Brett L. Nash Arraigned in Federal District Court in East St. Louis on Federal Charges Allegeding that he Attempted to Extort a Targeted Individual by Threatening Physical Violence

January 26, 2012

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on January 25, 2012 released the following:

“Granite City Man Charged with Attempted Extortion by Means of Threatening Physical Violence

The United States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, Stephen R. Wigginton, announced today that Brett L. Nash, 45, of Granite City, was arraigned in federal district court in East St. Louis yesterday on charges that he attempted to extort a targeted individual by threatening physical violence. The charges were alleged in a criminal complaint filed on January 24, 2012.

The criminal complaint charges Nash with attempted extortion, by use of threats of violence, under the Hobbs Act. The charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and up to five years of supervised release.

The complaint alleges that on January 9, 2012, Nash tried to recruit an acquaintance’s assistance in carrying out an extortion scheme aimed at obtaining money from a targeted individual through threats of violence. After Nash obtained the money, it is alleged that Nash planned on killing the targeted individual in a manner which would look like an accident. The acquaintance reported the scheme to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and remained in contact with Nash in an undercover capacity.

The complaint alleges that over the course of the next two weeks, Nash had multiple meetings with the undercover acquaintance for the specific purpose of planning out the extortion scheme. Nash’s plan focused on the seizure of the targeted individual and the use of threats and force to get the individual to withdraw large amounts of money from his personal bank account and from a safe in the individual’s home. Nash planned on splitting the proceeds of the extortion with his undercover acquaintance. It is further alleged that Nash gathered many of the items needed for the operation including a head covering mask, a set of handcuffs and a CO2 Gun.

It is alleged that on January 23, 2012, the date of Nash’s arrest, he and his undercover acquaintance made a dry run to the targeted individual’s house to scout the location, for the planned operation. The complaint alleges that Nash had planned to execute his scheme later on that very evening.

The case was investigated by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and officers of the Madison County Sheriff’s Department. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen B. Clark and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher C. Heery.

A criminal complaint is a charge against the defendant. Under the law, that charge is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Crimes Watch Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


New York State Assemblyman William F. Boyland, Jr. Charged with Alleged Bribery and Attempted Hobbs Act Extortion

November 30, 2011
William F. Boyd, Jr

William Boyland, Jr.
(photo by Gregory P. Mango)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on November 29, 2011 released the following:

Recordings Capture Boyland Soliciting More Than $250,000 in Bribes, Accepting Thousands in Bribes Solicited and Accepted Following Earlier Bribery Arrest

Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and Janice K. Fedarcyk, Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, today announced the unsealing of a complaint charging New York State Assemblyman William F. Boyland, Jr. with soliciting more than $250,000 in bribes and accepting thousands of dollars of bribe money in exchange for performing official acts for the bribe payers.[1] Boyland was arrested this morning and is scheduled to be arraigned this afternoon before United States Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azrack, at the U.S. Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York.

The criminal complaint alleges the following:

Between August 2010 and June 2011, Boyland solicited and accepted a stream of bribes from a carnival promoter (“CW”) and two undercover FBI agents (“UC1” and “UC2”), whom Boyland believed to be out-of-state businessmen and real estate developers. In exchange, Boyland agreed to take official action to secure business opportunities for CW, UC1 and UC2.

Carnival Scheme: Boyland Takes Over $7,000 in Bribes

Starting in August 2010, Boyland, UC1 and CW met and discussed ways in which Boyland could assist CW and UC1 with CW’s carnival business.2 All the meetings were recorded. In explaining how he could help them secure carnival locations in his district, Boyland stated that he had the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“HPD”) “locked up,” and stated that “we got HPD . . . we’re there.” Boyland and UC1 also discussed ways to “compensate” Boyland for his assistance, including by funneling payments to Boyland through a non-profit organization controlled by Boyland or through payments disguised as fees to a consulting firm.

UC1 ultimately made payments to Boyland. The first was a $3,800 payment in the form of money orders to Boyland’s campaign account in October 2010. The second payment occurred in February 2011, in the form of a $3,000 check (where the payee line was left blank) and $600 cash. In that case, UC1 specifically told Boyland that he did not want the $3,000 check to be applied against the New York State campaign contribution limit of $3,800. Boyland replied, “Got it, got it, got it. Makes sense.” Despite this, the $3,000 check was ultimately made payable to and deposited into Boyland’s campaign account.

In return for these payments, Boyland told CW and UC1 that Boyland and his staff had engaged in discussions with governmental agencies to assist CW in obtaining leases and permits for his carnival business. In addition, at Boyland’s direction, Boyland’s staff provided UC1 with letters of support from Boyland, on his official State Assembly letterhead, on behalf of CW and the carnivals CW purported to be promoting.

