and consulting services company that had a multi-million-dollar contract with FEMA, supervised by Cannon.

The plea occurred before the Honorable Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Sentencing is scheduled for April 9, 2013. The charge carries a statutory maximum of five years in prison.

The guilty plea was announced by Ronald C. Machen, Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division; Debra Evans Smith, Acting Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office; Christopher Cherry, Special Agent in Charge of the General Services Administration Office of Inspector General for the National Capital Region; and Mike Dawson, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General’s Washington Field Office.

According to the government’s evidence, from July 2007 through February 2009, Cannon was the director of FEMA’s Human Capital Division. In 2007, Cannon had discussions with a firm, identified in court papers as “Company A,” about FEMA hiring the firm to provide consulting services on human resources matters at FEMA. The work would be done through a project that would eventually be called the “BEST Workforce Initiative.”

In March 2008, the chief executive officer of Company A e-mailed another Company A employee, stating Cannon “said he has done everything to get a job at [Company A] because he believes so much in our products…said he wants to do a real good job at FEMA and that mabye [sic] he would try again….” On April 22, 2008, Company A’s CEO e-mailed another Company A employee that “…if [Cannon] gets us a big deal at FEMA…i [sic] think we should hire him…because he will be a ‘client’ hire…which might be good[.]” Later in the same e-mail chain, Company A’s CEO asked, “[I]s the ink dry yet on our deal with fema [sic] [?]” The Company A employee replied, “[N]o might be mid-May.” Company A’s CEO then stated, “[W]e should wait of course to see if we win a big quality deal here[.]”

On August 12, 2008, Company A was hired to administer the BEST Workforce Initiative at FEMA. The contract was valued at approximately $6 million over five years.

On November 18, 2008, a Company A employee advised Company A’s CEO in an e-mail, “I talked to Tim today. He asked for a job.” Company A’s CEO then stated, “What about ethics…are we okay with all of that…he is a significant client…am sure you know the rules…gee he seems like a winner to me…I don’t think these guys are as expensive as one might think…and he has a military background[.]”

In December 2008 and January 2009, Cannon requested additional funding for the BEST Workforce Initiative. On January 6, 2009, in an e-mail to a Company A employee, Cannon stated, “[A]h yes, I got another 500k put on the contract. Cool huh?”

On January 12, 2009, Cannon had an employment interview with Company A in Washington, D.C. On February 9, 2009, Company A sent an employment offer letter by e-mail to Cannon. The letter offered Cannon “the opportunity to join [Company A] as a Partner with our Government Division in Washington, D.C.” and guaranteed him a minimum annual salary of $175,000 for the first two years of employment. Cannon responded to the e-mail the same day, stating, “I am very excited about joining [Company A] and I look forward to working with you….” Following Cannon’s acceptance of Company A’s employment offer, Cannon continued to oversee and work on the BEST Workforce Initiative at FEMA.

Cannon retired from FEMA effective on February 27, 2009. On his public financial disclosure report, known as Form SF-278, Cannon indicated that he did not have any agreements or arrangements for “future employment” and he specifically did not list his future employment with Company A. On February 27, 2009, Cannon requested that Company A provide him with an offer letter dated after February 27, 2009, so that it would falsely appear that Cannon received Company A’s employment offer after he had resigned from FEMA. On March 2, 2009, Company A sent an updated version of the offer letter, with the new date of March 2, 2009, to Cannon. Cannon signed this updated version of the offer letter on March 3, 2009, and returned it to Company A.

In March 2009, a Company A employee voiced concerns internally about Cannon’s hiring. In addition, on March 25, 2009, a Company A employee stated in an e-mail to another Company A employee, “Well, I just got a call from and am getting more red flags about Tim Cannon. Apparently, word is getting around about his departure and joining [Company A]. There is speculation among is [sic] co-workers that this is improper. They are pretty mad. This may get in the way of future business with FEMA….This, plus the bankruptcy, plus appearance of ethics violations, both on [Company A] and FEMA side. This is not good….I think we are getting too many sign[s], and I do not think this will work.” On March 26, 2009, Company A informed Cannon that Company A’s offer of employment was being withdrawn. Company A told Cannon that he did not meet the background check requirements.

Later, on September 17, 2009, Cannon sent an e-mail to Company A’s CEO advising that Cannon had joined a consulting firm and asking to have lunch. Company A’s CEO forwarded that e-mail to other Company A employees stating, “This is a guy that was our sponsor at FEMA…he is so [Company A] gung ho…when he was applying we broke some of the rules of the U.S. Gov on the ‘how’ we do it…so we had to let him go….”

