title: Rohnert Park Resident Convicted Of East Bay Bank Robbery Spree

body_text: OAKLAND – A federal jury convicted William Mulligan today of two counts of bank robbery and two counts of attempted bank robbery relating to an East Bay bank robbery spree in January of 2021, announced United States Attorney Stephanie M. Hinds and Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge Robert K. Tripp. The conviction follows a four-day trial before the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, United States District Judge. Mulligan, 36, of Rohnert Park, was charged on May 13, 2021, in a federal indictment alleging multiple counts of bank robbery and attempted robbery, all taking place in January of 2021. At trial, the government showed that on January 11, 2021, Mulligan entered a Bank of America branch in Dublin, Calif., presented a robbery note to the teller, and walked away with $8,650 in cash. Then, on January 25, 2021, Mulligan robbed or attempted to rob three East Bay banks. First, Mulligan entered a Bank of America branch in Pleasant Hill, Calif., presented the robbery note, but the teller refused to give him any money. Twenty minutes later, Mulligan entered a Bank of America branch in Walnut Creek, Calif., presented the robbery note to the teller, who retreated to the bank’s vault room without giving Mulligan any money. Shortly thereafter, Mulligan entered a Wells Fargo branch in Concord, Calif., presented the robbery note and obtained $1,160 from the bank teller. Three days later, on January 28, 2021, Mulligan was pulled over while driving a white Nissan with a black spoiler, distinctive stickers, and no license plates, the same car seen on surveillance footage at the Dublin and Walnut Creek robberies. After Mulligan’s arrest, officers discovered a robbery note in his wallet and a subsequent FBI search of his car revealed clothing matching that worn during all four bank robberies and attempted bank robberies. On May 13, 2021, a federal grand jury indicted Mulligan, charging him with five counts of robbery and attempted bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). At trial, the government presented evidence demonstrating Mulligan was guilty of four of the counts and the jury convicted Mulligan of all the counts tried. Mulligan faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison per count, as well as a $250,000 fine. In addition, the court may order restitution and an additional term of supervised release. However, any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Judge Gonzalez Rogers ordered that Mulligan remain detained pending sentencing and has not yet scheduled a sentencing date. Assistant United States Attorneys Abraham Fine and Benjamin K. Kleinman of the Oakland Branch of the United States Attorney’s Office are prosecuting the case with assistance from Kay Konopaske, Kathleen Turner, Jessie Chelsea and Margoth Turcios. The prosecution is a result of an investigation by the FBI.


title: Western North Carolina Dog Fighters Sentenced To Federal Prison

component: USAO - North Carolina, Western

body_text: ASHEVILLE, N.C. – Two North Carolina men were sentenced today for violations of the Animal Welfare Act for engaging in dog fighting and related criminal conduct, announced Dena J. King, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina. Laddie Dwayne McMillian, 47, will serve 16 months in prison and Derrick Twitty, 48, will serve six months in prison. Both defendants will serve two years of supervised release following the completion of their sentences and are prohibited from possessing any dogs during the term of supervision, including through a third party. According to court documents, McMillian conspired to breed, train, and fight dogs for nearly 15 years. He openly boasted of owning and operating “mass destruction kennels,” a fighting dog breeding operation. On Jan. 27, 2020, McMillian shared a video of his “yard,” showcasing 13 dogs. He also shared videos of his dogs engaged in fights. In one video, which lasts four minutes and 57 seconds, two dogs are seen fighting in a typical fighting pit. By the end of the video, the dogs’ faces and ears are bleeding and raw. In early 2020, Twitty joined the fighting and breeding operations, and together, the two trained and bred dogs for dog fights, scheduled “roll” fights, and tended to their dog’s injuries. A “roll” is a fight between two dogs for a short period of time, testing the dogs’ fighting abilities and is an “animal fighting venture.” “Slick Rick” was their prize fighter. Born in January 2018, McMillian trained and subjected Slick Rick to fights, over and over again. He died in January 2022, a few weeks after McMillian sponsored him in a dog fight. “The life and death of this dog reflects the defendants’ extraordinary cruelty, abuse, and mistreatment of animals for entertainment – criminal conduct that our division has and will continue to aggressively prosecute,” said Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “The defendants in this case treated dogs like a commodity, bred and trained to fight, often to death, for the amusement of spectators taking part in this cruel activity,” said U.S. Attorney King. “Dogfighting is an illegal blood sport that subjects animals to incredible pain and suffering. It is also a federal crime and one that has the full attention of my office and our law enforcement counterparts.” “The barbaric practice of pitting animals against each other in a fight to the death has no place in this country,” said Acting Special Agent in Charge Salina Walker of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General (USDA-OIG). “The outstanding work of our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners who investigated this case and the prosecutors of the Department of Justice made it possible to bring this individual of a major animal fighting venture to justice. USDA-OIG has made animal fighting a high priority in order to demonstrate that these inhumane acts of cruelty to animals will not be tolerated.” The USDA-OIG and North Carolina’s Polk County Sheriff’s Office investigated the case. Senior Trial Attorney Banumathi Rangarajan and Trial Attorney William J. Shapiro of the Environment and Natural Resources Division’s Environmental Crimes Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Don Gast of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Asheville prosecuted the case.


title: Charlotte Business Owners Plead Guilty To Selling Fraudulently Obtained New iPhones Overseas

body_text: CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Two Charlotte business owners, Hamzeh Jamal Alasfar, 31, and Tayseer Issam Alkhayyat, 35, both of Charlotte, pleaded guilty today in federal court before Judge Kenneth D. Bell to charges related to selling and shipping fraudulently obtained and stolen new Apple iPhones to an international buyer, announced Dena J. King, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina. Jason Byrnes, Special Agent in Charge of the United States Secret Service, Charlotte Field Office, and Chief Johnny Jennings of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) join U.S. Attorney King in making today’s announcement. According to the factual basis filed in the case, as early as 2013 and continuing through at least 2019, Alasfar and Alkhayyat engaged in a scheme to purchase stolen and fraudulently obtained new Apple iPhones and other electronic devices, and sell and ship the devices to buyers located in other states and foreign countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Hong Kong. Filed court documents show that Alasfar and Alkhayyat owned multiple businesses located in Charlotte, including Cellport International Inc. (Cellport) and D Town Wireless (D Town), which were used in the scheme. Between January 2019 and January 2020, the defendants sold and shipped through Cellport more than 20,000 new iPhones for more than $20 million. Alasfar and Alkhayyat each pleaded guilty to one count of interstate and foreign transportation of stolen property, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years and a $250,000 fine per count. Alasfar and Alkhayyat remain on release pending their sentencing hearings, which will be scheduled in federal court in Charlotte. This case was the result of the investigative efforts of CMPD and the Secret Service, which have established a fully integrated partnership to combat organized criminal groups operating in Charlotte. Through this partnership, this unit has successfully leveraged local and federal resources, personnel, expertise and authorities to identify and combat the criminals and criminal organizations that have the largest negative impact on the community. Assistant U.S. Attorneys William T. Bozin and Michael E. Savage of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Charlotte are prosecuting the case.


title: Houston Area Man Sentenced for Selling, Mailing Counterfeit Native American Goods

component: USAO - Texas, Western

body_text: SAN ANTONIO – A Kingwood man was sentenced in federal court in San Antonio Tuesday to five years of probation for mail fraud and misrepresentation of Indian Goods under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. According to court documents, Kevin Charles Kowalis, 60, fraudulently marketed and sold jewelry online that he described as “Native American Indian Handmade,” “genuine Indian handcrafted,” “Zuni,” and “Navajo.” He had received the counterfeit jewelry from a manufacturer in the Philippines unaffiliated with any federally recognized Native American tribe. Kowalis fulfilled an order of the jewelry to a San Antonio-based customer, mailing several packages through the U.S. Postal Service. In addition to the five-year probation sentence, Kowalis was ordered to forfeit his inventory and pay restitution to a victimized artist. “Fraud can come in many forms but always carries the intent to deceive a victim,” said U.S. Attorney Jaime Esparza of the Western District of Texas. “Offenders like this defendant victimize both our cherished Native American community and consumers who believe they’re collecting authentic pieces of Native American culture. We will not stand idle while someone takes advantage of our citizens and our federal resources.” “This sentencing is important in the fight to end this type of fraud. Our dedicated team of special agents works on behalf of the Department of the Interior and the Indian Arts and Crafts Board to protect American Indian and Alaska Native artists and the consumers who purchase authentic Native American art and craftwork,” said Assistant Director Edward J. Grace of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Office of Law Enforcement. "We thank our partners at the U.S. Department of Justice for their assistance with this investigation." “For those selling counterfeit Indian art and craftwork it is important to know that wherever you are we will diligently work to find and prosecute you under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act,” said Director Meridith Stanton of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Indian Arts and Crafts Board. “This case provides a vivid demonstration of that commitment.” The USFWS Office of Law Enforcement investigated the case with the assistance of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Indian Arts and Crafts Board. Assistant U.S. Attorney William Calve prosecuted the case. ###


title: United States Attorney W. Stephen Muldrow Announces Implementation of New Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy and New Monitor Selection for Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policy