Real Estate Scheme: Boyland Takes $7,000 Cash Bribe

After Boyland was charged with bribery in a separate case in the Southern District of New York on March 10, 2011,3 Boyland and a member of his staff contacted UC1 seeking a direct, personal payment of $7,000. In a recorded telephone call, Boyland told UC1 that he needed the money to “solidify some attorneys.” Boyland stated that he was willing to travel to Philadelphia for the money and that he wanted the payment in cash.

On or about March 25, 2011, UC1 met Boyland at his district office in Brooklyn. During that meeting, which was recorded by UC1, Boyland and UC1 discussed real estate development projects in Boyland’s district that Boyland had previously discussed with UC1 and UC2. UC1 made clear that the money he was going to give Boyland was coming from both him and UC2, and in response, Boyland stated, “We’ll do business.” UC1 then told Boyland that he and UC2 wanted state grant monies to help finance the proposed development projects. Boyland assured UC1 that the money was there and stated that his support was a “no brainer” because the projects are “right here at home.”

At the end of meeting, UC1 gave Boyland the $7,000 in cash, and stated: “Knowing that if you think you want to bring someone else onboard or knowing that you’ll be there politically for us is all that we’re looking for.” In response, Boyland made a “thumbs up” sign and affirmed that “the political thing will be fine in terms of just where we need to go because I’m thinking environmental and I’m thinking the two houses of the state and city. You know, the relationships are there.”

Approximately one week after Boyland took the $7,000 cash bribe, he showed UC1 and UC2 different properties in his district. In a recorded conversation, Boyland assured UC1 and UC2 that certain zoning changes requested by UC1 and UC2 in connection with developing the sites were “not a problem.” He emphasized that all the properties he was showing UC1 and UC2 were in his district, which “we have control over.” Boyland later reiterated this point: “Everything we’ve seen I’m in control of. You know, I’m the politician. I’m the guy who can make that move over on this end, so we know the folks that can pull the sort of triggers we’re looking for.”

Hospital Buy-Back Scheme: Boyland Solicits $250,000 Bribe

On or about April 29, 2011, during a recorded conversation in a hotel suite in Atlantic City, New Jersey, Boyland solicited a $250,000 bribe from UC1 and UC2. Boyland proposed a scheme which called for UC1 and UC2 to purchase a former hospital in Boyland’s district for $8 million, obtain state grant money to renovate the hospital, and resell it to a non-profit organization that Boyland claimed to control for $15 million. In exchange for the $250,000, Boyland promised that he would, among other things, arrange for the sale and take official action and use his influence to secure state grant money to allow UC1 and UC2 to renovate the hospital so that it could be sold to Boyland’s organization for a profit.

During this meeting, Boyland promised that he would facilitate any needed state grants and also promised that he would arrange for one of UC2’s purported investors to be awarded any demolition contracts related to the project. Boyland stated that “zoning won’t be an issue,” because he had “tons of friends” and knew “everybody on the Board” of the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals, which handles zoning issues.

Boyland further explained his desire to conceal his involvement in the bribery scheme. He stated, “I got a middle guy by the way . . . I gotta stay clean . . . I got a bag man . . .” Boyland also explained to UC1 and UC2 that he did not want to talk on the telephone about these activities and that he preferred in-person meetings: “I stopped talking on the phone awhile ago . . . I’m just saying there is no real conversation that you can have that, you know, especially with what we’re talking about. You can’t do that.”

About one month later, Boyland, a member of his staff, and an individual whom Boyland described as a “developer” took UC2 on a site tour of the hospital.

On or about June 7, 2011, Boyland met with UC1 and UC2 in a hotel room in Manhattan. The meeting was recorded. Boyland reiterated that he wanted to be paid $250,000. UC2 offered to pay Boyland $5,000 for each introduction to another person who would accept bribes in connection with the development project. Boyland rejected the suggestion, stating that the people whom Boyland planned to introduce to UC1 and UC2 were worth more than $5,000: “I’m not talking about $5,000 folks. I’m talking about . . . people that can actually get these projects done and that’s where we started off with. We started off, we didn’t start off with, we can go with somebody who knows someone. We not talking about those folks . . . . We talking about the man.”

“As detailed in the criminal complaint, the extent of the charged corruption is staggering,” stated United States Attorney Lynch.” The defendant had a strong political legacy, the trust of his community, and the privilege of serving it. Not content with these many benefits, the defendant is alleged to have auctioned the power of his seat in the Assembly to the highest bidder, for his own personal gain and to the potential detriment of the voters who elected him to office. Fortunately for his constituents and the people of New York, in this instance the “bidders” were working for the FBI. The message of this case is clear – we will utilize all available resources to protect the public’s right to government free of corruption.” Ms. Lynch stated that the government’s investigation is continuing.

