CR-GAYLES/TURNOFF CA SE N O. 18U.S.C.j666(a)(1)(A)

Transcription

1 Case 1:16-cr DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2016 Page 1 of 14 DD Sep 23, 2016 UN ITED STATES D ISTRICT CO U RT SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT O F FLORIDA CR-GAYLES/TURNOFF CA SE N O. 18U.S.C.j666(a)(1)(A) U NITED STA TES O F AM ERIC A IV AN V ALD E S, D efendant. IN FO RM ATIO N The United StatesA ttorney chargesthat: G EN ER A L ALLEG A TIO N S A ta1ltim es relevantto this Inform ation: The M iami-dade County Aviation Department (hereinafter referred to as the EEAviation Departmenf')isadepartmentwithin Miami-DadeCounty,havingbeen so established pursuantto M iami-dadeordinanceno ,on Febnzary 6,1973.Dulingeach ofthe calendar years 2010 through 2015,M iam i-dade County received benefits in excess of$10,000 undera federalprogram involving grants,subsidies, loans, g'uarantees, insurance,and/or other federal assistance. 2. D efendantiv A N V A LDE S hasheld m ultiple supervisory positions in the Aviation D epartm ent,including the D ivision Director,A viation Term inal Building M aintenance for the Aviation D epartm ent. DefendantV A LDE S w as in charge ofthe preparation and adm inistration of the arm ual operating budget for facilities and tenninal m aintenance,oversight for term inal m aintenance building shops,and the day-to-day operationsforfacilitiesand term inalm aintenance, includinglightingforthem iamiintem ationalairport(hereinafterreferredtoast'm 1A'').

2 Case 1:16-cr DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2016 Page 2 of 14 In or about 2010, defendant VALDES began requesting that the Aviation Department issue an Invitation to Quote (hereinafter refen'ed to as dçrfqs') for lighting products to be used at MIA. A co-conspirator (hereinafter referred to as <dthe Procurement Employee') was employed in the Procurement Office of the Aviation Department. The Procurement Employee's duties included creating and sending to a qualified pool of vendors RFQS for lighting products requested by the Aviation Departm ent. The Procurement Employee colected and tallied the bids and declared the lowest responsive bidder on the RFQS. 5. During the period of 2010 through and including 2015, at the request of defendant VALDES, the Aviation Department issued approximately 20 RFQS for the purchase of milions of dolars of light fixtures (hereinafter referred to as the çflight Fixtures'), of which there were four types. multi-national corporation (hereinafter referred to as the uqtvighting M anufacturer') manufactured the Light Fixtures. The Lighting M anufacturer used a South Florida company as the exclusive area representative in South Florida for the sale of the Light Fixtures. A co-conspirator (hereinafter referred to as the EçM anufacturer's Representative') was an owner and officer of the South Florida company, From 2010 through and including 2015, the Lighting M anufacturer and the M anufacturer's Representative utilized interstate w ire and electronic communications, among other means, regarding the sale of the Light Fixtures. The M anufacturer's Representative did not sell the Light Fixtures directly to the Aviation D epartm ent. Instead, the M anufacturer's Representative notified the Lighting Manufacturer that the Aviation Department was issuing an RFQ f0r the Light Fixtures to a list of pre-approved vendors. The Lighting M anufacturer and the M anufacturer's R epresentative agreed

3 Case 1:16-cr DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2016 Page 3 of 14 upon a price that the Lighting Manufacturer would sel the Light Fixtures to the vendor that wo n the RFQ. The Manufacturer's Representative sent each of the interested vendors, by or other means, the price that the Lighting M anufacturer agreed to sel the Light Fixtures to the winning bidder. Each of the vendors then added a commission of generaly 324-7% and submited their bid to the Aviation Department. 8. A co-conspirator (hereinafter referred to as the EGW imzing Vendor') was one of the vendors that submitted bids in response to the Aviation Department RFQ'S for the Light Fixtures. The W inning Vendor was awarded the contracts to supply the Light Fixtures to the Aviation Department for each and every RFQ issued during 2010 through and including A co-conspirator (hereinafter referred to as Elvan's Representative') acted on behalf on defendant VALDES as an intermediary with the W inning Vendor and the M anufadurer's Representative. lvan's Representative has known defendant VALDES for m any years and was previously a supervisory oftidal in the Aviation Departm ent and owned companies that provided, among other items, lighting produds and services to the Aviation Department. COUNT I (Theft in Programs Receiving Federal Funds, 18 U.S.C. f 666(a)(1)(A)) The General Allegations section of this Inform ation is rea leged and expressly incorporated herein as if set forth in fu l. 2. From in or about 2010 and continuing through in or about 2015, in Miami-Dade County, in the Southem District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant, IVAN VALDES being an agent of a local governm ent, said govem m ent receiving during each of the calendar years 2010 through 2015, benefits in excess of $ 10,000 under a Federal program involving a granț