In announcing the guilty plea, U.S. Attorney Machen, Assistant Attorney General Breuer, Acting Assistant Director in Charge Smith, Special Agent in Charge Cherry, and Special Agent in Charge Dawson commended the outstanding investigative work of agents of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, Assistant Special Agent in Charge Floyd Martinez of the GSA OIG and agents of the DHS OIG, as well as agents and auditors of other federal investigative agencies that assisted with this case. They also praised the efforts of members of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Criminal Division Fraud Section, including Paralegal Specialists Diane Hayes and Nicole Wattelet; Legal Assistant Jamasee Lucas; Information Technology Specialist Joshua Ellen; forensic accountants in the Fraud and Public Corruption Section; and Assistant U.S. Attorney David Johnson, Trial Attorney Brian Young, and former Trial Attorney James Graham, who have prosecuted the case.

Georgia Men Plead Guilty to Bribing Official to Secure Government Contracts Defendants Admit to Overcharging Defense Department More Than $900,000

Posted on by
WASHINGTON – Two men employed by a machine products vendor in Albany, Ga., have pleaded guilty to bribing a public official working for a military organization at the Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany (MCLB-Albany) to secure contracts for machine products, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Michael J. Moore for the Middle District of Georgia.

Thomas J. Cole Jr., 43, and Fredrick W. Simon, 55, both of Albany, each pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge W. Louis Sands in the Middle District of Georgia to one count of bribery of a public official.

During their guilty pleas, Cole, the general manager of an Albany-based machine products vendor, and Simon, an employee responsible for processing sales orders, admitted to participating in a scheme to secure sales order contracts from the Maintenance Center Albany (MCA) at MCLB-Albany by subverting a competitive bid process.  The MCA is responsible for rebuilding and repairing ground combat and combat support equipment, much of which has been utilized in military missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as other parts of the world.  To accomplish the scheme, Cole and Simon bribed a MCA purchase tech responsible for placing machine product orders.  Cole and Simon admitted to participating in the scheme at the purchase tech’s suggestion, after Simon had spoken with the purchase tech about how his company could obtain business from the MCA.  Cole and Simon admitted that, at the purchase tech’s request, they paid the purchase tech a bribe of at least $75 for each of the more than 1,000 sales orders MCA placed with their company.  According to court documents, the purchase tech would transmit sales bids to Simon and then communicate privately to him exactly how much money the company should bid for each particular order.  Cole and Simon admitted that these orders were extremely profitable, often times exceeding the fair market value of the machine products, sometimes by as much as 1,000 percent.

Cole and Simon further admitted that, at the purchase tech’s urging, in 2011 they began routing some orders through a second company, owned by Cole, because the volume of orders MCA placed with the first company was so high.  They also admitted that the purchase tech increased the bribe required for orders as the scheme progressed.  Cole and Simon admitted to paying the purchase tech approximately $161,000 in bribes during the nearly two-year scheme.  Cole admitted to personally receiving approximately $209,000 in proceeds from the scheme; Simon admitted to personally receiving approximately $74,500.  Both admitted that the total loss to the Department of Defense from overcharges associated with the machine product orders placed during the scheme was approximately $907,000.

At sentencing, Cole and Simon each face a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison and a fine of not more than twice the pecuniary loss to the government.  As part of their plea agreements with the United States, Cole and Simon both agreed to forfeit the proceeds they received from the scheme, as well as to pay full restitution to the Department of Defense.  Sentencing has not yet been scheduled.

The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Richard B. Evans and J.P. Cooney of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney K. Alan Dasher of the Middle District of Georgia.  The case is being investigated by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, with assistance from the Dougherty County District Attorney’s Office Economic Crime Unit and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.

U.S. Army Major Pleads Guilty in South Carolina to Defrauding U.S. Government

Posted on by

WASHINGTON – A U.S. Army Major has pleaded guilty today to accepting thousands of dollars in gratuities from contractors while he was a U.S. Army captain deployed to Iraq, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney for the District of South Carolina William N. Nettles.

Ulysses S. Hicks, 40, of Sumter, S.C., pleaded guilty before U.S. District Chief Judge Margaret B. Seymour in the District of South Carolina to a criminal information charging him with one count of conspiracy to accept illegal gratuities.

According to court documents, Hicks was a captain in the U.S. Army, who was deployed to Forward Operating Base (FOB) Hammer in Iraq as a pay agent for field ordering officer (FOO) funds.  FOO funds are used to purchase miscellaneous items and supplies such as paint, lumber and plywood from local vendors.  It is a violation of federal law for pay agents to accept gratuities from contractors dependent upon them for contracts.

