Archive
U.S. and Mexico Share Forfeiture Funds from Sigue Corporation
On Monday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Mexican Attorney General Marisela Morales Ibáñez signed a letter of intent for the United States to share approximately $6 million in forfeited funds with the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic of Mexico (PGR) to support Mexican efforts to combat the financial infrastructure of organized criminal groups and to enhance bilateral cooperation between the two countries in forfeiture matters.
The letter of intent recognizes the PGR’s recent cooperation in the investigation and resolution of the U.S. government’s case against Sigue Corporation for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). In January 2008, Sigue entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice on charges of failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program. As a result, Sigue forfeited $15 million to the United States and agreed to commit an additional $9.7 million to improving its anti-money laundering program.
Sigue is a large international corporation engaged in money transfer services, with a focus on transactions between the U.S., Mexico and Latin America. Money transfer services operating in the U.S. are required to comply with the BSA, which includes anti-money laundering provisions. Specifically, money transmitters are required to implement internal preventative measures to guard against money laundering and must report suspicious activity to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
The case, filed in the Eastern District of Missouri, arose out of transactions conducted by Sigue and its authorized agents from November 2003 through March 2005. During this time, more than $24.7 million in suspicious transactions were allegedly conducted through registered agents of Sigue, including transactions conducted by undercover U.S. law enforcement agents using funds represented to be proceeds of drug trafficking. According to the government’s theory, Sigue did not identify broader patterns of money laundering activity, failed to prevent the unlawful activity from continuing and did not create systems and procedures to identify suspicious financial transactions being conducted by related senders and beneficiaries.
Failure to comply with the BSA may result in civil and criminal penalties, with this case being a prime example. Sigue was forced to forfeit $15 million to the DOJ to avoid prosecution, and was also required to pay an additional $12 million in civil penalties to FinCEN.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Home Builder Indicted in $14.7 Million Construction Investment Scheme
On March 1, 2012 a federal grand jury indicted Patrick J. Belzner, a/k/a “Patrick McCloskey,” of Glen Arm, Maryland fo conspiring to commit wire fraud arising from an investment fraud scheme.
The indictment alleges that in order to gain their victims’ confidence, Belzner and his co-conspirators caused victim investors and borrowers to enter into escrow agreements which stated that no person other than the victims had the ability to remove the escrowed funds without the victims’ permission. Belzner told the victims that a co-conspirator had to be the attorney assigned as the escrow agent.
The indictment alleges that Belzner and his co-conspirator fraudulently withdrew approximately $14,730,780 from the escrow accounts and used these stolen funds to satisfy their business and personal debts. To conceal their scheme, Belzner and his co-conspirators allegedly: emailed fabricated bank statements to victims that misrepresented the escrow account balance and the date by when the investors’ money would be returned. Belzner and his co-conspirators also used funds fraudulently obtained from some victim investors to repay money owed to previous victim investors, or to other individuals to whom the conspirators owed debts.
Belzner faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and fine of $250,000 or twice the value of the gain or loss. The indictment further seeks forfeiture of at least $14,730,780, the amount of money stolen from victim investors.
Belzner’s alleged co-conspirators are not named in the indictment. According to the indictment Bezner’s co-conspirators included a home builder from Baltimore, Maryland, an attorney licensed to practice in Maryland, a senior underwriter from Newport Beach, California, and an attorney licensed to practice in California. The government may still be building its case against the other co-conspirators, offering the defendant the opportunity to cooperate with investigators. However, since the indictment was recently unsealed, there is a good chance that the other co-conspirators were actually involved in the investigation into Belzner.
Co-conspirators make for interesting government witnesses. These “insider” witnesses provide the government with invaluable insight into the inner workings of the alleged crime. However, due to a co-conspirator’s own precarious position as a criminally liable person, defense counsel is afforded the opportunity to seriously call into question the reliability, veracity, and character of such witnesses.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Switzerland’s Oldest Bank Indicted on U.S. Tax Charges
The US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York recently announced the first ever indictment of a Swiss bank. The indictment, returned by the grand jury and unsealed on February 2, 2012, alleges that Wegelin & Co. conspired with US taxpayers and others to hide from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) more than $1.2 billion in secret assets and the income these accounts generated.
