FILED

Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 30

2017 Jun-22 AM 11:52
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

ROP/GAM/RBM: July 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

)
)
)
)
)
)

vs
OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.,
Defendant.

INFORMATION
The Acting United States Attorney charges:
Introduction
At all times material to this Information:
Oliver L. Robinson, Jr., and his Entities
1. Defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., was a member of the
Alabama House of Representatives from 1998 until his resignation on or about
November 30, 2016. He represented District 58 and served as Vice-Chairman of
the Jefferson County Legislative Delegation.

Defendant OLIVER L.

ROBINSON, JR., was an agent of the State of Alabama, a state government that
received in excess of $10,000.00 under a Federal program involving a grant,
1

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 2 of 30

contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance
during each year material to this Information.
2. Based on his position as a member of the Alabama House of
Representatives, defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., owed a duty of loyalty
and honesty to the State of Alabama and its citizens, free from deceit,
self-enrichment, concealment, and conflicts of interests between his private interests
and the official responsibilities inherent in his office of public trust. Specifically,
as an elected official of the State of Alabama, defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON,
JR., owed the State of Alabama and its citizens a duty to, among other things:
(a) refrain from using his official position or office to obtain personal gain for
himself or a family member, pursuant to Ala. Code § 36-25-5(a); (b) refrain from
soliciting or receiving anything for himself or family member for the purpose of
corruptly influencing official action, pursuant to Ala. Code § 36-25-7(b); (c) refrain
from representing a paying client before any branch of state government or any
board, agency, commission or department thereof, pursuant to Ala. Code
§ 36-25-23(a); (d) refrain from soliciting any lobbyist to give anything to any
person or entity, pursuant to Ala. Code § 36-25-23(c); and (e) disclose, and not
conceal, personal financial interests, the nature and amount of income received, and
other material financial information, pursuant to Ala. Code § 36-25-14.
2

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 3 of 30

3. To finance his campaigns for office, defendant OLIVER L.
ROBINSON, JR., solicited and accepted contributions from individuals,
corporations, and political action committees. The campaign contributions to
defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., could not lawfully be converted by him
to personal use. He controlled the bank accounts into which campaign
contributions were deposited.
4. In or about August 2004, defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.,
established the Oliver Robinson Foundation and served as its President. The stated
purpose of the Oliver Robinson Foundation was to raise funds to advance financial
literacy among students at high schools and Historically Black Colleges and
Universities through publications and presentations. Defendant OLIVER L.
ROBINSON, JR., used the Oliver Robinson Foundation to raise money to fund an
annual Black Achievers Awards Gala in Birmingham, Alabama, and to publish a
magazine called The Community Reinvestor Magazine. In or about March 2005,
the Oliver Robinson Foundation’s application for tax-exempt status under section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code was approved. Defendant OLIVER L.
ROBINSON, JR., controlled the bank account opened in the name of the Oliver
Robinson Foundation.

3

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 4 of 30

5. Defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., also founded Robinson &
Robinson Communications, LLC in or about 2001 and served as its President.
This entity was formed to “produce, record, promote, market, and sell compact
discs and cassette tapes.” Defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., controlled
the bank account opened in the name of this business.
6. Partnering for Progress was an entity established in 2009 by defendant
OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., and another individual to organize an annual
business conference. Defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., and others asked
corporations to sponsor the conferences by contributing money to Partnering for
Progress. Defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., continued to control a
Partnering for Progress bank account despite having his name removed as an
authorized signatory on the account in 2009.
Environmental Issues in North Birmingham
7. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is the
federal agency charged with the mission of ensuring that all Americans are
protected from significant risks to the environment and human health where they
live, learn, and work. EPA designated an area of north Birmingham, Alabama,
including the neighborhoods of Harriman Park, Fairmont, and Collegeville, as the
35th Avenue Superfund Site based on elevated levels of arsenic, lead, and
4

