Final Fee Determination in Largest Title VII Sex Discrimination Class Action #USIA #DOS

 

The case is Civil Action No. 1977-2019 HARTMAN, et al v. ALBRIGHT, et al (now called CAROLEE BRADY HARTMAN, et al., v. MICHAEL R. POMPEO, et al.,name substituted under under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d)):

This case is in all respects extraordinary. Originating over forty years ago, it represents the largest Title VII sex discrimination class action settlement in United States history. Its over 1,000 class members each received an average of $460,000—the largest per-capita recovery in a case of its kind. Class members are women who sought employment or promotions with the United States Information Agency, a former agency of the United States government, the relevant components of which were incorporated into the State Department. Remarkably, the lead counsel for the class, Bruce Fredrickson, took on the case as a 26-year-old just one year out of law school and, now well into his sixties, has stayed on for its duration. Over the last four decades, Mr. Fredrickson has led a team of over 120 individuals across seven law firms. In 2018, the last of the $508 million settlement fund was distributed to class members, leaving resolution of attorneys’ fees as the sole remaining issue.

Since 1995, there have been 28 interim payments to class counsel for fees, expenses, and interest accrued during the pendency of the case, totaling $26,570,701.19. Plaintiffs now seek an additional $34,114,143.52, for a final total fee recovery of $75,000,000. 2 To justify this demand, Plaintiffs primarily argue that they are entitled to a percentage of the total settlement under a “constructive common fund” theory. Alternatively, Plaintiffs argue that an enhancement to the lodestar is proper because the lodestar calculated for the interim fee petitions does not reflect class counsel’s true market value and it does not adequately compensate them for delay in receiving payment.

For the reasons that follow, the court denies Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice. This is a fee-shifting case—not a common-fund case—and the parties agreed to use the lodestar method— not the percentage-of-the-fund method—to calculate the final fee award. Although the court agrees with Plaintiffs that the interim lodestar is likely not an adequate measure of class counsel’s true market value, the court is not in a position to award an enhancement because the lodestar, as calculated, is itself inexact. The court is hopeful that this decision will provide a path forward for the parties to reach an agreement on what the proper lodestar should be, as well as any compensation for delay.
[…]
…. Plaintiffs need to go back to the drawing board. They bear the burden of “identifying a factor that the lodestar does not adequately take into account and proving with specificity that an enhanced fee is justified.” Purdue, 559 U.S. at 546. Although it is apparent that an adjustment to the lodestar for the eighth through twenty-eighth fee petitions (covering years 1998–2018) is necessary to “approximate[ ] the fee that the prevailing attorney would have received if he or she had been representing a paying client who was billed by the hour in a comparable case,” the court lacks the information necessary to “adjust the attorney’s hourly rate in accordance with specific proof linking the attorney’s ability to a prevailing market rate.” Id. at 551. Furthermore, although some additional compensation is appropriate to account for delay of amounts unpaid, Plaintiffs have not proposed “a method that is reasonable, objective, and capable of being reviewed on appeal” to calculate such amount. Id. Although the court denies Plaintiffs’ request for a final attorneys’ fee award at this juncture, the court hopes that its rulings will assist the parties in reaching a resolution. 

Footnote says that multiple judges have presided over this case during its 43-year lifespan. Read here.

 


 

Ex-USG Employee Brian Jeffrey Raymond, Called an “Experienced Sexual Predator,” Ordered Removed to D.C.

Warning: language in court documents may be  disturbing particularly to those who were previous assaulted.

A former USG employee identified as Brian Jeffrey Raymond was arrested on October 9, 2020 in San Diego, California pursuant to an arrest warrant issued in the District of Columbia on October 8, 2020. See the Detention Order published here with name listed as BRIAN JEFFERY RAYMOND (sic).
We could not find an arrest announcement from the U.S. Department of Justice, and we’ve been looking hard.  Have you seen it?
On October 27, the CA court docket includes the following notation:

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard: Removal/ID Hearing as to Brian Jeffrey Raymond held on 10/27/2020. Defendant admits identity and orally waives hearing.Court orders defendant removed to District of Columbia. Pursuant to the Due Process Protections Act, the United States is reminded of its obligations to produce exculpatory evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland and its progeny. Failing to timely do so could result in consequences such as exclusion of evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal of charges, and sanctions by the Court.(CD# 10/27/2020 11:25-11:33). (Plaintiff Attorney Eric Roscoe, AUSA). (Defendant Attorney John Kirby, Retained (Telephonic). (no document attached) (tkl) (Entered: 10/27/2020)

