Case 1:17-cr-10378-NMG Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 1 of 102

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Criminal No. 17-CR-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Violations: 18 U.S.C. §§ 371; 666; 1341;
1343; 1346; 1951; 1956; 1957; 1962(c); and

V.

2; 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C); 982(a)(1);
1963 and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c)

BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE

INDICTMENT

THE GRAND JURY charges:
COUNT ONE

(Racketeering -18 U.S.C. § 1962(c))
At all times relevant to this Indictment,
The Enterprise

1.

The Massachusetts State Senate consists of 40 members, with each Senator elected

to represent a district consisting ofapproximately 100,000 to 200,000 people.

The Massachusetts

Constitution requires the Senate to meet on a regular basis to consider legislation.
2.

The Norfolk, Bristol, and Plymouth Senate district of Massachusetts consists often

towns: the towns of Avon, Braintree (four precincts). Canton, Milton, Randolph, Sharon (two
precincts), and Stoughton, in the county of Norfolk; the town of Easton (four precincts) in the

county of Bristol; and the towns of East Bridgewater (one precinct) and West Bridgewater in the
county of Plymouth.

3.

From approximately 1998 to 2017, Brian Augustine Joyce, a Milton resident, was

the elected State Senator for the Norfolk, Bristol, and Plymouth district (the "District").

As State

Senator, Joyce represented the interests ofthe District, as well as the Commonwealth, on a regular

 Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 2 of 102

and continuing basis each year, with reSpect to state legislation, state and local budget matters, and
certain local legislation, among other things.

4. In addition to being State Senator, defendant Joyce was a licensed Massachusetts
attorney, who maintained a law of?ce in Canton, known as the Joyce Law Group (the ?Joyce Law
Of?ce?). In or about January 2006, defendant Joyce incorporated Brian A. Joyce, Attorney at
Law, P.C. in Massachusetts. Defendant Joyce was the sole shareholder, director, and
of?cer of BAJPC. Within the Joyce Law Of?ce umbrella, BAJPC was a named partner in
. partnerships with other law partners, including a partner who specialized in insurance defense
litigation (?Partner with whom defendant Joyce formed ?Partnership 

5. Senator Joyce maintained of?ces at the Massachusetts State House in Boston and
at a District of?ce in Canton (?District Of?ce?), which was co-located at Joyce?s private law of?ce
in Canton, upon which an outdoor sign was af?xed: BRIAN A. JOYCE 
ATTORNEY AT Senator Joyce performed his of?cial duties with the assistance of his
7 Senate staff, which was comprised of a chief of staff, legislative aides, a communications director,
and other staff members and assistants (collectively, with Senator Joyce, the ?Senate Of?ce of
Brian A. Joyce? or the ?Senate Of?ce?).

6. The Senate Of?ce of Brian A. Joyce constituted an ?enterprise? as de?ned by Title
18, United States Code, Section 1961(4), that is, a group of individuals associated in fact that was
engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate commerce. The Senate Of?ce
enterprise constituted an ongoing organization whose members ?inctioned as a continuing unit for

a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the enterprise.

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 3 of 102

7. The Senate Of?ce?s objectives included, but were not limited to, drafting,
researching, advocating, proposing, and ?ling legislation; making recommendations and voting
upon state budgets, state funding, and other legislative matters; participating in Senate and joint
legislative committees; consulting with and making recommendations to other Massachusetts state
of?cials, agencies, and departments; meeting and consulting with city and town representatives
and of?cials; and performing constituent services.

The Defendant and related indiviglgals and entities

8. Defendant Brian Augustine Joyce, as State Senator, owed a duty of honest services
to the District and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that included the duty to refrain from
accepting, or agreeing to accept, bribes and kickbacks offered in exchange for his of?cial action,
which included using his of?cial position to exert pressure on another of?cial to perform an of?cial
act, and using his of?cial position to advise another of?cial, intending that such advice would form
the basis for an of?cial act by another of?cial.

9. As State Senator, defendant Joyce was required, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 268B 
to ?le a statement of ?nancial interest each year with the Massachusetts State Ethics
Commission (the ?Ethics Commission?) and to publicly disclose, among other things:

A. Each business with which defendant Joyce, or his immediate family members,
was associated as an employee, partner, sole proprietor, of?cer, director or in
any similar managerial capacity, whether compensated or uncompensated, full-
or part-time. 

B. The name and address of, the nature of association with, the share of equity in,
if applicable, and the amount of income if greater than one thousand dollars
derived from each business with which he, or his immediate family members,

was associated.

