ASSISTANT AG CALDWELL'S REMARKS ON CORPORATE COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell Delivers Remarks at New York University Law School’s Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement

New York City, NYUnited States ~ Friday, April 17, 2015

Good afternoon, and thank you for that kind introduction.  Thank you, Professor Arlen, for facilitating this important conference and for inviting me to join today’s conversation, and thank you to NYU for hosting this event.  I am honored to speak with this audience of leaders in the field of corporate compliance and enforcement, an area to which I have dedicated much of my own professional career.

I want to focus my remarks this afternoon on the Criminal Division’s efforts to increase transparency in its corporate prosecutions.

For the past year, I have had the pleasure of leading the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, which includes approximately 600 attorneys from 17 sections and offices.  Our attorneys investigate and prosecute crimes, develop criminal law and policies and promote the rule of law abroad.  While most of the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices around the country focus on prosecuting crime in their respective districts, the Criminal Division—often in partnership with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices—focuses on issues that affect the nation as a whole, and frequently participates in investigations that are international in scope.

Among the sections that I oversee are two sections that do a significant number of corporate prosecutions.  The Criminal Division’s Fraud Section plays a unique and essential role in the department’s fight against sophisticated economic crime, bringing complex securities and commodities fraud cases, health care fraud prosecutions and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) cases.  I also oversee the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section—known as AFMLS—which pursues prosecutions against institutions and individuals engaged in money laundering, Bank Secrecy Act violations and sanctions violations.  AFMLS attorneys also forfeit the proceeds of high-level foreign corruption through the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative.  The investigations handled by the Fraud Section and AFMLS are increasingly global in nature, and our Office of International Affairs plays a significant role in helping us gather evidence and secure the return of fugitives from abroad.  

One of my priorities in the Criminal Division is to increase transparency regarding charging decisions in corporate prosecutions.  I know that many corporate counsel have concerns about what they perceive as a lack of transparency in how the department decides when to bring charges, or to seek some lesser resolution.

Greater transparency benefits everyone.  The Criminal Division stands to benefit from being more transparent in part because if companies know the benefits they are likely to receive from self-reporting or cooperating in the government’s investigation, we believe they will be more likely to come in and disclose wrongdoing and cooperate.  And on the flip side, companies can better evaluate the consequences they might face if they do not receive cooperation credit.  Transparency also helps to reduce any perceived disparity, in that companies can compare themselves, as best as possible, to other similarly-situated companies engaged in similar misconduct.

There are often limits to how much we can disclose about our investigations and prosecutions—particularly for investigations in which no charges were brought—but we are trying to be more clear about our expectations for corporate cooperation and the bases for our corporate pleas and resolutions.

One of the themes of today’s program is the shaping of corporate culture.  Shaping corporate culture through deterrence is an area where the Criminal Division plays an important role.  One important purpose of criminal prosecution of corporations is the deterrence of future would-be wrongdoers.  But to achieve deterrence, the Criminal Division must transparently communicate its expectations and the consequences of corporate misconduct.  An opaque or unreasoned enforcement action carries little deterrent effect.

We recognize the productive role we can play in influencing corporate conduct, and we take seriously the effects of our enforcement actions.  Wherever possible, we try to communicate clear guidance to the corporate community through our criminal resolutions, our interactions with companies and their counsel during an investigation or prosecution and other channels such as conferences like this one.

During my first year in leading the Criminal Division, we have tried to make as clear as possible what we expect from those companies that choose to cooperate.  Put simply, if a company wants cooperation credit, we expect that company to conduct a thorough internal investigation and to turn over evidence of wrongdoing to our prosecutors in a timely and complete way.  Perhaps most critically, we expect cooperating companies to identify culpable individuals—including senior executives if they were involved—and provide the facts about their wrongdoing.

As this sophisticated audience knows, there is no “off the rack” internal investigation that can be applied to every situation at every company.  Effective investigations must be tailored to the unique misconduct at issue and the circumstances of each company.  But, there are hallmarks of all good internal investigations.  Chief among them is the identification of wrongdoers.  Prosecuting individuals, including corporate executives, for their criminal wrongdoing is a top priority for the Criminal Division.  Corporations seeking cooperation credit should conduct their internal investigations with those principles in mind.

The mere voluntary disclosure of corporate misconduct—by itself—is not enough.  All too often, corporations expect cooperation credit for voluntarily disclosing and describing the corporate entities’ misconduct, and issuing a corporate mea culpa.  True cooperation, however, requires identifying the individuals actually responsible for the misconduct—be they executives or others—and the provision of all available facts relating to that misconduct.

Investigations must also be independent and designed to uncover the facts, not to spread company talking points or whitewash the truth.  We expect that the complete facts about the wrongdoing will be provided, and in a timely way.  As we work to be transparent, we expect transparency in return.  Transparency is a two-way street, and we expect companies that are claiming to cooperate to walk the walk.

The Criminal Division, meanwhile, will conduct its own investigation.  We will pressure test a company’s internal investigation with the facts we gather on our own, and we will consider the adequacy of an internal investigation when we evaluate a company’s claim of cooperation.

Let me be clear, however, the Criminal Division does not dictate how a company should conduct an investigation.  If a company decides to conduct an internal investigation and seek cooperation credit, that company must determine how best to conduct its own internal investigation.  Although we can provide guideposts, the manner in which an internal investigation is conducted is an internal corporate decision.

All too often, criticism is leveled against the Justice Department for purportedly causing companies to spend years, and many millions of dollars, investigating potential violations.  This is particularly true in the FCPA context where the need for international evidence can add to the expense and burden of an investigation.  Critics wrongly question the wisdom of disclosing misconduct and cooperating with the government in light of what they perceive to be the department’s requirement that companies then must conduct unnecessarily costly, time consuming and widespread investigations.

There is no question that some cooperating companies spend large sums of money investigating potential misconduct and correcting internal controls issues that allowed the misconduct to occur.  The decision to incur those costs, however, is one made by those companies, not a requirement of the department.  When a company chooses to cooperate with the government, the manner in which the company approaches its cooperation, and its own investigation of the conduct, can significantly affect the length of the investigation and the costs incurred by the company.

Although we expect internal investigations to be thorough, we do not expect companies to aimlessly boil the ocean.  Indeed, there have been some instances in which companies have, in our view, conducted overly broad and needlessly costly investigations, in some cases delaying our ability to resolve matters in a timely fashion.

