White Collar Crime Prof Blog

Former Federal Prosecutor Acquitted on Obstruction Charges

Former assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Convertino and a former State Department security officer were acquitted of all charges relating to their alleged obstruction of justice for not turning over evidence in the first post-September 11 terrorism trial.  Three of the four defendants were convicted in the original case, U.S. v. Koubriti, the so-called "Detroit Terrorism Trial," but the Department of Justice asked that the convitions be reversed and the charges be dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct.  Convertino was the lead prosecutor in Koubriti, and was indicted on conspiracy, obstruction, and false declaration charges in 2006.  The trial lasted nearly three weeks, and the jury deliberated less than a day before returning the "not guilty" verdicts.  One obstruction charge against Convertino alone, related to the sentencing in an unrelated drug case, was severed before trial, and it's not clear whether prosecutors will pursue that charge in a second trial. 

The charges related in large part to discovery in the Koubriti case, and involved questions of whether evidence was suppressed in violation of Brady v. Maryland.  The prosecution was unprecedented in making a claim of prosecutorial misconduct the basis for a criminal case, at least when there were no allegations of falsified evidence or perjury by fact witnesses.  A Detroit News story (here) discusses the trial and "not guilty" verdicts. (ph)

Ryan Denied Bail Pending Consideration of Supreme Court Appeal

Former Illinois Governor George Ryan is likely facing the beginning of his six year prison term on November 6 when Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Wood denied his request for bail pending the filing and consideration of a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.  Ryan and his co-defendant lost the appeal of their convictions on RICO and corruption charges in an opinion issued on August 21, 2007, and the full court denied rehearing en banc by a 6-3 vote, over a strong dissent written by Circuit Judge Richard Posner (see earlier post here).  In denying his request for bail to be continued until the Supreme Court decides the case, Judge Wood issued a chambers opinion (available below) stating:

Appellants here have shown neither a reasonable probability that the Court will grant certiorari nor a reasonable possibility that this court’s decision will be reversed. Most of the arguments presented in the dissent to the panel’s opinion were not preserved in the district court, and none of the arguments in the dissent to the order denying rehearing en banc has ever been advanced by the appellants. Before it could reach these questions, the Supreme Court would have to disregard a series of forfeitures. It is unlikely that the Court would do so, especially given the strength of the government’s case.

Ryan can still apply for bail to Justice Stevens, who is responsible for the Seventh Circuit, until a decision on his cert petition, but that is unlikely to succeed.  The standard for granting bail is the same for the court of appeals and the Supreme Court, under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3143(b)(1)(B), which requires a finding that the appeal "raises a substantial question of law or fact likely" to result in a reversal of the conviction.  A quick check on Westlaw showed only a few cases in which a single Justice granted bail pending a decision on the writ of certiorari, and given the small number of petitions the Court accepts, I suspect it is unlikely Ryan's request will succeed.  Nevertheless, it is certainly worth a try, especially in light of the dissenting opinions in the case questioning the fairness of his trial. (ph)

Download us_v_ryan_denial_of_bail_pending_cert_oct_31_2007.pdf

Ingersoll-Rand Settles FCPA Case from Iraq Oil-for-Food Program Bribery

Industrial manufacturer Ingersoll-Rand Co. settled criminal and civil investigations of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations related to bribes given to participate in the Iraq Oil-for-Food program, which seemed to generate a fountain of corrupt payments.  The bribes involved two foreign subsidiaries, in Ireland and Italy, and Ingersoll-Rand agreed to a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (here) and pay a $2.5 million fine. The government filed conspiracy to commit wire fraud charges against the subsidiaries, which will be dismissed if it fulfills the terms of the DPA.  In addition, the company settled an SEC civil enforcement action, agreeing to disgorge profits of $1,710,034, and pay $560,953 in pre-judgment interest and a $1,950,000 civil penalty (Litigation Release here).  Ingersoll-Rand's total cost was about $6.7 million, which does not include the increased expenses of ensuring compliance with the DPA.