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 5 of 30

benzo(a)pyrene found during soil sampling. In September 2013, EPA sent general
notice letters to five companies potentially responsible for the pollution in north
Birmingham, including ABC Coke, a division of Drummond Company. A
company determined to be responsible for pollution within the 35th Avenue
Superfund Site could have faced tens of millions of dollars in cleanup costs and
fines.
8. In July 2014, EPA began considering a petition filed by GASP, a
Birmingham, Alabama, environmental advocacy group, to expand the 35th Avenue
Superfund Site into the Tarrant and Inglenook areas of north Birmingham and to
conduct a preliminary assessment of pollutants allegedly deposited there by ABC
Coke and others. On October 9, 2014, EPA granted the petition and contracted
with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (“ADEM”) to
perform the preliminary assessment.
9. ADEM is the state agency responsible for the implementation of
environmental programs and policies, including administering federally approved
or delegated environmental programs. It receives substantial funding from the
federal government and is included in the State of Alabama’s annual general fund
budget approved by the legislature and Governor. The Alabama Environmental
Management Commission (“AEMC”) is the state commission responsible for
5

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 6 of 30

developing environmental policy for the State of Alabama, selecting the ADEM
Director, and advising the ADEM Director on environmental matters. AEMC
holds periodic public meetings and, among other matters, considers comments from
interested parties on issues involving the State of Alabama’s environmental policy.
10. In September 2014, EPA proposed adding the 35th Avenue Superfund
Site to the National Priorities List, a listing of the nation’s Superfund Sites
requiring priority attention. Placement on the National Priority List would have
allowed EPA to use the federal Superfund Trust Fund to conduct long-term
remedial actions at the 35th Avenue Superfund Site provided the State of Alabama
agreed to fund ten percent of the costs incurred during cleanup of the site. The
contribution required from the State of Alabama would have been millions of
dollars. A listing on the National Priorities List would have allowed cleanup of the
Site to proceed even if EPA was unable to persuade or compel a potentially
responsible party to conduct or fund the cleanup. EPA and the State of Alabama
could attempt later to recover money spent by the federal and state governments as
part of the cleanup from companies determined to be responsible parties through
negotiation and/or litigation.
11. The Governor of Alabama designated ADEM as the State of Alabama’s
representative on issues concerning the potential listing of the 35th Avenue
6

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 7 of 30

Superfund Site on the National Priorities List and the expansion of the 35th Avenue
Superfund Site into the Tarrant and Inglenook communities.
12. EPA held a public comment period on the proposed listing of the 35th
Avenue Superfund Site on the National Priorities List from September 22, 2014, to
January 22, 2015. In January 2015, ADEM, acting on behalf of the State of
Alabama, requested that EPA’s proposal be withdrawn and no further action taken
until issues raised by the State could be resolved. ADEM stated that if the issues
could not be resolved the State of Alabama would request review pursuant to EPA’s
formal issue resolution process. After considering all comments, if EPA
concluded that the 35th Avenue Superfund Site qualified for listing on the National
Priorities List, EPA would consult with ADEM and, if necessary, follow the formal
issue resolution process prior to making a final decision. EPA’s review of the
proposed listing on the National Priorities List continued into 2016.
13. Drummond Company and ABC Coke were represented by Balch &
Bingham, a Birmingham, Alabama, law firm, in relation to EPA’s actions in north
Birmingham. Attorney #1 was a Balch & Bingham partner coordinating the
response to EPA’s actions on behalf of ABC Coke and Drummond Company.
Drummond Employee #1 was a Drummond Company employee involved with
Attorney #1 in responding to EPA. Both Attorney #1 and Drummond Employee
7

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 8 of 30

#1 were registered with the State of Alabama as lobbyists.
14. Beginning in or about 2014, and continuing until at least November
2016, the strategy employed by Attorney #1 and Drummond Employee #1 focused
on protecting ABC Coke and Drummond Company from the tremendous potential
costs associated with being held responsible for pollution within the affected areas.
They sought to accomplish this goal by working to prevent EPA from listing the
35th Avenue Superfund Site on the National Priorities List and expanding the
Superfund site into Tarrant and Inglenook. The plan included advising residents of
north Birmingham and public officials to oppose EPA’s actions. As part of the
overall strategy, Balch & Bingham paid defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.,
through his foundation, to represent Balch & Bingham’s and its clients’ interests
exclusively in matters related to EPA’s actions in north Birmingham. One of
defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.’s, first tasks in furtherance of this
strategy was to appear before AEMC and the ADEM Director to advance the
opposition of Balch & Bingham and its clients to EPA’s actions in north
Birmingham.
15. In 2015, Attorney #1 and Drummond Employee #1 formed a
tax-exempt corporation named Alliance for Jobs and the Economy and recruited
corporations to contribute money to the Alliance for Jobs and the Economy to help
8

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 9 of 30

fund opposition to EPA’s actions in north Birmingham. Drummond Company and
several other corporations contributed money to the Alliance for Jobs and the
Economy at the request of Attorney #1 and Drummond Employee #1. Drummond
Employee #1 opened and controlled a bank account in the name of the Alliance for
Jobs and the Economy.
Count One
Conspiracy
Title 18, United States Code, Section 371
16. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 of this Information are
realleged as though fully set forth herein.
THE CONSPIRACY
17.