4 Case 1:16-cr DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2016 Page 4 of 14 contract, subsidiary, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other fonn of Federal assistance, embezzled, stole, obtained by fraud, and without authority knowingly converted to the use of a person not the rightful owner, property worth at least $5,000 and owned by and under the care, custody and control of such government, that is, approximately $5,250,000 that he and others obtained by thefț and fraud for the sale of approximately 9, 066 Light Fixtures. M anner and M eans of the Theft and Fraud ln or about 2010, defendant VALDES told lvan's Representative that he would request that the A viation D epartm ent purchase as m any as 500 of the Light Fixtures at a tim e if defendant VALDES received a share of the proceeds from those orders. ln or about 2010, lvan's Representative m et with both the W inning Vendor and the M anufacturer's Representative and discussed the sale of the Light Fixtures to the Aviation Departm ent. From 2010 through and including 2015, defendant VALDES requested approval for the Procurement Oftke of the Aviation Department to issue RFQS for approximately 9,066 Light Fixtures. 6. W hen the Aviation Department sent out an RFQ, defendant VALDES contacted lvan's Representative and told him to contad the W inning Vendor to bid on the RFQ. The M anufacturer's Representative and the Lighting M anufacturer agreed upon a special price for a11 of the Light Fixtures sold to the Aviation Department. The Manufacturer's Representative's goal was to ensure that he could obtain the lowest price for each Light Fixture from the Lighting M anufacturer. After issuance of each RFQ, the Manufacturer's Representative provided a quote to each of those vendors interested in competing for the RFQS, by or other means. The quote 4

5 Case 1:16-cr DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2016 Page 5 of 14 falsely stated that the Lighting Manufacturer's price for each of the Light Fixtures w as hundreds of dolars more than the Lighting Manufacturer and the Manufacturer's Representative had agreed. The W inning Vendor added a commission to the price provided by the Manufacturer' s Representative and submited a bid. 9. The W inning Vendor and the M anufacturer's Representative had a secret agreem ent w herein the W inning V endor w as the only vendor who w as told the true price that the M anufacturer's Representative had agreed upon with the Lighting M anufacturer for the Light Fixtures. Knowing the additional profit that was to be received from each of the contracts, the M anufacturer's Representative and the W inning V endor w ere able to keep the W inning V endor's bid price low. ln order to help ensure that the W inning Vendor was awarded each of the contracts, defendant VALDES paid thousands of dolars in cash to the Procurement Employee. When the Lighting Manufacturer was made aware that the Manufacturer's Representative issued quotes to vendors stating that the price of the Light Fixtures w as hundreds of dolars more than the Lighting Manufacturer and the Manufacturer's Representative had agreed, a representative of the Lighting Manufacturer questioned the Manufacturer's Representative, who falsely stated that a special m ounting accessory w as needed in order for the Light Fixtures to be instaled at the airport. The M anufacturer's Representative told the Lighting M anufacturer that the M anufacturer's Representative w as providing the special m ounting accessory and that the total sales price to the vendors would be higher, because one portion w as for the Light Fixture and the remainder for the special mounting accessory. In fact, there was no special mounting accessory. Instead, the extra money was split among the Manufacturer's Representative, the W inning Vendor, lvan's Representative, and defendant V A LDE S.

6 Case 1:16-cr DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2016 Page 6 of 14 In or about 2010, the Manufacturer's Representative, in order to justify the additional expense for the Light Fixture, requested that defendant VALDES include language in the RFQ that stated the Light Fixture be accompanied çwith required mounting accessory. '' Pursuant to their unlaw ful agreem enț the conspirators caused thousands of Light Fixtures to be shipped in interstate comm erce by private and com mercial interstate cariers to the Aviation Departm ent. A fter the W inning V endor w as awarded a bid it w ould issue a purchase order for the Light Fixtures to the Manufacturer's Representative, who would forward the purchase order to the Lighting M anufacturer. The Lighting M anufacmrer would deliver the Light Fixtures directly to the Aviation D epartm ent w arehouse. Defendant VA LD ES requested so m any Light Fixtures that the Light Fixtures began piling up in the warehouse at MIA. After the warehouse supervisor complained, defendant VALDES ordered that the Light Fixtures be moved to the mechanical maintenance shop at MIA, even though the mechanical maintenance shop was not the end user of the Light Fixtures. 15. Defendant VA LD ES continued to order m ore Light Fixtures to be purchased by the Aviation Department and the Light Fixtures continued to be stacked up in the mechanical m aintenance shop and were then moved to unused areas around M IA. 16. In or about April 2015, after a vendor filed a protest over an RFQ, defendant VALDES paid the Procurem ent Em ployee $5,000 in cash in order to speed up the bidding process and help award the W inning Vendor the bid. Pavm ents For Lieht Fixtures That W ere N ever O rdered From the Liehtinz M anufacturer On tw o occasions, defendant VA LD ES instructed lvan's Representative to direct the W inning Vendor to bid on an RFQ for the Light Fixtures, but told Ivan's Representative to tel 6