For example, if a company discovers an FCPA violation in one country, and has no basis to suspect that violations are occurring elsewhere, we would not necessarily expect it to extend its investigation beyond the conduct in that country.  On the other hand, if the same people involved in the violation also operated in other countries, we likely would expect the investigation to be broader.

This example is not intended to suggest the proper scope of an investigation of any given matter.  My point instead is that, to receive cooperation credit, we expect companies to conduct appropriately tailored investigations designed to root out misconduct, identify wrongdoers and provide all available facts.  To the extent a company decides to conduct a broader survey of its operations, that decision, and any attendant delay and cost, are the result of the company’s choices, not the department’s requirement.

To assist cooperating companies in appropriately targeting their investigations, to the extent possible, we will make clear to those companies our areas of interest.  I tell my prosecutors that where possible, if it would not compromise our own investigation, we should share information about our investigation with a cooperating company to help focus the company’s internal inquiry.  I encourage an open dialogue between company counsel and our prosecutors about the progress of the internal investigation.  Companies that truly demonstrate a commitment to cooperation will find that this dialogue comes easily.

As is their right, corporations may also choose not to cooperate with the government.  But, they too must understand the consequences of their decisions.  The lack of timely and complete cooperation, which effectively frustrated the prosecution of culpable individuals, was one of the tipping points leading to charges, guilty pleas and landmark monetary penalties in the BNP Paribas and Credit Suisse cases last year.  BNPP’s failure to cooperate was expressly referenced in the plea agreement in which the bank admitted guilt and agreed to pay nearly $9 billion in financial penalties.

Likewise, a company’s decision not to cooperate may delay, but rarely thwarts, our investigation.  In a recently announced FCPA case against Alstom, a French power and transportation company, the company opted not to cooperate for years.  The Criminal Division performed an extensive investigation without the company’s cooperation.  Today, four individual Alstom executives have been charged with FCPA crimes; three of the executives have pleaded guilty; Alstom’s consortium partner, Marubeni, was charged and pleaded guilty after also opting not to cooperate, and Alstom pleaded guilty and paid a $772 million penalty—the largest criminal penalty in the history of the FCPA.

These are all facts that a company must consider in deciding whether to cooperate with our criminal investigation.  A company must choose on its own whether to conduct an internal investigation or to cooperate.  For our part, when we have them, we can openly provide facts and reference points to allow the company to make an informed decision about the scope of its investigation.

We recognize that information about the bases for our corporate guilty pleas and resolutions is an important reference point for companies that are evaluating whether to self-disclose a violation or cooperate.  Corporations may wish for a formula or definitive matrix that could be applied in this context.  But, while a rote formula might bring certainty and consistency, it would do so at the expense of the individualized justice that comes with thoughtful and nuanced prosecutorial decision-making.

For decades, the department has disclosed the factors that prosecutors must evaluate when considering corporate criminal charges and resolutions.  The corporate prosecution principles were originally adopted two decades ago—in the Holder Memo, issued when now Attorney General Holder was the Deputy Attorney General—and have been refined through the years into the current Filip Memo, otherwise known as the Principles of Prosecution of Business Organizations.

This audience is no doubt versed in the comprehensive considerations laid out in the nine Filip factors, which are publicly available on the Internet.  When applied to a particular case against a business organization, the factors could lead to charges, a deferred prosecution agreement or a non-prosecution agreement—known as DPAs and NPAs—or a declination.

Arriving at a corporate resolution requires a unique balancing of the Filip factors in each case.  But this balancing does not take place in a prosecutorial vacuum.  In virtually every instance, we invite company counsel to make a presentation regarding the application of the Filip factors in the case at hand before we make a charging decision.  Again, wherever possible, we encourage an open and transparent dialogue between the company and our prosecutors at every stage.

In each of our corporate resolutions—be it a guilty plea, NPA or DPA—we provide an explanation of the key factors that led to our decision.  The factual statements filed with resolution documents typically include a detailed recitation of the misconduct, as publicly admitted by the company.  The actual agreements outline the factors that were significant in determining the type of resolution, such as the corporation’s cooperation—if any—and remedial measures.  We usually publicly announce corporate resolutions and pleas, and make the documents available on our website.

In the future, you should expect that our resolutions will include even more detailed explanations of our considerations.  This is a priority of mine.  While these documents already provide significant insight into our thought processes, they will soon provide an even greater explanation of our analysis and conclusions.

In addition to their use as enforcement tools, our plea agreements, DPAs and NPAs provide a transparent explanation of the department’s expectations when it comes to compliance programs.  Companies seeking to measure their own compliance programs need look no further than many of the resolutions we have made publicly available.

DPAs and NPAs provide explicit roadmaps for companies to get back on track, sometimes under the watchful eye of a monitor or court.  There is perhaps no more transparent guidance to a specific corporation than the terms in a DPA or NPA, especially when we set forth remedial or compliance measures we expect.

These agreements have real teeth.  When companies subject to a NPA or DPA are required to cooperate and fail to do so, or where they engage in other criminal conduct during the term of the agreement, the Criminal Division will not hesitate to tear up a DPA or NPA and file criminal charges, where such action is appropriate and proportional to the breach.  The Criminal Division’s role is not just to set guideposts for companies that have engaged in significant misconduct, but to prosecute those corporations when they ignore those guideposts.  Just as with individuals, companies are expected to learn from their mistakes.  A company that is already subject to a DPA or NPA for violating the law should not expect the same leniency when it crosses the line again.

Over the course of my career, I have found that when it comes to affecting corporate conduct, nothing has a more powerful impact than concrete examples.  Such examples have traditionally stemmed from publicized corporate prosecutions, as it is more challenging to publicize investigations in which we decline to file charges.  The department has maintained a long-standing practice not to discuss non-public information on matters it has declined to prosecute, based in large part on concerns about the privacy rights and interests of uncharged parties.  There are serious privacy concerns inherent in publicly identifying an individual who was implicated in our criminal investigation if we eventually decide not to bring charges.  Indeed, internal department policy prohibits us from publicly identifying those individuals who have been investigated, but not charged.

Likewise, companies often strongly oppose publicity that they were under Justice Department scrutiny, even if we ultimately declined to prosecute.

The challenge we are currently working to address is how to publicize these cases while taking into consideration the legitimate concerns of the companies and individuals who were under investigation.  We are looking for ways to better inform the community about cases in which we decline to prosecute, as there is often as much to learn from a decision not to bring charges as a decision to prosecute.  We seek not just to prosecute, but to encourage and reward good corporate citizenship, and increasing transparency can play an important role in achieving that goal.