A provision of the DPA that is becoming more common is a section allowing Ingersoll-Rand to assert the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine to resist producing records prosecutors might request.  However, the cost of doing so is that "the Department may consider this fact in determining whether Ingersoll has fully cooperated with the Department."  Whether DOJ will ever follow through on such a threat remains to be seen, but this type of provision seems to be designed to avoid claims that the government is demanding across-the-board waivers of the privilege. (ph)

Sell on the Dip

There is an investment adage to "buy on the dip," meaning that when the stock market has one of its periodic one-day plunges that appears to be irrational, buy shares to take advantage of the discounted prices.  If you know bad news is coming, you can also position yourself to take advantage of it, and two SEC insider trading cases show once again that investors can profit from impending bad news just as easily as good news.  In one case, a former vice president at mortgage lender Countrywide Financial took advantage of information about a quarterly earnings shortfall by selling out his shares, sold short additional shares, and bought put options.  The stock dropped 11% on the announcement, netting profits and losses avoided of $35,547.93.  According to the SEC Litigation Release (here), in addition to the disgorgement the defendant paid a double-penalty, a steep price for a single set of trades.

In a second case, the Commission alleges that a Ukrainian national made bearish trades in IMS Health Inc. before the announcement that the company missed its quarterly earnings mark.  The SEC Litigation Release (here) states:

[J]ust hours before the close of the market on October 17, 2007, Dorozhko, while in possession of material nonpublic information regarding the impending announcement of negative earnings by IMS Health, purchased 300 Oct 25 out-of-the-money and 330 Oct 30 at-the-money put options on the common stock of IMS Health which would expire on October 20, 2007, just three days later. According to the Complaint, after the market closed on October 17, 2007, IMS Health reported third quarter earnings of $0.29 per share, which was 28% below analysts' consensus estimates of $0.40 earnings per share and 15% below the previous year's third quarter earnings of $0.34 per share. The Commission alleges that on October 18, 2007, IMS Health's stock price fell to a low of $21.20 per share or 28% from the previous day's closing price. On the same date, Dorozhko sold all of his IMS Health put options and realized proceeds of $328,000 and profits of $287,346 according to the Commission's Complaint.

Because of the overseas trading, the Commission sought and obtained a freeze order to keep the money in the United States while the Enforcement Division staff completes its investigation. (ph)

The Growing Furor Over the Blackwater Immunity Grants

The grant of immunity by State Department investigators to the Blackwater guards involved in a firefight in Iraq on September 16 that killed a number of civilians is raising a furor on Capitol Hill about who authorized the immunity and whether it was cleared through the Department of Justice.  ABC News reports (here) the language of the immunity grant to each guard who made a statement: "I understand this statement is being given in furtherance of an official administrative inquiry . . . I further understand that neither my statements nor any information or evidence gained by reason of my statements can be used against me in a criminal proceeding, except that if I knowingly and willfully provide false statements or information, I may be criminally prosecuted for that action under 18 United States Code, Section 1001."  This appears to be the common "use/fruits" immunity (see earlier post here) given to a person to obtain testimony over an assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege.  Department of Justice approval is required before any authorized grant of immunity can be made, which appears to be missing here.  That does not mean the immunity is invalid, however, and the guards are protected regardless of whether the legal requirements were followed. 

Foreign Relations Committee chairman Senator Joseph Biden and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Representative Henry Waxman sent letters to Secretary of State Rice asking for further information about the immunity grants.  Senator Biden's letter (here) asks, "Press reports today indicate that DS agents offered grants of immunity to Blackwater employees after the September 16 shooting incident in Baghdad.  Are these reports accurate?  If so, who authorized these grants of immunity?  Was there consultation with the Department of Justice prior to such grants of immunity?"  Representative Waxman's letter (here) states, "This rash grant of immunity was an egregious misjudgment. It raises serious questions about who conferred the immunity, who approved it at the State Department, and what their motives were."

