People of New York v. Sdao, Indictment # 01125/2012
A former project manager for the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation was convicted of accepting more than $20,000 in bribes to rig Bronx playground contracts. Among other counts, the defendant was charged with two counts of Combination in Restraint of Trade and Competition, a violation of the Donnelly Act. According to the indictment, in his official capacity as a Project Manager for the Parks Department, the defendant provided a particular vendor with copies of the engineer’s estimate for two projects, prior to the date sealed and competitive bids were due. The engineer’s estimate is an internal Parks Department document not intended for distribution to bidders before they submit their bids. In exchange, the defendant agreed to accept a percentage of the contract price if that vendor won the contracts. The defendant was sentenced to 12 weekends in jail and five years of probation and ordered to pay forfeiture of $30,000.
Michigan v.Sunoco-Bombay Party Shoppe, Inc.; Michigan v. Shammami
Five gas station owner/operators pleaded guilty and no contest to charges that the engaged in a gasoline price-fixing operation in Madison Heights, Michigan. All five defendants and their associated stations have entered pleas in 6th Circuit Court in Oakland County to violations of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA). The stations involved in the price-fixing operation were all located within two miles of each other. The Attorney General’s investigation revealed that the five stations set their gasoline prices at an artificial level, within a penny or two of each other. The scheme, which violated Michigan antitrust law, was an attempt to increase profits from gasoline sales by eliminating competition in the Madison Heights area. The Attorney General’s office received a tip from another Madison Heights gas station owner who was pressured to participate in the price-fixing operation. Information obtained during the investigation showed the stations all set their prices within a penny or two of each other on at least five days: February 8, 2011, February 11, 2011, February 23, 2011, February 27, 2011, and March 3, 2011. Sentencing for some is pending, but all paid substantial fines.
Michigan v. J&A Quick Stop; Michigan v. Yaldou
Five gas station owner/operators pleaded guilty and no contest to charges that the engaged in a gasoline price-fixing operation in Madison Heights, Michigan. All five defendants and their associated stations have entered pleas in 6th Circuit Court in Oakland County to violations of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA). The stations involved in the price-fixing operation were all located within two miles of each other. The Attorney General’s investigation revealed that the five stations set their gasoline prices at an artificial level, within a penny or two of each other. The scheme, which violated Michigan antitrust law, was an attempt to increase profits from gasoline sales by eliminating competition in the Madison Heights area. The Attorney General’s office received a tip from another Madison Heights gas station owner who was pressured to participate in the price-fixing operation. Information obtained during the investigation showed the stations all set their prices within a penny or two of each other on at least five days: February 8, 2011, February 11, 2011, February 23, 2011, February 27, 2011, and March 3, 2011. Sentencing for some is pending, but all paid substantial fines.
Michigan v. CITGO-Durga Lakeshmi Inc.; Michigan v. Vijayaraghavan
Five gas station owner/operators pleaded guilty and no contest to charges that the engaged in a gasoline price-fixing operation in Madison Heights, Michigan. All five defendants and their associated stations have entered pleas in 6th Circuit Court in Oakland County to violations of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA). The stations involved in the price-fixing operation were all located within two miles of each other. The Attorney General’s investigation revealed that the five stations set their gasoline prices at an artificial level, within a penny or two of each other. The scheme, which violated Michigan antitrust law, was an attempt to increase profits from gasoline sales by eliminating competition in the Madison Heights area. The Attorney General’s office received a tip from another Madison Heights gas station owner who was pressured to participate in the price-fixing operation. Information obtained during the investigation showed the stations all set their prices within a penny or two of each other on at least five days: February 8, 2011, February 11, 2011, February 23, 2011, February 27, 2011, and March 3, 2011. Sentencing for some is pending, but all paid substantial fines.
Michigan v.Sphinx-Monster Oil LLC, Michigan v. Abdelhamid
Five gas station owner/operators pleaded guilty and no contest to charges that the engaged in a gasoline price-fixing operation in Madison Heights, Michigan. All five defendants and their associated stations have entered pleas in 6th Circuit Court in Oakland County to violations of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA). The stations involved in the price-fixing operation were all located within two miles of each other. The Attorney General’s investigation revealed that the five stations set their gasoline prices at an artificial level, within a penny or two of each other. The scheme, which violated Michigan antitrust law, was an attempt to increase profits from gasoline sales by eliminating competition in the Madison Heights area. The Attorney General’s office received a tip from another Madison Heights gas station owner who was pressured to participate in the price-fixing operation. Information obtained during the investigation showed the stations all set their prices within a penny or two of each other on at least five days: February 8, 2011, February 11, 2011, February 23, 2011, February 27, 2011, and March 3, 2011. Sentencing for some is pending, but all paid substantial fines.