component: Office of the Deputy Attorney General

body_text: United States Attorney W. Stephen Muldrow announced that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Puerto Rico has implemented the new United States Attorney’s Offices’ Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (the “VSD Policy”) and the United States Attorney’s Offices’ Monitor Selection for Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policy (the “MS-CCE Policy”) released earlier today, which are effective immediately. The VSD Policy details the circumstances under which a company will be considered to have made a voluntary self-disclosure (VSD) of misconduct to a United States Attorney’s Office (USAO), and provides transparency and predictability to companies and the defense bar concerning the concrete benefits and potential outcomes in cases where companies voluntarily self-disclose misconduct, fully cooperate and timely and appropriately remediate. The goal of the VSD policy is to standardize how VSDs are defined and credited by USAOs nationwide, and to incentivize companies to maintain effective compliance programs capable of identifying misconduct, to expeditiously and voluntarily disclose and remediate misconduct, and to cooperate fully with the government in corporate criminal investigations. The VSD policy was developed pursuant to the Deputy Attorney General’s September 15, 2022 memorandum, “Further Revisions to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies Following Discussions with Corporate Crime Advisory Group” (Monaco Memo), which directed each Department of Justice (DOJ) component that prosecutes corporate crime to review its policies on corporate voluntary self-disclosure and, if there was no formal written policy to incentivize self-disclosure, draft and publicly share such a policy. Under the new VSD Policy, a company is considered to have made a VSD if it becomes aware of misconduct by employees or agents before that misconduct is publicly reported or otherwise known to the DOJ, and discloses all relevant facts known to the company about the misconduct to a USAO in a timely fashion prior to an imminent threat of disclosure or government investigation. A company that voluntarily self-discloses as defined in the policy and fully meets the other requirements of the policy, by—in the absence of any aggravating factor—fully cooperating and timely and appropriately remediating the criminal conduct (including agreeing to pay all disgorgement, forfeiture, and restitution resulting from the misconduct), will receive significant benefits, including that the USAO will not seek a guilty plea; may choose not to impose any criminal penalty, and in any event will not impose a criminal penalty that is greater than 50% below the low end of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) fine range; and will not seek the imposition of an independent compliance monitor if the company demonstrates that it has implemented and tested an effective compliance program. The VSD Policy identifies three aggravating factors that may warrant a USAO seeking a guilty plea even if the other requirements of the VSD policy are met: (1) if the misconduct poses a grave threat to national security, public health, or the environment; (2) if the misconduct is deeply pervasive throughout the company; or (3) if the misconduct involved current executive management of the company. The presence of an aggravating factor does not necessarily mean that a guilty plea will be required; instead, the USAO will assess the relevant facts and circumstances to determine the appropriate resolution. If a guilty plea is ultimately required, the company will still receive the other benefits under the VSD policy, including that the USAO will recommend a criminal penalty of at least a 50% and up to a 75% reduction off the low end of the USSG fine range, and that the USAO will not require the appointment of a monitor if the company has implemented and tested an effective compliance program. In cases where a company is being jointly prosecuted by a USAO and another DOJ component, or where the misconduct reported by the company falls within the scope of conduct covered by VSD policies administered by other DOJ components, the USAO will coordinate with, or, if necessary, obtain approval from, the DOJ component responsible for the VSD Policy specific to the reported misconduct when considering a potential resolution. Consistent with relevant provisions of the Justice Manual and as allowable under alternate VSD policies, the USAO may choose to apply any provision of an alternate VSD policy in addition to, or in place of, any provision of its policy. The Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (AGAC), under the leadership of United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Damian Williams, requested that the White Collar Fraud Subcommittee of the AGAC, under the leadership of United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Breon Peace, develop policies in response to the Deputy AG’s memo. The VSD Policy announced today was prepared by a Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policy Working Group comprised of U.S. Attorneys from geographically diverse districts, including U.S. Attorney Peace, as well as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Jessica Aber, U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut Vanessa Avery, U.S. Attorney for the District of Hawaii Clare Connors, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina Michael F. Easley, Jr., U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California Stephanie Hinds, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia Christopher Kavanaugh, and U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Philip Sellinger. Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda Riedel, White Collar Crimes Coordinator for the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, also participated in the development of the VSD Policy. The MS-CCE Policy establishes the standards, policy, and procedures for the selection of monitors in criminal matters being handled by USAO-PR and apply to all determinations regarding whether a monitor is appropriate in specific criminal cases and to any deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”), non-prosecution agreement (“NPA”), or plea agreement between the USAO and a company which requires the retention of a monitor. This policy provides a non-exhaustive list of factors to be evaluated by prosecutors in assessing the need for the imposition of a monitor on a case-by-cases basis. In general, the USAO should favor the imposition of a monitor where there is a demonstrated need for, and clear benefit to be derived from, a monitorship. # # #


title: Operators of Addiction Treatment Chain Charged in Alleged Health Care Fraud

component: Criminal Investigative Division (FBI)

body_text: PROVIDENCE – The Massachusetts operator of a chain of addiction treatment clinics is charged in federal court in Providence, RI, with millions of dollars of health care fraud, aggravated identity theft, money laundering and obstruction, announced United States Attorney Zachary A. Cunha. In addition, the treatment center and its former supervisory counselor were also charged with health care fraud. Michael Brier, 60, of Newton, MA, Mi Ok Bruining, 62, of Warwick, RI, and Recovery Connections Centers of America, Inc. (RCCA) are charged by criminal complaint with health care fraud. Michael Brier was also charged in the complaint with aggravated identity theft, money laundering and obstruction. It is alleged in court documents that, Brier, Bruining, and RCCA shortchanged Rhode Island and Massachusetts substance abuse disorder patients out of much needed counseling and treatment services, while defrauding Medicare, Medicaid, and other health insurers out of millions of dollars. At a press conference announcing the culmination of this investigation and resulting criminal charges and arrests, United States Attorney Zachary A. Cunha commented, “What makes the fraud scheme that we have charged today particularly pernicious – is that not only was this scheme, as we allege, designed to defraud by enriching these defendants with federal and private healthcare dollars they did not earn, but that in the process it cheated a vulnerable population of recovery patients out of the full, genuine support and treatment that they need to have a chance at recovery.” "Today’s arrests serve as a strong reminder that we will not tolerate fraud schemes that target our federal health care programs, as alleged, nor will we accept anything less than high quality care for the people served by those programs,” said Special Agent in Charge Phillip M. Coyne of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. “Our agency’s mission is to protect the well-being of the public and the integrity of the federal health care system, and we will hold accountable those who seek to exploit the opioid epidemic for personal gain.” “Today, we arrested and charged Michael Brier, Mi Ok Bruining, and Recovery Connections Centers of America, for a wide-ranging scheme in which they are accused of abusing our health care system, cheating taxpayers, and leveraging the opioid crisis to take advantage of those struggling with substance abuse so the company could rake in millions,” said Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Boston Division. “The allegations set forth in this case represent one of the most brazen and egregious examples of health care fraud the FBI has seen here in Rhode Island in recent history, and make no mistake, it is not a victimless crime. Anytime the integrity of our federal health care programs is undermined, we all pay the price through the cost of higher insurance premiums, greater out-of-pocket expenses, and co-pays, and even reduced or lost benefits.” According to the charging documents, Brier, Bruining and RCCA operated a chain of addiction treatment centers but failed to provide the patients with the required counseling sessions and treatment, while simultaneous billing Medicare, Medicaid and other health care payors for 45-minute counseling sessions on a routine basis even though the sessions were not more than 15 minutes, and often only 5-10 minutes or less. At times, so many counseling sessions were billed at this level that the total amount of time would be impossible for the available therapist to have provided in any 24 hours period. Brier and RCCA are also alleged to have caused a fraudulent application to be submitted to Medicare which, among other things, misrepresented and concealed the role that Brier was playing in the business and failed to disclose Brier’s 2013 criminal conviction for federal tax crimes, which was relevant to Medicare’s consideration of the application. The Complaint also alleges that Brier purported to practice medicine and wrote and caused to be filled fraudulent prescriptions using the names and prescriber information, including Drug Enforcement Administration numbers, of doctors without their permission. Brier is also alleged to have falsified a document in a matter within the jurisdiction of an agency of the United States by causing the Medical Director to sign a false and back-dated document. The complaint alleges that defendants caused millions of dollars in fraudulent billings to be submitted to Medicare and millions more in fraudulent billings to other health care payors. The government is also seeking to forfeit thirteen bank accounts, two buildings, and two vehicles allegedly realized by the defendants as a result of the alleged criminal conduct. A federal criminal complaint is merely an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Sara Miron Bloom and Kevin Love Hubbard. The matter was investigated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. United States Attorney Cunha thanks the IRS, Customs and Border Protection, and the Rhode Island Office of the Attorney General for their assistance in the investigation. Additionally, United States Attorney Cunha thanks the United States Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control, and their partners in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, for their quick response to establish services for patients who may be impacted by this law enforcement action . Additionally, United States Attorney Cunha thanks the United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Opioid Rapid Response Program, and their partners in Rhode Island Department of Behavioral Healthcare and Massachusetts Department of Public Health, for assisting patients who may be impacted by this law enforcement action. Rhode Island Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals is working to assure continuity of treatment for RCCA patients. Rhode Island patients in need of a new or immediate bridge prescription are urged to call (401) 606-5454; Rhode Island patients in need of behavioral health referrals for physicians, counselor, or clinic information may call (410) 414-LINK. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau of Substance Addiction Service is working to assure continuity of care and treatment RCCA patients. Massachusetts patients in need of a new or immediate bridge prescription are urged to call (617) 414-4175; Massachusetts patients in need of behavioral health referrals for physicians, counselor, or other services may call (800) 327-5050 or use helplinema.com . ###