One justification offered for giving this type of immunity is that it does not preclude a subsequent criminal prosecution of the immunized witness, unlike "transactional immunity" that prohibits prosecution for any crime discussed by the witness.  Of course, arguing that an even greater protection could have been given is a bit like claiming "I could have caused a lot more damage than I did to the investigation" -- small comfort at best.  Nevertheless, government spokespersons have asserted that criminal prosecutions will still be pursued.  For example, Dana Perino at the White House stated (here) that "Secretary Rice has made it very clear that she takes the situation very seriously. It is under review. She said that anyone who has engaged in criminal behavior will be prosecuted."  A State Department spokesman took the same approach, stating (here) "[t]he kinds of, quote, 'immunity' that I've seen reported in the press would not preclude a successful criminal prosecution."  Perhaps there was a Dr. Evil moment in putting quotation marks around "immunity" because the term is quite clear.

Can the government still pursue a criminal prosecution of any of the guards?  Leaving aside thorny issues regarding jurisdiction, the grant of use/fruits immunity makes a subsequent criminal prosecution very difficult, at best.  Under the Supreme Court's decision in Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), the government has the "heavy burden" in any prosecution of an immunized witness of meeting "the affirmative duty to prove that the evidence it proposes to use is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of the compelled testimony." (Italics added)  Perhaps the most chilling term a prosecutor ever hears is "Kastigar hearing" because the proof requirements -- especially when immunity is granted early in an investigation -- are so onerous.

What is more striking about the immunity given to the Blackwater guards is the manner of granting the protection appears to violate two of the basic precepts in securing testimony in the face of a Fifth Amendment claim.  First, it does not appear that the investigators had any idea what the guards would say, not even a proffer from them, so it was a blind grant of immunity.  The common adage is that prosecutors should not buy a "pig in a poke" (see earlier post here on the meaning of that phrase), i.e. check the value of the goods before the transaction is completed.  Indeed, it is not clear whether any of the guards ever asserted the Fifth Amendment, so it's possible the immunity grant was unnecessary for some.  Second, even if you do have to buy a pig in a poke, you don't buy it from everyone.  Immunity grants are usually given parsimoniously, and only to those on the lower level or on the outside ring of the investigation.  A blanket grant of immunity to all participants likely means that no one can be prosecuted because separating out the information in a Kastigar hearing would be impossible -- remember Col. Oliver North.  Handing out immunity like Halloween candy is not the way to pursue an investigation if a criminal prosecution is viewed as a possibility, although if the expectation was that no charges would be filed then this would be the best means to ensure that result. (ph)

The Government is Making Money

Recent false claim settlements will be adding money to the government. Neither of the two recent cases involve criminal allegations.

The DOJ reports that "Hexcel Corporation of Stamford, Conn., has agreed to pay the United States $15 million to resolve allegations it violated the False Claims Act in connection with its role in the manufacture and sale of defective Zylon bullet-proof vests to federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies, the Justice Department announced today. As part of the agreement with the government, the manufacturer has pledged their cooperation in the government’s on-going investigation of other participants involved in the fraudulent conduct."

The DOJ in another press release states that "Dianon Systems Inc. has agreed to pay the United States $1.5 million to resolve claims under the False Claims Act that the company mischarged Medicare and TRICARE for certain tests it performed."

(esp)

Immunity in the Blackwater Investigation

David Johnston of the New York Times is reporting here that immunity deals were offered to certain Blackwater employees. And it sounds like the immunity may have come from the State Department as opposed to the DOJ. Who gave the immunity, the validity of the immunity, and the evidence procured may remain open questions for awhile.  But in the interim it is interesting to look at some of the law in this area.

Federal immunity is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 6001 et. seq. and it provides use immunity as opposed to transactional immunity.  This means that "no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order." (18 U.S.C. § 6002). 

But who has the authority to grant this immunity and in what contexts does this immunity apply?  One place to look is 18 U.S.C. § 6004, which provides:

(a) In the case of any individual who has been or who may be called to testify or provide other information at any proceeding before an agency of the United States, the agency may, with the approval of the Attorney General, issue, in accordance with subsection (b) of this section, an order requiring the individual to give testimony or provide other information which he refuses to give or provide on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, such order to become effective as provided in section 6002 of this title.

(b) An agency of the United States may issue an order under subsection (a) of this section only if in its judgment--

(1) the testimony or other information from such individual may be necessary to the public interest; and

(2) such individual has refused or is likely to refuse to testify or provide other information on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination.