From in or about November 2014, and continuing until in or about

November 2016, the exact dates being unknown, within Jefferson County in the
Northern District of Alabama, and elsewhere, defendant
OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.,
knowingly and willfully conspired, combined, and agreed with Attorney #1,
Drummond Employee #1, and others known and unknown to:
(a) solicit, demand, accept and agree to accept anything of value
from any person intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection
with any business, transaction or series of transactions of the State of
Alabama involving anything of value of $5,000.00 or more, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(1)(B);
9

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 10 of 30

(b) give, offer, and agree to give anything of value to any person
intending to influence or reward an agent of the State of Alabama in
connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of
the State of Alabama, involving anything of value of $5,000.00 or
more, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(2);
and
(c) devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the
State of Alabama and its citizens of their intangible right to defendant
OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.’S, honest services through bribery by
use of interstate wire transmissions, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346.
MANNER AND MEANS OF THE CONSPIRACY
18.

It was a part of the conspiracy that defendant OLIVER L.

ROBINSON, JR., Attorney #1, and Drummond Employee #1 would and did agree
that defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., would be paid, through the Oliver
Robinson Foundation, to represent Balch & Bingham’s and its clients’ interests
exclusively in relation to the environmental issues in north Birmingham despite
defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.’s duty to honestly, openly, and fairly
represent the State of Alabama and the citizens and residents of Birmingham.
19. It was a further part of the conspiracy that defendant OLIVER L.
ROBINSON, JR., Attorney #1, and Drummond Employee #1 would and did agree
that defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., would be paid, through the Oliver
Robinson Foundation, to use his position as a member of the Alabama House of
10

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 11 of 30

Representatives, Vice-Chairman of the Jefferson County Legislative Delegation,
and elected representative of citizens of Birmingham to pressure and advise public
officials to oppose EPA’s actions in north Birmingham.
20. It was a further part of the conspiracy that defendant OLIVER L.
ROBINSON, JR., Attorney #1, and Drummond Employee #1 would and did agree
that defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., would appear before AEMC on
February 20, 2015, to advance the opposition of Balch & Bingham and its clients to
EPA’s actions in north Birmingham by using his official position to pressure and
advise AEMC and the ADEM Director to take and maintain a position on behalf of
the State of Alabama favorable to Balch and Bingham and its clients in relation to
EPA’s efforts to list the 35th Avenue Superfund Site on the National Priorities List
and expand the Superfund Site into Tarrant and Inglenook.
21.

It was a further part of the conspiracy that Attorney #1 would and did

write letters that defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., would and did print
verbatim on his official Alabama House of Representatives letterhead and sign
before delivering to members of the AEMC and ADEM Director.
22. It was a further part of the conspiracy that Attorney #1 would and did
offer, and defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., would and did accept, a
contract between Balch & Bingham and the Oliver Robinson Foundation to
11

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 12 of 30

influence and reward defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., in connection with
the use of his position as a member of the Alabama House of Representatives in
support of Balch & Bingham’s and its clients’ opposition to EPA’s actions in north
Birmingham.
23. It was a further part of the conspiracy that, four days prior to defendant
OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.’S, appearance before AEMC in February 2015, he
and Attorney #1 would and did sign the contract between the Oliver Robinson
Foundation and Balch & Bingham.
24. It was a further part of the conspiracy that the Oliver Robinson
Foundation would and did submit invoices each month to Balch & Bingham under
the contract and the law firm would pay those invoices.
25. It was a further part of the conspiracy that Balch & Bingham would and
did submit invoices to Drummond Company and the Alliance for Jobs and the
Economy in identical amounts Balch & Bingham paid to the Oliver Robinson
Foundation. Drummond Employee #1 would cause either Drummond Company or
the Alliance for Jobs and the Economy to send payment to Balch & Bingham on
those invoices. All of the money contributed to the Alliance for Jobs and the
Economy was used by Drummond Employee #1 to pay Balch & Bingham on the
invoices related to the Oliver Robinson Foundation.
12