title: Justice Department Secures Settlement in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Michigan Landlord

component: Civil Rights Division

body_text: The Justice Department announced today that it has secured an agreement to resolve a lawsuit alleging that landlord Darrell Jones of Muskegon, Michigan, violated the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing female tenants. The settlement also resolves claims against Fatima Jones and Jones Investing, LLC, which, along with Jones, owned the properties where the alleged harassment occurred. “The Fair Housing Act protects the rights of tenants to live in peace and security without the fear that their housing provider will sexually harass them,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department is committed to holding housing providers accountable for their unlawful behavior and seeking relief for survivors.” “The sexual harassment of tenants is an intolerable abuse of power that violates federal civil rights laws,” said U.S. Attorney Mark A. Totten for the Western District of Michigan. “No one should have to endure harassment and discrimination, especially in their own homes. My office is committed to protecting the rights of vulnerable tenants and will continue to vigorously enforce the Fair Housing Act to combat discrimination and secure justice for victims.” Under the agreement, which still must be approved by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, defendants are required to pay $155,000 to compensate individuals harmed by the harassment and pay a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States. The consent order also requires the defendants to: Retain an independent property manager to manage their rental properties for the duration of the order; Obtain fair housing training; and Implement non-discrimination policies and complaint procedures to prevent sexual harassment at their properties in the future. The lawsuit, filed in June 2020, alleged that since at least 2008, Jones subjected female tenants to harassment that included making repeated and unwelcome sexual comments, touching tenants’ bodies without their consent, demanding sexual activity in exchange for rent and housing-related benefits and taking adverse actions against tenants who resisted his sexual advances or complained about the harassment. This case was referred to the Justice Department by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan and was litigated by attorneys in the department’s Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Michigan. The Justice Department’s Sexual Harassment in Housing Initiative is led by the Civil Rights Division, in coordination with U.S. Attorney’s Offices across the country. The goal of the department’s initiative is to address and raise awareness about sexual harassment by landlords, property managers, maintenance workers, loan officers, or other people who have control over housing. Since launching the initiative in October 2017, the department has filed 28 lawsuits alleging sexual harassment in housing and recovered more than $9.8 million for victims of such harassment. The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division enforces the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status. More information about the Civil Rights Division and the laws it enforces is available at http://www.justice.gov/crt . Individuals may report sexual harassment or other forms of housing discrimination by calling the Justice Department’s Housing Discrimination Tip Line at 1-833-591-0291, or submitting a report online . Individuals may also report such discrimination by contacting HUD at 1-800-669-9777 or by filing a complaint online


title: Comptroller of a Non-Profit Corporation in Aguada, PR Sentenced to Two Years in Prison for Fraud Scheme

component: Office of the Inspector General

body_text: SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – Margarita Botti-Nieves was sentenced by United States District Court Senior Judge Francisco A. Besosa to serve 24 months in prison followed by a supervised release term of three years, announced United States Attorney W. Stephen Muldrow. On October 11, 2022, Botti-Nieves was indicted and pleaded guilty to misappropriation of funds, tax evasion, and obstruction of a tax investigation. Defendant Margarita Botti-Nieves was an employee, accountant, and agent of Programa de Apoyo y Enlace Comunitario, Inc. (“PAEC”). PAEC was a non-profit corporation organized in Puerto Rico which received and administered benefits under various Federal programs involving grants, contracts, and Federal assistance. According to court documents, from in or about September 2016 and continuing until June 2019, the defendant did willfully evade the payment of a substantial portion of the employment taxes owed by PAEC to the United States of America, by committing the following affirmative acts among others: a. Caused submission of false statements to the IRS; b. Provided false information and fraudulent documentation to PAEC for purported payments to the IRS which were never made; c. Caused the preparation of false tax documents that misreported PAEC employees’ tax witholdings; d. Caused funds to be transferred from PAEC bank account to different accounts defendant controlled in order to divert funds to be used for personal expenses. e. Caused the tax returns to be filed with the IRS in an attempt to evade and defeat the payment of employment taxes due and owing by PAEC to the United States. “Convictions such as this send a loud and clear message that those who defy our nation’s tax laws will be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” said U.S. Attorney Muldrow. “The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration will continue to aggressively pursue those who attempt to defraud the Federal tax system and undermine the integrity of the Internal Revenue Service,” stated J. Russell George, Treasury Inspector General of Tax Administration. “We appreciate the efforts of our law enforcement partners and the United States Attorney’s Office to ensure this criminal activity is held to account.” Assistant U.S. Attorney María L. Montañez prosecuted the case. The case was investigated by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration; the Internal Revenue Service, Office of Criminal Investigations; United States Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General; AmeriCorps-The Corporation for National and Community Service; Department of Justice Office of Inspector General. ###


title: Michigan Resident Uses Twitter to Threaten to Kill Jewish Government Officials

component: USAO - Michigan, Eastern

body_text: DETROIT – A Tipton, Michigan resident was charged in a criminal complaint with using Twitter to threaten to kill Jewish government officials in Michigan, announced United States Attorney Dawn N. Ison. Ison was joined in the announcement by James A. Tarasca, Special Agent in Charge of the Detroit Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. According to the criminal complaint filed in the case, on February 17, 2023, Jack Eugene Carpenter, III, 41, of Tipton, Michigan, using Twitter while located in Texas, made threats against Jewish government officials in Michigan. One post read, in part: “I’m heading back to Michigan now threatening to carry out the punishment of death to anyone that is jewish in the Michigan govt if they don’t leave, or confess.” Carpenter continued his threats of violence in a second post, which read, in part: “ I’ll be coming back to Michigan, still driving with expired plates. You may want to let everyone know, and Wayne County sheriff as well, any attempt to subdue me will be met with deadly force in self-defense.” The complaint indicated that Carpenter had three 9 mm semi-automatic pistols registered to him, and that he was under investigation by the Michigan State Police for stealing a fourth pistol. According to the complaint, it is also believed that Carpenter also owned a shotgun and two hunting rifles in addition to the pistols. Carpenter was originally arrested by federal agents in Texas where he appeared in federal court on February 21, 2023. After his hearing in Texas, Carpenter was transported in custody to Detroit, where he made his initial appearance yesterday in federal court. The United States has requested that Carpenter be detained pending trial. He is scheduled for a pretrial detention hearing on Friday, March 3, 2023. “No one should be threatened or targeted with violence because of their religious beliefs,” said U.S. Attorney Ison. “Anyone who communicates a threat to kill or injure others can expect serious criminal consequences.” “This investigation was greatly aided by concerned citizens who timely came forward to law enforcement and thereby helped us keep our communities safe,” continued U.S. Attorney Ison. “Our community members are the first line of defense in cases like this: so please, if you hear or see something that has you concerned that someone may commit a violent act, please reach out to your local, state, or federal law enforcement agency and help us keep Michigan safe.” “Threats such as this are intended to create fear, and this case clearly shows targeting someone based on religious beliefs will not be tolerated,” said James A. Tarasca, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Michigan. “Crimes motivated by bias will be investigated by the FBI in coordination with the Michigan State Police, and perpetrators held responsible for their actions.” Based on the charges in the criminal complaint, Carpenter faces up to 5 years in prison if convicted. A complaint is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. Trial cannot be held on felony charges in a complaint. When the investigation is completed, a determination will be made whether to seek a felony indictment. A defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The case is being investigated by special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Hank Moon.


title: Man Convicted, Fined for Operating a Guide Company on BLM Land Without a Permit

component: USAO - Alaska

body_text: ANCHORAGE – A federal magistrate judge in Alaska sentenced a Fairbanks man to pay a fine for unlawfully selling and operating a tour on federal land without a permit. The land is owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). According to court documents and statements in court, Jun Liang, 40, is the sole owner of AK Aurora Travel Inc. Through that company, Liang sold and operated tours of various places in Alaska, including Castner Glacier Trail, located at milepost 217.3 on the Richardson Highway. In December 2022, Liang sold a tour to tourists without a Permit, despite having been told that he needed a permit to do so lawfully. Liang lacked the required Permit. The law requires tour operators to have a Special Use Permit to sell or operate tours on BLM land. Castner Glacier trail has complex environmental and topographical challenges. Extreme winds, fast changing water levels, active glaciers, and rockfalls all present hazards. Federal Magistrate Judge Scott Oravec commented that it was important to understand that it is unlawful to operate tours on BLM land without a permit. The Court warned Liang that there could be more serious penalties if he unlawfully operates more tours. “Unlawful tours pose a threat to unwitting tourists and natural resources,” said BLM Law Enforcement Ranger Joseph Crane. “Today’s sentencing demonstrates that BLM and its partner agencies are committed to protecting federal land and pursuing those whose illegal acts threaten our natural resources and endanger visitors.” The sentencing occurred on March 1, 2023. U.S. Attorney S. Lane Tucker of the District of Alaska made the announcement. The Bureau of Land Management investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonas M. Walker prosecuted the case. For more information about Castner Glacier, see: https://www.blm.gov/visit/castner-glacier-trail ### usao/ak/23-013