Read up on the Due Process Protection Act here.
The Affidavit in Support of Application for Complaint and Arrest Warrant is available to read here;  subject’s name is listed as Brian Jeffrey Raymond. The document notes that on May 31, 2020, “the Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service (“DSS”), and FBI begun investigating Raymond after he was detained by foreign law enforcement outside of his apartment overseas.  At the time, Raymond was a U.S. government employee working at a U.S. Embassy in a foreign country and lived in embassy-leased housing. Raymond has since resigned from his U.S. government position.”
The Motion for Pre-Trial Detention includes the “factual background of the case” with the following details.
    • On May 31, 2020, police in Mexico City, Mexico responded to the defendant’s apartment in response to reports of a naked, hysterical woman desperately screaming for help from the defendant’s balcony. At the time, the defendant was working for a U.S. Government agency at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico and had been living in his embassy-leased residence since August2018. Because the U.S. government has jurisdiction over certain crimes occurring in embassy-leased housing, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 7(9), the Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service(“DSS”) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) are jointly investigating the incident.
    • Over 400 videos and photographs of 21 different women taken over the course of at least nine years were recorded by the defendant.
    • From August 2018 until June 1, 2020, the defendant worked for a U.S. Government agency at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City. There, he used his embassy-leased residence to engage in criminal sexual conduct, to include an alleged sexual assault of AV-1 on May 31, 2020 and the undressing, photographing, and recording of at least nine unconscious women. 
    • During the course of his employment with the U.S. Government, the defendant has lived in approximately six to seven different countries, and he has traveled to more than 60 countries for work and personal travel. 
    • The government’s investigation has revealed 22 apparent victims thus far –  the initial sexual assault victim plus 21 additional victims found on his devices and in his iCloud.
    • He speaks Spanish and Mandarin Chinese. He has worked in or visited over 60 different countries in all regions of the world.
The document is available to read here.
Raymond’s defense bail motion dated October 15, 2020 includes the following nugget:
“At regular intervals throughout his tenure in public service, as well as shortly after the launch of the current investigation, Mr. Raymond has taken polygraph tests. […] He’s taken over 10 polygraphs during his career.”
Pardon me, 10 polygraphs in 23 years? Who routinely gets a mandatory polygraph working at an embassy?
A few other notable things:
—  Court document describes the defendant as a USG employee of 23 years. So we can rule out that he was a contractor. We only know that he has lived in 6-7 different countries and has traveled to more than 60 countries for work and personal travel. Doing what? The document does not say which agency he worked for, which section of the embassy he worked in, or what was his job at the US Embassy in Mexico or at his other assignments.
— All career diplomats are subject to U.S. Senate confirmation.  We have not been able to find any record that this individual has ever been considered or confirmed by the Senate as a career member of the U.S. Foreign Service.
—  Defendant speaks Spanish and Mandarin Chinese. Chinese is a super hard language for the Foreign Service. In FY2017, the last year data is publicly available, there were 463 FS employees proficient in Chinese Mandarin and 3,344 employees proficient in Spanish. Now, why would the State Department send a Chinese speaker to an assignment in Mexico? That’s not a usual thing, is it? Right.
Who is this guy and what did he do for Uncle Sam? It is likely that this individual was attached to the embassy for a still unnamed agency. We expect there will be more to this story in the coming days. Or maybe not. And that should tell us something, too. There appears to be a few entries on the court docket, at least six to our last count, that says “no document attached.”
This is a vile and loathsome case but even in such cases, we still should note that a criminal complaint is an allegation and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

@StateDept’s Litigative Payments FY2018-FY2020 Via Judgment Fund-$72,634,701.57

 