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 13 of 30

26. It was a further part of the conspiracy that, eight days prior to the
AEMC meeting in February 2015, Balch & Bingham would and did pay the Oliver
Robinson Foundation $14,000.00 as the first payment under the contract.
27. It was a further part of the conspiracy that, on the same day it paid
$14,000.00 to the Oliver Robinson Foundation, Balch & Bingham would and did
send an invoice in an identical amount to Drummond Company, which Drummond
Company promptly paid.
28. It was a further part of the conspiracy that Balch & Bingham,
Drummond Company, and the Alliance for Jobs and the Economy would and did
pay the Oliver Robinson Foundation a total of approximately $360,000.00 under the
contract during 2015 and 2016.
OVERT ACTS
In furtherance of the conspiracy and to achieve the objects thereof, the
conspirators committed and caused to be committed the following overt acts,
among others, in the Northern District of Alabama and elsewhere:
29.

In or about November 2014, Attorney #1 and Drummond Employee #1

engaged in discussions with defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., regarding a
contract between Balch & Bingham and one of defendant OLIVER L.
ROBINSON, JR.’s organizations. The conspirators discussed that defendant
13

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 14 of 30

OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., would appear before the AEMC to advance Balch
& Bingham’s and its clients’ opposition to EPA’s proposed actions by advising the
AEMC to take a position favorable to Balch & Bingham and its clients. Defendant
OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., subsequently (in February 2015) agreed to appear
before the AEMC as requested.
30. On or about December 11, 2014, defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON,
JR., sent an email to Attorney #1 stating: “[Attorney #1] go back to [Drummond
Employee #1] and the Drummond people and let them know that we will need
$7000 per month.” Attorney #1 forwarded this email to Drummond Employee #1.
31. On or about December 12, 2014, defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON,
JR., met with representatives of EPA to discuss issues related to north Birmingham.
Attorney #1 provided defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., a list of talking
points consistent with Balch & Bingham’s and its clients’ position to guide the
meeting and instructed him to secretly record the meeting. Defendant OLIVER L.
ROBINSON, JR., did not reveal to EPA that he was in contract negotiations with
Balch & Bingham to represent Balch & Bingham’s and its clients’ interests in
relation to the environmental issues in north Birmingham that were the subject of
the meeting.

14

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 15 of 30

32. On or about December 23, 2014, defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON,
JR., met with representatives of GASP to discuss issues related to north
Birmingham. Attorney #1 provided defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., a
list of talking points consistent with Balch & Bingham’s and its clients’ position to
guide the meeting and instructed him to secretly record the meeting. Defendant
OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., did not reveal to GASP that he was in contract
negotiations with Balch & Bingham to represent Balch & Bingham’s and its clients’
interests in relation to the environmental issues in north Birmingham that were the
subject of the meeting.
33. On or about February 6, 2015, Attorney #1 approved a letter he
instructed an associate to write for defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., to
sign requesting permission from the AEMC Chairman for defendant OLIVER L.
ROBINSON, JR., to appear before the regularly scheduled Commission meeting
on February 20, 2015, “on behalf of the concerned citizens working and residing in
North Birmingham.” The letter stated: “As a state legislator and representative of a
district adjacent to the North Birmingham superfund site, it is my duty to ensure
that the North Birmingham community is adequately represented to relevant State
organizations such as AEMC. The health and general welfare of our community
depends, in large part, on AEMC’s continued willingness to hear and actively
15

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 16 of 30

engage in matters that are critically important to them. The NPL proposal is one
such matter.” The letter did not reveal to AEMC that the Oliver Robinson
Foundation was being paid to represent the exclusive interests of Balch & Bingham
and its clients. After defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., printed the letter
on his official Alabama House of Representatives letterhead and signed it, he had it
delivered to the AEMC Chairman.
34. On February 6, 2015, Attorney #1 forwarded a draft of this letter to
Drummond Employee #1 in an email that stated: “[Drummond Employee #1] – met
with Oliver. He has agreed to submit the request to AEMC today to meet the
deadline. However, he said he needed to think about the politics of it before he
would commit to providing comments to the AEMC. I told him I understood and
he could always withdraw the request should he decide not to do it. Maybe helpful
if you followed up with him on this issue. Thanks.”
35. On or about February 12, 2015, Balch & Bingham paid the Oliver
Robinson Foundation $14,000.00. On or about that same day, Balch & Bingham
sent an invoice in an identical amount to Drummond Company.
36. On or about February 16, 2015, four days before the AEMC meeting,
and four days after the first payment, Attorney #1 and defendant OLIVER L.
ROBINSON, JR., signed a contract between Balch & Bingham and the Oliver
16