From about March 2007 through October 2008, Hicks, along with co-conspirator former U.S. Army Master Sergeant Julio Soto Jr., was involved with the construction of a government building at FOB Hammer by local Iraqi contractors.  According to court documents, Hicks and Soto unlawfully sought, received and accepted illegal gratuities for helping Iraqi contractors gain U.S. government contracts.  After accepting the illegal gratuities, Hicks and Soto purchased U.S. Postal money orders with the illegal proceeds and mailed them back to the United States.

At sentencing, Hicks faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison, a fine of $250,000 and up to three years of supervised release.  As part of his plea agreement, Hicks agreed to pay $65,409 plus interest in restitution to the United States.

Soto pleaded guilty on Aug. 29, 2012, before U.S. District Chief Judge Seymour to a criminal information charging him with one count of conspiracy to accept illegal gratuities.  On Dec. 7, 2012, Soto was sentenced to serve five years of probation and ordered to pay $62,542 in restitution.

This case is being prosecuted by Special Trial Attorney Mark Grider of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, on detail from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), and by Assistant U.S. Attorney Winston Holliday, Deputy Chief of the General Crimes Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina.  The case was investigated by SIGIR, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and the Major Procurement Fraud Unit of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command.

Caddell Construction Co. Commits to Pay $2 Million Penalty in Agreement to Resolve Criminal Fraud Violations

Posted on by

WASHINGTON – Caddell Construction Company Inc., a major commercial and industrial federal government construction contractor based in Montgomery, Ala., has entered into an agreement with the Department of Justice to resolve criminal fraud violations arising from Caddell’s intentional overstating of developmental assistance provided to a disadvantaged small business as part of a Department of Defense (DoD) program.  The agreement, including a $2 million penalty to be paid by Caddell, was announced today by Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

According to the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) between the government and Caddell, in February 2003, Caddell entered into an agreement with Mountain Chief – which is certified as a Native American, woman-owned and economically-disadvantaged small business – to participate in the DoD’s Mentor-Protégé Program, in which major DoD contractors (mentor firms) contract with and provide developmental assistance to disadvantaged small businesses (protégé firms) and are reimbursed by the DoD for related costs.

Around the same time, Caddell began participating with Mountain Chief in DoD’s Indian Incentive Program, which provides incentives – in the form of a rebate of 5 percent of the total dollar amount of work – for major DoD contractors to engage Native-American-owned businesses as subcontractors and suppliers.  Caddell and Mountain Chief participated in these programs in connection with two DoD construction contracts at Fort Bragg, N.C., each worth approximately $65 million and a DoD construction project at Fort Campbell, Ky., worth approximately $34 million.

According to the NPA, from February 2004 to March 2005, Caddell submitted more than 20 requests for payment to the DoD in connection with the Mentor-Protégé Program that significantly overstated the amount of developmental assistance Caddell had provided Mountain Chief.  In addition, Caddell filed documents falsely stating Mountain Chief’s size and income, as well as the status of Mountain Chief’s technical capabilities and business infrastructure.  From April 2003 to October 2004, Caddell also submitted at least eight requests to the DoD for the Indian Incentive Program, for rebates based on services purportedly performed on subcontracts Caddell gave to Mountain Chief.  Mountain Chief performed few, if any of these services, and the invoices were created solely to support Caddell’s applications for payment.

As part of the NPA, Caddell will pay a $2 million criminal penalty, and must cooperate with the Department of Justice for the two-year term of the agreement.  The agreement recognizes Caddell’s voluntary disclosure; thorough self-investigation of the underlying conduct; and full cooperation with the department and remedial measures already undertaken and to be undertaken, including employment actions and improving reporting systems, corporate governance, and compliance training and oversight.  As a result of these factors, among others, the department agreed not to prosecute Caddell for the improper pay requests, provided Caddell satisfies its ongoing obligations under the agreement.

In January 2012, Daniel W. Chattin, 50, of Granite Bay, Calif., the son of Mountain Chief’s owner and a project manager and consultant for Mountain Chief, and Mark L. Hill, 57, of Montgomery, Ala., the Mentor-Protégé Program Coordinator and a director of business development at Caddell, were indicted in the Middle District of Alabama on three counts of major fraud against the United States stemming from the same scheme.  In addition, Hill was charged with one count of making a false statement to the DoD.  Chattin and Hill await trial, which is scheduled to begin on April 22, 2013.  The charges and allegations against Chattin and Hill are merely accusations and they are considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.