7 Case 1:16-cr DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2016 Page 7 of 14 the W ilming Vendor not to order the Light Fixtures from the Lighting Manufacturer. 18. ln or about 2013, in response to an RFQ for 200 Light Fixtureș defendant VALDES told Ivan's Representative to take 200 Light Fixtures that were already in stock at the Aviation Department and were being stored at the Lower Drive at MIA, and return them to the A viation Departm ent to m ake it appear that the 200 Light Fixtures had been recently received pursuant to a new purchase by the W inning V endor. lvan's Representative directed an em ployee to personally pick up the 200 Light Fixtures from the Lower Drive at MIA. Said employee picked up the 200 Light Fixtures and delivered the 200 Light Fixtures to the Winning Vendor. Upon receipt, the W ilming Vendor wrapped up the Light Fixtures and put them on pallets. 20. Defendant VALDES ordered the supervisor of MlA's Public Wol'ks Depm ment to have the 200 Light Fixtures picked up from the W irming Vendor. MIA's Public W orks Department's supervisor directed an M IA Public W orks Departm ent employee to take a M iam i- Dade County vehicle and pick up the 200 Light Fixtures from the Wilming Vendor. Said employee did pick up the 200 Light Fixtures from the Winning Vendor and signed for receipt. The 200 Light Fixtures w ere taken back to M la by said em ployee. ln or about 2015, defendant VA LD ES instructed lvan's Representative to direct the W inning Vendor to bid on an RFQ for 500 Light Fixtures, but told Ivan's Representative to tell the W inning Vendor to only order 200 of the Light Fixtures from the Lighting Manufacturer. 22. The W inning Vendor ordered 200 Light Fixtures from the Lighting Manufacturer. The Lighting M anufacturer delivered the 200 Light Fixtures to the w arehouse at the A viation Departm ent. 23. The W inning V endor never ordered the rem aining 300 Light Fixtures from the

8 Case 1:16-cr DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2016 Page 8 of 14 Lighting Manufacturer. TheLighting Manufacturer never sold to the W inning Vendor, or delivered to the Aviation Department, the additional 300 Light Fixtures. 24. Nonetheless, defendant VALDES signed for receipt of the 300 Light Fi xtures on a document created by the W inning Vendor. ln addition, another Aviation Department employee was directed by defendant VALDES to enter the 300 Light Fixtures as having be en received in the Aviation Department computer system, when, in fact, no such Light Fixtures had ever been received. 25. Months later, with the FBI investigating the shipment of the 300 Light Fixtu res, defendant VAT,DES directed an employee from the mechanical maintenance shop to sign an invoice/packing slip as if the m echanical m aintenance shop employee had received the 300 Light Fixtures. Pavm ents to the C onspirators 26. Defendant V AT,D ES advised lvan's Representative w henever the A viation Department issued a check to the W inning Vendor for payment of the Light Fixtures. 27. Upon being advised, Ivan's Representative issued invoices from his company to the Winning Vendor for an amount that started at $ l 80 per Light Fixture, increased for subsequent orders to $265 per Light Fixture, and, in some instances, $310 or $340 per Light Fixture. For the two instances where light fixtures were never ordered, lvan's Representative issued invoices from his company to the W inning Vendor for $718 per Light Fixture These invoices were not for any services or m aterials provided, but rather w as the m eans by w hich the proceeds of the fraud w ere paid to defendant VALDES and lvan's Representative. 28. Ivan's Representative had agreed to pay, in cash, half the proceeds that he received to defendant VALDES, after expenses. 8