(emphasis added). Whether this is the controlling procedure, whether other statutes may offer more guidance, and whether there are cases that may assist here remains to be seen.  The Washington Post (here) discusses Garrity and Kalkines warnings. (see here for the FCC's explanation).

(esp)

Antitrust Plea

DOJ's antitrust division reports that "[a]n Oregon-based freight forwarder pleaded guilty to rigging bids and allocating shipments for its role in a conspiracy involving its participation in the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) program for shipping the household goods of military and civilian DOD personnel between the United States and foreign countries."  The press release states that:

"Criminal charges were filed today in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va. against Lift Forwarders Inc. (Lift). Under the terms of a plea agreement, Lift pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to restrain trade, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and agreed to pay a $140,000 criminal fine."

(esp)

Ryan Ordered to Report to Prison

With the Seventh Circuit affirming his conviction (see here), former Illinois Governor George Ryan has been ordered to report to prison.  The date for him to start serving his 6 1/2 year sentence is November 7th. (see here and here).  Ryan has had the benefit of remaining free pending his appeal.  Some white collar individuals have had this luxury (e.g., Bernie Ebbers). while others have not ( e.g., Bill Campbell, Jeffrey Skilling). It certainly was justified to have Ryan free pending the appeal as his issues were strong (after the fact we can confirm this as he secured three dissenters) and he certainly was not a flight risk or an individual who would cause harm.  At 73 years of age, Ryan  had a strong position of securing bail pending the appeal.  But bail post appeal, that may be a lot more difficult.

(esp)

Indicted Lawyer Leaves Baker & McKenzie

An indicted attorney from the law firm of Baker & McKenzie resigned from the firm.  See here.

(esp)(w/ a hat tip to John Wesley Hall)

What is a Navigible Water

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an environmental conviction, and in the process provided a clearer understanding of what constitutes navigable waters. Finding that a "significant nexus" test was not used in the jury instruction, the court found error and further found that the government had not met its burden of showing this as harmless error. The case was remanded for a new trial. The opinion can be found here.

(esp)(w/ a hat tip to Steve Glassroth)

Deferred Prosecution Agreements

The topic was "Corporate Deferred Prosecution Agreements: Issues in Hybrid Enforcement," and the place was the Press Club in DC.  Last Friday afternoon, Steven A. Tyrrell, chief of the Fraud Division of the US Department of Justice, along with Stephanie Martz, Director of the White Collar Crime Project of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and I, talked about the benefits and problems of corporate deferred prosecution agreements.  As one might suspect, there was ample discussion of  attorney-client privilege and attorney fee waivers.  Concerns that some deferred prosecution agreements may contain a clause that placed a breach of the agreement in the sole determination of the government also caused discussion. Finally, several panelists talked about pending legislation.  The panel was moderated by Professor Lisa Kern Griffin, visiting professor Duke Law School.  For more information, see here.

(esp)

Ryan Loses En Banc Request, But Gains Support in Dissent

Former Governor George Ryan (Illinois) lost his request for a rehearing en banc (here) in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  But there was a strong three person dissent to the decision. The dissent by Judges Posner, Kanne and Williams includes the following language: "But harmlessness is not the test of reversible error when a cascade of errors turns a trial into a travesty." Whether this dissent will sway the U.S. Supreme Court to accept the case on a Petition for Certiorari, remains to be seen.

(esp)

Spellissy Defense Files New Motion

Ray Reyes of the Tampa Tribune reports here on the defense filing a new motion in the Spellissy case. (see here for background on this case).  According to the paper there is an allegation that the "government  tampered with a defense witness by preventing that person from testifying on Spellissy's behalf."  If true, this is a serious allegation. And if the tampering is unlawful, it could raise concerns about the evidence presented in the case and might also raise ethical issues.  But as the defense should not be judged until all the evidence has been presented, so too should the prosecution first be allowed to respond to this serious allegation before it is determined whether there is merit to this claim.  Some questions that need answering here are - when did the defense become aware of the conduct claimed here; was there an opportunity for the defense to be able to secure court assistance to compel the witness to testify; was the omission of this evidence harmful to the defendant's case?