title: United States Attorney Young Announces Implementation of New Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy

component: USAO - New Hampshire

body_text: Policy Sets National U.S. Attorney Office Standard for Circumstances Under Which Companies May Receive Credit for Voluntarily Self-Disclosing Criminal Conduct, and Benefits of Self-Disclosure United States Attorney Jane E. Young announced that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Hampshire has implemented the new United States Attorney’s Offices’ Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy released earlier today. The policy, which is effective immediately, details the circumstances under which a company will be considered to have made a voluntary self-disclosure (VSD) of misconduct to a United States Attorney’s Office (USAO), and provides transparency and predictability to companies and the defense bar concerning the concrete benefits and potential outcomes in cases where companies voluntarily self-disclose misconduct, fully cooperate and timely and appropriately remediate. The goal of the policy is to standardize how VSDs are defined and credited by USAOs nationwide, and to incentivize companies to maintain effective compliance programs capable of identifying misconduct, to expeditiously and voluntarily disclose and remediate misconduct, and to cooperate fully with the government in corporate criminal investigations. The policy was developed pursuant to the Deputy Attorney General’s September 15, 2022 memorandum, “Further Revisions to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies Following Discussions with Corporate Crime Advisory Group” (Monaco Memo), which directed each Department of Justice (DOJ) component that prosecutes corporate crime to review its policies on corporate voluntary self-disclosure and, if there was no formal written policy to incentivize self-disclosure, draft and publicly share such a policy. Under the new VSD policy, a company is considered to have made a VSD if it becomes aware of misconduct by employees or agents before that misconduct is publicly reported or otherwise known to the DOJ, and discloses all relevant facts known to the company about the misconduct to a USAO in a timely fashion prior to an imminent threat of disclosure or government investigation. A company that voluntarily self-discloses as defined in the policy and fully meets the other requirements of the policy, by—in the absence of any aggravating factor—fully cooperating and timely and appropriately remediating the criminal conduct (including agreeing to pay all disgorgement, forfeiture, and restitution resulting from the misconduct), will receive significant benefits, including that the USAO will not seek a guilty plea; may choose not to impose any criminal penalty, and in any event will not impose a criminal penalty that is greater than 50% below the low end of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) fine range; and will not seek the imposition of an independent compliance monitor if the company demonstrates that it has implemented and tested an effective compliance program. The policy identifies three aggravating factors that may warrant a USAO seeking a guilty plea even if the other requirements of the VSD policy are met: (1) if the misconduct poses a grave threat to national security, public health, or the environment; (2) if the misconduct is deeply pervasive throughout the company; or (3) if the misconduct involved current executive management of the company. The presence of an aggravating factor does not necessarily mean that a guilty plea will be required; instead, the USAO will assess the relevant facts and circumstances to determine the appropriate resolution. If a guilty plea is ultimately required, the company will still receive the other benefits under the VSD policy, including that the USAO will recommend a criminal penalty of at least a 50% and up to a 75% reduction off the low end of the USSG fine range, and that the USAO will not require the appointment of a monitor if the company has implemented and tested an effective compliance program. In cases where a company is being jointly prosecuted by a USAO and another DOJ component, or where the misconduct reported by the company falls within the scope of conduct covered by VSD policies administered by other DOJ components, the USAO will coordinate with, or, if necessary, obtain approval from, the DOJ component responsible for the VSD policy specific to the reported misconduct when considering a potential resolution. Consistent with relevant provisions of the Justice Manual and as allowable under alternate VSD policies, the USAO may choose to apply any provision of an alternate VSD policy in addition to, or in place of, any provision of its policy. The Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (AGAC), under the leadership of United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian Williams, requested that the White Collar Fraud Subcommittee of the AGAC, under the leadership of United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Breon Peace, develop policies in response to the Deputy AG’s memo. The policy announced today was prepared by a Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policy Working Group comprised of U.S. Attorneys from geographically diverse districts, including U.S. Attorney Peace, as well as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Jessica Aber, U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut Vanessa Avery, U.S. Attorney for the District of Hawaii Clare Connors, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina Michael F. Easley, Jr., U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California Stephanie Hinds, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia Christopher Kavanaugh, and U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Philip Sellinger. Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda Riedel, White Collar Crimes Coordinator for the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, also participated in the development of the policy. ###


title: United States Attorneys' Offices Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy

body_text: Introduction The Deputy Attorney General’s September 15, 2022 memorandum, “Further Revisions to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies Following Discussions with Corporate Crime Advisory Group,” instructed that each component of the Department of Justice (the “Department”) that prosecutes corporate crime should review its policies on corporate voluntary self-disclosure and, if there is no formal written policy to incentivize self-disclosure, it must draft and publicly share such a policy. The Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (AGAC) requested that the White Collar Fraud Subcommittee of the AGAC, under the leadership of U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Breon Peace (Chair), recommend relevant policies and procedures for consideration. The below policy was prepared by a Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policy Working Group comprised of U.S. Attorneys from geographically diverse districts, including U.S. Attorney Peace, as well as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California Stephanie Hinds, U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut Vanessa Avery, U.S. Attorney for the District of Hawaii Clare Connors, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Philip Sellinger, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina Michael F. Easley, Jr., U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Jessica Aber, and U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia Christopher Kavanaugh. Mandy Riedel, White Collar Crimes Coordinator for the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, also participated in the development of this policy. The Office of the Deputy Attorney General has reviewed and approved this policy. The policy shall apply to all United States Attorney’s Offices and is effective immediately. Policy [1] I. Voluntary Self-Disclosure Program In circumstances where a company becomes aware of misconduct by employees or agents before that misconduct is publicly reported or otherwise known to the Department, companies may come to the United States Attorney’s Office (the “USAO”) and disclose that misconduct, enabling the government to investigate and hold wrongdoers accountable more quickly than would otherwise be the case. In determining the appropriate form and substance of a criminal resolution for any company, prosecutors should consider whether the criminal conduct at issue came to light as a result of the company’s timely, voluntary self-disclosure and credit such disclosure appropriately. See Memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, “Further Revisions to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies Following Discussion with Corporate Crime Advisory Group,” Sept. 15, 2022 (referred to herein as the “Monaco Memo”). [2] Crediting voluntary self-disclosure of misconduct by companies helps incentivize self-reporting and ensure individual accountability for misconduct. This policy sets forth the criteria the USAO uses in determining an appropriate resolution for an organization that makes a Voluntary Self-Disclosure (VSD) of misconduct to the USAO, the USAO’s expectations of what constitutes a VSD, and clear and predictable benefits for such VSDs. Companies that voluntarily self-disclose misconduct to the USAO pursuant to this policy will receive resolutions under more favorable terms than if the government had learned of the misconduct through other means. [3] ( See Section II – Benefits of Meeting the Standards of Voluntary Self-Disclosure). In cases where the company is being jointly prosecuted by a USAO and another Department office or component, or where the misconduct reported by the company falls within the scope of conduct covered by VSD policies administered by other Department offices or components, [4] the USAO will coordinate with, or, if necessary, obtain approval from, the Department component responsible for the VSD policy specific to the reported misconduct when considering a potential resolution and before finalizing any resolution. Consistent with relevant provisions of the Justice Manual and as allowable under alternate VSD policies, the USAO may choose to apply any provision of an alternate VSD policy in addition to, or in place of, any provision of this policy. Even if companies believe the government may already be aware of the misconduct through other means, companies are encouraged to make disclosures to the Department. Prompt self-disclosures to the government will be considered favorably, even if they do not satisfy all the VSD criteria set forth below. [5] A. Standards of Voluntary Self-Disclosure Decisions about whether a disclosure constitutes a VSD will be made by the USAO based on a careful assessment of the circumstances of the disclosure on a case-by-case basis and at the sole discretion of the USAO. The USAO will require that a disclosure meet each of the following standards for it to constitute a VSD under this policy: Voluntary : VSDs only occur when the disclosure of misconduct is made voluntarily by the company. A disclosure will not be deemed a VSD under this policy where there is a preexisting obligation to disclose, such as pursuant to regulation, contract, or a prior Department resolution ( e.g. , non-prosecution agreement or deferred prosecution agreement). [6] Timing of the Disclosure : A disclosure will only be deemed a VSD when the disclosure is made to the USAO: a. “prior to an imminent threat of disclosure or government investigation,” U.S.S.G. § 8C2.5(g)(1); b. prior to the misconduct being publicly disclosed or otherwise known to the government; and c. within a reasonably prompt time after the company becoming aware of the misconduct, with the burden being on the company to demonstrate timeliness. Substance of the Disclosure and Accompanying Actions : For a disclosure to be deemed a VSD under this policy, the disclosure must include all relevant facts concerning the misconduct that are known to the company at the time of the disclosure. The USAO recognizes that a company may not be in a position to know all relevant facts at the time of a VSD because the company disclosed reasonably promptly after becoming aware of the misconduct. Therefore, a company should make clear that its disclosure is based upon a preliminary investigation or assessment of information, but it should nonetheless provide a fulsome disclosure of the relevant facts known to it at the time. The USAO further expects that the company will move in a timely fashion to preserve, collect, and produce relevant documents and/or information, and provide timely factual updates to the USAO. Should the company conduct an internal investigation, the USAO expects appropriate factual updates as that investigation progresses. See JM § 9-28.700. II. Benefits of Meeting the Standards for Voluntary Self-Disclosure A. Credit for Voluntary Self-Disclosure, Full Cooperation, and Timely and Appropriate Remediation Absent the presence of an aggravating factor, the USAO will not seek a guilty plea where a company has (a) voluntarily self-disclosed in accordance with the criteria set forth above, (b) fully cooperated, and (c) timely and appropriately remediated the criminal conduct. [7] Aggravating factors that may warrant the USAO seeking a guilty plea include, but are not limited to, misconduct that: poses a grave threat to national security, public health, or the environment; is deeply pervasive throughout the company; or involved current executive management of the company. The presence of an aggravating factor does not necessarily mean that a guilty plea will be required. The USAO will assess the relevant facts and circumstances to determine the appropriate resolution. To meet the standards of this VSD policy, appropriate remediation must include, but is not necessarily limited to, the company agreeing to pay all disgorgement, forfeiture, and restitution resulting from the misconduct at issue. In addition, where a company fully meets the VSD policy, the USAO may choose not to impose a criminal penalty, and in any event will not impose a criminal penalty that is greater than 50% below the low end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines fine range. If, due to the presence of an aggravating factor, a guilty plea is warranted for a company that has voluntarily self-disclosed, fully cooperated, and timely and appropriately remediated the criminal conduct, the USAO: will accord or recommend to a sentencing court, at least 50% and up to a 75% reduction off the low end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines fine range after any applicable reduction under U.S.S.G. § 8C2.5(g), or the penalty reduction benefit set forth in the alternate VSD policy specific to the misconduct at issue, if applicable; and will not require appointment of a monitor if the company has, at the time of resolution, demonstrated that it has implemented and tested an effective compliance program consistent with Subsection B below.  B. Effective Compliance and Independent Monitorship The USAO will not require the imposition of an independent compliance monitor for a cooperating company that voluntarily self-discloses the relevant conduct and timely and appropriately remediates the criminal conduct, if the company demonstrates at the time of resolution that it has implemented and tested an effective compliance program. Decisions about the need for a monitor will be made on a case-by-case basis and at the sole discretion of the USAO. In evaluating whether the company has implemented and tested an effective compliance program, the USAO will refer to the Monaco Memo. This evaluation shall consider resources developed by the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division to assist prosecutors in assessing the effectiveness of a company’s compliance program ( see, e.g. , Criminal Division, Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (updated June 2020)) or guidance provided by other Department components as to specialized areas of corporate compliance. [1] The contents of this memorandum provide internal guidance to prosecutors on legal issues. Nothing in it is intended to create any substantive or procedural rights, privileges, or benefits enforceable in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter by prospective or actual witnesses or parties. [2] Consistent with the Monaco Memo, the terms corporation and company apply to all types of business organizations, including but not limited to partnerships, sole proprietorships, government entities, and unincorporated associations. See Justice Manual (“JM”) § 9-28.200. [3] The policy applies to all companies, including those that have been the subject of prior resolutions. Department prosecutors will weigh and appropriately credit all VSDs on a case-by-case basis, pursuant to this policy and applicable Department guidance. [4] See, e.g. , Criminal Division Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (Criminal Division); Leniency Policy and Procedures (Antitrust Division); NSD Enforcement Policy for Business Organizations (National Security Division); Environmental Crimes Section Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (Environment and Natural Resources Division); Consumer Protection Branch Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy for Business Organizations (Consumer Protection Branch); The Corporate Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy of the Tax Division (Tax Division). [5] Regardless of whether a disclosure meets the standards of a VSD, prosecutors will continue to consider the corporation’s pre-indictment conduct, e.g. , voluntary disclosure or cooperation, in determining whether to seek an indictment. JM § 9-28.400. Separate from this formal VSD Program, the Department continues to encourage corporations, as part of their compliance programs, to conduct internal investigations and to disclose the relevant facts to the appropriate authorities. See JM § 9-28.900. A corporation’s timely and voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing is among the factors prosecutors should consider in reaching a decision as to the proper treatment of a corporate target in conducting an investigation, determining whether to bring charges, and negotiating plea or other agreements. See JM § 9-28.300. Prosecutors may also consider a corporation’s timely and voluntary disclosure, as an independent factor in evaluating the company’s overall cooperation and the adequacy of the corporation’s compliance program and its management’s commitment to the compliance program. See JM § 9-28.900. [6] This policy also does not apply in situations where disclosure of a company’s misconduct to the USAO was made by whistleblowers, including those who have informed the Department of fraud and other misconduct in qui tam actions. [7] In such cases, the resolution could include a declination, non-prosecution agreement, or deferred prosecution agreement. In evaluating whether a company has fully cooperated and timely and appropriately remediated the criminal conduct, the USAO will rely on operative provisions of the Justice Manual and Department policy. See, e.g. , Monaco Memo; Memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco, “Corporate Crime Advisory Group and Initial Revisions to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies,” Oct. 28, 2021.


title: Two U.S. Citizens Arrested for Illegally Exporting Technology to Russia

component: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

body_text: Two Kansas men were arrested today on charges related to a years-long scheme to circumvent U.S. export laws that included the illegal export of aviation-related technology to Russia after Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, and the imposition of stricter restrictions on exports to Russia. According to the indictment, Cyril Gregory Buyanovsky, 59, of Lawrence, and Douglas Robertson, 55, of Olathe, owned and operated KanRus Trading Company, which supplied Western avionics equipment (i.e., electronics installed in aircraft) to Russian companies and provided repair services for equipment used in Russian-manufactured aircraft. Since 2020, the defendants conspired to evade U.S. export laws by concealing and misstating the true end users, value and end destinations of their exports and by transshipping items through third-party countries. For example, between November 2020 and February 2021, the defendants received avionics equipment, including a computer processor bearing a sticker identifying Russia’s Federal Security Services (FSB), from a Russian company for repair in the United States. The defendants concealed the true end user and end destination by providing a fraudulent invoice to the shipment company identifying the end destination as Germany. As further alleged, on Feb. 28, 2022, the defendants attempted to export avionics to Russia. U.S. authorities detained the shipment, and the U.S. Department of Commerce informed the defendants that a license was required to export the equipment to Russia. In an April 2022 communication, Robertson expressed to a Russia-based customer that “things are complicated in the USA” and that “[t]his is NOT the right time for [more paperwork and visibility].” Subsequently, in May, June and July 2022, the defendants illegally transshipped avionics through Armenia and Cyprus to Russia without obtaining the required licenses. The defendants are charged with conspiracy, exporting controlled goods without a license, falsifying and failing to file electronic export information, and smuggling goods contrary to U.S. law. If convicted, they face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for each count of exporting controlled goods without a license; up to 10 years in prison for each count of smuggling; and up to five years in prison for each count of conspiracy and falsifying export information. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. Task Force KleptoCapture Director Andrew C. Adams, U.S. Attorney Duston J. Slinkard for the District of Kansas, Assistant Director Alan E. Kohler Jr. of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, Special Agent in Charge Charles Dayoub of the FBI Kansas City Field Office, and Special Agent in Charge Aaron Tambrini of the U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Export Enforcement, Chicago Field Office made the announcement. The FBI and the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Export Enforcement are investigating the case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Scott Rask and Ryan Huschka for the District of Kansas and Trial Attorney Adam Barry of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section are prosecuting the case. The investigation was coordinated through the Justice Department’s Task Force KleptoCapture, an interagency law enforcement task force dedicated to enforcing the sweeping sanctions, export controls and economic countermeasures that the United States, along with its foreign allies and partners, has imposed in response to Russia’s unprovoked military invasion of Ukraine. Announced by the Attorney General on March 2, 2022 and under the leadership of the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the task force will continue to leverage all of the department’s tools and authorities to combat efforts to evade or undermine the collective actions taken by the U.S. government in response to Russian military aggression. An indictment is merely an allegation, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.