C. Any business in which defendant Joyce, and/or his immediate family members,
owned more than 1% of the equity at any time (which would include any

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 4 of 102

business in which defendant Joyce held a more than 1% equity interest through
the ownership of another business, e. g. if defendant Joyce owned 20% of equity
in Business A, and Business A owned 60% of Business B, defendant Joyce
would be considered to own 12% of equity in Business B).

D. Any security or investment with a fair market value above $1,000 that was
bene?cially owned by defendant Joyce or his immediate family members (not
including retirement plans, 401 plans, etc.).

B. Any source that gave gifts whose aggregate fair market value exceeded $100
for the calendar year if the source of such gift was a person that had direct
interest in legislation, legislative action, or a matter before any governmental
body.

10. Further, as State Senator, defendant Joyce was prohibited, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch.
268A ?'om soliciting or receiving anything of substantial value for or because of his
of?cial position; using or attempting to use his of?cial position to secure unwarranted
privileges of substantial value which were not available to similarly situated individuals; and 
acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person to conclude that another person could
improperly in?uence or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his of?cial duties.

Objective of the Defendant

11. Defendant Joyce?s objective in conducting and participating in the affairs of the
Senate Of?ce enterprise was to secretly pro?t from his position as State Senator by carrying
out a scheme and arti?ce to defraud the District and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of his
honest services by conspiring to accept and accepting a stream of concealed bribes and kickbacks
from private individuals and entities in exchange for his of?cial action as speci?c opportunities
arose, which included using his of?cial position to exert pressure on other of?cials to perform an

of?cial act, and using his of?cial position to advise other of?cials, intending that such advice

would form the basis for an of?cial act by the other of?cial; conspiring to obtain, attempting

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 5 of 102

to obtain, and obtaining property from private individuals and entities under color of of?cial right;
and employing various methods of concealment, including using a shell company and other
entities to launder proceeds from his bribery and kickback schemes.

Method and Means of the Defendant

12. Defendant Brian Augustine Joyce conducted and participated in the conduct of the
affairs of the enterprise by cultivating power and in?uence within the Massachusetts legislature
through, among other things, his membership on various legislative committees, including the
Special Senate Committee on Government Expenditures and the Joint Committee on
Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy; and his assumption of leadership roles, such as Senate
Assistant Majority Leader during the 2015-2016 legislative session and Chair of the Senate
Bonding Committee. Defendant Joyce also cultivated and maintained power and in?uence
within his District as the District?s long-time incumbent State Senator for legislative and other
governmental matters, including state and local budget matters, state legislative action, and local
legislation that required state approval, among other things.

13. Defendant Joyce used the power and in?uence of the Senate Of?ce enterprise to
extract payments ?om various individuals and entities in exchange for his of?cial action as State
Senator, including using defendant Joyce?s of?cial position as State Senator to exert pressure on
and to advise other of?cials within his District and elsewhere to perform an of?cial act, intending
that such advice would form the basis for an of?cial act by other of?cials.

14. Defendant Joyce concealed these payments by using various methods, including,
among other things: using the Joyce Law Of?ce as a money laundering conduit for the corrupt

payments; falsely characterizing the bribe and kickback payments as legal referral fees, real

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 6 of 102

estate consulting fees, and other legal fees; (0) making material, false statements and omissions to
the Ethics Commission and thereby using the Ethics Commission as a cloak of legitimacy for his
corrupt schemes; and laundering additional bribery proceeds by masking corrupt payments as
the purchase of a 2014 Jeep.

- The Energy Broker Kickback Scheme

15. The ?Energy Broker Company? was an energy brokerage and consulting company
that was based in New York and that did business in and affecting interstate commerce. The
Energy Broker Company advised public and private entities in selecting energy providers in
exchange for an energy broker commission. An individual, the ?Energy Broker Executive,?
managed and directed the Energy Broker Company business in Massachusetts.

16. From in or about early 2011 through 2015, defendant Joyce and the Energy Broker
Executive agreed that defendant Joyce would use his of?cial position as State Senator to exert
pressure on and advise of?cials within the District and elsewhere to take of?cial action in favor of
the Energy Broker Company, as speci?c opportunities arose. Prior to 2011, defendant Joyce had
no background or experience in energy brokerage sales. In exchange for defendant Joyce?s
of?cial action, the Energy Broker Executive agreed that the Energy Broker Company would
secretly pay kickbacks to defendant Joyce in the form of broker commissions, which were
calculated as a percentage of, and included in, the public or private entity?s energy
payment.