A significant example of our efforts in this regard is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Resource Guide published by the Criminal Division and the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Guide has a section on declinations and provides anonymized examples of real FCPA cases in which we declined to bring a prosecution.  Although each potential case is based on its own unique circumstances and facts, the examples in the Guide provide useful insight into the circumstances of real-world declination decisions.

The Criminal Division’s FCPA website continues this effort at transparency by posting relevant enforcement actions and opinion letters.  The department responds to opinion requests concerning enforcement intent about prospective actions that might violate the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA.  This procedure enables companies and individuals to request a determination in advance as to whether proposed conduct would constitute a violation of the FCPA.  These opinion letters are publicly available on our website.  While they are binding only on the party that makes the request, they provide significant guidance on the department’s approach to enforcing the FCPA.

Through these and other steps, the Criminal Division has prioritized increased transparency in our corporate investigations and prosecutions.  We strive to disclose more information, to the extent we can, while protecting ongoing investigations and privacy rights.  And we encourage companies to do the same—to self-disclose criminal violations and to cooperate with our investigations—or risk the consequences.

Thank you for inviting me to speak with you all today.  I would be remiss if I did not point out that opportunities to speak at conferences like this one enable increased transparency and productive dialogue.  I appreciate your creating an open forum for these discussions.

I look forward to addressing any questions that you might have.

OWNER OF TWO MEDICAL EQUIPMENT COMPANIES CONVICTED OF MEDICARE FRAUD

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Houston-Area Owner of Medical Equipment Companies Convicted in a $3.4 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

A federal jury in Houston yesterday convicted the owner of two Texas medical equipment companies for his role in a $3.4 million Medicare fraud scheme.

Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Kenneth Magidson of the Southern District of Texas, Special Agent in Charge Mike Fields of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services-Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG) Dallas Regional Office, Special Agent in Charge Perrye K. Turner of the FBI’s Houston Field Office and the Texas Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit made the announcement.

Huey P. Williams Jr., 45, who owned and operated Hermann Medical Supply of Katy, Texas, and Hermann Medical Supplies II of Houston, was convicted of one count of health care fraud, as charged in a Jan. 15, 2014, indictment.  Sentencing will be scheduled at a later date, and will take place before U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon of the Southern District of Texas.

According to the evidence submitted at trial, Williams submitted claims to Medicare through his two companies for durable medical equipment, including orthotic devices, which were medically unnecessary or never provided to the patients.  Many of the orthotic devices were components of an “arthritis kit,” and were purported to be for the treatment of arthritis-related conditions.  The evidence demonstrated that, from December 2006 through July 2010, Williams submitted approximately $3.4 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare, and Medicare paid approximately $1.9 million on those claims.

The case was investigated by the FBI, HHS-OIG and the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Texas Attorney General’s Office, and was brought as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, supervised by the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas.  The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Ashlee Caligone McFarlane and Jason Knutson of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.

Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, now operating in nine cities across the country, has charged nearly 2,100 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $6.5 billion.  In addition, the HHS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with the HHS-OIG, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.

DEFENSE CONTRACTOR PLEADS GUILTY TO FRAUD RELATED TO SUPPLYING TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Monday, December 8, 2014

Defense Contractor Pleads Guilty to Major Fraud in Provision of Supplies to U.S. Troops in Afghanistan

Supreme Foodservice GmbH, a privately held Swiss company, and Supreme Foodservice FZE, a privately-held United Arab Emirates (UAE) company, pleaded guilty today to major fraud against the United States and agreed to resolve civil violations of the False Claims Act, in connection with a contract to provide food and water to the U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan, the Justice Department announced today.  The companies pleaded guilty in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (EDPA) and paid $288.36 million in the criminal case, a sum that includes the maximum criminal fine allowed.

In addition, Supreme Group B.V. and several of its subsidiaries have agreed to pay an additional $146 million to resolve a related civil lawsuit, as well as two separate civil matters, alleging false billings to the Department of Defense (DoD) for fuel and transporting cargo to American soldiers in Afghanistan.  The lawsuit was filed in the EDPA, and the fuel and transportation allegations were investigated by the Southern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of Virginia, respectively, along with the Department’s Civil Division.

“The civil resolutions and agreements reflect the Justice Department’s continuing efforts to hold accountable contractors that have engaged in war profiteering,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Joyce R. Branda for the Justice Department’s Civil Division.  “The department will pursue contractors that knowingly seek taxpayer funds to which they are not entitled.”

“These companies chose to commit their fraud in connection with a contract to supply food and water to our nation’s fighting men and women serving in Afghanistan,” said U.S. Attorney Zane David Memeger for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  “That kind of conduct is repugnant, and we will use every available resource to punish such illegal war profiteering.”

The Criminal Fraud

In 2005, Supreme Foodservice AG, now called Supreme Foodservice GmbH, entered into a contract with the Defense Supply Center of Philadelphia (DSCP, now called Defense Logistics Agency – Troop Support) to provide food and water for the U.S. forces serving in Afghanistan.  According to court documents, between July 2005 and April 2009, Supreme Foodservice AG, together with Supreme Foodservice KG, now called Supreme Foodservice FZE, devised and implemented a scheme to overcharge the United States in order to make profits over and above those provided in the $8.8 billion subsistence prime vendor (SPV) contract.  The companies fraudulently inflated the price charged for local market ready goods (LMR) and bottled water sold to the United States under the SPV contract.  The Supreme companies did this by using a UAE company it controlled, Jamal Ahli Foods Co. LLC (JAFCO), as a middleman to mark up prices for fresh fruits and vegetables and other locally-produced products sold to the U.S. government, and to obscure the inflated price the Supreme companies were charging for bottled water.  The fraud resulted in a loss to the government of $48 million.

Supreme AG, Supreme FZE and Supreme’s owners (referred to in court documents as Supreme Owners #1 and #2) made concentrated efforts to conceal Supreme’s true relationship with JAFCO, and to make JAFCO appear to be an independent company.  They also took steps to make JAFCO’s mark-up on LMR look legitimate, and persisted in the fraudulent mark-ups even in the face of questions from DSCP about the pricing of LMR.

Even though the SPV contract stated that the Supreme food companies should charge the government the supplier’s price for the goods, emails between executives at the companies (referred to as Supreme Executive #1, #2, etc) reveal the companies’ deliberate decision to inflate the prices. Among other things, Supreme Owner #1 increased the mark-up that JAFCO would impose on non-alcoholic beer from 25 percent to 125 percent.  On or about Feb. 16, 2006, during a discussion about supplying a new product to the U.S. government, one Supreme executive wrote to another, “I am very sure the best option is to buy it from Germany and mark up via [JAFCO], like [non-alcoholic] beer.”