title: Departments of Justice, Commerce and Treasury Issue Joint Compliance Note on Russia-Related Sanctions Evasion and Export Controls

component: National Security Division (NSD)

body_text: The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), and the Department of Justice today issued a joint compliance note on the use of third-party intermediaries or transshipment points to evade Russian- and Belarussian-related sanctions and export controls. Today’s note marks the first collective effort by the three agencies to inform the private sector about enforcement trends and provide guidance to the business community on compliance with U.S. sanctions and export laws. The three agencies will issue these advisories on an ongoing basis. “Ever since Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the Department of Justice’s priority has been the robust enforcement of U.S. export and sanctions laws and cracking down on efforts to evade those laws,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security Matthew G. Olsen. “Companies are our first line of defense, and today’s joint compliance note will inform the private sector about enforcement trends and convey the Department’s expectations as to national-security related corporate compliance. We are proud to partner with BIS and OFAC on this important effort.” “Those who attempt to prop up Putin’s war machine by evading our export controls and sanctions will be held accountable,” said Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement Matthew S. Axelrod. “As this first-ever joint compliance note makes clear, it is incumbent upon industry to maintain effective, risk-based compliance programs. BIS, in coordination with our partners, including at OFAC and the Department of Justice, will continue to use all tools at our disposal to prevent bad actors from circumventing the comprehensive export controls put in place to deter Russian aggression.” “Our economic tools are constraining Russia – so much so that the Kremlin has tasked their intelligence services with finding ways to get around international sanctions and export controls,” said OFAC Director Andrea M. Gacki. “The private sector is an essential partner in ensuring that we cut off Russia from accessing much-needed equipment to continue their unjust war against Ukraine. By issuing a joint alert, our enforcement agencies are illustrating the importance of a risk-based approach that protects the international financial system from abuse by Russia.” The compliance note highlights one of the most common tactics used to evade Russia-related sanctions and export controls: the use of third-party intermediaries or transshipment points to circumvent restrictions, disguise the involvement of Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) or parties on the Entity List in transactions, and obscure the true identities of end users. The note provides warning signs on what to look for if a company suspects that a customer is using a third-party intermediary to evade sanctions or export controls as well as recent examples of tactics allegedly used by defendants to evade detection while attempting to flout the controls. Further, the compliance note provides guidance to companies on how to maintain an effective, risk-based sanctions and export compliance program. Since Feb. 24, 2022, BIS has implemented a series of stringent export controls that restrict Russia’s access to the technologies and other items that it needs to sustain its illegal war in Ukraine. These controls target Russia’s defense, aerospace, and maritime sectors, and have been expanded to Russia’s oil refining, industrial, and commercial sectors, as well as to luxury goods used by Russian elites. BIS’s controls have also been applied to Belarus for its substantial enabling of Russia’s invasion. Additional information on BIS’s actions is available online at: bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/country-guidance/russia-belarus . OFAC will continue to use, its broad targeting authorities against non-U.S. persons that provide ammunition or other support to the Russian Federation’s military-industrial complex, as well as to private military companies or paramilitary groups participating in or otherwise supporting the Russian Federation’s unlawful and unjustified attack on Ukraine. OFAC will continue to target Russia’s efforts to resupply its weapons and sustain its war of aggression against Ukraine, including any foreign persons who assist the Russian Federation in those efforts. Additionally, OFAC will continue to impose civil monetary penalties against U.S. persons who violate OFAC sanctions to benefit Russia, and against non-U.S. persons who cause U.S. persons to violate the Russia sanctions programs. The Justice Department’s enforcement of these new measures has been led by Task Force KleptoCapture, an interagency law enforcement task force dedicated to enforcing the sweeping sanctions, export controls, and economic countermeasures that the United States, along with its foreign allies and partners, has imposed in response to Russia’s unprovoked military invasion of Ukraine. Announced by the Attorney General on March 2, 2022, and under the leadership of the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the task force will continue to leverage all tools and authorities to combat efforts to evade or undermine the collective actions taken by the U.S. government in response to Russian military aggression. The full compliance note is available here .


title: United States Attorneys' Offices Monitor Selection for Corporate Criminal Enforcement