17. 'Windswept, LLC (?Windswept?) was a shell company that defendant Joyce created
in or about April 2011 for the purpose of collecting concealed kickbacks from the Energy Broker

Company that were paid in exchange for defendant Joyce?s use of his of?cial position as State

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 7 of 102

Senator to exert pressure on and advise of?cials within the District and elsewhere in Massachusetts
to take of?cial action in favor of the Energy Broker Company, as speci?c opportunities arose.
According to state ?lings, defendant Joyce formed Windswept in Massachusetts, listed himself as
Windswept?s manager, and reported the business of Windswept as ?brokerage services and such
other activities permitted by law.?

18. From in or about April 201 1 to January 2016, defendant Joyce took several steps to
conceal his involvement with the Energy Broker Company, which included, but were not limited
to, the following:

A. Defendant Joyce formed Windswept for the purpose of entering into a broker
commission agreement with the Energy Broker Company.

B. Defendant Joyce allocated a 50% ownership share of Windswept to BAJ PC and
a 50% ownership share of Windswept to a personal ?iend and associate of
defendant Joyce (the ?Associate?).

C. Defendant Joyce had the Associate Sign the broker commission agreement with
the Energy Broker Company on Windswept?s behalf. The broker commission
agreement contained no reference to defendant Joyce.

D. Defendant Joyce opened a Massachusetts bank account for Windswept for the
purpose of collecting and distributing his secret kickbacks from the Energy
Broker Company between himself and the Associate. Defendant Joyce
designated himself as the sole signatory on the account and reported
Windswept?s business as ?Energy Brokerage.?

E. Defendant Joyce funneled the secret kickbacks from Windswept to BAJPC in

order to create the appearance that the Energy Broker Company was paying

?legal? fees to defendant Joyce, which defendant Joyce then misleadingly
reported?as law-related income on his yearly SF I to the Ethics Commission.

19. In or about early 2013, defendant Joyce parted ways with the Associate. In mid-

2013, defendant Joyce and the Energy Broker Executive negotiated and entered into a new broker

commission agreement, pursuant to which defendant Joyce, solely, would continue to secretly

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 8 of 102

collect kickbacks that were paid in the form of energy broker commissions. In order to continue
to disguise and conceal his relationship with the Energy Broker Company, defendant Joyce caused
the following modi?cations to the new sales representation agreement:

A. Defendant Joyce required the Energy Broker Company to agree ?not to
knowingly disclose the existence to this agreement.?

B. Defendant Joyce deleted the term ?commissions? throughout the agreement and
replaced that term with the term ?referral fees,? even though defendant Joyce
acted as an energy sales broker for the Energy Broker Company, and not as a
lawyer.

C. Defendant Joyce entered into the broker commission agreement through his
company, BAJ PC, as a party to the agreement and not himself, personally.

D. By designating BAJPC as a party to the agreement, defendant Joyce ?mneled
all of the energy broker commissions from the Energy Broker Company to
himself through the Joyce Law Of?ce, with the purpose of disguising his energy
broker commission income as law ?rm-related income on his yearly SFI to the
Ethics Commission.

20. From 2011 to 2015, defendant Joyce made material false statements and omissions
to the Ethics Commission to conceal his corrupt relationship with the Energy Broker Company,
including, but not limited to, the following:

A. Defendant Joyce submitted yearly that omitted his ownership of
Windswept despite the fact defendant Joyce owned 100% of BAJPC and
BAJ PC owned 50% of Windswept.

B. Defendant Joyce submitted yearly that omitted his relationship with the
Energy Broker Company despite the fact that he received over $800,000 in
checks and wire payments from the Energy Broker Company via Windswept
and BAJPC during that period.

C. In January 2015, defendant Joyce contacted the Ethics Commission asking
whether he could help a client, an energy business the Energy Broker
Company), by approaching public entities, such as counties, on behalf of the
client. By referring to the energy business as a ?client,? defendant Joyce
materially and falsely described his relationship with the Energy Broker
Company as a lawyer-client relationship, when in reality, defendant Joyce was

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 9 of 102

a sales broker for the Energy Broker Company, and was not retained as its
attorney.

21. From in or about early 2011 to in or about March 2015, in exchange for kickback

payments to be made pursuant to his agreement with the Energy Broker Executive, defendant

Joyce agreed to use his of?cial position as State Senator to exert pressure on and advise of?cials

within the District and elsewhere in Massachusetts to take of?cial action in favor of the Energy

Broker Company, as speci?c opportunities arose, without disclosing to those of?cials that

defendant Joyce had a ?nancial interest in the energy contracts and projects obtained by the Energy

Broker Company, including the following: 

 

Town Of?cial

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of?cial Act(s) to be Obtained Approximate Kickbacks mailed/wired
Advised by for the Energy Broker Dates to Windswept and
Defendant Joyce Company (EBC) BAJ PC

Randolph Town Appoint and re-appoint EBC 2011-2016 $20,071
Manager exclusive energy consultant for