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 17 of 30

Robinson Foundation. The contract, which was written and approved by Attorney
#1, provided that the Oliver Robinson Foundation could not “directly or indirectly
engage or be concerned or interested in any business or activity which conflicts
with its services to Balch or otherwise conflicts with the interests of Balch as
determined solely by Balch.” The contract stated that the effective date of the
contract was December 1, 2014.
37. On or about February 17, 2015, Drummond Company paid Balch &
Bingham $14,000.00, the identical amount Balch & Bingham paid to the Oliver
Robinson Foundation.
38. In or about February 2015, defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.,
agreed with Attorney #1 and Drummond Employee #1 to meet with two members
of the AEMC prior to his appearance before the full Commission.
39. On February 20, 2015, defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.,
appeared before the AEMC “to protect the residents of north Birmingham.” He
told AEMC that calls from constituents led him, “as the vice chairman of the
Jefferson County House delegation, to do some research on the Superfund
designations and the NPL listings and to look at the North Birmingham 35th Avenue
area location with some fervor.” He advised further that he had “yet to see any
information that shows me that this area should be designated as a Superfund site,
17

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 18 of 30

not to mention being put on the NPL listing.” After stating that he was “really here
today to try to protect the residents of north Birmingham,” defendant OLIVER L.
ROBINSON, JR., advised that “the thing that gets me and what is in the process of
hurting the residents in that area is that the EPA has included five other
corporations in on this process, but there have been no reports stating that these
individuals are culpable in any way. And where that hurts the residents is the fact
that we will have decades of litigation that will occur because of these five
companies being added.” He asked the AEMC to help narrow the list of
potentially responsible parties if there were no reports or tests implicating the
corporations. Concluding, defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., advised
AEMC that if the areas of north Birmingham are designated as a Superfund site or
listed on the NPL, the residents are “considered to live in a dump and nothing can
happen there until it’s either cleaned up and after that, it will take tremendous
investment to get it to move forward.” Defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.,
concealed from AEMC that the Oliver Robinson Foundation was being paid to
represent the exclusive interests of Balch & Bingham and its clients. The ADEM
Director, who was present during the AEMC meeting, later cited to senior EPA
officials defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.’s, public opposition to the
listing of the 35th Avenue Superfund Site on the National Priorities List.
18

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 19 of 30

40. On or about March 4, 2015, Attorney #1 wrote a second letter for
defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., to sign requesting information from the
ADEM Director so that defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., could “better
serve my constituents.” This letter was delivered to the ADEM Director and each
member of the AEMC after defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., printed it on
his official Alabama House of Representatives letterhead and signed it. Neither
defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., nor Attorney #1 revealed that the Oliver
Robinson Foundation was being paid to represent the exclusive interests of Balch &
Bingham and its clients.
41. In or about May 2015, Attorney #1 wrote a Joint Resolution for
consideration by the Alabama Senate and Alabama House of Representatives
urging “the Attorney General and ADEM to combat the EPA’s overreach.” After
the resolution was submitted to and adopted by the Alabama Senate, defendant
OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., then a member of the Alabama House of
Representatives’ Rules Committee, voted in committee to send the resolution to the
floor of the House of Representatives for consideration by the membership of the
House.

19

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 20 of 30

42. During 2015 and 2016, pursuant to the contract between Balch &
Bingham and the Oliver Robinson Foundation, defendant OLIVER L.
ROBINSON, JR., through other individuals, communicated Balch & Bingham’s
and its clients’ opposition to EPA’s actions to the residents of north Birmingham as
directed by Attorney #1 and Drummond Employee #1. The Oliver Robinson
Foundation communicated with the residents through an organization formed for
that purpose called Get Smart Tarrant.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.
Count Two
Bribery
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 666(a)(1)(B) and 2
43. The factual allegations in paragraphs 1 through 42 of this Information
are realleged as though fully set forth herein.
44. On or about February 16, 2015, within Jefferson County in the Northern
District of Alabama, and elsewhere, defendant
OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.,
being an agent of the State of Alabama, a state government that received in excess
of $10,000.00 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan,
guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance during a one year period,
aided and abetted by Attorney #1 and Drummond Employee #1, did corruptly
20