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) is an independent tribunal housed within the General Services Administration. The CBCA presides over various disputes involving Federal executive branch agencies. Its primary responsibility is to resolve contract disputes between government contractors and agencies under the Contract Disputes Act. 
Contract Disputes (CDA) claims paid by the Judgment Fund are reimbursed by the agency whose appropriations were used for the contract in dispute. The No FEAR Act requires agencies to reimburse the Judgment Fund for payments made on their behalf to employees, former employees, or applicants for federal employment arising out of claims of actual or alleged violations of Federal anti-discrimination laws, Federal whistleblower protection laws, and/or retaliation claims arising from the assertion of rights under those laws.
For Suits in Admiralty Act, see USDOJ’s Aviation, Space & Admiralty Litigation Section of the Torts Branch which handles aviation, space, and maritime cases and claims. “Our clients include the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, all military services including the Navy and the Coast Guard, the Maritime Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, NASA, NSA, and the Departments of State, Interior, Transportation, and Commerce.  In its admiralty practice, the Section represents the United States in the government’s role as ship-owner, regulator, and protector of the nation’s waterways and maritime resources. Its admiralty litigation concerns collisions involving U.S. vessels and warships, grounding of vessels while using U.S. government-produced charts, challenges to the boarding of vessels on the high seas during national security and drug interdiction activities, and maritime-based pollution incidents, including vessel oil spills.  Affirmative admiralty actions seek compensation for the loss of government cargo; damage to locks, dams, and natural resources; and the costs associated with maritime pollution cleanups.”
The largest settlements below for the State Department are in contract disputes, one for $62 million, and another for $4.5 million. We’ve figured out where that $62 million settlement went, have you?
Second largest settlements are in payments under the Suits in Admiralty Act; two payments in 2018 and 2019 respectively for $2.5 million and $2 million each.
There are several foreign claims, and federal tort claims in US courts related to traffic (settlements are larger than in administrative payments). Also two notable cases for Title VII Discrimination in Federal Employment, both in the District of Columbia, one with a $14K settlement and the other with $200K.


 


 

 

 

Hill v. Pompeo: An African-American DS Agent, Offensive Baboon Gear, and a Removal From Leadership Position

This is a Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 lawsuit involving an African-American Special Agent in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security who joined the State Department in 2002. In September 2013, he joined State’s Office of Mobile Security Deployments (MSD). Excerpt below from the May 31, 2020 Memorandum of Opinion by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:
Summary:
Viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to Hill, it alleges facts to support all three elements of this type of race discrimination claim. First, it alleges that “Hill and Whitaker were the only African American Team 2 members and that the Caucasian Team members had been complaining about them, admitting they did not respect them, and requesting transfers to get away from them since the month after Hill took over as Team Leader.” Compl. ¶ 118. The complaint enumerates multiple instances where the Caucasian team members complained about Hill, see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 23, 24, 31, 39, 42, and sought his removal from his leadership position, see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 45, 46, 49. And the ongoing dispute over the Caucasian team members’ use of the baboon logo and their joking references behind Hill’s back to the baboon logo as “racist,” id. ¶ 19, give rise to a reasonable inference that the Caucasian team members’ treatment of Hill was racially discriminatory. Second, “State admits it removed Hill based on the complaints from the Caucasian Team 2 members, making their complaints the proximate cause of the actions taken against Hill.” Id. ¶ 117. Third and finally, a fair inference can be drawn that Collura and Rowan, Hill’s supervisors, should have known that the Caucasian team members’ complaints were racially motivated. See id. ¶ 120. The complaint alleges: (1) a clear fissure between Hill and Whitaker and the Caucasian team members from the very start of Hill’s tenure, see id. ¶¶ 19–29; (2) that Hill complained to his supervisors about team members defying his order not to use the racially offensive baboon logo, see id. ¶ 47; and (3) that several of the Caucasian team members’ complaints about Hill had a questionable basis, see, e.g., id. ¶ 37, 43; yet, (4) “[m]anagement acted on the Team’s accusations against Hill without investigating the facts,” id. ¶ 120. Accepting all of these allegations as true, Collura and Rowan acted negligently by not investigating the Caucasian team members’ complaints before removing Hill from his leadership role.3 And because Collura and Rowan acted negligently with respect to the information the Caucasian team members provided, the racial bias of the team members is imputed to them. See Vasquez, Inc., 835 F.3d at 276. Accordingly, the Court will deny the Secretary’s motion to dismiss the race discrimination claim based on Hill’s removal from his leadership position. 4
4 In contesting this conclusion, the Secretary places heavy reliance on Tallbear v. Perry, 318 F. Supp. 3d 255 (D.D.C. 2018). In that case, the Court dismissed a Title VII race discrimination claim by a plaintiff who alleged that her co-workers had continued to use the word “Redskins” in spite of her objection to the term. Id. at 260–61. But Tallbear’s co-workers used the term in the context of discussing the Washington Redskins, a local professional football team, and there was no indication that they used the word as a racial slur or directed it at Tallbear herself. Id. at 261. Here, in stark contrast, Hill has alleged that his team members explicitly referred to the baboon logo as “racist” and ordered hundreds of dollars’ worth of baboon-branded gear behind his back after he, the team leader, explained why the logo was offensive and ordered the team to stop using it. Compl. ¶ 19. Moreover, and more importantly, Hill’s co-workers engaged in extensive and targeted efforts to remove him from his supervisory role, see id. ¶¶ 23, 24, 31, 39, 42, 45, 46, 49, and those efforts ultimately succeeded, id. ¶ 56.
Background excerpted from court record:

The Office consists of several teams of agents who deploy worldwide to provide specialized training to overseas personnel, as well as security support for potential and actual crises. Id. ¶ 10. At all times relevant to this case, Hill’s first-level supervisor was Justin Rowan, and his second-level supervisor was Nicholas Collura, Deputy Director of the Office. Id. ¶ 11. Both Rowan and Collura are Caucasian. Id.

In March 2014, Hill was assigned to Team 2 of the Office as its Team Leader. Id. ¶ 12. Another Special Agent, Steven Whitaker, was assigned to Team 2 at that same time. Id. ¶ 15. Both Hill and Whitaker are African American. Id. When Hill and Whitaker joined Team 2, the team consisted of four members, all of whom were Caucasian. Id. ¶ 14. The four Caucasian team members described themselves as close friends. Id.

When Hill and Whitaker joined Team 2, each of them found a printed image of a baboon—the team’s unofficial logo—at their new desks. Id. ¶ 16. Both Hill and Whitaker were offended by the logo. Id. When Hill officially took over as Team Leader in May 2014, Hill held a team meeting. Id. ¶ 18. At this meeting, Hill explained that he found the baboon logo offensive because of the history of racially derogatory references to apes. Id. Hill instructed the members of Team 2 to stop using the baboon as the team logo. Id.

The Caucasian members of Team 2 continued to use the baboon logo nevertheless. Id. ¶ 19. After Hill banned the logo, the Caucasian team members used their government email accounts to order hundreds of dollars’ worth of baboon coins, badges, stickers, and hats. Id. They jokingly referred to the baboon logo and the word baboon as “racist.” Id. They did not tell Hill or Whitaker that they were ordering the baboon gear. Id. Hill soon discovered that his team members were disregarding his order, though; one agent’s phone lock screen was the baboon image and another agent was handing out baboon coins to soldiers and local contacts. Id. ¶ 20

Continue reading

Open Technology Fund, et.al v. Michael Pack: Where the Accountability Rests – At the Ballot Box

 

OPEN TECHNOLOGY FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL PACK, in his official capacity as Chief Executive Officer and Director of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, Defendant
For nearly 80 years, international broadcasting sponsored by the United States has served as a trusted and authoritative global news source, a forum for the expression of diverse viewpoints on the most pressing topics of the day, a model of journalistic excellence and independence, and a beacon of hope for those trapped within authoritarian regimes. Despite being funded by American taxpayers, U.S. international broadcasting has typically remained free of governmental interference. Indeed, its autonomy and its commitment to providing objective news coverage has often been viewed as key to its ability to advance the interests of the United States abroad. Our country’s commitment to this model of cultural export has largely been viewed as a rousing success, helping to undermine and topple some of history’s most oppressive regimes—including Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union—by spreading freedom and democracy around the globe. The current Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the United States Agency for Global Media (“USAGM”)—the defendant, Michael Pack—is accused of putting this legacy at serious risk. Since taking office less than a month ago, Pack has upended U.S.-sponsored international broadcasting. Most relevant to the current dispute, on June 17, 2020, Pack unilaterally removed the operational heads and directors of four USAGM-funded organizations—Open Technology Fund (“OTF”), Radio Free Europe (“RFE”), Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (collectively, “Networks”)1—and replaced the directors with five members of the current Trump Administration as well as an employee of Liberty Counsel Action, a conservative advocacy organization.
[…]
Pack’s actions have global ramifications, and plaintiffs in this case have expressed deep concerns that his tenure as USAGM CEO will damage the independence and integrity of U.S.- sponsored international broadcasting efforts. If they are correct, the result will be to diminish America’s presence on the international stage, impede the distribution around the world of accurate information on important affairs, and strengthen totalitarian governments everywhere. Yet, Congress has decided to concentrate unilateral power in the USAGM CEO, and the Court cannot override that determination. If Pack’s actions turn out to be misguided, his appointment by the President and confirmation by the Senate points to where the accountability rests: at the ballot box. Based on an evaluation of plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the solution is likely not in this Court.
Read in full here:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2020cv1710-22

