Tennessee Couple Indicted for Alleged Role in Warzone Contracting Scheme

July 17, 2013

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on July 16, 2013 released the following:

Alleged to Have Steered $6.9 Million in Proceeds from Defense Subcontracts in Afghanistan

ALEXANDRIA, VA— Keith Johnson, 46, and Angela Johnson, 44, both of Maryville, Tennessee, were indicted by a federal grand jury today on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and substantive wire fraud for their alleged role in a scheme to steer $6.9 million from Department of Defense (DOD) subcontracts in Afghanistan to shell entities through kickbacks and the use of assumed names.

Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; Mythili Raman, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; Valerie Parlave, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office; Robert E. Craig, Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) Special Agent in Charge of Mid-Atlantic Field Office; John Sopko, Inspector General for Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR); and Frank Robey, Director of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command’s Major Procurement Fraud Unit (MPFU), made the announcement following the grand jury’s return of the indictment.

Keith and Angela Johnson face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for conspiracy and up to 20 years in prison on each count of wire fraud if convicted.

According to the indictment, between July 2007 and June 2010, Keith and Angela Johnson engaged in a scheme to defraud Company #1, a DOD contractor, relating to two contracts worth more than $269 million. The contracts at issue were to provide vehicle-fleet maintenance for the Afghan National Army (ANA). Keith Johnson worked for Company #1 in Kabul, Afghanistan, as its project manager and procurement manager for the ANA contracts. Johnson fielded requests for vehicle parts from Company #2, a Company #1 subcontractor. Company #1 would then issue purchase orders for those parts to subcontractors after receiving multiple bids. In September 2007, Keith and Angela Johnson formed Company #4 as a Tennessee corporation, but they listed Angela Johnson’s mother and daughter on its corporate documents. Thereafter, Keith Johnson used his position in Company #1 to steer parts-supply purchase orders and other business on the ANA contracts to Company #4. To conceal Keith Johnson’s relationship to Company #4, Angela Johnson used her maiden name when interacting with Company #1 on Company #4’s behalf.

According to the indictment, the Johnsons also agreed with two other individuals at Company #2 to further the scheme. The two Company #2 employees helped steer Company #1 business to the Johnsons through Company #4, and Keith Johnson helped steer Company #1 business to Company #3, an entity operated by the two Company #2 employees using a fictional name. The Company #2 employees allegedly paid kickbacks to the Johnsons through a shell company. As part of the scheme, the Johnsons also allegedly participated in a bid-rigging practice of coordinating inflated bids on behalf of Company #3 or Company #4 to ensure that the other company would receive particular contracts. The conspirators also caused Company #1 to order excess parts that were not yet needed on Company #1’s contracts, and Company #4 did not ultimately supply all parts in compliance with Company #1’s requirements.

According to the indictment, the conspirators obtained $6,933,179.31 in proceeds from the scheme, which they used in part to purchase, among other items, several luxury vehicles and more than $191,000 in jewelry.

This case is being investigated by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, and the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Ryan Faulconer of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia and Trial Attorney Daniel Butler of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, who is also a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Criminal indictments are only charges and not evidence of guilt. A defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty.”

Federal Wire Fraud Crimes – 18 U.S.C. § 1343

————————————————————–

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 Criminal Defense 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 Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

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


Federal Wire Fraud Crimes – 18 U.S.C. § 1343

July 2, 2013

Title 18 of the United States Code Section 1343 (18 U.S.C. § 1343) (2013) states the following:

“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.”

————————————————————–

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR WIRE FRAUD (2013)

18 U.S.C. &Sect; 3282(a) states:

“(a) In General.— Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.”

————————————————————–

U.S. ATTORNEY’S MANUAL 18 U.S.C. 1343 — ELEMENTS OF WIRE FRAUD

“The elements of wire fraud under Section 1343 directly parallel those of the mail fraud statute, but require the use of an interstate telephone call or electronic communication made in furtherance of the scheme. United States v. Briscoe, 65 F.3d 576, 583 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d 232, 234 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)); United States v. Frey, 42 F.3d 795, 797 (3d Cir. 1994) (wire fraud is identical to mail fraud statute except that it speaks of communications transmitted by wire); see also, e.g., United States v. Profit, 49 F.3d 404, 406 n. 1 (8th Cir.) (the four essential elements of the crime of wire fraud are: (1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money; (2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud; (3) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used; and (4) that interstate wire communications were in fact used) (citing Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the Eighth Circuit 6.18.1341 (West 1994)), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2289 (1995); United States v. Hanson, 41 F.3d 580, 583 (10th Cir. 1994) (two elements comprise the crime of wire fraud: (1) a scheme or artifice to defraud; and (2) use of interstate wire communication to facilitate that scheme); United States v. Faulkner, 17 F.3d 745, 771 (5th Cir. 1994) (essential elements of wire fraud are: (1) a scheme to defraud and (2) the use of, or causing the use of, interstate wire communications to execute the scheme), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 193 (1995); United States v. Cassiere, 4 F.3d 1006 (1st Cir. 1993) (to prove wire fraud government must show (1) scheme to defraud by means of false pretenses, (2) defendant’s knowing and willful participation in scheme with intent to defraud, and (3) use of interstate wire communications in furtherance of scheme); United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (“Wire fraud requires proof of (1) a scheme to defraud; and (2) the use of an interstate wire communication to further the scheme.”).”

————————————————————–

CURRENT? CHECK THIS OUT:

18 U.S.C. § 1343

18 U.S.C. § 3282

————————————————————–

SIMILAR STATUTES:

18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail Fraud)

18 U.S.C. § 1344 (Bank Fraud)

————————————————————–

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

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense 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 Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

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