• Newsletter Subscriptions
  • Magazine Subscription
    • indictments from Manhattan DA
    1. Construction
    2. Business Management

    Three-Year Investigation Leads to 24-Count Indictment in Electrical Contracting Kickback Scheme

    Dec. 20, 2013
    Three-year investigation leads to charges against 17 individuals and 15 companies, $14 million to be forfeited, approximately $1 million to be paid to state tax department.

    Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., this week announced a three-year investigation that uncovered evidence of widespread commercial bribery and fraud in the electrical contracting industry in New York City. District Attorney Vance also announced the indictment of Donald Russo, 54, and Bar Electrical Consulting, Inc. for engaging in a bribery scheme that steered millions of dollars of Unity Electric Company business to various electrical supply companies. Russo created a shell company called Bar Electrical to accept bribes from companies who wished to do business with Unity. Russo and Bar Electrical are charged with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree, Criminal Tax Fraud in the Fourth Degree, and Commercial Bribe Receiving in the Second Degree.  

    Additionally, Alan Brite, 65, the president of Benfield Datacom, is charged with paying bribes to purchasers at various companies to win business, including increasing bids to Unity in order to pay Russo a kickback. Brite is charged with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, Commercial Bribe Receiving in the Second Degree, and Commercial Bribery in the Second Degree. Benfield Datacom, Benfield Controls and Benfield Electric Supply Company, are charged with Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, Commercial Bribe Receiving in the Second Degree, and Commercial Bribery in the Second Degree.

    Earlier this month, IG Federal Electrical Supply Corporation entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement in which it admitted to violating various New York State Laws involving commercial bribery, theft, and fraud. Additionally, Ira Friedman, 52, Vice President of Operations for IGF, and its Vice President of Purchasing Todd Ehren, 46, pleaded guilty to Falsifying Business Records for misclassifying more than $1 million of their salaries as expenses.

    As a result of this investigation, at least 15 companies and 17 individuals have been charged to date, approximately $14 million will be forfeited, approximately $500,000 will be paid in restitution, including $150,000 to be repaid to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 3 employee benefit fund, and more than $1 million will be repaid to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.

    “Bribery and fraud in the construction industry remain a concern,” said District Attorney Vance. “This long-term investigation exposed nearly two dozen industry professionals alleged to have engaged in illegal activity for the purpose of self-enrichment. As a result of kickback schemes like this one, New Yorkers are footing an inflated bill for public construction throughout the five boroughs – in places as varied as the JP Morgan Chase Tower, The New York Police Academy, New York City Center, and JFK Airport. I would like to thank the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Queens District Attorney’s Office, New York City Department of Investigation, and the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance for assisting in this investigation. We will continue to work together to root out corruption in the construction trades and ensure the integrity of public and private contracts.”

    Port Authority of NY & NJ Inspector General Robert E. Van Etten said: “We have identified an industry-wide corrupt practice involving the payment of bribes and kickbacks that ultimately results in increased costs to the public and negatively impacts the quality of materials and the integrity of the work performed. Today’s announcement should send a very clear message to the construction industry that the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey will not tolerate fraud or any other criminal misconduct on public projects. The Port Authority Office of Inspector General and its law enforcement partners will aggressively identify, investigate, and bring to justice those who corrupt the integrity of the construction industry. I would like to thank NY County District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, as well as ADA Elyse Ruzow for spearheading this investigation which has culminated in the arrest and prosecution of those involved in this corrupt industry practice.”

    Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown said: “Businesses and corruption are not necessarily restricted by county borders and, as such, investigations sometimes require a concerted effort by local prosecutors.  In such cases, the cross-designation of a prosecutor from one district attorney’s office to another is a powerful tool that gives law enforcement the ability to cross county lines in order to pursue those who break the law. I am pleased to have been a partner in this collaborative law enforcement initiative with our Manhattan colleague, District Attorney Cy Vance, and the other law enforcement agencies involved in this investigation.”

    New York City Department of Investigation Commissioner Rose Gill Hearn said: "Bribery and kickbacks are not an acceptable way of doing business. DOI was pleased to be part of this multi-agency effort to stop and expose this type of corruption."

    New York State Department of Taxation and Finance Commissioner Thomas H. Mattox said: “It appears that, in addition to commercial bribery, grand larceny and numerous other charges, the defendants also attempted to cheat the State out of income taxes by falsifying business records. These are serious charges and demand prosecution.  That’s why I commend District Attorneys Vance and Brown, along with a host of other enforcement professionals, for their thorough and diligent investigation.”