FBI Assistant Director in Charge Fedarcyk stated, “The charges announced today are all the more astonishing in light of the fact that Boyland allegedly committed much of the criminal conduct after he had already been charged in another bribery case. Boyland was unaware that it was two undercover FBI agents with whom he was arranging quid pro quo deals, and to whom he insisted on speaking in person to avoid the recording of incriminating phone calls. Recording phone calls is not the only method the FBI has available to fight public corruption.”

If convicted, Boyland faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison.

The government’s case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Roger Burlingame, Carolyn Pokorny and Lan Nguyen.

The Defendant:

WILLIAM F. BOYLAND, JR.
Age: 41

1 The charges contained in the complaint are merely allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

2 As detailed more fully in the complaint, to obtain the permissions and/or permits necessary to operate carnivals in New York City, carnival businesses must obtain the support of local community boards and elected officials.

3 Boyland was acquitted of those charges on November 10, 2011.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Crimes Watch Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Former Arizona Army National Guard Member Charged with Allegedly Participating in Bribery and Drug Trafficking Conspiracy

November 12, 2011

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on November 10, 2011 released the following:

“WASHINGTON— A former member of the Arizona Army National Guard was charged today for his alleged role in a widespread bribery and illegal drug trafficking conspiracy that operated from January 2002 through March 2004, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

The 10-count indictment returned today in U.S. District Court in Arizona charges Adalberto Valenzuela, 31, of Tucson, Ariz., with two counts of conspiracy, two counts of bribery, two counts of bribery involving programs receiving federal funds, two counts of Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right and two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The charges arise from Operation Lively Green, an undercover FBI investigation that began in December 2001.

According to the indictment, Valenzuela was a corporal in the Arizona Army National Guard at the time he participated in the conspiracy. Valenzuela allegedly conspired to enrich himself by obtaining cash bribes from individuals he believed to be illegal narcotics traffickers, but who were actually FBI agents. The indictment alleges that in return for the bribes, Valenzuela used his official position as a corporal in the Arizona Army National Guard to assist, protect and participate in the activities of an illegal narcotics trafficking organization that was transporting and distributing cocaine within Arizona and from Arizona to other locations in the southwestern United States. In order to protect the shipments of cocaine, Valenzuela allegedly wore official uniforms and carried official forms of identification, used official vehicles, and used his official authority where necessary to prevent police stops, searches and seizures of the narcotics.

According to the indictment, Valenzuela transported cocaine on two separate occasions and, as a result, received bribe payments totaling $7,000 for the 40 kilograms of cocaine involved.

In 2006, an arrest warrant was issued for Valenzuela. Repeated attempts to locate and contact him have been unsuccessful. Valenzuela is now considered a fugitive and anyone with information regarding his whereabouts is encouraged to contact their local FBI office.

If convicted on the conspiracy charges, Valenzuela faces a maximum of five years in prison. The bribery and Hobbs Act charges each carry maximum prison sentences of 20 years. The federal program bribery charges each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, as do each of the drug conspiracy and possession charges. Valenzuela also faces a maximum $250,000 fine for each charged count.

To date, 57 additional defendants have been convicted and sentenced on related charges as part of Operation Lively Green. An additional 14 defendants have pleaded guilty in the Western District of Oklahoma in a related investigation known as Operation Tarnish Star.

Operation Lively Green cases are part of a joint investigation being conducted by the Southern Arizona Corruption Task Force (SACTF), which includes the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security, and the Tucson Police Department. The Arizona Air National Guard, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Defense Criminal Investigative Service and the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service are also participating in the investigation.

The case is prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Peter Koski and Monique Abrishami of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section.

An indictment is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until convicted through due process of law.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

Federal Mail Fraud Crimes

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Crimes Watch Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Kerby Aurelhomme Indicted by a Federal Grand Jury in Miami for a Hobbs Act Robbery (18 USC 1951(a)), Possessing a Firearm During the Commission of a Federal Crime of Violence (18 USC 924(c)), and False Statements (18 USC 1001)

June 18, 2011

U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Florida on June 17, 2011 released the following press release:

“Wifredo A. Ferrer, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and John V. Gillies, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office, announced that Kerby Aurelhomme, 26, of North Miami Beach, was indicted in connection with an armored car robbery and shooting of Gustavo Sorzano, which occurred on July 12, 2006, in Boca Raton, Florida.

Aurelhome made his initial appearance in court on June 15, 2011 before Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Ann E. Vitunac. A pre-trial detention hearing is scheduled for June 24, 2011 at 10 A.M.

On May 31, 2011, Aurelhomme was charged in an indictment for a Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a); conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a); possessing a firearm during the commission of a federal crime of violence, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, 924(c); and making a false statement to the government, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, 1001.

Mr. Ferrer commended the investigative efforts of the FBI for their work on this case. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Brandy Galler.

An indictment is only a charging document, and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”

To find additional federal criminal news, please read The Federal Crimes Watch Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN List Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.

Bookmark and Share