In early March 2006, after a DSCP contracting officer told the Supreme food companies that she wanted to see a manufacturer’s invoice for specific frozen products, Supreme Foodservice GmbH lowered its prices for those products to prices that did not include a JAFCO mark-up.  On March 14, 2006, instead of disclosing that the initial pricing had included a mark-up, a Supreme executive misled the DSCP representative by saying, “Based on more realistic quantities, we have been able to negotiate a better price,” to explain the change in pricing.

In June 2006, when a DSCP contracting officer raised questions about pricing focusing on four specific items, Supreme executives again misled the DSCP, claiming that the high prices were for a high quality of product, and offering to sell lower quality products for lower prices.  Supreme Foodservice GmbH did this even after analyzing its JAFCO margin on the four items in question and finding its profit margins were between 41 and 56 percent.

In September 2007, after a fired Supreme executive threatened to tell the DSCP about the fraud, his former employer entered into negotiation of a “separation agreement” with that executive to induce that executive not to disclose the ways in which the Supreme food companies were overcharging the DSCP.  The agreement stated that the executive would receive, among other things, a payment of 400,000 euros in September 2010, provided that the executive did not cause: a deterioration in the economic situation linked to the SPV contract; the termination of the SPV contract; or a decrease in the price levels for products, specifically including LMR and bottled water provided to the U.S. government.  

Defendant Supreme GmbH pleaded guilty to major fraud against the United States, conspiracy to commit major fraud and wire fraud.  Supreme FZE, which owns JAFCO, pleaded guilty to major fraud against the United States.  The Supreme companies agreed to jointly pay $48 million in restitution and $10 million in criminal forfeiture.  Each company also agreed to pay $96 million in criminal fines.  In addition, as a result of the criminal investigation, the Supreme companies paid $38.3 million directly to the DSCP as a refund for separate overpayments on bottled water.

The Civil Settlements

In a related civil settlement, Supreme Group agreed to pay another $101 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the EDPA by a former executive, which alleged that Supreme Group, and its food subsidiaries, violated the False Claims Act by knowingly overcharging for supplying food and water under the SPV contract.  The payment also resolves claims that, from June 2005 to December 2010, the Supreme food companies failed to disclose and pass through to the government rebates and discounts it obtained from its suppliers, as required by its SPV contract with the United States.

“Today’s results are part of an ongoing effort by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) and its law enforcement partners to protect the integrity of the Department of Defense's acquisition process from personal and corporate greed,” said Deputy Inspector General for Investigations James B. Burch for the U.S. Department of Defense’s Office of the Inspector General.  “The Defense Criminal Investigative Service will continue to pursue allegations of fraud and corruption that puts the Warfighter at risk.”

“We are very pleased with this resolution, and are gratified that the public can now see what we've been aggressively investigating,” said Director Frank Robey of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command's Major Procurement Fraud Unit (MPFU).  “Companies that do business with the government must comply with all of their obligations, and if they overcharge for supplying our men and women in uniform who are bravely serving this nation, they must be held accountable for their actions.”

Separately, Supreme Site Services GmbH, a Supreme Group subsidiary, agreed to pay $20 million to settle allegations that they overbilled for fuel purchased by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for Kandahar Air Field (KAF) in Afghanistan under a NATO Basic Ordering Agreement.  The government alleged that Supreme Site Services’ drivers were stealing fuel destined for KAF generators while en route for which the company falsely billed DLA.

“It is important that government contractors supporting conflicts abroad be held accountable for their billings to the government,” said U.S. Attorney Dana J. Boente for the Eastern District of Virginia.  “The DoD investigating components are instrumental in protecting the interests of the government, and their efforts in this investigation are to be commended.”

Supreme Group’s subsidiary Supreme Logistics FZE also has agreed to pay $25 million to resolve alleged false billings by Supreme Logistics in connection with shipping contracts between the U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), located at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, and various shipping carriers to transport food to U.S. troops in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom.  The shipping carriers transported cargo destined for U.S. troops from the United States to Latvia or other intermediate ports, and then arranged with logistics vendors, including Supreme Logistics, to carry the cargo the rest of the way to Afghanistan.  The United States alleged that Supreme Logistics falsely billed USTRANSCOM for higher-priced refrigerated trucks when it actually used lower-priced non-refrigerated trucks to transport the cargo.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Illinois is committed to protecting the integrity of all of the vital missions carried out at Scott Air Force Base, including the mission of the U.S. Transportation Command,” said U.S. Attorney Stephen R. Wigginton for the Southern District of Illinois.  “These vital services carried out by the brave men and women of the armed forces of the United States deserve, and will receive, our full support, and this office will do everything possible to protect their missions.”

“These settlements are victories for American taxpayers,” said Special Inspector General John F. Sopko for Afghanistan Reconstruction.  “It sends a clear signal that whether a case involves a mom and pop outfit or a major multinational corporation, we will work tirelessly with our investigative partners to pursue justice any time U.S. dollars supporting the mission in Afghanistan are misused.”

The EDPA lawsuit was initially filed under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, by Michael Epp, Supreme GmbH’s former Director, Commercial Division and Supply Chain.  The False Claims Act prohibits the submission of false claims for government money or property and allows the United States to recover treble damages and penalties for a violation.  Under the Act’s whistleblower provisions, a private party may file suit on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery.  The case remained under seal to permit the United States to investigate the allegations and decide whether to intervene and take over the case.  Epp will receive $16.16 million as his share of the government’s settlement of the lawsuit.

The criminal and civil matters in the EDPA were the result of a coordinated effort by the Department of Justice’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, DCIS, U.S. Army’s Criminal Investigative Command’s MPFU and the FBI.

The investigation of Supreme Site Services ’ alleged false billings for fuel was conducted by the Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, and the investigation of Supreme Logistics’ alleged false invoices for transportation was handled by the Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Illinois.  Both matters were investigated by the Defense Contract Audit Agency Office of Investigative Support, the Army Audit Agency, the International Contract Corruption Task Force, the U.S. Army’s Criminal Investigative Command’s Major Procurement Fraud Unit, the DoD Office of Inspector General’s DCIS, the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction, the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

The claims resolved by the civil settlements are allegations only, except for the conduct for which the Supreme food companies have pleaded guilty.