    According to documents filed in court, Russo illegally negotiated with electrical suppliers to receive between two and three percent of Unity’s purchases. Through these commercial bribery and larceny schemes, between 2008 and 2012, Russo pocketed more than $600,000 from five electrical supply companies in exchange for his steering business to them. The funds were deposited into a bank account held by Bar Electrical.

    Between 2008 and 2012, Russo also stole more than $50,000 from Unity and hid the theft from his employer by increasing invoice amounts and splitting the increase with IGF. In addition, Brite and Russo negotiated a deal with a Unity subcontractor, where the subcontractor added more than $70,000 to its invoices to Unity. Russo then sent Bar Electrical invoices to the subcontractor, which paid Russo through Bar Electrical.

    According to documents filed in court, Brite also paid purchasing agents from two additional electrical contracting firms to steer business to Benfield. In exchange for buying electrical materials and supplies from Benfield, Brite paid purchasing agents from three electrical contracting firms more than $850,000 between 2008 and 2012. Brite also negotiated kickbacks with some of the purchasing agents, receiving more than $200,000 in kickbacks during this time period.

    This three-year investigation, led by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and the Inspector General for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, has uncovered evidence of widespread commercial bribery and fraud in the electrical contracting industry in New York City. In addition to the defendants in court today, others have recently pleaded guilty to related electrical contracting schemes.

    In a Deferred Prosecution Agreement filed earlier this month, IGF admitted violating New York State Law by improperly classifying portions of employees’ salaries as expenses, making bribe payments to purchasing agents of various electrical contracting companies, receiving kickbacks from purchasing agents, stealing from their customers by billing them for materials not delivered, and fraudulently filing paperwork claiming to be a woman-owned business. As a result of the salary scheme, IGF underreported its payroll, which led to more than $150,000 of underpayments to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 3 employee benefit fund.

    According to their guilty pleas on Dec. 9, 2013, Ira Friedman and Todd Ehren pleaded guilty to Falsifying Business Records for misclassifying more than $1 million of their own salaries as expenses. As condition of his guilty plea, Friedman is expected to be sentenced on Jan. 23, 2014, to six months in jail and will be required to forfeit $650,000 and pay approximately $260,000 of back taxes to New York State. Ehren is expected to be sentenced on March 5, 2014, to four months in jail and will be required to forfeit $650,000 and pay approximately $255,000 of back taxes to New York State.

    The investigation is being conducted by Assistant District Attorney Elyse Ruzow, Senior Investigative Counsel to the Rackets Bureau, under the supervision of Assistant District Attorney Jodie Kane, Principle Deputy Chief of the Rackets Bureau, Assistant District Attorney Daniel Brownell, Chief of the Rackets Bureau, and Executive Assistant District Attorney David Szuchman, Chief of the Investigation Division. Trial Preparation Assistant Anastassia Baldrige assisted with the investigation.

    Voice your opinion!

    To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of EC&M, create an account today!