@StateDept Reactions: Americans Convicted in Moscow (Outrage) and Manila (Silence Now Concern)

Updated: 10:45 am PST

 

Art Dealer Inigo Philbrick Expelled From Vanuatu After US Embassy Papua New Guinea’s Request

 

Via USDOJ:
Inigo Philbrick Defrauded Investors and Lenders Out Of More Than $20 Million In Connection With Works by Notable Contemporary Artists

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and William F. Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced today the unsealing of a Complaint in Manhattan federal court charging INIGO PHILBRICK, an art dealer specializing in post-war and contemporary fine art, with galleries in London, United Kingdom, and Miami, Florida, with engaging in a multi-year scheme to defraud various individuals and entities in order to finance his art business.  In total, PHILBRICK allegedly fraudulently obtained more than $20 million as a result of the scheme.

Federal law enforcement agents took PHILBRICK into custody yesterday in Vanuatu, after Vanuatu authorities expelled PHILBRICK from Vanuatu at the request of the U.S. Embassy in Papua New Guinea in light of the charges in the Complaint.  PHILBRICK was then transported to Guam, where he is expected to be presented in federal court on June 15, 2020.     

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “As alleged, Inigo Philbrick was a serial swindler who misled art collectors, investors, and lenders out of more than $20 million.  You can’t sell more than 100 percent ownership in a single piece of art, which Philbrick allegedly did, among other scams.  When his schemes began to unravel, Philbrick allegedly fled the country.  Now he is in U.S. custody and facing justice.”

FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said:  “Mr. Philbrick allegedly sought out high-dollar art investors, sold pieces he didn’t own, and played games with millions of dollars in other people’s money.  The game ended when investors began wondering where their money went.  Hats off to the FBI NY Joint Major Theft Task Force/Art Crime Team who worked diligently to track down Mr. Philbrick and bring him back to the U.S., where, if convicted, he might have to trade in his jet-set life for a drab federal prison cell.”
[…]
PHILBRICK, 33, a U.S. citizen previously residing in London, United Kingdom, and a fugitive since October 2019, was charged in the Complaint with one count of wire fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft.  The wire fraud charge carries a maximum prison term of 20 years.  The aggravated identity theft charge carries a mandatory sentence of two years in prison.
[…]
To report information related to this case, please contact the FBI’s Art Crime Team at NYArtCrime@fbi.gov.

The allegations in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Read the full statement here.
The Complaint was unsealed on June 12 in Manhattan federal court.

 

Contractor Resolves Charges Relating to Fraud on GSA Contract to Modernize the Harry S. Truman Building

 

Via USDOJ:
Government Contractor Resolves Charges Relating to Fraud on General Services Administration Contract to Modernize State Department Building

Alutiiq International Solutions LLC (AIS), a subsidiary of Afognak Native Corporation (Afognak) and an Alaskan Native Corporation, within the meaning of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, that performs construction work on government contracts, has entered into a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and has agreed to pay over $1.25 million to resolve the Justice Department’s investigation into a kickback and fraud scheme perpetrated by a former AIS manager on a U.S. Government contract administered by the General Services Administration (GSA), announced Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

As part of the NPA, AIS has agreed to pay $1,259,444 in victim compensation payments to the GSA.  Under the terms of the NPA, AIS and its parent company, Afognak, have agreed to cooperate with the government’s ongoing investigation and prosecution of individuals, and to report to the department evidence of allegations of violations of U.S. fraud, anti-corruption, procurement integrity, and anti-kickback laws.  Afognak and AIS also agreed to enhance their compliance program and internal controls, where necessary and appropriate, to ensure they are designed to detect and deter, among other things, fraud and kickbacks in connection with U.S. federal government contracts.