Concurrent with this indictment, the US government seized more than $16 million from Wegelin’s correspondent bank account in the United States, in accordance with a civil forfeiture complaint and seizure warrant. Wegelin is charged in a superseding indictment with Michael Berlinka, Urs Frei and Roger Keller, three client advisers at the bank who were previously charged with the same conspiracy.
The government alleges that the defendant’s conspiracy in this case corresponds with Swiss banking giant UBS’ announcement on or about July 17, 2008 that it was closing its US cross-border banking business. UBS thereafter began notifying clients that they could continue to maintain undeclared accounts at Wegelin and certain other Swiss private banks. It was at this time that Wegelin’s executive committee, including its managing partners affirmatively decided to capture the illegal US cross-border banking business lost by UBS by opening new undeclared accounts for US taxpayer clients fleeing UBS.
The defendants in this case are currently only charged with conspiracy. However, their alleged conduct in the indictment could open them up to various other offenses. For example, the indictment alleges the transmission of a long list of checks and wire transfers from Wegelin to US taxpayers for the purpose of repatriating funds from these undeclared accounts. This list of transactions shows that most of the amounts transferred were under the $10,000 reporting requirement and sent to the same recipient over relatively short periods of time. Such behavior, if proven to have been undertaken to evade reporting requirements, is known as structuring, or “smurfing,” and is prohibited under the anti-structuring statute. The indictment also alleges that Wegelin instructed clients to carry cash and to avoid taking more than $10,000 with them on international flights, all to allegedly avoid reporting requirements. According to the statute, each such transaction can be charged as a separate and distinct offense. Therefore, defense counsel will have to take into consideration the possibility of a multi-count superseding indictment against the defendants when negotiating with prosecutors.
Another interesting observation for defense counsel to consider is the fact that the US taxpayer clients are identified as co-conspirators but have not yet been named as defendants themselves. These unindicted co-conspirators might have provided the US government with information about Wegelin’s alleged wrongdoing in exchange for proffer letters or non-prosecution agreements. Alternatively, the government may have merely agreed to delay the return of any such indictments to see how cooperative or useful these co-conspirators prove to be against Wegelin. When weighing the multitude of factors impacting the defendants’ decisions to accept plea agreements, defense counsel should recognize that all such witnesses will be particularly susceptible to cross-examination should this case go to trial.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
65 Count Indictment Against Texas Man for Bankruptcy Fraud and Structuring Financial Transactions
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas announced charges against Jack Texas Alves. The grand jury returned a 65 count indictment against Mr. Alves for one count of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 152 and 64 counts of structuring domestic financial transactions in violation of 31 U.S.C. 5324(a)(3).
The indictment alleges that in a bankruptcy court filing on May 23, 2008, Mr. Alves falsely stated the amount of cash he had in his possession was $4,000 when in fact, Mr. Alves knew he possessed substantially more cash which he concealed from the bankruptcy court and creditors. The indictment further alleges that Mr. Alves engaged in a pattern of structuring bank deposits, totaling more than $100,000 in a 12 month period, for the purpose of evading reporting requirements. According to a detailed list in the indictment, from February 24, 2010 until May 12, 2011, Mr. Alves made a total of 64 bank deposits-each one between $5000 and $8100.
Not mentioned in the accouncement or the indictment is whether Mr. Alves’ bank notified FinCEN of these transactions by filing suspicious activity reports or SARs. The indictment dates all of the transactions and it isn’t suprising that the bank caught on to Mr. Alves activities. For example, Mr. Alves made a deposit almost every business day for nearly two months. Each deposit was shy of the standard trigger for reporting purposes, $10,000. Bank’s are instructed to report structured transactions when series of deposits in a short duration of time add up to an amount that would have otherwise been reported if deposited together. Furthermore, banks are prohibited from telling a person that they filed an SAR about them to FinCEN. Thus, Mr. Alves likely had no idea that the bank had sent the SAR to FinCEN where it was being processed by analysts who eventually coordinated with law enforcement officials about the transactions.