9 Case 1:16-cr DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2016 Page 9 of ln order to obtain cash, lvan's Representative cashed checks in am ounts under $ 10,000 at a check cashing store in Miami-Dade County. 30. After lvan's Representative accumulated approximately $20,000-$50,000 from cashing checks at the check cashing storc, lvan's Representative paid defendant V ALD ES his share of the proceeds from the fraudulent scheme. Defendant VALDES kept track on his celular telephone of the amounts paid and the amounts due him from the fraudulent scheme. 32. Defendant VAT,DES communicated with Ivan's Representative, including by text m essage, as to the correct am ount due them and as to obtaining an increased share of the proceeds from the fraudulent schem e. During the course of the conspiracy, the co-conspirators defrauded the Aviation Departm ent of approxim ately $5,250,000. Defendant VALDES and lvan's Representative split fraudulent proceeds of approxim ately $2.2 m illion. A11 in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sedion 666(a)(1)(A). FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS Upon conviction of a violation of Title 18, U nited States Code, Section 666, as set forth in Count 1 of this Inform ation, the defendant, IV A N V A LDES, shall forfeit to the U nited States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sedion 981(a)(1)(C), and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), any property, realor personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the offense. The property to be forfeited includes, but is not lim ited to the follow ing property: A moneyjudgment in the amount of $5,250,000, which constitutes or was delived from proceeds traceable to the violation alleged in Count 1 of this lnformation. 9

10 Case 1:16-cr DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2016 Page 10 of 14 A l pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 98 1(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c). Ỵ / 4 DO A.FE RER ITED STATES ATTORNEY tj - J. KAPLAN ASSISTA T UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

11 Case 1:16-cr DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2016 Page 11 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT O F FLORIDA UNITED STATES OF AM ERICA V. IVAN VALDES Defendant. / CASE NO. CERTIFICATE OF TRIAL ATTORNEY* Superseding Case Inform ation: Court Division: (Seled One) X Miami Key West FTL WPB FTP New Defendants) Number of New Defendants Total number of counts Yes No I do hereby certify that: l have carefuly considered the alegations of the indictment, the number of defendantș the number of probable witnesses and the legal complexities of the Indlctment/lnformation attached hereto. l am aware that the information supplied orl this statement wil be relied upon by the Judges of this Court in setting their calendars and scheduling crlminal trials under the mandate of the Speedy Trial Acț Title 28 U.S.C, Section lnterpreter: (Yes gr No) Listlanguage and/or dlalect This case will take 0 No days for the parties to try. Please check appropriate categoly and type of offense listed below: (Check only one) l 0 to 5 days X Petty 11 6 to 10 days M inor Ill 11 to 20 days Misdem. IV 21 to 60 days Felony V 61 days and over (Check only one) $ lf Has this case been previously tiled in this District Court? (Yes or No) yes: Judge: Case No. (Attach copy pf dispositive prder) Has a complalnt been filed ln this matter? (Yes or No) No If yej: M aglstrate Case No. Related M iscslaneous numbers: Defendants) ln federal custody as of Defendantts) ln state cpstody as of Rule 20 from the Distrlct of ls this a potential death penalty case? (Yes or No) No Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the U.S. Attorney's Oftice prior to October 14, 2003? Yes No X 8. Does this case originate from a mat-ter pending in the Central Region of the U.S. Attorney's Oftice prior to September l, Yes p *penalty Sheets) atached JE - k A S ST i UNITED S TES A ORNEY court 1.. No. A

12 Case 1:16-cr DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2016 Page 12 of 14 UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENA LTY SHEET Defendant's N am e: lvan V aldes Case No: Count #: 1 Theft in Program s Receiving Federal Funds Title 18. United States Code. Section 666(a)(1)(A) # M ax. Penalty: 10 yearsh imprisonment, 3 years' supervised release. $250,000 fine WRefers only to possible term of incarceration, does not include possible ines, restitution, special assessments, parole term s or forfeitures that m ay be applicable.

13 Case 1:16-cr DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2016 Page 13 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NUM BER: BOND RECOM M ENDATION DEFENDANT: Ivan Valdes $200,000 Personal Surety (Personal Surety) (Corporate Surety) (Cash) (Pre-Trial Detention) By: h A. J ffrey N. Kaplan..1 Last Known Address: 3063 SW qth Street Miami, FL W hat Facility: N/A Agenttsl: S/A Kyle S. Scheatzle, FBl (FBI) (SECRET SERVICE) (DEA) (IRS) (ICE)(OTHER)

14 Case 1:16-cr DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2016 Page 14 of 14 AO 455 (Rev. 01/09) Waiver of an lndictment U NITED STATES D ISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of Florida United States of America V. IVAN VALDES De vkndant ) ) Case No. ) ) ) W AW ER OF AN INDICTMENT I understand that l have been accused of one or m ore offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. l was advised in open court of my rights and the nature of the proposed charges against me. After receiving this advice, l waive my right to prosecution by indictm ent and consent to prosecution by information. Printed ntzple ofdefendant 's attorney