Randolph; Town approval of

BBC-brokered energy contract
Easton Town Appoint EBC exclusive energy 2013-2016 $14,759
Administrator consultant of record for

Easton; Town approval of

BBC-brokered energy contract
East Bridgewater Appoint EBC energy 2014-2016 $10,131
Town consultant for East
Administrator Bridgewater; Town approval of

BBC-brokered energy contract
Holbrook Town Appoint EBC exclusive energy 2014-2016 $3,148
Administrator consultant of record for

Holbrook; Town approval of

BBC-brokered energy contract
Southbridge Appoint EBC exclusive natural 2015 $664
Town Manager gas consultant for Southbridge;

Town approval of BBC-

. brokered energy contract

Total Kickbacks $48,773

 

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 10 of 102

22. On or about September 9, 2014, defendant Joyce, on his Massachusetts State Senate
letterhead, ?led a letter addressed to the Chair of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities
which stated:

I am writing to urge the Department of Public Utilities to act swiftly

in providing guidance to utility providers under Section 3 of Chapter

149 of the Acts of 2014, An Act relative to natural gas leaks.

This provision requires DPU to authorize gas companies, to design

and offer programs to customers which increase the availability,

affordability and feasibility of natural gas service for new customers.

This is an important piece of legislation. There are many families in

my communities who are eager to receive natural gas service, but the

costs are currently prohibitively expensive.

I urge DPU to provide the necessary guidance to gas providers as soon

as possible. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you need

additional information about the importance of this program for the

communities that I represent.
As an energy broker, defendant Joyce received commissions on natural gas sales to Randolph,
Easton, and Southbridge. Any increase in the availability of natural gas sales afforded defendant
Joyce more gas commission opportunities via the Energy Broker Company. Defendant Joyce did
not disclose to the DPU in the letter that he collected natural gas commissions as an energy broker.

23. At least as early as January 2012, defendant Joyce assisted the Energy Broker
Company in obtaining a client, a private college in Easton, Massachusetts (the ?Easton College?),
which was interested in installing solar panels on its campus (the ?Solar Panel Project?).

24. Defendant Joyce agreed to use his of?cial position as State Senator to take of?cial
action in the State Senate and to exert pressure on and advise of?cials within the DPU to take

of?cial action in favor of the Energy Broker Company in connection with the Solar Panel Project

at the Easton College as follows:

10

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 11 of 102

From at least as early as January 2012, defendant Joyce and the Energy Broker
Executive worked together to broker a deal with the Easton College and other
parties to move forward with the Solar Panel Project at the Easton College. If
defendant Joyce procured the Easton College as a client for the Energy Broker
Company, defendant Joyce stood to receive thousands of dollars in kickbacks
in the form of energy broker commissions upon completion of the Solar Panel
Project.

For the Solar Panel Project to succeed, however, defendant Joyce and the
Energy Broker Executive needed the local utility company (the ?Local Utility?)
to refrain from exercising so-called utility company ?franchise rights? rights
that would have enabled the Local Utility to limit use of its power lines to
transport any solar generated electricity across a public roadway from the solar
panel site to the Easton College.

In or about late March 2012, defendant Joyce had a member of his Senate Of?ce
staff research state legislation that would ?stop the utilities from exercising their
so-called franchise rights in order to thwart projects, such as their practice of
not allowing [energy] suppliers to cross the 

In late March to early April 2012, defendant Joyce ?led an amendment to
Senate Bill number 2200 that provided that any company that was engaged in
the distribution of electricity ?shall not exercise its franchise rights in a way that
would affect the distribution and sale of electricity by on?site combined heat
and power facilities to end use Defendant Joyce believed that
the amendment would be favorable to the Easton College?s Solar Panel Project.

In or about September 2012, the Easton College appointed the Energy Broker
Company as its exclusive energy consultant of record in connection with the
Solar Panel Project.

In mid?January 2013, defendant Joyce and the Energy Broker Executive learned
that the Local Utility had petitioned the DPU for a ruling regarding the Local
Utility?s ability to exercise its utility ?anchise rights, and that the DPU could
possibly halt or delay the Solar Panel Project.

In January 2013, defendant Joyce disclosed to the Ethics Commission that he
represented parties involVed in a solar panel project at a college in Easton ?in
[his] private capacity as an attorney,? and that he ?intend[ed] to ?le legislation?
that would be favorable to such project. (Defendant Joyce ?led this legislation
under Senate Bill No. 1599). Defendant Joyce never disclosed to the Ethics
Commission that he was working as a sales broker for the Energy Broker
Company on the Solar Panel Project; (ii) he had already received commissions
on the Solar Panel Project; and he had already ?led favorable legislation

11

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 12 of 102

eight months earlier. Moreover, in an attempt to disguise his relationship with
the Energy Broker Company as an attorney-client relationship, defendant Joyce
asked the Energy Broker Executive to retain defendant Joyce as an attorney for
?one dollar,? which the Energy Broker Executive declined.