Michigan v.Marathon-Supergas, Michigan v. Harajli
Five gas station owner/operators pleaded guilty and no contest to charges that the engaged in a gasoline price-fixing operation in Madison Heights, Michigan. All five defendants and their associated stations have entered pleas in 6th Circuit Court in Oakland County to violations of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA). The stations involved in the price-fixing operation were all located within two miles of each other. The Attorney General’s investigation revealed that the five stations set their gasoline prices at an artificial level, within a penny or two of each other. The scheme, which violated Michigan antitrust law, was an attempt to increase profits from gasoline sales by eliminating competition in the Madison Heights area. The Attorney General’s office received a tip from another Madison Heights gas station owner who was pressured to participate in the price-fixing operation. Information obtained during the investigation showed the stations all set their prices within a penny or two of each other on at least five days: February 8, 2011, February 11, 2011, February 23, 2011, February 27, 2011, and March 3, 2011. Sentencing for some is pending, but all paid substantial fines.
New Jersey v. Gallagher
Kenneth Disko, the former contracted engineer or engineer/architect on record for the Westfield, Tinton Falls and Scotch Plains-Fanwood school districts, pleaded guilty to an accusation charging him with second-degree false representations for a government contract. Disko admitted that he orchestrated a series of bid-rigging and kickback schemes from 2001 to 2010 in those school districts involving Gallagher and two other contractors. Disko prepared fraudulent quotes and estimates and directed contractors to inflate quotes and estimates. He admitted that he submitted the fraudulent quotes and estimates to the districts and recommended approval of the contracts in exchange for kickbacks from the contractors. Gallagher admitted that he helped another contractor to obtain those contracts by preparing fraudulent and fictitious quotes and estimates for his own companies and submitting them to Disko as higher bids than those submitted by Starr. Also, in connection with other contracts that were awarded to Gallagher’s company in the Westfield and Scotch Plains-Fanwood districts, Gallagher inflated quotes and the cost of work performed. The state’s investigation revealed that in return for the inflated contracts, Gallagher gave cash kickbacks to Disko.
New Jersey v. Starr
Kenneth Disko, the former contracted engineer or engineer/architect on record for the Westfield, Tinton Falls and Scotch Plains-Fanwood school districts, pleaded guilty to an accusation charging him with second-degree false representations for a government contract. Disko admitted that he orchestrated a series of bid-rigging and kickback schemes from 2001 to 2010 in those school districts involving Starr and two other contractors. Disko prepared fraudulent quotes and estimates and directed contractors to inflate quotes and estimates. He admitted that he submitted the fraudulent quotes and estimates to the districts and recommended approval of the contracts in exchange for kickbacks from the contractors. In pleading guilty, Starr admitted that in 2009 and 2010, he prepared fictitious quotes from legitimate contractors without their permission and submitted them to Disko in order to appear to be the lowest bidder for contracts worth nearly $25,000 that were awarded to Starr.
New Jersey v. Capozzoli
Three defendants pleaded guilty in connection with $24,360 worth of contracts for computer services let by the Oakland, Lincoln Park and Haledon police departments. The three defendants were required to enter into consent agreements filed with the court
barring them for three years from doing business, either personally or through any business entity, with any public agency or government in New Jersey. The three men are responsible, jointly and severally, for paying $24,360 to the Attorney General’s Anti-Trust Revolving Fund for anti-trust enforcement efforts. All three are responsible, jointly and severally, for paying $18,960, and Meich and Romano are responsible for paying an additional $5,400. In pleading guilty, the three men admitted that they fabricated bids, purportedly from
competing companies, on public contracts for computer hardware, software and services for
the three police departments.
New Jersey v. Romano
Three defendants pleaded guilty in connection with $24,360 worth of contracts for computer services let by the Oakland, Lincoln Park and Haledon police departments. The three defendants were required to enter into consent agreements filed with the court
barring them for three years from doing business, either personally or through any business entity, with any public agency or government in New Jersey. The three men are responsible, jointly and severally, for paying $24,360 to the Attorney General’s Anti-Trust Revolving Fund for anti-trust enforcement efforts. All three are responsible, jointly and severally, for paying $18,960, and Meich and Romano are responsible for paying an additional $5,400. In pleading guilty, the three men admitted that they fabricated bids, purportedly from
competing companies, on public contracts for computer hardware, software and services for
the three police departments. In addition to submitting bids from his own company, Romano admitted to submitting
additional false bids on all three contracts in the name of a third company without that
company’s knowledge or authorization.