The indictment also indicates that the government is seeking forfeiture of two bank accounts currently seized. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(C), 28 U.S.C. 2461 and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures Rule 32.2, the government is seeking to forfeit funds that Mr. Alves alledly concealed from the bankruptcy court and creditors. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5317(c)(1)(A) and Rule 32.2 the government also seeks forfeiture of the funds involved in the structured transactions. The funds the government looks to forfeit amount to nearly $400,000.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Twenty Individuals in Chicago, Some with Ties to the Zetas Cartel, Indicted on Federal Narcotics Charges
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois recently announced that 20 defendants are facing federal narcotics charges. Five of those indicted are alleged members of a Chicago-based cell of the Zetas Mexican drug cartel who were responsible for transporting millions of dollars in drug proceeds between Chicago and Mexico. The same day the defendants were arrested DEA and FBI agents seized $480,000 in cash and two kilograms of heroin. However, during the course of the investigation leading up to these arrests authorities seized $12.4 million in cash and approximately 250 kilograms of cocaine.
The 20 defendants were charged in five separate indictments returned by a federal grand jury on November 2 and unsealed following the arrests. Of the 20 defendants charged, five remain fugitives. All 20 were charged with various narcotics offenses, including conspiracy to possess and distribute quanities of cocaine and using a telephone to facilitate narcotics trafficking. The five with alleged ties to the Zetas drug cartel were part of an alleged “money transportation cell” and are being charged wtih conspiracy to transfer narcotics proceeds outside the United States. It is alleged that this money transportation cell would coordinate the transfer of money from places such as Chicago to Laredo, TX, and then from Laredo to Mexico. At the direction of the Zetas, one of the defendants would allegedly collect, process, and conceal the cash earned from narcotics sales. Other defendants would drive the cash south, while other defendants would allegedly identify and maintain the physical safe houses were the drug proceeds were secretly collected, packaged, and concealed.
Those charged in the 5 five indictments include Eduardo Trevino, Salvador Estrada, Miguel Arredondo, Juan Aguirre, Vicente Casares, Aureliana Montoya-Pena, Jesus Maria Carreno-Lechuga, Julio Morales-Soto, Antonio Quezada, Miguel Angel Hernandez, Alejandro Kader, Carlos Aaron Nevarez-Diaz, Evaristo Martinez Zamaniego, Manuel Estrada, Alvaro Torres-Estrada, Abel Galindo Herrarra, Noel Cano, David Aquirre, Adrian Herrera, and Margarito Lechuga.
Given the number of participants in the alleged conspiracies, litigation of the case will likely be complex. Of primary concern will be whether the drug distribution and money processing/transportation activities can be conceived of as a single operation known as a “chain conspiracy” linking several parties in one long criminal enterprise. If so, the prosectuion gains certain advantages such as charging all 20 defendants together (including those who were only minor participants with very little evidence against them), more venue options, an expanded scope of relevant evidence admissible at trial, and the use of hearsay statements at trial under the “co-conspirators exception” to the hearsay rule. Perhaps most damning to the individual defendants if they are all charged as part of the same conspiracy is that they can all be vicariously liable for the substantive criminal offenses committed by any other co-conspirators, even if the individual defendant doesn’t know the co-conspirator committing the offense.
In addition to these charges, federal authorities are seeking criminal forfeiture of approximately $13 million, including the $12.4 million already seized. With most of the funds already seized, the government only needs to commence its forfeiture action pursuant to Rule 32.2. If successful, the ownership of the money will be granted to the government as proceeds and instrumentalities of criminal conduct.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
FinCEN Proposes Reporting Requirement of International Transport of Prepaid Access Products at U.S. Borders
Furthering the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s efforts to address the potential misuse of prepaid access products, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) recently proposed adding certain tangible prepaid access devices to the list of monetary instruments to be reported when transported into or out of the United States. FinCEN’s proposal would add devices such as general use prepaid cards, certain gift cards, and potentially cell phones to the list of other monetary instruments that must be aggregated to determine if they exceed more than $10,000 and included on the Currency and Monetary Instrument Report (CMIR), the form used to report international transport of funds at U.S. borders. The proposal is intended to address certain devices that can be used as a substitute for currency, as they provide access to funds by any bearer of the device. This product attribute, as FinCEN’s cooperation and consultation with law enforcement has indicated, may enable the anonymous transfer or concealed transport of illicit funds across the U.S. border.