body_text: Introduction The Deputy Attorney General’s September 15, 2022 memorandum, “Further Revisions to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies Following Discussions with Corporate Crime Advisory Group,” instructed that each component involved in corporate criminal resolutions that does not currently have a public monitor selection process must adopt an already existing Department process, or develop and publish its own process. The Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (AGAC) requested that the White Collar Fraud Subcommittee of the AGAC, under the leadership of U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Breon Peace (Chair), recommend relevant policies and procedures for consideration. The below policy was prepared by a Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policy Working Group comprised of U.S. Attorneys from geographically diverse districts, including U.S. Attorney Peace, as well as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California Stephanie Hinds, U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut Vanessa Avery, U.S. Attorney for the District of Hawaii Clare Connors, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Philip Sellinger, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina Michael F. Easley, Jr., U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Jessica Aber, and U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia Christopher Kavanaugh. Assistant U.S. Attorney Mandy Riedel, White Collar Crimes Coordinator for the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, also participated in the development of this policy. The Office of the Deputy Attorney General has reviewed and approved this policy. The policy shall apply to all United States Attorney’s Offices and is effective as of March 1, 2023. Policy The purpose of this memorandum is to establish standards, policy, and procedures for the selection of monitors in criminal matters being handled by United States Attorney’s Offices (“USAOs,” and each a “USAO”). 1 This memorandum sets forth the public monitor selection process for all USAOs, the adoption of which was directed by the Memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco, “Further Revisions to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies Following Discussions with Corporate Crime Advisory Group,” dated September 15, 2022 (“Monaco Memo 2022”), and incorporates guidance from both Monaco Memo 2022 and the Memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco, “Corporate Crime Advisory Group and Initial Revisions 1 The contents of this memorandum provide internal guidance to prosecutors on legal issues. Nothing in it is intended to create any substantive or procedural rights, privileges, or benefits enforceable in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter by prospective or actual witnesses or parties. This memorandum does not apply to cases involving court-appointed monitors, where prosecutors must give due regard to the appropriate role and procedures of the court. to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies,” dated October 28, 2021 (“Monaco Memo 2021”). 2 The standards, policy, and procedures contained in this memorandum shall apply to all determinations regarding whether a monitor is appropriate in specific criminal cases and to any deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”), non-prosecution agreement (“NPA”), or plea agreement between the USAO and a company which requires the retention of a monitor. I. Principles for Determining Whether a Monitor is Needed in Individual Cases Independent corporate monitors can be an effective resource in assessing a company’s compliance with the terms of a corporate criminal resolution, whether a DPA, NPA, or plea agreement. Monitors can also be an effective means of reducing the risk of repeat misconduct and compliance lapses identified during a corporate criminal investigation. Prosecutors should analyze and carefully assess the need for the imposition of a monitor on a case-by-case basis, using the following non-exhaustive list of factors when evaluating the necessity and potential benefits of a monitor: 1. Whether the company voluntarily self-disclosed the underlying misconduct in a manner that satisfies the USAO’s self-disclosure policy; 2. Whether, at the time of the resolution and after a thorough risk assessment, the company has implemented an effective compliance program and sufficient internal controls to detect and prevent similar misconduct in the future; 3. Whether, at the time of the resolution, the company has adequately tested its compliance program and internal controls to demonstrate that they would likely detect and prevent similar misconduct in the future; 4. Whether the underlying criminal conduct was long-lasting or pervasive across the company or was approved, facilitated, or ignored by senior management, executives, or directors (including by means of a corporate culture that tolerated risky behavior or misconduct, or did not encourage open discussion and reporting of possible risks and concerns); 5. Whether the underlying criminal conduct involved the exploitation of an inadequate compliance program or system of internal controls; 6. Whether the underlying criminal conduct involved active participation of compliance personnel or the failure of compliance personnel to appropriately escalate or respond to red flags; 2 The two Monaco memos incorporate and are consonant with prior memoranda on monitor selection that were applicable to the USAOs, including the Memorandum from Acting Deputy Attorney General Craig S. Morford, dated March 7, 2008. 7. Whether the company took adequate investigative or remedial measures to address the underlying criminal conduct, including, where appropriate, the termination of business relationships and practices that contributed to the criminal conduct, and discipline or termination of personnel involved, including with respect to those with supervisory, management, or oversight responsibilities for the misconduct; 8. Whether, at the time of the resolution, the company’s risk profile has substantially changed, such that the risk of recurrence of the misconduct is minimal or nonexistent; 9. Whether the company faces any unique risks or compliance challenges, including with respect to the particular region or business sector in which the corporation operates or the nature of the corporation's customers; and 10. Whether and to what extent the company is subject to oversight from industry regulators, or a monitor imposed by another domestic or foreign enforcement authority or regulator. The factors listed above are intended to be illustrative of those that should be evaluated and are not an exhaustive list of potentially relevant considerations. Prosecutors should determine whether a monitor is required based on the facts and circumstances presented in each case. 3 In general, a USAO should favor the imposition of a monitor where there is a demonstrated need for, and clear benefit to be derived from, a monitorship. Where a company’s compliance program and controls are untested, ineffective, inadequately resourced, or not fully implemented at the time of a resolution, prosecutors should consider imposing a monitorship. This is particularly true if the investigation reveals that a compliance program is deficient or inadequate in numerous or significant respects. Conversely, where a company’s compliance program and controls are demonstrated to be tested, effective, adequately resourced, and fully implemented at the time of a resolution, a monitor may not be necessary. Finally, at a minimum, the scope of any monitorship should be appropriately tailored to address the specific issues and concerns that created the need for the monitor. II. Approval Requirement for Monitorship Agreements Before agreeing to the imposition of a monitor in any case, the prosecutors handling the matter must first receive approval from their supervisors, and the United States Attorney (“USA”). III. Terms of USAO Monitorship Agreements As a preliminary matter, any DPA, NPA, or plea agreement between the USAO and a company which requires the retention of a monitor (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”), should contain the following: a description of the monitor’s required qualifications; 3 Monitors should not be imposed to further punitive goals. 2. a description of the monitor selection process; 3. a description of the process for replacing the monitor during the term of the monitorship, should it be necessary; 4. a statement that the parties will endeavor to complete the monitor selection process within sixty (60) days of the execution of the underlying agreement; 5. an explanation of the responsibilities of the monitor and the monitorship’s scope; and 6. the length of the monitorship. IV. Standing Committee on the Selection of Monitors Each USAO shall create a Standing Committee on the Selection of Monitors (the “Standing Committee”). A. Composition of the Standing Committee The Standing Committee shall be comprised of 3 to 5 senior prosecutors and must include the following individuals: (1) the USAO’s Criminal Division Chief; (2) the Chief of the section or unit entering into the Agreement; and (3) the USAO’s Ethics Advisor. 4 The Criminal Division Chief shall serve as the Chair of the Standing Committee and shall be responsible for ensuring that the Standing Committee discharges its responsibilities. All USAO employees involved in the selection process, including Standing Committee Members, should be mindful of their obligations to comply with the conflict-of-interest guidelines set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section 208, 5 C.F.R. Part 2635 (financial interest), and 28 C.F.R. Part 45.2 (personal or political relationship), and shall provide written certification of such compliance to the Criminal Division Ethics Advisor as soon as practicable, but no later than the time of the submission of the Monitor Recommendation Memorandum to the USA. B. Convening the Standing Committee The Chief of the relevant section or unit handling the case should notify the Chair of the Standing Committee as soon as practicable that the Standing Committee will need to convene. Notice should be provided as soon as an agreement in principle has been reached between the government and the company that is the subject of the Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”), but not later than the date the Agreement is executed. The Chair will arrange to convene the Standing Committee meeting as soon as practicable after receiving the Monitor 4 Should any of these three individuals be recused from a particular case, the USA will appoint another senior prosecutor to fill that individual’s position on the Standing Committee. If the Ethics Advisor is recused, that position must be filled with another senior prosecutor with similar responsibilities, such as another or alternate Ethics Advisor, or a Professional Responsibility Advisor. Recommendation Memorandum described below, identify the Standing Committee participants for that case, and ensure that there are no conflicts among the Standing Committee Members. V. The Selection Process A monitor must be selected based on the unique facts and circumstances of each matter and the merits of the individual candidate. Accordingly, the selection process should: (i) instill public confidence in the process; (ii) reflect the Department’s commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; 5 and (iii) result in the selection of a highly qualified person or entity, free of any actual or potential conflict of interest or appearance of a potential or actual conflict of interest, and suitable for the assignment at hand. 6 To meet those objectives, the USAO shall employ the following procedure 7 in selecting a monitor, absent authorization from the Standing Committee to deviate from this process as described in Section VII below. A. Nomination of Monitor Candidates At the outset of the monitor selection process, counsel for the Company should be advised by the prosecutors handling the matter to recommend a pool of three qualified monitor candidates. Within at least (20) business days after the execution of the Agreement, the Company should submit a written proposal identifying the monitor candidates, providing the following: a description of each candidate’s qualifications and credentials in support of the evaluative considerations and factors listed below (and those of their team, where applicable); a written certification by the Company that it will not employ or be affiliated with the monitor, the monitor’s firm, or other professionals who are part of the monitorship team during the term of the monitorship, for a period of not less than three years from the date of the termination of the monitorship; 8 a written certification by each of the candidates that they have no conflict of interest that would prevent them from accepting the monitorship and is not a current or recent (i.e., within the prior two years) employee, agent, or representative of the Company and holds no interest in, and has no relationship with, the Company, its subsidiaries, affiliates or related entities, or its employees, officers, directors, or outside counsel retained in the matter at issue in the monitorship; 5 This includes with respect to the monitor, as well as the team supporting the monitor. 6 Any submission or selection of a monitor candidate by either the Company or the USAO shall be made without unlawful discrimination against any person or class of persons. 7 The selection process outlined in this Memorandum applies both to the selection of a monitor at the initiation of a monitorship and to the selection of a replacement monitor, where necessary. 8 A USA, with the agreement of the Ethics Advisor, may waive this requirement as to the monitor’s firm or professionals who are part of the monitorship team during the term of the monitorship; such a waiver decision ought to be accompanied by written justification stating the reasons as to why such a waiver is necessary. 4. a written certification by each of the candidates that they have notified any clients that the candidate represents in a matter involving the USAO, and that the candidate has either obtained a waiver from those clients or has withdrawn as counsel in the other matter(s); and 5. a statement identifying the monitor candidate that is the Company’s first choice to serve as the monitor. B. Initial Review of Monitor Candidates The prosecutors handling the matter, along with supervisors, should promptly interview each monitor candidate to assess their independence, qualifications, credentials and suitability for the assignment (and those of their team, where applicable) and, in conducting a review, should consider the following factors: each monitor candidate’s general background, education and training, professional experience, professional commendations and honors, licensing, reputation in the relevant professional community, and past experience as a monitor; each monitor candidate’s experience and expertise with the particular area(s) at issue in the case under consideration, and experience and expertise in applying the particular area(s) at issue in an organizational setting; each monitor candidate’s degree of objectivity and independence from the Company to ensure effective and impartial performance of the monitor's duties; the adequacy and sufficiency of each monitor candidate’s resources to discharge the monitor's responsibilities effectively; and any other factor determined by the prosecutors, based on the circumstances, to relate to the qualifications, competency, and independence of each monitor candidate as they may relate to the tasks required by the monitor agreement and nature of the business organization to be monitored. If the prosecutors handling the matter and their supervisors decide that any or all of the three candidates lack the requisite qualifications, they should notify the Company and request that counsel for the Company propose another candidate or candidates within twenty (20) business days. 9 Once the prosecutors handling the matter conclude that the Company has provided a slate of three qualified 9 A Company may be granted a reasonable extension of time to propose an additional candidate or candidates if circumstances warrant an extension. The prosecutors handling the matter should advise the Standing Committee of any such extension. candidates, they should conduct a review of those candidates and confer with their supervisors to determine which of the monitor candidates should be recommended to the Standing Committee. 10 C. Preparation of a Monitor Recommendation Memorandum Once the prosecutors handling the matter and their supervisors recommend a candidate, the selection process should be referred to the Standing Committee. The prosecutors handling the matter should prepare a written memorandum to the Standing Committee, in the format attached hereto. The memorandum should contain the following information: a brief statement of the underlying case; a description of the proposed disposition of the case, including the charges filed (if any); an explanation as to why it was determined that a monitor is required in the case, based on the considerations set forth in this memorandum; a summary of the responsibilities of the monitor, and their term; a description of the process used to select the candidate; a description of the selected candidate’s qualifications (and those of their team, if applicable), and why the selected candidate is being recommended; a description of countervailing considerations, if any, in selecting the candidate; a description of the other candidates put forward for consideration by the Company; and a signed certification, on the form attached hereto, by each of the prosecutors involved in the monitor selection process that he/she has complied with the conflicts-of-interest guidelines set forth in 18 U.S.C Section 208, 5 C.F.R. Part 2635, and 28 C.F.R. Part 45 in the selection of the candidate. D. Standing Committee Review of a Monitor Candidate The Standing Committee shall review the recommendation set forth in the Monitor Recommendation Memorandum and vote whether to accept the recommendation. In the course of making its decision, the Standing Committee may, in its discretion, interview one or more of the candidates put forward for consideration by the Company. 10 If the prosecutors handling the matter, along with their supervisors, determine that the Company has not proposed and appears unwilling or unable to propose acceptable candidates, consistent with the guidance provided herein, and that the Company's delay in proposing candidates is negatively impacting the Agreement or the prospective monitorship, then the prosecutors may evaluate alternative candidates that they identify in consultation with the Standing Committee and provide a list of such candidates to the Company for consideration. If the Standing Committee accepts the recommended candidate, it should note its acceptance of the recommendation in writing on the Monitor Recommendation Memorandum and forward the memorandum to the USA for approval and ultimate submission to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (“ODAG”). In addition to noting its acceptance of the recommendation, the Standing Committee may also, where appropriate, revise the Memorandum. The Standing Committee's recommendation should also include a written certification by the USAO’s Ethics Advisor that the recommended candidate meets the ethical requirements for selection as a monitor, that the selection process utilized in approving the candidate was proper, and that the attorneys involved in the process acted in compliance with the conflict-of-interest guidelines set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section 208, 5 C.F.R. Part 2635, and 28 C.F.R. Part 45. If the Standing Committee rejects the recommended candidate, it should so inform the prosecutors handling the matter and their supervisors of the rejection decision. In this instance, the prosecutors handling the matter, along with their supervisors, may either recommend an alternate candidate from the two remaining candidates proposed by the Company or, if necessary, obtain from the Company the names of additional qualified monitor candidates, as provided by Section V.C. above. If the Standing Committee rejects the recommended candidate, or the pool of remaining candidates, the prosecutors and their supervisors should notify the Company. The Standing Committee also should return the Monitor Recommendation Memorandum and all attachments to the prosecutors handling the matter. If the Standing Committee is unable to reach a majority decision regarding the proposed monitor candidate, the Standing Committee should so indicate on the Monitor Recommendation Memorandum and forward the Memorandum and all attachments to the USA for his or her decision. E. Approval by the USA The USA must review and consider the recommendation of the Standing Committee set forth in the Monitor Recommendation Memorandum. In the course of doing so, the USA may request additional information from the Standing Committee or the prosecutors handling the matter and their supervisors. The USA may also elect to interview the candidate recommended by the Standing Committee. Once a proposed candidate is approved by the USA, the USA should forward the Monitor Recommendation Memorandum to ODAG. If the USA rejects the recommended candidate, they should so inform the Standing Committee, as well as the prosecutors handling the matter and their supervisors of the rejection decision in writing explaining the reasons behind the USA’s rejection. In this instance, the prosecutors handling the matter, along with their supervisors, may either recommend an alternate candidate from the two remaining candidates proposed by the Company or, if necessary, obtain from the Company the names of additional qualified monitor candidates, as provided by Section V.C. above. If the USA rejects the recommended candidate, or the pool of remaining candidates, the prosecutors and their supervisors should notify the Company. F. Approval of ODAG All monitor candidates selected pursuant to DPAs, NPAs, and plea agreements must be approved by ODAG. If ODAG does not approve the proposed monitor, the prosecutors handling the matter should notify the Company and request that the Company propose a new candidate or slate of candidates as provided by Section V.C. above. If ODAG approves the proposed monitor, the prosecutors handling the matter should notify the Company, which shall notify the three candidates of the decision, and the monitorship shall be executed according to the terms of the Agreement. VI. Retention of Records Regarding Monitor Selection It should be the responsibility of the prosecutors handling the matter to ensure that a copy of the Monitor Recommendation Memorandum, including attachments and documents reflecting the approval or disapproval of a candidate, is retained in the case file for the matter and that a second copy is provided to the Chair of the Standing Committee. The Chair of the Standing Committee should obtain and maintain an electronic copy of every agreement which provides for a monitor. The USA should also provide a copy of each agreement to the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at a reasonable time after it has been executed. VII. Departure from Policy and Procedure Given that each case presents unique facts and circumstances, the monitor selection process must be practical and flexible. When the prosecutors handling the case at issue conclude that the monitor selection process should be different from the process described herein, the departure should be discussed, approved, and documented by the Standing Committee. 11 The Standing Committee can request additional information or a written request for a departure. 12 VIII. Continued Review of Monitorship In matters where an independent corporate monitor is imposed pursuant to a resolution with the USAO, prosecutors should ensure that the monitor’s responsibilities and scope of authority are well-defined and recorded in writing, and that a clear workplan is agreed upon between the monitor and the company – all to ensure agreement among the company, monitor, and USAO as to the proper scope of review. 11 Any substitute process that departs from the process set forth in this policy must incorporate and apply the same principles of transparency, predictability, and consistency, as set forth in the Monaco Memo 2022. 12 In cases where the company is being jointly prosecuted by a USAO and another Department component, the USAO and the Department component shall jointly determine whether to apply the monitor selection process of the USAO, the Department component, or an alternative selection process that combines elements of their respective policies and procedures, including, but not limited to, with respect to the composition of the Standing Committee. For the term of the monitorship, prosecutors must remain apprised of the ongoing work conducted by the monitor. 13 Continued review of the monitorship requires ongoing communication with both the monitor and the company. 14 Prosecutors should receive regular updates from the monitor about the status of the monitorship and any issues presented. Monitors should promptly alert prosecutors if they are being denied access to information, resources, or corporate employees or agents necessary to execute their charge. Prosecutors should also regularly receive information about the work the monitor is doing to ensure that it remains tailored to the workplan and scope of the monitorship. In reviewing information relating to the monitor’s work, prosecutors should consider the reasonableness of the monitor’s review, including, where appropriate, issues relating to the cost of the monitor’s work. In certain cases, prosecutors may determine that the initial term of the monitorship is longer than necessary to address the concerns that created the need for the monitor, or that the scope of the monitorship is broader than necessary to accomplish the goals of the monitorship. For example, a company may demonstrate significant and faster-than-anticipated improvements to its compliance program, and this could reduce the need for continued monitoring. Conversely, prosecutors may determine that newly identified concerns require lengthening the term or amending the scope of the monitorship. 13 In cases of court-appointed monitors, the court may elect to oversee this inquiry. 14 Any agreement requiring a monitor should also explain what role the USAO could play in resolving disputes that may arise between the monitor and the company, given the facts and circumstances of the case.