CFTC FILES NOTICE OF INTENT TO REVOKE REGISTRATIONS OF COMMODITY POOL OPERATOR

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
November 25, 2014

CFTC Seeks to Revoke the Registrations of John G. Wilkins and His Company, Altamont Global Partners LLC, Based on Court’s Permanent Injunction Order Prohibiting Them from Committing Further Fraud and on Wilkins’ Related Criminal Conviction

Washington, DC—The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today filed a Notice of Intent (Notice) to revoke the registrations of Altamont Global Partners LLC (Altamont), a registered Commodity Pool Operator with its principal place of business in Longwood, Florida, and its registered Associated Person, John G. Wilkins, formerly of Chuluota, Florida. Wilkins is a principal, managing member and approximate one-third owner of Altamont.

The Notice alleges that Altamont and Wilkins are subject to statutory disqualification from CFTC registration based on an Order for entry of default judgment and an amended Order of permanent injunction (together, Orders) entered by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on February 20, 2014 (see CFTC Press Release 6869-14) and July 8, 2014, respectively. The Orders include findings that Altamont and Wilkins misappropriated commodity pool funds and issued false quarterly statements to pool participants. Among other sanctions, the Orders permanently enjoined Altamont and Wilkins from further violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act and a CFTC regulation, as charged, and from applying for registration with the CFTC.

In addition, the Notice alleges that Wilkins is subject to statutory disqualification from CFTC registration based on his conviction for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud in connection with these same activities, as entered by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on January 23, 2014. The District Court sentenced Wilkins to 108 months in federal prison.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this registration action are Rachel Hayes, Peter Riggs, and Charles Marvine.

MEDICAL DEVICE COMPANY AND CEO CHARGED WITH SELLING UNAPPROVED MEDICAL DEVICES

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Vascular Solutions Inc. and its CEO Charged with Selling Unapproved Medical Devices and Conspiring to Defraud the United States

An indictment was filed today charging Vascular Solutions Inc. (VSI) and its chief executive officer, Howard Root, with selling medical devices without U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and conspiring to defraud the United States by concealing the illegal sales activity.  The announcement was made today by Acting Assistant Attorney General Joyce R. Branda for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division, U.S. Attorney Robert Pitman for the Western District of Texas and Special Agent in Charge Antoinette V. Henry of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s Office of Criminal Investigations, Metro Washington Field Office. The devices at issue are from VSI's “Vari-Lase” product line, a system designed to treat varicose veins by burning or “ablating” them with laser energy.

Root and VSI are each charged with one count of conspiracy and eight counts of introducing adulterated and misbranded medical devices into interstate commerce.  The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

“These charges involve a deceptive sales campaign led by the CEO of a public company,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Branda.  “The indictment charges that the sales campaign persisted in the face of FDA warnings, a whistleblower’s complaint to the CEO and a failed clinical trial showing that the device was less safe and less effective than a product that had already been approved.  We will take action to hold corporations and their leaders responsible when they violate laws intended to protect public health.”

According to the indictment, the Vari-Lase products were cleared by the FDA only for the treatment of superficial veins, but Root and VSI sold them for the ablation, or removal, of “perforator” veins, which connect the superficial vein system to the deep vein system.  Because perforator veins come into direct contact with deep veins, treating them with lasers was a more difficult and risky procedure.

Root is charged with leading the illegal sales campaign, which lasted from 2007 until 2014, and conspiring with others to hide it from the FDA.  The indictment alleges that Root authorized the campaign after VSI failed to obtain FDA authorization to sell the Vari-Lase system for ablation of perforator veins.  The sales campaign is alleged to have ignored FDA concerns about the safety and effectiveness of the procedure and specific warnings from the FDA not to sell Vari-Lase products for treatment of perforator veins.  The indictment alleges that, with Root’s approval, the sales continued even after the company sponsored an unsuccessful clinical trial that showed that the Vari-Lase system was less safe and effective than a competing device that the FDA had cleared for perforator vein treatment.  According to the indictment, the sales continued even after a whistleblower complained to Root in 2009 and the government told the company about its investigation in 2011.

The indictment also charges VSI and Root with deceiving the FDA.  In late 2007, Root decided to launch a special “Short Kit” designed for perforator vein treatment, despite the lack of FDA marketing authorization, by claiming that the product was intended for “short vein segments” or “short veins.”  At the same time, the government alleged that internal company documents approved by Root taught the sales force that these terms included perforator veins and urged salespeople to suggest to health care providers that Vari-Lase devices could be used to treat perforator veins.  After learning about the government’s investigation, members of the sales force began using the term “short vein segments” in field trip reports to disguise that they were still selling Vari-Lase devices for perforator vein treatment, according to the indictment.  Two other members of the sales force are alleged to have misled investigators; in addition, the indictment charges that one member falsely denied his conduct and another tried to scapegoat a low-level salesman.

In July 2014, VSI agreed to pay $520,000 to resolve allegations that it caused false claims to be submitted to federal health programs by marketing the Vari-Lase devices for treating perforator veins.  In that civil action, the government alleged that VSI knowingly caused physicians and other purchasers of the Short Kit to submit false claims to federal health care programs for uses of the Short Kit that were not reimbursable.

“FDA is committed to protecting the public health and the integrity of the regulatory system,” said Special Agent in Charge Henry.

The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Timothy Finley of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch and Assistant U.S. Attorney Bud Paulissen of the Western District of Texas.  The case was investigated by the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General.

An indictment is merely an allegation, and every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

COMPANY AND OWNER SUED BY GOVERNMENT FOR DEFRAUDING BUSINESS ZONE PROGRAM

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
Thursday, December 5, 2013

Government Files Suit Against Canton, Ohio-based Tab Construction and Its Owner for Allegedly Defrauding the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Program

The government has filed a complaint against Canton, Ohio-based TAB Construction Co. Inc. (TAB) and its owner, William E. Richardson III, for allegedly making false statements to the Small Business Administration (SBA) to obtain certification as a Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) company, the Justice Department announced today.

 “The HUBZone program is intended to create jobs in areas that historically have had trouble attracting business,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Stuart F. Delery.  “The Justice Department will take strong enforcement action when companies obtain contracts to which they are not entitled.”

 The government alleges that TAB used its fraudulently procured HUBZone certification to obtain four U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ construction contracts worth millions of dollars.  Each of those contracts had been set aside for qualified HUBZone companies.  The government’s complaint asserts claims against TAB and Richardson under the False Claims Act and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989.