H. In February 2013, defendant Joyce emailed the Ethics Commission asking
whether his law ?rm could be retained by clients to argue before the DPU on
behalf of the Solar Panel Project. The Ethics Commission responded that
defendant Joyce could not be compensated for appearing before the DPU.
Defendant Joyce never disclosed to the Ethics Commission that he would
receive energy broker commissions in connection with the Solar Panel Project,
regardless of whether or not his law ?rm was retained.

I. At least as early as in or about February 2013, defendant Joyce and the Energy
Broker Executive agreed to use defendant Joyce?s ?clout? as State Senator to
argue before the DPU on behalf of the Solar Panel Project.

J. In March 2013, defendant Joyce submitted a legal brief to the DPU, urging that
the ?project should be permitted to move forward as planned without further
delay.? During early 2013, defendant Joyce also contacted DPU employees
regarding the project as part of an effort to get a favorable DPU decision.

K. Ultimately, the DPU decided not to halt or delay the Solar Panel Project, and
from in or about 2012 to early 2016, defendant Joyce received approximately
$135,564 in secret energy broker commissions on the Solar Panel Project from

the Energy Broker Company via checks and interstate electronic wires to
Windswept.

The Developer Kickback Scheme

25. There was an individual (the ?Developer?) who purchased and developed real estate
in Milton and was an owner of two Massachusetts car dealerships, both constituting activities
which involved purchasing goods and services in and affecting interstate commerce. Defendant
Joyce was ?-iends with the Developer and, at least as early as in or about October 2012, approached
the Developer about purchasing and redeveloping the Milton Women?s Club (the ?Milton
Women?s Clu or an historic Milton club that was dedicated to promoting women?s

issues and causes, but that had fallen into disrepair.

12

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 13 of 102

26. To maximize pro?ts on redeveloping the MWC, defendant Joyce and the Developer
agreed that the Developer?s purchase of the MWC property had to be contingent upon the
Developer?s ability to tear down the MWC and subdivide the MWC property into four lots, which
would require Milton Planning Board approval. The Milton Plaming Board had ?ve voting
members, including a Chairman. On or about October 15, 2012, defendant Joyce emailed the
Developer regarding the purchase of the MWC property, writing: suggest that we try for $600k,
no inspection, ?nance contingencies but a 90 day due diligence period. .. . We would make money
even if four lots.?

27. From at least as early as October 2012 through 2014, defendant Joyce and the
Developer conspired to use defendant Joyce?s of?cial position as State Senator to take of?cial
acts, including exerting pressure on and advising the Milton Flaming Board members to take
of?cial action in favor of the Developer, as speci?c opportunities arose. In exchange for
defendant Joyce?s of?cial action, the Developer agreed to pay a concealed kickback to defendant
Joyce, which was ultimately paid to defendant Joyce in the form of a 2014 Jeep from one of the
Developer?s car dealerships. Defendant Joyce and the Developer furthered their corrupt scheme
as follows:

A. On or about April 15, 2013, defendant Joyce emailed the Chairman of the
Milton Planning Board (the ?Planning Board Chair?), to advise the Flaming
Board Chair to approve the Developer?s request for a four-lot subdivision
waiver telling the Chair that the MWC development project ?falls apart? if
the Planning Board did not approve the waiver.

B. On or about April 18, 2013, defendant Joyce again emailed the Plaming Board
Chair to advise the Plaming Board Chair to approve the waiver asking the
Chair whether it was likely the ?Plaming Board would waive the 50? [roadway

width] 

C. On or about August 7, 2013, in response to the Developer?s email complaining

13

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 14 of 102

about the Plaming Board Chair?s interference with the MW project,
defendant Joyce emailed the Developer: ?He [the Planning Board Chair] can
be very reasonable. We just need to talk to him. I can set up meeting upon
my return.?

D. From in or about August 2013 to early September 2013, with the purpose of
advising the Plaming Board Chair to act favorably on the Developer?s waiver
request, defendant Joyce asked the Planning Board Chair to meet with the
Developer at the MWC property.

E. On or about September 15, 2013, defendant Joyce met with the Plaming Board
Chair and the Developer at the MWC site, at which meeting defendant Joyce
advised the Planning Board Chair that waivers to permit four lots would be
bene?cial for the development.