This investigation is being conducted by the General Services Administration – Office of Inspector General, and the DoD’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service.  This case is being handled by Assistant Chief Albert B. Stieglitz Jr. and Trial Attorney Thomas B.W. Hall of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.

Former U.S. Army Major Sentenced to 18 Months in Prison for Bribery Scheme Related to Department of Defense Contracts in Kuwait

Posted on by
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Former U.S. Army Major Sentenced to 18 Months in Prison for Bribery Scheme Related to Department of Defense Contracts in Kuwait
To Date, 19 Individuals Have Pleaded Guilty or Been Convicted at Trial in Ongoing Corruption Investigation

WASHINGTON – A former U.S. Army Major was sentenced today to 18 months in prison for his participation in a bribery scheme related to his activities as a contracting official in Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, in 2005 and 2006, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

 

James Momon Jr., 40, of Alexandria, Va., was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in the District of Columbia.   In addition to his prison term, Momon was sentenced to serve three years of supervised release and pay $5.8 million in restitution, jointly and severally with co-defendants.

 

Momon pleaded guilty on Aug. 13, 2008, to two counts of bribery and one count of conspiracy.

 

According to plea documents, Momon, was involved in a criminal conspiracy to accept cash bribes from multiple U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) contracting firms that supplied bottled water and other goods and services to U.S. military bases in Kuwait.   In return, Momon assisted in the award of contracts as well as blanket purchase agreements (BPA) – contracts that allow DoD to order supplies on an as-needed basis at a pre-negotiated price.   Momon agreed to accept approximately $5.8 million from his co-conspirators as payment for his actions, including $1.6 million in cash and luxury items.

 

According to plea documents, Momon took over contracting duties at Camp Arifjan from former U.S. Army Major John C. Cockerham, who served as a contracting official in Kuwait in 2004 and 2005.  Cockerham, who solicited and received bribes from DoD contractors in exchange for contracts and BPAs for bottled water and other goods and services, pleaded guilty for his role in the conspiracy in February 2008 and was sentenced to serve 210 months in prison and ordered to pay $9 million in restitution.

 

To date, a total of 19 individuals have pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial in the ongoing investigation of corrupt contracting at Camp Arifjan.

 

This case was prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Peter C. Sprung, Eric G. Olshan, Edward J. Loya Jr. and Timothy J. Kelly of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section.   The case is being investigated by special agents of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the Army Criminal Investigation Command Division, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation, the FBI and the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction.

US Government Intervenes in Whistleblower Lawsuit Against Fluor Companies

Posted on by
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, November 8, 2012
US Government Intervenes in False Claims Lawsuit Against Fluor Companies
Texas-based Company Allegedly Used Federal Funds for Lobbying Activities

The government has intervened in a lawsuit against Fluor Hanford Inc. and its parent company, Fluor Corporation (collectively Fluor), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, the Justice Department announced today.   Fluor Hanford, Inc. is a subsidiary of Fluor Corporation, a Texas-based corporation that provides a wide variety of services to government and private customers.   The False Claims Act lawsuit was originally filed by whistleblower Loydene Rambo, a former employee of Fluor.

 

Between 1999 and 2008, Fluor had a prime contract with the Department of Energy (DOE) to provide a wide variety of security, maintenance and operational services at the DOE’s Hanford Nuclear Site in southeastern Washington State.   As part of its contract, Fluor was responsible for managing and operating the Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response (HAMMER) Center, a federally-funded facility established to train Hanford site workers as well as first responders and law enforcement personnel.

The whistleblower complaint alleges that, as a condition of receiving its DOE contract, Fluor was required to certify that it would not use federal funds for lobbying activities.   The complaint further alleges that between 2005 and 2008, Fluor ignored these restrictions and used DOE funding to lobby Congress and executive branch officials for more funding for HAMMER.   The complaint alleges that Fluor, and two lobbying firms hired by Fluor and paid using DOE funds, Secure Horizons LLC and Congressional Strategies LLC, lobbied members of Congress and executive branch agencies to include additional funds for HAMMER in agency appropriations.  The United States intervened in the lawsuit with respect to Fluor, but declined to intervene with respect to additional defendants, including Secure Horizons LLC and Congressional Strategies LLC.

“The taxpayer money Congress allocated for this program was for training federal emergency response personnel and first responders, not to lobby Congress and others for more funding,” said Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice.   “When public funds are misused, as alleged in this case, the Justice Department will work to restore them to the Treasury.”