 Allegedly, Richardson originally applied to the HUBZone program in 2000 by claiming that TAB’s principal office was located in a designated HUBZone when no TAB employees worked out of the HUBZone office, and TAB actually was located in a non-HUBZone.  Even though Richardson told the SBA that TAB was located in a HUBZone, Richardson consistently used his non-HUBZone address in conducting TAB’s other business affairs, at one point even stating under oath in private litigation that TAB’s office was located in a non-HUBZone.  In 2006, Richardson allegedly applied for re-certification to the HUBZone program, again falsely stating that eight employees worked in the designated HUBZone.  The government alleges that just six weeks after Richardson re-certified its eligibility with the SBA, TAB completed an affidavit in an unrelated matter, which stated that TAB’s principal office was located in a non-HUBZone.

 Under the HUBZone program, companies that maintain their principal office in a designated HUBZone, and meet certain other requirements, can apply to the SBA for certification as a HUBZone small business company.  HUBZone companies can then use this certification when bidding on government contracts.  In certain cases, government agencies will restrict competition for a contract to HUBZone-certified companies.

 “We will not tolerate fraud in the HUBZone or any other SBA program,” said SBA Inspector General Peggy E. Gustafson.  “With our interagency partners, this office will continue to pursue those who defraud the government by lying to gain access to federal set-aside contracts.”

 “SBA’s contracting programs, including the HUBZone program, provide small businesses with the opportunity to grow and create jobs,” said SBA General Counsel Sara D. Lipscomb.  “SBA has no tolerance for waste, fraud or abuse in any government contracting program and is committed to working with our federal partners to ensure the benefits of these programs flow to the intended recipients.”

 The government filed its complaint in two consolidated lawsuits filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act.  Under the Act, a private citizen can sue on behalf of the government and share in any recovery.  The government also is entitled to intervene in the lawsuit, as it has done in this case.

 This matter was handled by the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division in conjunction with the Small Business Administration’s Office of Inspector General and Office of General Counsel and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.

 The consolidated civil cases are U.S. ex rel. Roy. J. Fairbrother Jr. and Louis Petit v. TAB Construction Co. Inc., et al., No. 5:11-cv-1432 (N.D. Ohio) and U.S. ex rel. Patricia Hopson and Vince Pavkov v. TAB Construction Co. Inc., No. 5:12-cv-135 (N.D. Ohio).  The claims asserted against TAB and Richardson are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

OWNERS OF AMBULANCE COMPANY PLEAD GUILTY IN FRAUD SCHEME

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Owners and Supervisor of Ambulance Transportation Company Plead Guilty in Los Angeles for Role in Ambulance Fraud Scheme
The owners and supervisor of Alpha Ambulance Inc. (Alpha), a now-defunct Los Angeles-area ambulance transportation company, have pleaded guilty in connection with an ambulance fraud scheme.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney André Birotte Jr. of the Central District of California; Special Agent in Charge Glenn R. Ferry of the Los Angeles Region of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG); and Assistant Director in Charge Bill L. Lewis of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office made the announcement.

Alex Kapri, aka Alex Kapriyelov or Alexander Kapriyelov, 56; Aleksey Muratov, aka Russ Muratov, 32; and Danielle Hartsell Medina, 36, pleaded guilty on Oct. 28, 2013, before U.S. District Court Judge Audrey B. Collins in the Central District of California to conspiracy to commit health care fraud.  They face a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison when they are sentenced on Feb. 24, 2014.

Kapri and Muratov were owners and operators of Alpha, an ambulance transportation company that operated in the greater Los Angeles area and that specialized in the provision of non-emergency ambulance transportation services to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, primarily dialysis patients.  Medina was employed by Alpha and ultimately supervised the training and education of its employees.

According to court documents, Kapri, Muratov and Medina knowingly provided non-emergency ambulance transportation services to Medicare beneficiaries whose medical condition at that time did not require those services.  With Kapri’s knowledge, Muratov and Medina instructed certain Alpha employees to conceal the Medicare beneficiaries’ medical conditions by altering requisite paperwork and creating fraudulent reasons that justified, on paper, the transportation services.  Based on these medically unnecessary transportation services, the defendants caused Alpha to submit false and fraudulent claims to Medicare.

Additionally, as the defendants were submitting false and fraudulent claims to Medicare, Medicare notified Alpha the company would be subject to a Medicare audit.  In response to this notice, Muratov and Medina instructed Alpha employees – with Kapri’s knowledge – to alter requisite paperwork and create fraudulent reasons that justified, on paper, transportation services for the beneficiaries identified as the subject of Medicare’s audit.

From at least June 2008 through at least July 2012, Alpha submitted more than $49 million in claims for ambulance transportation services.  As a result, Medicare paid Alpha more than $13 million for these claims, many of which were false and fraudulent.

The case was investigated by the FBI and HHS-OIG and was brought as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, under the supervision of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California.  This case was prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Blanca Quintero and Alexander F. Porter and Assistant Chief O. Benton Curtis III.
                       
Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, now operating in nine cities across the country, has charged more than 1,500 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $5 billion.  In addition, HHS’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with HHS-OIG, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.

UBS SECURITIES JAPAN CO. LTD SENTENCED FOR MANIPULATION OF LIBOR

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
Wednesday, September 18, 2013

UBS Securities Japan Co. Ltd Sentenced for Long-running Manipulation of Libor
UBS Securities Japan Co. Ltd. (UBS Securities Japan), an investment bank, financial advisory securities firm and wholly-owned subsidiary of UBS AG, was sentenced today for its role in manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), a leading benchmark used in financial products and transactions around the world, the Justice Department announced.

UBS Securities Japan was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny in the District of Connecticut.  UBS Securities Japan pleaded guilty on Dec. 19, 2012, to one count of engaging in a scheme to defraud counterparties to interest rate derivative trades by secretly manipulating LIBOR benchmark interest rates.  UBS Securities Japan signed a plea agreement with the government in which it admitted its criminal conduct and agreed to pay a $100 million fine, which the court accepted in imposing sentence.  In addition, UBS AG, the Zurich-based parent company of UBS Securities Japan, entered into a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with the government requiring UBS AG to pay an additional $400 million penalty, to admit and accept responsibility for its misconduct as set forth in an extensive statement of facts and to continue cooperating with the Justice Department in its ongoing investigation.  The NPA reflects UBS AG’s substantial cooperation in discovering and disclosing LIBOR misconduct within the financial institution and recognizes the significant remedial measures undertaken by new management to enhance internal controls.