F. On or about September 25, 2013, in an attempt to curry of?cial in?uence with
the Planning Board Chair, defendant Joyce directed his Senate Chief of Staff in
an email to ?prioritiZe [funding for the Broderick Stable] in the upcoming bond
bills and/or budget.? The Planning Board Chair had earlier sought defendant
Joyce?s support in a request for state aid for the Broderick Stable in the Blue
Hills Reservation in Milton, a structure that had fallen into disrepair. (The
Plaming Board Chair was a member of a non-pro?t organization that sought to
preserve and restore the Blue Hills Reservation. Defendant Joyce?s efforts
culminated in an additional line item to the 2013-2014 state budget providing
for $1,000,000 in state funding for the renovation of the Broderick Stables.)

G. On or about September 26, 2013 the Milton Planning Board held a public
hearing on the pr0posed development of the MWC, including the decision on
whether to grant waivers to the project to permit the subdivision into four lots.
According to Plaming Board minutes: ?[The Planning Board Chair] stated that
he would be ready to vote for the plan at the next meeting. . . . . The Board voted
to generally approve waivers [The Planning Board Chair] stated that he will
draft a proposed decision.?

H. On or about October 3, 2013, defendant Joyce emailed the Developer: .. [the
Planning Board Chair] came through as I said he would.?

I. On or about October 7, 2013, defendant Joyce emailed the Developer: spoke
with [the Plaming Board Chair] this morning. I will speak with [?Plaming
Board member to try to get his votes even without the peer review being
finished. We shouldn?t need him as we have three votes, but better safe than

,9

sorry.

J. On or about October 9, 2013, a new problem arose regarding drainage issues

14

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 15 of 102

for the MW project, when defendant Joyce emailed the Developer: had
[Planning Board member X?s] votes, except for the driveway. [Planning
Board member now says he can?t vote favorably if the DPW director says
the drainage doesn?t work. Asking for a continuance [of the upcoming Planning
Board meeting] makes sense.?

K. After a continuance, on or about October 24, 2013, the Milton Planning Board,
including the Planning Board Chair and Planning Board member X, voted 4-to-
in the Developer?s favor, granting the necessary waivers for the MWC
proposed subdivision into four lots.

28. To conceal their scheme, from in or about October 2012 to early 2014, defendant
Joyce and the Developer agreed to take and did take several steps to keep secret defendant Joyce?s
?nancial involvement with the Developer and the Milton Women?s Club, which included, but was
not limited to, the following:

A. In an April 15,- 2013 email to the Planning Board Chair, defendant Joyce falsely
represented himself to the Flaming Board Chair as ?the pro bono broker? on
the proposed sale of the Milton Women?s Club, stating: ?Please take a look at
this. [The Milton Planning Director] had told women?s club of?cers that ?ve
homes, possibly six could be built. Buyer would be happy with four now.
Otherwise it falls apart. I?m the pro bono broker.? Defendant Joyce falsely
described himself to the Planning Board Chair as the ?pro bono broker? in order
to conceal defendant Joyce?s private ?nancial motive in having the waiver
approved.

B. On or about September 19, 2013, the Developer scheduled a meeting at the
Milton Women?s Club to garner local support from neighbors abutting the
MWC property. Regarding this meeting, on September 19, 2013, defendant
Joyce emailed the Developer: ?Please keep my name out of this.? The
Developer responded via email: have never mentioned your name other than
to say that you were trying to help the Women?s club ?nd a buyer.?

C. On or about September 27, 2013, the Boston Globe contacted defendant Joyce?s
Senate of?ce regarding defendant Joyce?s role in the MWC project. In
response to the Globe?s query, defendant Joyce and the Developer emailed each
other that same date to coordinate their false statements if approached by the
Globe. The Developer emailed defendant Joyce: ?If anyone ever asks me I
will say that you [defendant Joyce] asked me to preserve the building but it was
impossible.? Defendant Joyce responded via email to the Developer: ?And
that I was asked to help by women?s club members and wouldn?t take any fee.?

15

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page about October 9, 2013, at a public Milton Planning Board hearing on the
MWC project, a member of the Milton Women?s Club asked the Board whether
Senator Joyce was the Developer?s attorney for the project and whether Joyce
introduced the MWC property to the Developer. In response, the Developer
stated to the Flaming Board: have not paid him [Senator Joyce] one dollar
and he said he would not accept any payment from any party. He?s just
doing this because he was trying to help out the Women?s Club. And as our
state senator that?s an appropriate thing for him to do to help people in the
town and be responsive to their needs. . . 

29. On or about November 21, 2013, after obtaining Milton Planning Board approval,
the Developer purchased the MWC property for approximately $625,000. From in or about
December 2013 to January 2014, defendant Joyce instructed the Developer that defendant Joyce
wanted to receive his payment for the MWC project in the form of a Jeep from one of the
Developer?s car dealerships.