Excluded from the proposal are credit cards and debit cards, and codes and personal identification numbers or items like computers or web enabled cell phones, or other devices that are not dedicated to accessing specific prepaid funds.
“The proposal we’re releasing today is a further step in our staged approach, building upon our newly implemented regulations of prepaid access, in a coordinated effort with law enforcement to shine a light on the transfer of money obtained through illicit activity,” said FinCEN Director James H. Freis, Jr. “Reporting tangible prepaid access devices puts another tool at the disposal of law enforcement to interrupt the transfer of monetary value anonymously across international borders when that value was obtained illegally.”
Current regulations require that a CMIR be filed regarding the international transportation, mail, or shipment of currency or other monetary instruments – defined as coin or currency, traveler’s checks, checks, promissory notes, money orders in bearer form, and bearer bonds among others – in an aggregate amount that exceeds $10,000. FinCEN’s proposal will update U.S. reporting requirements, which have been in place since the 1970s, to reflect the emergence of new payment methods and monetary instruments that could be used to facilitate illicit financial activity.
While FinCEN was already developing regulatory proposals in this area, the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009 required the issuance of regulations in final form implementing the BSA, regarding the sale, issuance, redemption, or international transport of stored value, including stored value cards. FinCEN defined prepaid access and included new regulatory requirements in July 2011, expanding beyond the previous framework for certain products known as “stored value.”
This proposal should serve as a warning to those who frequently travel with monetary instruments worth over $10,000. Travellers will need to accurately add up the total value of their monetary instruments and account for items such as gift cards, prepaid cards, and possibly even pre-loaded cell phones. If a traveller either fails to report or reports inaccurately their total value of monetary instruments, including these new items, such items can be seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and subsequently subject to forfeiture. Such seizures will make transporting money even more expensive by enabling the government to levy fines and penalties against travellers.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
U.S. Citizen Indicted for Plotting to Attack Capitol, Pentagon, and U.S. Soldiers
On September 29, 2011, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts indicted Rezwan Ferdaus, a 26 year old Northeastern University physics graduate. The indictment states that Mr. Ferdaus is accused of planning to commit acts of violence against the United States “with the goal of terrorizing the United States, decapitating its ‘military center,’ and killing as many [non-believers] as possible.”
Mr. Ferdaus has been specifically charged with 18 U.S.C. sections 844(f) for attempting to damage or destroy a Federal building, section 2155 for attempting to damage and destroy national-defense premises, section 844(d) for being in receipt and possesion of explosive materials, section 2339A for attempting to provide material support to terrorists, and section 2339B for attempting to provide material support to a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Mr.Ferdaus was also charged with 26 U.S.C. section 5861 for being in receipt of non-registered firearms.
Mr. Ferdaus thought he was meeting with members of al-Queda when in fact the individuals he was meeting with were undercover federal agents. Mr. Ferdaus revealed to federal agents that he extensively planned and took substantial steps to bomb the United States Pentagon and United States Capitol Building using remote controlled aircraft filled with explosives.
Mr. Ferdaus began designing and constructing detonation components for improvised explosive devices (IEDs) using mobile phones. These modified mobile phones were given to the undercover agents by Mr. Ferdaus who thought they were going to be used to kill U.S. soldiers overseas.
Mr. Ferdaus also requested firearms, ammunition, and explosives from the undercover agents whom he thought were al-Queda operatives. They provided him with C-4 explosives, AK-47 assault rifles and grenades. These items were needed for him to carry out a detailed plan to attack the Capitol and Pentagon with remote control aircraft that he shared with the undercover agents on two USB storage devices. The plans were highly detailed and contained “recon” photos of the proposed attack sites. As soon as Mr. Ferdaus was in receipt of these items he was arrested by federal law enforcement in Massachusetts.
If convicted on all counts, Mr. Ferdaus would face up to 80 years in prison and have any property linked to his criminal conduct subject to forfeiture. Had his conduct caused anyone to actually died, Mr. Ferdaus’ would be facing life in prison or even the death penalty.
What is apparent from this indictment is that the federal government is well prepared to deal with threats against the national security of the United States. With undercover agents and a series of effective criminal statutes, would-be terrorists often face many years in prison before their conduct actually harms anyone. However, investigators must conduct their sting operations carefully to ensure the target cannot utilize an entrapment defense.
Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge on the theory that “government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person’s mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute.” Thus there are two elements to the defense: (1) inducment by the government; and (2) the defendant’s lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. From the facts alleged in Mr. Ferdaus’ indictment, it seems that an entrapment defense would be unsuccessful because he possessed the disposition to engage in criminal conduct. He authored the plans to attack U.S. buildings and soldiers while the government merely “facilitated” his plans by providing the hardware necessary.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Two U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Employees and Two Others Indicted in $20 Million Bribery and Kickback Scheme
The FBI has reported that four Virginia men, including two longtime employees of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, were arrested October 4, 2011 on charges stemming from an indictment that accuses them of taking part in a conspiracy involving more than $20 million in bribes and kickback payments and the planned steering of a $780 million government contract to a favored contractor.
The defendants include Kerry F. Khan, 53, of Alexandria, Va.; his son, Lee A. Khan, 30, of Fairfax, Va.; Michael A. Alexander, 55, of Woodbridge, Va.; and Harold F. Babb, 60, of Sterling, Va. Kerry Khan and Alexander are employed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Babb is director of contracts for a company that did business with the government.
All four men were taken into custody on charges contained in an indictment that was returned by a grand jury, under seal, on Sept. 16, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The arrests took place as authorities executed search warrants at seven locations in Virginia and one in the District of Columbia. The indictment was unsealed the day of the arrests.
According to the indictment, Kerry Khan and Alexander helped funnel more than $45 million in payments to a favored company through a federal government contract they oversaw, with plans to steer hundreds of millions more to the business. Approximately $20 million in fraudulent expenses were built into the invoices, and proceeds went to all four defendants.
All four defendants were indicted on one count of conspiracy to commit bribery and wire fraud and aiding and abetting and causing an illlegal act to be done, as well as one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Kerry Khan and Alexander also were indicted on one count of receipt of a bribe by a public official, and Babb was indicted on one count of unlawful kickbacks.
If convicted of the charges, Kerry Khan and Alexander face a maximum of 40 years in prison. Babb faces up to 35 years, and Lee Khan faces a sentence of up to 25 years.
The United States has obtained warrants to seize funds in 29 bank accounts and to seize three luxury vehicles and seven high-end watches. In addition, the indictment includes a forfeiture allegation against 16 real properties financed in whole or in part with proceeds of the crimes. The United States has begun the process of securing forfeiture of those 16 properties, which include 14 properties in Virginia, one in West Virginia, and one in Florida.
The indictment also provides the defendants notice that, if convicted, the United States will seek forfeiture of all proceeds of the charged offenses.
The case is being prosecuted by the Fraud and Public Corruption and the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Sections of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. Their coordinated efforts with the FBI, the Office of the Inspector General for the Small Business Administration, the Department of Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Army Criminal Investigation Command and the IRS led to the indictment and arrests.
Given the global economic climate, the federal government’s burgeoning debt crisis, and the increased public scrutiny of government expenses law enforcement has stepped up enforcement of contract procurement fraud, abuse, and waste. The government will prosecute these offenses rigorously and knowledgeable defense counsel should be sought immediately by those targeted by a federal investigation.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) Leads to Recovery of Funds Derived from Foreign Corruption
As was reported in our last blog post about Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), such reports are critically important to the U.S. government’s efforts to detect complex criminal activity. FinCEN, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s office responsible for analyzing such filings, has been more active than ever in detecting criminal activity. Since SARs are filed by a financial institution without the target’s knowledge they give the government a head start in their investigations. The information contained in the reports is analyzed by teams of government analysts who develop trends and establish findings that assists the government’s subsequent investigation.
One area of criminal activity SAR analysts focus on is foreign corruption. Analysts will search SARs for key terms such as “politically exposed person” or “PEP,” “foreign corruption,” and “senior foreign political figures.” In 2010 analysts documented 1,294 SARs related to the terms mentioned above. Most of the reports are filed by depository institutions like banks, but other institutions like securities dealers and money services businesses also filed “foreign corruption” related SARs. Most of the reports involved amounts or aggregate amounts between $100,000 and $50,000,000 and identified the activity as BSA/Structuring/Money Laundering.