(esp)

BP Takes a $373 Million Hit

BP plc settled three government investigations by agreeing to pay a total of $373 million in fines, restitution, and civil penalties.  The company pleaded guilty to a violation of the Clean Air Act, a subsidiary pleaded guilty to a violation of the Clean Water Act, and another subsidiary agreed to a deferred prosecution agreement on a charge of conspiracy to violate the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).  According to a Department of Justice press release (here), the payments include:

$50 million in criminal fines to be paid as part of an agreement to plead guilty in the Southern District of Texas to a one-count felony violation of the Clean Air Act. The agreement resulted from the prosecution of BP by the Department of Justice for a catastrophic explosion that occurred at the BP Texas City refinery on March 23, 2005, that killed 15 contract employees and injured more than 170 others;

$12 million in criminal fines, $4 million in payments to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and $4 million in criminal restitution to the state of Alaska, as part of an agreement to plead guilty by British Petroleum Exploration (Alaska), Inc. (BPXA) to a violation of the Clean Water Act to resolve criminal liability relating to pipeline leaks of crude oil onto the tundra as well as a frozen lake in Alaska;

A criminal penalty of $100 million, a payment of $25 million to the U.S. Postal Inspection Consumer Fraud Fund, and restitution of approximately $53 million, plus a civil penalty of $125 million to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as part of an agreement to defer the prosecution of a one-count criminal information filed in the Northern District of Illinois charging BP America Inc. with conspiring to violate the Commodity Exchange Act and to commit mail fraud and wire fraud.

The deferred prosecution agreement calls for the appointment of a monitor for three years to oversee the company's compliance with its terms and to ensure no future violations of the CEA.  In addition to the charges against BP, four former commodities traders at its BP America subsidiary were charged in a twenty-count indictment (here) with conspiracy, violations of the CEA, and wire fraud.  According to the press release, the traders conspired

to manipulate and corner the TET propane market in February 2004, in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act, and to sell TET propane at an artificially inflated index price in violation of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes. The indictment further charges the defendants with substantive violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and the wire fraud statute. According to the proposed indictment, from Feb. 5, 2004, through March 15, 2004, the defendants allegedly agreed to manipulate the market for February 2004 TET propane.

(ph)

Here Come the Lawyers to WellCare

The search of WellCare Health Plan's headquarters by, among others, FBI agents (earlier post here) triggered -- as expected -- an immediate response: let's hire lawyers!  A press release (on Business Wire here) states that since the search and carting away of boxes of documents, the company has:

• Been in direct contact with its Board of Directors, including members of the audit committee;
• Committed to cooperating with the federal and state authorities involved in the investigation;
• Retained the law firms of King & Spalding and Greenburg [sic] Traurig to assist the Company with responding to the investigation;
• Engaged with the Company’s auditors, Deloitte & Touche LLP;
• Been in contact with key constituents, including state and federal regulators in each of the Company’s markets.

It's not clear why two national law firms have been retained, but maybe two -- or twenty counting all the partners and associates -- heads are better than one.  WellCare's stock lost over 60% of its value the day following the search, showing the devastating effect a criminal investigation can have for a company's investors.  While the scope of the investigation is not yet clear, any inquiry into possible healthcare fraud carries a serious danger of criminal and civil fines and penalties, and could even include exclusion from the Medicaid program if an extensive fraudulent scheme were uncovered.  (ph)

McNulty Defending the McNulty Memo

Speaking as the keynote luncheon speaker at the ABA Second Annual Securities Fraud Institute, Former Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty defended his DOJ McNulty Memo. Referencing Senator Specter's recent Wall Street Journal commentary titled, "A Question for Mr. Mukasey,"  McNulty was not happy having his efforts called a "swing and a miss."  It's at least "a standup double" he said.  And then McNulty proceeded to be on the offensive, taking on Senator Specter's proposed legislation. 