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 21 of 30

solicit, demand, accept, and agree to accept a thing of value from any person,
intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with a transaction and series
of transactions of the State of Alabama involving $5,000.00 and more; that is,
defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR., solicited, demanded, accepted, and
agreed to accept the contract with Balch & Bingham intending to be influenced and
rewarded for using his official position to pressure and advise AEMC and the
ADEM Director to take and maintain a position on behalf of the State of Alabama
favorable to Balch & Bingham and its clients in relation to EPA’s efforts to list the
35th Avenue Superfund Site on the National Priorities List and expand the
Superfund Site into Tarrant and Inglenook.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 666(a)(1)(B) and 2.
Count Three
Honest Services Wire Fraud
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 1346, and 2
45. The factual allegations in paragraphs 1 through 42 of this Information
are realleged as though fully set forth herein.
46. From in or about November 2014, and continuing to on or about
November 30, 2016, the exact dates being unknown, within Jefferson County in the
Northern District of Alabama, and elsewhere, defendant

21

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 22 of 30

OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.,
aided and abetted by Attorney #1 and Drummond Employee #1, devised and
intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the State of Alabama and its
citizens of their intangible right to defendant OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.’S,
honest services through bribery.
Purpose of the Scheme and Artifice
47.

The purpose of the scheme and artifice to defraud is set out in

paragraphs 18 through 28 of this Information. Paragraph 18 is hereby incorporated
by reference as though fully set forth herein, with the words “It was part of the
scheme and artifice” replacing “It was part of the conspiracy.” Paragraphs 19
through 28 are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein,
with the words “It was a further part of the scheme and artifice” replacing “It was a
further part of the conspiracy” at the start of each paragraph.
The Wire Communication
48. On or about February 17, 2015, in Jefferson County in the Northern
District of Alabama, and elsewhere, defendant
OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.,
for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme and artifice to defraud and
attempting to do so, did cause to be transmitted in interstate commerce, by means of
22

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 23 of 30

a wire communication, certain signs and signals, that is, defendant OLIVER L.
ROBINSON, JR., caused an interstate communication between Alabama and
another state when Balch & Bingham check number 402024 payable to the Oliver
Robinson Foundation in the amount of $14,000.00 was deposited into the Oliver
Robinson Foundation account at Regions Bank.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 1346, and 2.
Counts Four and Five
Wire Fraud
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343
49. The factual allegations in paragraphs 1 through 42 of this Information
are realleged as though fully set forth herein.
50. From in or about January 2010, and continuing to in or about December
2015, the exact dates being unknown, within Jefferson County in the Northern
District of Alabama, and elsewhere, defendant
OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.,
devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud contributors to his
campaigns, and to obtain money and property belonging to contributors to his
campaigns, by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations,
and promises.

23

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 24 of 30

Purpose of the Scheme and Artifice
51. It was a part of the scheme and artifice that defendant OLIVER L.
ROBINSON, JR., would and did solicit contributions to his campaigns from
individuals, corporations, and political action committees by representing that all
contributions would be used for lawful purposes associated with his campaigns for
election to the Alabama House of Representatives.
52. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice that defendant OLIVER
L. ROBINSON, JR., would and did accept campaign contributions from
individuals, corporations, and political action committees and deposit those funds
into accounts he controlled at Regions Bank.
53. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice that defendant OLIVER
L. ROBINSON, JR., would and did spend approximately $17,783.00 of campaign
contributions on personal items unrelated to his campaigns for public office.
The Wire Communications
54. On or about the date listed below for each count, in Jefferson County in
the Northern District of Alabama, and elsewhere, defendant
OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.,
for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme and artifice and
attempting to do so, did cause to be transmitted in interstate commerce, by means of
24

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 25 of 30

a wire communication, certain signs and signals, that is, defendant OLIVER L.
ROBINSON, JR., caused an interstate communication between Alabama and
another state when he used a debit card associated with one of his campaign
accounts to make each purchase described below.
55. The allegations of paragraphs 49 through 54 of this Information are
realleged for each of counts 4 and 5 as though fully set forth therein.
COUNT

MERCHANT

AMOUNT

4

DATE OF
PURCHASE
December 23, 2013

Saks Fifth Avenue

$2,024.00

5

February 11, 2014

Victoria’s Secret

$400.00

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
Count Six
Wire Fraud
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2
56. The factual allegations in paragraphs 1 through 42 of this Information
are realleged as though fully set forth herein.
57. From in or about January 2010, and continuing to in or about December
2016, the exact dates being unknown, within Jefferson County in the Northern
District of Alabama, and elsewhere, defendant