One such SAR exposed a foreign corruption scheme to Federal officials. The government ultimately seized and forfeited criminal proceeds valued at more than $100 million from the findings of that initial SAR and its subsequent investigation. The investigation revealed that several subjects conducted a complex series of transactions, over a period of several years, using the proceeds of foreign corruption.
The investigation centered on the circumstances surrounding a foreign civil case in which the judge found for the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff (and heirs) the U.S. equivalent of half a billion dollars. Soon after the judgment in the civil case, law enforcement commenced an investigation into the possibility that the decision in the civil case was the result of a bribe, worth tens of millions of dollars, paid to the judge through a group of attorneys. This investigation led to the arrest of several individuals involved in the civil case, including the plaintiff’s heirs, the judge, and the attorneys. The judge and attorneys were convicted of bribery.
After the bribery scandal broke, a financial adviser (and co-conspirator) helped the plaintiff and his heirs set up corporate and trust structures to conceal and launder large portions of the public corruption proceeds. A significant portion of the corruption proceeds were then moved through these entities to or through bank and investment accounts located in the United States.
U.S. authorities became involved when members of the plaintiff’s family attempted to open accounts in the United States. Through the use of Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) data, especially SARs, and investigative information provided by foreign authorities, investigators identified approximately 2 dozen accounts in the United States that contained the proceeds of the fraud and bribery schemes.
All of the plaintiff’s family and heirs involved the scheme were arrested, pleaded guilty, and were sentenced to prison. The financial advisor was arrested and has yet to be tried.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Massive Healthcare Fraud Takedown: 91 Defendants, $295 Million Scheme
Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that a nationwide takedown by Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations in eight cities has resulted in charges against 91 defendants, including doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals, for their alleged participation in Medicare fraud schemes involving approximately $295 million in false billing.
In recent years the government has ramped up enforcement to bring an end to Medicare fraud. The joint DOJ-HHS Fraud Strike Force is comprised of a multi-agency team of federal, state and local investigators. Accordingly, this massive takedown involved the work of approximately 400 law enforcement agents from the FBI, HHS-Office of Insepctor General, and other federal, state and local agencies. In addition to the 91 arrests, the Strike Force also executed 18 search warrants in connection with ongoing investigations. As if this massive takedown wasn’t already enough, the Strike Force arrested an additional 45 defendants the same day in Miami and in the past couple of months has charged 10 defendants in Baton Rouge, 6 defendants in Los Angeles, 18 defendants in Detroit, and 2 defendants in Houston.
This level of coordination is unmatched in other white collar/fraud related crimes. Thus, the government’s stubborn focus on preventing fraud should not be taken lightly by anyone in the healthcare industry. As Assistant Attorney General Breuer said at the press release, “as charged in these indictments, the defendants cover nearly the entire spectrum of healthcare providers, and perpetrated a variety of fraudulent schemes.” Since its inception in 2007, the Strike Force has operations in nine major cities across the nation and has charged more than 1,140 defendants who account for nearly $2.9 billion in false billings.
The best way to avoid being ensnared by a federal investigation is for healthcare providers to maintain aggressive Medicare fraud and abuse compliance programs. These internal corporate policies should, at the very least, be written and cover a wide range of corporate functions susceptible to fraud and abuse. Other critical elements to a successful compliance program include the designation of a compliance officer, conducting effective training and education, developing effective lines of communication, establishing internal enforcement procedures, auditing and monitoring, and maintaining a whistleblower/non-retaliation policy. Preventing all violations may be impossible, but that shouldn’t stop healthcare providers from establishing and faithfully administering an anti-fraud compliance program. With such a program in place, the government will tend to look the other way when technical violations of the law occur. This is a much better, and cheaper, outcome than being charged in a federal indictment.
Since Medicare is a federally funded program most defendants are charged with federal crimes and required to make appearances before a U.S. District Court judge. Indictments in these cases usually include “white collar” charges such as health care fraud, conspiracy to commit health care fraud, receipt of health care kickbacks, and money laundering. In addition, practically all of the defendants are subject to criminal forfeiture proceedings and required to pay restitution if convicted. These charges are very complex, time consuming, and expensive to defend against. Therefore for both compliance and defense purposes, healthcare providers should employ the services of an attorney that has an intimate understanding of the intersection between federal regulatory compliance and federal criminal defense.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