According to AIS’s admissions contained in the NPA, beginning in or around June 2010, the AIS project manager assigned to a multi-million dollar GSA contract to modernize the Harry S. Truman Federal Building in Washington, D.C., began receiving kickbacks from a subcontractor on the project in exchange for steering work to the subcontractor.  These kickbacks initially were paid in the form of meals, vacations, and other things of value but, by 2015, the AIS project manager began demanding cash kickbacks equivalent to 10 percent of the value of contract modifications that were being awarded to the subcontractor.  At the same time, the AIS project manager billed the GSA for services purportedly provided by an on-site superintendent when there was no superintendent on site.  The AIS project manager’s false and fraudulent billings caused the GSA to pay $568,800 to AIS that it should not have paid.  Additionally, when making contract modification requests to the GSA, the AIS project manager illegally inflated the estimated costs that AIS received from its subcontractor, resulting in $690,644 in monies paid by GSA to AIS.
[….]

A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an indictment charging the AIS project manager, Elmer Baker, with conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Act, and four counts of wire fraud, in May 2019.  Trial is currently scheduled for Dec. 7, 2020, before U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

An indictment is merely an allegation, and a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Read the full statement here. Download AIS Non-Prosecution Agreement

Dear @StateDept, What Are You Going to Do About Metin Topuz’s Imprisonment Besides Being “Deeply Troubled?”

 

The United States can do a lot more than simply express being “deeply troubled” or its “deep disappointment.” The question is will it do more? How much is it willing to do when it comes to Metin Topuz, a Turkish citizen employee who worked at the U.S. Consulate General in Istanbul prior to his arrest?
The State Department has 50,059 locally employed staff at 275 posts in 195 countries.
In August 2018, the Treasury Department targeted Turkish Justice Minister Abdulhamit Gul and Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu with financial sanctions over the country’s refusal to release Andrew Brunson, a Christian pastor who had been imprisoned by the Turkish government on charges of terrorism and espionage. In October 2018, Brunson was convicted, by Turkish authorities, on the charge of aiding terrorism, but was released from Turkish custody and returned to the United States.

 

Related posts:

@StateDept Contracting Officer Zaldy N. Sabino Gets 87 Months in Prison For Bribery and Procurement Fraud

 

This is the conclusion to the court case of a State Department contracting official charged with bribery and procurement fraud (see @StateDept Contracting Officer Zaldy N. Sabino Convicted of Bribery and Procurement Fraud; @StateDept Contracting Officer Faces 17-Count Indictment For Bribery and Procurement Fraud).  On February 14, 2020, USDOJ announced that the former contracting officer Zaldy N. Zabino was sentenced to 87 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised released.
Via USDOJ:
State Department Contracting Officer Sentenced to Prison for Bribery and Procurement Fraud Scheme=

A contracting officer with the U.S. Department of State was sentenced today to 87 months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release after he was convicted of 13 counts of conspiracy, bribery, honest services wire fraud and making false statements.

Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney G. Zachary Terwilliger of the Eastern District of Virginia, Special Agent in Charge Marc Meyer of the U.S. Department of State Office of Inspector General and Assistant Director in Charge Timothy R. Slater of the FBI’s Washington Field Office made the announcement.

Zaldy N. Sabino, 60, of Fort Washington, Maryland, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady after Sabino’s conviction on Oct. 4, 2019.  In addition to his term of imprisonment, Sabino was ordered to pay a $25,000 fine.

According to the evidence at trial, between November 2012 and early 2017, Sabino and the owner of a Turkish construction firm engaged in a bribery and procurement fraud scheme in which Sabino received at least $521,862.93 in cash payments from the Turkish owner while Sabino supervised multi-million dollar construction contracts awarded to the Turkish owner’s business partners and while Sabino made over a half million dollars in structured cash deposits into his personal bank accounts.  Sabino concealed his unlawful relationship by, among other things, making false statements on financial disclosure forms and during his background reinvestigation.

The Department of State’s Office of Inspector General, led by Steve A. Linick, and the FBI’s Washington Field Office investigated the case.  Trial Attorney Edward P. Sullivan of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jack Hanly of the Eastern District of Virginia prosecuted the case.