title: Maryland Man Sentenced to Five Months Incarceration For Simple Assault Charges

component: USAO - District of Columbia

body_text: WASHINGTON – Robert Anderson, 55, of Hanover, Maryland, was sentenced today to five months of incarceration for a series of simple assaults on Metropolitan Police Department employees and officers that involved offensive touching and brandishing a knife. At the time of these assaults, Anderson was a sworn officer with the Metropolitan Police Department. The announcement was made by U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves and Chief Robert J. Contee, III. On February 1, 2023, a jury found Anderson guilty of four counts of assault. The verdict followed a three-day trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, before the Honorable Heidi Pasichow who sentenced him to 480 days in jail suspended after 150 days with the condition that Anderson successfully complete 18 months of probation. According to the government’s evidence, on January 14, 2019, at approximately 9:00 p.m., an officer victim was working at the Fifth District Police Station when Anderson, who was on duty, came up beside her and beckoned to her to stand up. When she did not stand up, Anderson leaned down and kissed her ear and neck without consent. In response to this conduct, the Metropolitan Police Department reassigned then-Officer Anderson to the Fourth District Police Station. Only several weeks later, in early February 2019, Anderson approached another female officer from behind, wrapped his arms around her, touched her breast, and kissed her ear and face without consent. And on February 5, 2019, Anderson approached two female employees and began to touch them on their heads without their consent. When a civilian employee intervened to stop Anderson from touching the women, Anderson brandished a knife at him. In announcing the sentence, U.S. Attorney Graves commended the work of those who investigated the case from the Metropolitan Police Department. He also expressed appreciation for the work of those who handled the case at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, including Lead Paralegal Specialist Wanda Trice and other support personnel. Finally, he commended the efforts of Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacqueline Yarbro and Assistant U.S. Attorney Bonnie Lindemann, who prosecuted the case, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Felice Roggen and Tamara Rubb, who investigated the case.


title: Former New Yorker Sentenced To Three Years In Prison For Defrauding Purchasers Of Cryptocurrency-Mining Computers And Miner-Hosting Services

component: USAO - New York, Southern

body_text: Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that CHET STOJANOVICH, a/k/a “Chester J. Stojanovich,” was sentenced today to three years in prison. STOJANOVICH was sentenced for defrauding more than a dozen victims of more than $2 million through fraudulent misrepresentations that he would provide his customers with specialized cryptocurrency-mining computers (“Miners”) and Miner-hosting services that would provide the victims with a lucrative stream of “hash power” convertible into cryptocurrency. Instead, STOJANOVICH misappropriated his victims’ money and failed to provide them with the Miners and Miner-hosting services they had purchased from him. Stojanovich previously pled guilty on November 29, 2022, to one count of wire fraud and was sentenced today before United States District Judge Denise Cote. U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “Chet Stojanovich took advantage of a flashy new trend in the financial sector to swindle his victims into sending him more than $2 million dollars in exchange for cryptocurrency-related technology and equipment that these victims never received. This case serves as another reminder that even new financial frontiers are fraught with old-fashioned fraud, but our career prosecutors and law enforcement partners are ever as prepared to root out these schemes.” According to the Indictment, statements made in court, and other publicly filed documents in this case: From at least 2019, until his arrest in April 2022, STOJANOVICH controlled various companies, including Chet Mining Co. LLC (“Chet Mining”). Starting in approximately March 2019, STOJANOVICH engaged in a scheme to defraud people who were seeking to purchase Miners and Miner-hosting services through which they expected to obtain “hash power” convertible into cryptocurrency and money. STOJANOVICH defrauded these victims by falsely telling them that: he would purchase, and had purchased, Miners on their behalf; and he would provide them with Miner-hosting services and had already obtained such Miner-hosting services for them. In total, STOJANOVICH fraudulently induced more than a dozen customer-victims to pay a total of more than $2 million to STOJANOVICH and his companies, ostensibly in return for Miners and Miner-hosting services. Despite fraudulent representations to the contrary, STOJANOVICH: (i) failed to provide many of the Miners that he told customers he had acquired; (ii) failed to provide the Miner-hosting services and cryptocurrency hash power that he represented he would provide; (iii) employed deceptive practices to create the illusion that such Miners had been acquired and were being used to provide hash power to those customers; and (iv) misappropriated his customers’ funds and spent the funds on unrelated and personal expenditures, including chartered air flights, hotel rooms, limousines, and private parties. Eventually, at least six of STOJANOVICH’s victims sought to hold him accountable for his fraud by suing him in a civil case, Holmes et al. v. Chet Mining, Chet Stojanovich, et ano., Case No. 20 Civ. 4448 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.). STOJANOVICH sought to obstruct their efforts by lying under oath at a deposition, and lying to the presiding district judge, about the existence and location of electronic evidence in the case. * * * In addition to his prison sentence, STOJANOVICH, 38, previously of New York, New York, but residing in California since his release on bail in this case, was sentenced today to three years of supervised release, forfeiture of $2,158,927, and restitution to his victims in the amount of $2,108,927. Mr. Williams praised the outstanding work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the investigation of this case This case is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorney David Raymond Lewis is in charge of the prosecution.