Together with approximately $1 billion in regulatory penalties and disgorgement – $700 million as a result of a Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) action; $259.2 million as a result of a U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) action; and $64.3 million as a result of a Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) action – the Justice Department’s criminal penalties bring the total amount of the resolution to more than $1.5 billion.

“This action, and the resulting sentence, prove that no individual or firm is above the law – no matter what,” said Attorney General Eric Holder.  “The Department of Justice will continue to stand vigilant against corporations or individuals who threaten the integrity of our financial markets, undermine the stability of our economy, or jeopardize the well-being of our citizens.  And, when supported by the facts and the law, we will never hesitate to use every tool and authority available to us to hold accountable those who illegally take advantage of others for their own financial gain.”

“Through its guilty plea and sentence, UBS has been held to account for deliberately manipulating LIBOR, one of the cornerstone interest rates in our global financial system,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Criminal Division.  “The $1.5 billion global resolution against UBS – of which this guilty plea and sentence are a critical element – is just one of several actions we have taken against financial firms throughout the world that sought to illegally influence LIBOR.  As we continue our active and ongoing investigation of the manipulation of LIBOR, our prosecutors and agents will continue to tenaciously follow the evidence wherever it leads.  Neither UBS, nor the individual UBS defendants we have charged in connection with this sophisticated scheme, nor any other bank or individual, is above the law.”

According to documents filed in these cases, LIBOR is an average interest rate, calculated based on submissions from leading banks around the world, reflecting the rates those banks believe they would be charged if borrowing from other banks.  LIBOR serves as the primary benchmark for short-term interest rates globally, and is used as a reference rate for many interest rate contracts, mortgages, credit cards, student loans and other consumer lending products.  The Bank of International Settlements estimated that as of the second half of 2009, outstanding interest rate contracts were estimated at approximately $450 trillion.

LIBOR, published by the British Bankers’ Association (BBA), a trade association based in London, is calculated for 10 currencies at 15 borrowing periods, known as maturities, ranging from overnight to one year.  The LIBOR for a given currency at a specific maturity is the result of a calculation based upon submissions from a panel of banks.

Beginning in September 2006, UBS Securities Japan and a senior trader employed in the Tokyo office of UBS Securities Japan orchestrated a sustained, wide-ranging and systematic scheme to move Yen LIBOR in a direction favorable to the trader’s trading positions, defrauding UBS’s counterparties and harming others with financial products referencing Yen LIBOR who were unaware of the manipulation.  Between November 2006 and August 2009, the senior trader or a colleague of the senior trader endeavored to manipulate Yen LIBOR on at least 335 of the 738 trading days in that period, and during some periods on almost a daily basis.  Because of the large size of the senior trader’s positions, even slight moves of a fraction of a percent in Yen LIBOR could generate large profits.  For example, the senior trader once estimated that a 0.01 percent movement in the final Yen LIBOR fixing on a specific date could result in a $2 million profit for UBS.

According to the charging documents, UBS Securities Japan and the senior trader employed three strategies to execute the scheme: causing UBS to make false and misleading Yen LIBOR submissions to the BBA; causing cash brokerage firms, which purported to provide market information regarding LIBOR to panel banks, to disseminate false and misleading information about short-term interest rates for Yen, which those banks could and did rely upon in formulating their own LIBOR submissions to the BBA; and communicating with interest rate derivatives traders employed at three other Yen LIBOR panel banks in an effort to cause them to make false and misleading Yen LIBOR submissions to the BBA.

In entering into the NPA with UBS AG, the Justice Department considered information from UBS and from regulatory agencies in Switzerland and Japan demonstrating that in the last two years UBS has made important and positive changes in its management, compliance and training to ensure adherence to the law.  The Department received favorable reports from the FINMA and the Japan Financial Services Authority (JFSA) describing, respectively, progress that UBS has made in its approach to compliance and enforcement and UBS Securities Japan’s effective implementation of the remedial measures the JFSA imposed based on findings relating to the attempted manipulation of Yen benchmarks.

The investigation was conducted by the FBI’s Washington Field Office.  The prosecution is being handled by Deputy Chiefs Daniel Braun and William Stellmach and Trial Attorneys Thomas B.W. Hall and Sandra L. Moser, along with former Trial Attorney Luke Marsh, of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eric Glover and Liam Brennan of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut have provided valuable assistance.  The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs also provided assistance in this matter.

The investigation leading to these cases has required, and has greatly benefited from, a diligent and wide-ranging cooperative effort among various enforcement agencies both in the United States and abroad.  The Justice Department acknowledges and expresses its deep appreciation for this assistance.  In particular, the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement referred this matter to the Department and, along with the FCA, has played a major role in the investigation.  The SEC has also played a significant role in the LIBOR series of investigations and, among other efforts, has made an invaluable contribution to the investigation relating to UBS.  The Department of Justice also wishes to acknowledge and thank FINMA, the Japanese Ministry of Justice, and the JFSA.  Various agencies and enforcement authorities from other nations also have participated in different aspects of the broader investigation relating to LIBOR and other benchmark rates, and the Department is grateful for their cooperation and assistance.

This prosecution is part of efforts underway by President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF).  President Obama established the interagency FFETF to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.  The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources.  The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

OWNERS OF HEALTH CARE COMPANY SENTENCED FOR ROLES IN $17.1 MILLION FRAUD

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Thursday, August 15, 2013
Operators of Louisiana Home Health Company Sentenced for $17.1 Million Health Care Fraud Scheme

The owner of South Louisiana Home Health Care Inc. and the director of nursing for the Louisiana home health agency were sentenced today for their roles in a Medicare fraud scheme involving the payment of kickbacks and the falsification of documents.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Criminal Division; Acting U.S. Attorney Walt Green of the Middle District of Louisiana; Special Agent in Charge Mike Fields of the Dallas Region of the HHS Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG); Special Agent in Charge Michael Anderson of the FBI’s New Orleans Division; and Louisiana State Attorney General James Buddy Caldwell made the announcement.

Louis T. Age Jr., 64, owned and operated South Louisiana Home Health Care and operated this company along with his former wife, Verna Age, 60, who served as the company’s director of nursing. Louis Age and Verna Age, both of Slidell, La., were sentenced today by U.S. District Judge James J. Brady of the Middle District of Louisiana to 180 months and 60 months in prison, respectively, and ordered to forfeit $9.2 million and pay $17.1 in restitution.