McNulty may believe that companies will waive because it is in their best interest to do so, but there are still many folks out there who believe that it is important to make certain that DOJ attorneys are not making requests for attorney-client waivers and that the best way to accomplish this is via legislation.  The ABA Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice has a program today called, "Corporate Deferred Prosecution Agreements: Issues in Hybrid Enforcement," at the Press Club in DC. starting at 3:45 P.M.  I am confident (I am one of the speakers) that there will be responses provided to McNulty's comments.  The question will be whether the response(s) will send him back to dugout.  Stay tuned.

(esp)

ABA Second Annual Securities Fraud Institute - 23 Corporate Counsel Convictions

The opening session of the Second Annual Securities Fraud Institute provided "trends and expectations in securities fraud enforcement cases and criminal prosecutions" to a near filled large room.  Moderator Tom Hanusik asked questions to Professor James Cox (Duke), Alice Fisher (DOJ), Hon. Michael G. Oxley (a father of SOX), and Linda Chatman Thomsen (SEC). 

The opening question to Mike Oxley was - is SOX working? The former legislator discussed how SOX was passed in response to the public outcry of corporate scandals, with a purpose to restore investor confidence. He said that the Powers Report gave them the road-map to craft the legislation.  And although he was very supportive of the legislation he crafted, he did state that there were "things I would have done differently."  He did not elaborate on these items.  But later in the program he did state that it is hard to imagine another Enron or Worldcom taking place.

Alice S. Fisher,  Assistant Attorney General who heads the Criminal Division of DOJ, was quick to say that SOX is a "great law" and "we love it."  She noted the better compliance programs and the real "robust programs" coming after the legislation. In speaking about new tools provided to DOJ, she said that last year it was 313 convictions, but with the new tools it is 672 convictions.  She said that new tools "really changed behavior."

Linda Chatman Thomsen, Director of Enforcement at the SEC, also remarked on the new tools provided. She noted that four times they had used the freezing of extraordinary payments prior to an action being brought. She said that this helps in keep employees from pulling money from the company.

Fair Funds, a topic that will also be covered by a later panel in this program, was also discussed by Ms. Thomsen.  She said they had collected 9 billion dollars and noted that they were getting better at distributing these funds.  Hon. Mike Oxley noted that this provision was not in the House or Senate version, but that it came out of conference.

Professor James Cox, Duke Law School, provided commentary on several points including issues related to globalization.

The most shocking number heard by this blogger came from Alice Fisher who said that the Corporate Fraud Task Force had 23 convictions of corporate counsel.

Many other items were discussed at this opening panel, but it will be interesting to hear what defense counsel has to say about all of this as the program progresses. The ABA site for this program can be found here.

(esp) (w/ disclosure that she is later speaker at this conference)

Former CEO Charged With Insider Trading That Netted Over $185 Million

The former CEO of military armor supplier DHB Industries, now known as Point Blank Solutions, was arrested on a superseding indictment (available below) that charges him with insider trading involving proceeds of over $185 million from the sale of company stock in 2004.  Also named as a defendant is the the former chief operating officer of the company, who was indicted initially back in August 2006.  In addition to the insider trading, the indictment charges obstruction of justice, lying to company auditors and to the SEC, tax evasion, and accounting fraud involving undisclosed compensation and overstated inventory.  According to a Wall Street Journal story (here), the diversion of company resources for personal benefits included:

more than $350,000 in expenses related to Mr. Brooks horse business; more than $36,000 expenses related to his son's Bar Mitvah; $11,420 for acupuncture treatments for his family members; $7,900 for a face lift for his wife; $10,000 for his children's summer camp; $122,000 for the purchase of iPods and digital cameras to give as gifts at his daughter's Bat Mitzvah; and $101,500 for the purchase of an armored vehicle for Mr. Brooks and his family members' personal use.

The party for his daughter was broadcast as part of MTV's "My Sweet Sixteen" series, a favorite in my house.  The indictment also alleges that over $1 million of DHB money was used for family vacations, ranging from $100,000 for a trip to St. Johns to $3,200 on meals and merchandise at the Bellagio in Las Vegas.  In addition to the criminal charges, the SEC filed a civil enforcement complaint (here) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. (ph)

Download us_v_brooks_indictment_october_2007.pdf