30. In order to coordinate defendant Joyce?s kickback payment from the Developer,
defendant Joyce and the Developer took the following steps to launder the corrupt proceeds:

A. Defendant Joyce and the Developer agreed that defendant Joyce would receive
a 2014 Jeep Cherokee, which was valued at approximately $34,700.

B. Against the $34,700 price tag, defendant Joyce would trade in another of
defendant Joyce?s vehicles for $12,000, leaving an outstanding balance of
approximately $24,500 (which included additional sales tax, registry costs, and
other fees).

C. On December 31, 2013, the Developer issued defendant Joyce a check for
$4000 for defendant Joyce?s assistance with the Developer?s prior development
of another property located in Milton, MA.

D. On or about January 10, 2014, the Developer issued defendant Joyce a check
for $20,500 (equal to the outstanding approximate balance of the 2014 Jeep),
with the entry, ?consulting? on the memo line.

16

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 17 of 102

E. On or about January 10, 2014, the same date that the Developer gave defendant
Joyce the $20,500 check, defendant Joyce took title and possession of the 2014
Jeep from the Developer?s car dealership.

F. On or about January 17, 2014, defendant Joyce issued a $15,000 check payable
to the Developer?s car dealership.

G. On or about] January 31, 2014, defendant Joyce issued a $5,000 check payable
to the Developer?s car dealership.

H. On or about February 13, 2014, defendant Joyce issued a $4,500 check payable
to the Developer?s car dealership to satisfy the balance owed on the 2014 Jeep.

31. Thereafter, in 2014, defendant Joyce continued to use his of?cial position and
Senate Of?ce to assist the Developer on the MWC project by, among other things, directing his 
Senate staff to pressure a Massachusetts utility company to expedite the provision of electricity to
the newly constructed lots on the MWC property. 7 For example, on or about September 4, 2014,
defendant Joyce emailed the Developer: ?Are you looking for any action on our end (from my
State House to which the Developer responded: ?Yes. [We] need [power] done in 30
days at the outside.? With the understanding that defendant Joyce?s spouse a residential real
estate broker would be a sales broker for the newly developed homes on the MWC property,
defendant Joyce then used his Senate staff to contact the Massachusetts utility company to expedite
delivery of power to the MWC lots without disclosing to his staff his relationship with the
Developer or the MW project.
The Energy Insurance Brokerage Company Bribery Scheme

32. There was an individual (the who was the founder and chief executive
of?cer of a Delaware energy insurance brokerage holding company (the Company?), which
owned, among other entities, a Massachusetts energy industry insurance agency that did business
in and affecting interstate commerce. As an insurance agency, the EIB Company was required

17

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 18 of 102

to comply with Massachusetts insurance rules and regulations that were enforced by the
Massachusetts Division of Insurance (the and dealt regularly with the DOI with respect
to licensing and other insurance regulatory issues.

33. At least as early as in or about 2010, the EIB CEO was interested in promoting
property-assessed-clean-energy legislation in Massachusetts. PACE was an
alternative energy ?nancing program that required state legislation because its funding was derived
from issuing bonds that were secured by increased property tax assessments. To incentivize
PACE projects, alternative energy companies (for example, a solar panel company) would
guarantee that the value of the energy savings would equal or surpass the cost of the property tax
assessment that was used to fund the solar panel installation. The solar panel company would
then obtain insurance to ful?ll the guarantee in the event that the energy savings did not match the
costs of the solar panel installation. The EIB CEO sought to increase and expand the EIB
Company?s business by selling an insurance product for the energy savings guarantees on PACE
projects.

34. In or about 2010, after meeting defendant Joyce and Partner 1, the EIB CEO hired
defendant Joyce, Partner 1, and Partnership 1 to do legal work, including appearing before the D01
and performing insurance defense litigation for EIB Company and EIB Company?s insurance
partners. From in or about February 2010 to in or about December 2015, the EIB Company paid
and caused to be paid to defendant Joyce, through the Joyce Law Of?ce, including Partnership 1,
approximately $377,169 in fees.

35. Although the EIB Company had already paid and caused to be paid thousands of

dollars to defendant Joyce and Partner 1 to provide legal work on behalf of the EIB Company and

18

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 19 of 102

its insurance partners, defendant Joyce and the EIB CEO agreed that defendant Joyce would be
given purported additional legal business and fees in return for: defendant Joyce?s of?cial action
and assistance with respect to PACE legislation; and (ii) defendant Joyce?s ongoing of?cial action
and assistance in obtaining favorable of?cial action from the DOI.