After a jury trial in March 2013, Louis Age and Verna Age each were convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, and Louis Age also was convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay or receive illegal health care kickbacks.  Verna Age previously was convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay or receive illegal health care kickbacks after a jury trial in October 2012.

According to evidence presented at trial, Louis Age and Verna Age paid kickbacks to patient recruiters to obtain Medicare beneficiary information.  Nurses, including registered nurse Verna Age, then falsified qualification documents to make it appear that these beneficiaries qualified for home health services.  The evidence also showed that Louis Age hired and paid kickbacks to medical doctors to sign fraudulent referrals and certifications for home health services that were not medically necessary.  Louis Age and Verna Age then used the Medicare beneficiary information and false documents to bill Medicare for the medically unnecessary home health services.  From 2005 through 2011, Medicare paid South Louisiana Home Health Care approximately $17.1 million based on these fraudulent home health care claims.
 
This case was investigated by the FBI, HHS-OIG and Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Louisiana State Attorney General’s Office and was brought as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, under supervision of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Louisiana. The case was prosecuted by Trial Attorneys David M. Maria and Abigail B. Taylor of the Fraud Section, with assistance from Trial Attorney Arunabha Bhoumik.

Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, now operating in nine cities across the country, has charged more than 1,500 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $5 billion.  In addition, HHS’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with HHS-OIG, is taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.

FOUR INDIVIDUALS AND THREE CORPORATIONS CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUDING NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL

The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice Website:

“WASHINGTON — A Manhattan jury today convicted four individuals and three corporations for their participation in an eight-year conspiracy, involving kickbacks in excess of $2 million, to defraud New York Presbyterian Hospital (NYPH), the Department of Justice announced. In addition to today's convictions, previously 10 individuals and three companies have pleaded guilty to date to charges arising out of this investigation.

After a four week trial, Michael Yaron and two companies owned by him, Cambridge Environmental & Construction Corp., which does business as National Environmental Associates (Cambridge/NEA), an asbestos abatement company, and Oxford Construction & Development Corp., a construction company; Moshe Buchnik, the president of two asbestos abatement companies; Santo Saglimbeni, a former vice president of facilities operations at NYPH; Artech Corporation, a company owned by a relative of Saglimbeni; and Emilio "Tony" Figueroa, a former director of facilities operations at NYPH were each convicted of engaging in a wire fraud conspiracy to defraud NYPH. Additionally, Yaron, Cambridge/NEA, Oxford, Buchnik, Saglimbeni and Artech were also convicted of wire fraud for transferring money electronically from the bank account of one co-conspirator to Artech's bank account.

"We are very pleased that the jury found these individuals and companies guilty of conspiracy to defraud New York Presbyterian Hospital," said Sharis A. Pozen, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. "This verdict sends a clear message that corrupt purchasing officials and the contractors who paid them kickbacks will be held accountable for this type of illegal conduct."

According to the court document, the scheme to defraud NYPH centered on Saglimbeni, with the assistance of Figueroa, awarding asbestos abatement, air monitoring and general construction contracts to Yaron, Buchnik, Cambridge/NEA and Oxford in return for over $2.3 million in kickbacks paid to Saglimbeni. A portion of those kickbacks were funneled by Yaron to Saglimbeni through Artech, a sham company Saglimbeni created in the name of his mother in order to conceal the kickbacks. Counts three and four of the superseding indictment charging Saglimbeni and Figueroa with mail fraud conspiracy and mail fraud were severed from the matter and will be tried on April 16, 2012, in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

Sentencing for all defendants is scheduled for June 20, 2012, before Judge George B. Daniels. The wire fraud and wire fraud conspiracy charges each carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for individuals and a $1 million criminal fine for individuals and companies. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.

The convictions announced today resulted from a federal antitrust investigation of bid rigging, fraud, bribery and tax-related offenses in the award of construction, maintenance and service contracts to the facilities operations department of NYPH.
The investigation is being conducted by the Antitrust Division's New York Field Office with the assistance of the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation's New York Field Office.”

HEAD OF INVESTMENT FIRM GETS 20 YEAR PRISON SENTENCE FOR MAIL FRAUD AND MONEY LAUNDERING

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

“The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on December 13, 2011, the Honorable William Stiehl, United States District Court judge, sentenced Edward Lynn Moskop, 64, of Belleville, Illinois, to the maximum statutory penalties of 240 months’ imprisonment on Mail Fraud and 120 months on Money Laundering, to be served concurrently. Judge Stiehl also ordered Moskop to pay more than $1.49 million in restitution to his victims. The sentencing followed Moskop’s August 3, 2011 plea of guilty to the two count indictment.

Moskop's 20-year prison sentence was the culmination of his long-time investment fraud and misappropriation scheme. In the criminal case, the United States Attorney’s office for the Southern District of Illinois alleged that Moskop, operating as Financial Services Moskop and Associates, Inc., acted as a securities broker for several customers by making investments on their behalf. According to the U.S. Attorney’s office, from 1991 to 2010, Moskop persuaded customers to provide him with funds for investment. But, according to the U.S. Attorney’s office, instead of making the investment, Moskop kept the funds for his own use. The U.S. Attorney’s office alleged that Moskop also provided his customers with fraudulent periodic investment statements showing false interest and gains in the investments. According to the U.S. Attorney’s office, Moskop obtained by fraud approximately $2,400,000 from 25 victims. The U.S. Attorney’s office alleged that Moskop’s victims included his relatives, individuals referred by trusted friends and attorneys, a local Veterans of Foreign War Post, and long-time customers of his insurance business.

The criminal charges against Moskop are related to the conduct underlying the SEC’s civil action against Moskop and his company, Financial Services Moskop & Associates. On November 19, 2010, the SEC filed an emergency civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to halt an ongoing fraud on investors conducted by Moskop and his company. In its complaint, the SEC alleged that from 1989 until the filing of the SEC’s action against Moskop and his company, Moskop misappropriated most of the life savings of at least two elderly investors. On the same day the SEC filed its case, the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, United States District Court Judge, granted the SEC’s motion for emergency relief, entering a temporary restraining order against Moskop and his company and an order freezing their assets. On November 27, 2010, the court entered a preliminary injunction against Moskop and his company, and on July 21, 2011, the court entered a permanent injunction against Moskop and his company and continued the order freezing their assets. The SEC's action, which is ongoing, seeks disgorgement of the ill-gotten gains received by Moskop and his company, as well as civil penalties.”