25

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 26 of 30

OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.,
aided and abetted by others known and unknown, devised and intended to devise a
scheme and artifice to defraud various corporations doing business in Alabama, and
to obtain money and property belonging to those corporations, by means of
materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises.
Purpose of the Scheme and Artifice
58. It was a part of the scheme and artifice that defendant OLIVER L.
ROBINSON, JR., and others would and did solicit money from corporations by
representing that all contributions would be used to publish The Community
Reinvestor Magazine, or to defray costs associated with the annual Partnering for
Progress Business Conference or the annual Alabama Black Achievers Awards
Gala sponsored by the Oliver Robinson Foundation.
59. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice that defendant OLIVER
L. ROBINSON, JR., and others would and did accept hundreds of thousands of
dollars in contributions from corporations for the magazine and these events and
deposit those funds into various bank accounts he controlled.
60. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice that defendant OLIVER
L. ROBINSON, JR., would and did spend at least $250,000.00 of the contributions
on personal items unrelated to the magazine, business conferences or galas and
26

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 27 of 30

conceal his personal spending from contributors. Defendant OLIVER L.
ROBINSON, JR., would often accomplish this scheme by purchasing personal
items and services using an American Express or Chase Bank credit card and then
paying the credit card bills with money contributed to Partnering for Progress and
the Oliver Robinson Foundation for the magazine, business conferences, and galas.
The Wire Communication
61.

On or about June 4, 2014, in Jefferson County in the Northern District

of Alabama, and elsewhere, defendant
OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.,
for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme and artifice to defraud and
attempting to do so, did cause to be transmitted in interstate commerce, by means of
a wire communication, certain signs and signals, that is, defendant OLIVER L.
ROBINSON, JR., caused an interstate communication between Alabama and
another state when he transferred funds from the Oliver Robinson Foundation bank
account to make an online payment of $5,714.54 to Chase Bank.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.

27

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 28 of 30

Count Seven
Tax Evasion
Title 26, United States Code, Section 7201
62. The factual allegations in paragraphs 1 through 61 of this Information
are realleged as though fully set forth herein.
63.

On or about April 18, 2016, within Jefferson County in the Northern

District of Alabama, and elsewhere, defendant
OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.,
a resident of Birmingham, Alabama, willfully attempted to evade and defeat the
payment of income tax due and owing by him to the United States of America, for
the calendar year 2015, by committing the following affirmative acts, among others:
a. Preparing and causing to be prepared, and signing and causing to be
signed, a false and fraudulent U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form
1040, which was submitted to the Internal Revenue Service;
b.

Failing to provide complete and accurate records to his return preparer;

c. Directing Balch & Bingham and others to make payments to the Oliver
Robinson Foundation, a tax-exempt entity, rather than to defendant OLIVER
L. ROBINSON, JR., personally or to Robinson & Robinson
Communications;

28

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 29 of 30

d.

Transferring funds between multiple accounts and entities to conceal the

source of the funds and that the funds were subject to taxation; and
e.

Continuing to exercise authority over and use a Partnering for Progress

bank account after removing himself as an authorized signatory.
All in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7201.
NOTICE OF FORFEITURE
18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A)
64. The allegations contained in Counts One through Six of this
Information are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of
alleging forfeiture pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2)(A).
65. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2)(A), upon
conviction of a conspiracy to violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 666, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371; bribery, in violation of Title
18, United States Code, Section 666; and wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346; the defendant,
OLIVER L. ROBINSON, JR.,
shall forfeit to the United States of America any property constituting, or derived
from, proceeds he obtained directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation.
The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, the following: a money
judgment in an amount of no more than $767,783.00.
29

 Case 2:17-cr-00267-AKK-TMP Document 1 Filed 06/22/17 Page 30 of 30

66. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission
of the defendant:
a.

cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

b.

has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;

c.

has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

d.

has been substantially diminished in value; or

e.

has been commingled with other property which cannot be
divided without difficulty,

the United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property
pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title
18, United States Code, Section 982(b)(1), and Title 28, United States Code,
Section 2461(c).
ROBERT O. POSEY
ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ George A. Martin, Jr.
GEORGE A. MARTIN, JR.
Assistant United States Attorney

/s/ Robin B. Mark
ROBIN B. MARK
Assistant United States Attorney
30