    Continue Reading

    Sponsored Recommendations

    Latest from Business Management

    In the typical facility, the plant manager has X amount of discretionary spending power that can be directed toward a single purchase. At each level of management down, discretionary spending is stepped down into smaller amounts. Anything beyond a given manager’s limit must be appealed to the next level up. For example, the Plant Engineer can’t quite swing a purchase of $5200 but the Plant Manager can approve it. This informal arrangement reduces corporate overhead and improves operational efficiency. It does not address whether the spending decisions would make financial sense to the Chief Financial Officer, but the cap at each level keeps any mistakes to a reasonably acceptable loss or misallocation of resources. Beyond the Plant Manager’s limit, there is usually a formal process for getting spending approval. It typically involves filling out a Capital Request (or similarly named form). In well-run companies, the form is very structured. It mostly wants some basic information that will give the reviewer(s) the ability to justify not just the purchase but also the cost of acquiring the capital to do so. Because the funds will typically be borrowed by the corporation, the cost of capital must be balanced against the return on investment. There will be at least one person crunching the numbers to make what is called “the business case” for the proposed spending. Making the business case is something you should do, in some way or another, when considering spending within your approved limits. If the spending is above your approved limits, then the manager above you will need a bit beefier of a business case. The business case must take into account the value obtained versus the money spent. Consider the purchase of a thermographic camera. If you intend to purchase a mid-range camera but nobody at your facility is trained and certified in its use, the purchase is probably a waste of money. You’d be better off getting an entry-level camera and then arranging for a path toward certification if you intend to have that ability in-house and it makes operational and financial sense to do so. And generally, it makes sense to have a person or two with Level I certification so they really understand how to get the most out of a camera system that’s beyond the basic level. On the other hand, if you were a manager at an electrical testing firm with several Level III Thermographers you would be wasting your thermographers if you decided to “save money” by equipping them with only basic or even intermediate camera systems. Your firm needs to be able to troubleshoot problems when that important client calls in a panic. Your thermographers need the tools to do that job, and “cost-saving” on camera systems won’t cut it. Presumably, your clients are smart enough to already have basic camera systems; they just don’t have the expertise to use advanced systems. Sometimes a different logic applies to other types of test equipment. In the typical plant, maintenance electricians need sophisticated DMMs. If they lack the training to use the features that are needed for most effectively keeping equipment running, simply choosing a less capable DMM they already know how to use is not the answer. They need the appropriate DMM along with the training on how to use those features correctly. So far, we haven’t looked at the need to crunch any numbers to make the business case. What we have done is think about the match between the purchase, the problem that needs to be solved, and the ability of the user to solve the problem using that purchase. This sounds like a common sense approach that everyone would naturally take, but people often lose sight of the reason for the purchase in the first place. The tendency is to either go all out on something they can’t use or don’t need, or to “save money” by shortchanging the end users with something that doesn’t allow them to do what they need to do. What about those numbers? When you do a purchase request, a bean counter is going to try to determine the cash flows involved (typically in monthly periods). If you write something like, “The payback period is three years,” they don’t find that helpful. Lenders care that a loan can be serviced, and cash flow is the critical factor in calculating whether it can. Thus, beancounters don’t use payback to determine whether they can afford to borrow. They use the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) or Modified Internal Rate of Return (MIRR). Formulas for both IRR and MIRR have been in spreadsheet programs for over two decades, but before that they were determined using a Business Math Calculator (about $150 in 1990). And before that, they were laboriously calculated by hand. The cash flows that are charted will be either additional revenue generated or losses prevented. To help the person who figuratively wears the green eye shade, tie the use of the test equipment to a revenue stream. A major appliance plant in Tennessee has several production lines that collectively produce $1,560,000 per hour of revenue. Thus each minute of unplanned downtime is quite costly. If the plant electrical engineer there wanted to upgrade test equipment in a way that exceeds the Plant Manager’s spending authority, he needs to help the green eye shade guy do the math. He can cite short case histories from the past two years and briefly explain how having X capability (present in the new equipment, absent in the existing equipment) would have saved Y minutes of downtime (which the green eye shade guy will calculate out in terms of revenue and cash flow). The green eye shade guy also needs to know whether each case history is a one-off that will never recur or if it’s representative of what to expect in the future. You can settle this question with a brief explanation. For example, “The responding technician did not have a [name of test equipment]. Consequently, he had to arrive at the same conclusion by other means to the tune of 24 minutes of downtime he would not have incurred if he’d had a [name of test equipment]. This problem occurred once on Line 2 and twice on Line 4.” Now the green eye shade guy can simply add up the downtime, monetize it, and create the cash flow analysis. And it’s really good for something like a power monitor. For example, “In this particular case the plant did not have a monitoring system capable of detecting short-term bursts of power, which we call transient spikes, and alerting us. Transients happen with no notice, and usually without being detected. The motor shop forensic report shows the main motor failed due to winding insulation failure caused by transients. With a power monitor detecting and reporting those transients, we would have been able to intervene before outright failure, on a scheduled basis. That would have reduced downtime by 57 minutes twice last year alone.” Making the business case for your smaller purchases means simply thinking about what you are trying to accomplish and then making sure you are spending the funds correctly to achieve that goal. But as you go up the food chain, you need to make the picture more clear. And when you appeal to corporate for approval, you need to provide reasonably accurate downtime savings numbers that can be converted by them to revenue loss prevention in specific dollar amounts.
    Man staring at wall with hand-drawn question marks and money bags on it
    ID 4102068 © Igor Lovrinovic | Dreamstime.com
    Natural gas tank
    Courtesy of Weifield Group
    Weifield Group

    New

    Sponsored