“The allegations set forth in the whistleblower complaint are troubling and very serious,”

said Michael C. Ormsby, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington. “My Office will continue to work with the Justice Department to ensure a just resolution of these alleged violations of federal law.”

Ms. Rambo’s lawsuit was filed under the False Claims Act, which authorizes private parties to sue on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery.   The act authorizes the United States to intervene in such a suit and take over the responsibility for litigating it.   The United States has informed the court that it intends to file its own complaint in the action.

The case is being handled by the Civil Division of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Washington, with the assistance of the Department of Energy Office of Inspector General.

Ms. Rambo’s lawsuit is captioned U.S. ex rel. Rambo v. Fluor Hanford, et al., cv-11-5037.   The claims asserted in this case are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

California Man Sentenced to 15 Months in Prison For Conspiracy to Defraud USAID of $386,279 – Admitted Scheme to Embezzle Agency Funds Meant for Global Health

Posted on by

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For Information Contact:
Tuesday, November 6, 2012 Public Affairs
(202) 252-6933

WASHINGTON – Everett Lipscomb Jr., 42, of Aliso Viejo, Calif., has been sentenced
to 15 months in prison on a charge stemming from his role in a conspiracy to embezzle more than $386,000 from a federal program meant to address global health problems.
The sentence was announced by Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of
Columbia, and Michael G. Carroll, Deputy Inspector General for the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID).
Lipscomb pled guilty in March 2012 to one count of conspiracy to commit wire and mail
fraud, a federal felony. He was sentenced on Nov. 5, 2012 by the Honorable Beryl A. Howell in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. As part of his sentence, Lipscomb was ordered to pay full restitution of $386,279 to USAID. Lipscomb also consented to an order forfeiting any property he owned up to that amount. As indicated in court filings, the government has already seized about $49,000 in proceeds from the scheme from other coconspirators. Upon completion of his prison term, Lipscomb will be placed on two years of supervised release.
As part of his plea, Lipscomb admitted that he conspired together with Mark Adams, a
former deputy director at a private contractor that did business with USAID, and Adams’s wife, Latasha Bell. Lipscomb admitted that Adams used his position at the contracting company to submit and approve false and fraudulent invoices and thereby obtain money.
In Lipscomb’s case, the bogus invoices claimed amounts due for services from Octopus
Limited Audio and Visual, a company controlled by Lipscomb. However, neither Lipscomb nor Octopus – or anyone else – performed the work and services claimed on the invoices. Lipscomb admitted that between April 2008 and August 2010, he received payments from the USAID contracting company totaling $386,279. Of that amount, Lipscomb kept $157,372 for himself and passed the remainder, $228,907, back to Adams and Bell.
Lipscomb further admitted that the fraudulent bills were paid with money that should
have been used for USAID’s global health program. The program addresses major global issues, including HIV/AIDS. At sentencing, Judge Howell noted that the company that employed Adams was seriously impacted by the crime. The company lost its contract with USAID and several employees lost their jobs as a result.
Adams, 44, and Bell, 36, of Fort Washington, Md., pled guilty last month to their roles in
the conspiracy. Adams admitted that the scheme involved more than $1.084 million in
fraudulent payments through such fake invoices between 2006 and 2010. Adams and Bell used the payments to complete an extensive renovation of their home and to buy luxury automobiles.
Adams and Bell are scheduled to be sentenced on Dec. 14, 2012, also before Judge
Howell. Under federal sentencing guidelines, Adams faces a sentence of up to 51 to 63 months of incarceration. Under the plea agreement, Bell agreed to a sentence of home confinement.
In announcing the sentence, U.S. Attorney Machen and Deputy Inspector General Carroll
commended the work of the special agents from the USAID Office of Inspector General, which investigated the case. They also thanked those who worked on the case from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, including Paralegal Specialists Krishawn Graham and Nicole Wattelet, Forensic Accountant Crystal Boodoo, Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Saler, who handled forfeiture issues, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Hooks, who is prosecuting the case.

IG report: Iraqi auditors point to huge money laundering ($800 million per week)

Posted on by

10/30/2012  IG report: Iraqi auditors point to huge money laundering Stars and Stripes

“Iraqi auditors believe as much as $800 million in U.S. dollars is being sent out of the country illegally each week, draining it of hard currency, according to a report by American inspectors released Tuesday.

The findings point to widespread money laundering and could focus further attention on oversight at Iraq’s central bank, which is at the heart of a probe into alleged financial wrongdoing involving its former governor and other top officials.

The U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction said in a report that auditors in Baghdad fear up to 80 percent of an estimated $1 billion leaving the country weekly lacks proper documentation.