36. From at least as early as in or about 2010 to 2015, defendant Joyce and the EIB
CEO conspired to use defendant Joyce?s of?cial position as State Senator to promote, sponsor,
and ?le PACE legislation and (ii) exert pressure on and advise DOI of?cials to take of?cial action
in favor of the EIB Company, as speci?c opportunities arose, in exchange for a stream of corrupt
payments and other bene?ts, as noted above, and as follows:

PACE Legislation

A. On or about July 24, 2010, the EIB CEO texted defendant Joyce: ?Brian I want
to come see you sometime tommorow [sic] I have an idea as it relates to
?nancing energy ef?ciency projects that I would like to brain storm with you.
It would probably need to be something that comes through the administration
or legslature 

B. On or about May 9, 2011, the EIB CEO emailed defendant Joyce: wanted to
see if you had anytime this week to have a meeting as respect to PACE. We
need to retain the Joyce Law Firm in regard to providing legal work in respect
to establishing a program that would be marketed by our independent insurance
agents and brokers.?

C. In or about June 2011, the EIB CEO hired defendant Joyce?s relative as a
summer intern at the EIB Company, explaining to the EIB Company human
resources department in an email: ?[His/her relative, defendant Joyce] does a
lot for the company.? . During the internship, defendant Joyce?s relative wrote
a summary of then-existing Massachusetts PACE law. From June through
August 2011, the EIB Company paid defendant Joyce?s relative approximately
$2,796 in salary.

D. On or about September 9, 2011, the EIB CEO emailed defendant Joyce a copy
of legislation, writing: ?Please note [on] page 23 Renewable Energy Revolving
Fund (PACE Enabling Legislation).? That same month, EIB Company joined
the PACE Commercial Consortium, a group of private companies seeking to

19

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 20 of 102

promote PACE. .

E. At least as early as December 21, 2011, defendant Joyce agreed to speak at a
public symposium, dubbed, ?Mobilize New England,? which was Sponsored by
EIB Company and geared toward promoting PACE legislation.

F. On or about December 30, 2011, defendant Joyce and the EIB CEO agreed in
an email that ?Effective January 1, 2012, [defendant Joyce] will serve as 
Company?s] outside general counsel, for a fee of $5000 per month payable in
advance on the ?rst of each month. We agreed that while I am also a
Massachusetts State Senator, my actions on behalf of Company] will be
as an attorney and not as a public of?cial. We agreed that at all times we will
act within the con?nes of state ethics and other legal requirements.? Despite
defendant Joyce?s acknowledgement of the appearance of a con?ict of interest,
and agreement to ?act within the con?nes of state ethics,? defendant Joyce
never ?led a ?Disclosure of Appearance of Con?ict of Interest? with respect to
his new $5,000 payment from EIB Company, as required by M.G.L,
Ch. 268A, 23(b).

G. On or about January 9, 2012, defendant Joyce spoke at the ?Mobilize New
England? conference at the Boston Convention Center with the purpose of
promoting PACE legislation.

H. Beginning on?or about January 17, 2012, the EIB Company began making
$5,000 payments to defendant Joyce on a basis through in or about
January 2016, totaling approximately $240,000. Throughout this period from
January 2012 through 2016, the EIB CEO and, at the EIB direction, the
EIB relative (the relative?), also an EIB Company
employee, corresponded and met with defendant Joyce and defendant Joyce?s
Senate Of?ce to coordinate the passage of PACE legislation in Massachusetts.

1. On or about July 11, 2012, defendant Joyce emailed the EIB CEO with the
subject line, I?m working on a $1 billion Mass Development
bond offering. It may not be ready for passage by July 315?, but there will be
a lot of discussion generated and it should help accelerate activity on energy
ef?ciency projects for commercial and industrial properties in Massachusetts
next year.? Defendant Joyce was referring to House Bill No. 41 19, which was
before the Senate Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State
Assets (the ?Senate Bonding Committee?). Defendant Joyce was the Chair of
the Senate Bonding Committee in 2012.

J. On or about July 13, 2012, as Chair of the Senate Bonding Committee,

defendant Joyce amended House Bill No. 4119 to include loan programs for
municipal PACE projects. House Bill No. 4119 was then forwarded to the

20

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 21 of 102

Senate Ways and Means Committee.

K. On or about July 13, 2012, at approximately 1:59 defendant Joyce called
the EIB CEO to discuss how to amend the pending bill to include language that
was favorable to the EIB Company.

L. On or about July 13, 2012, at approximately 3:24 the BIB CEO emailed
the EIB relative, asking the relative to provide defendant Joyce
additional PACE language that was favorable to the EIB Company for inclusion
in House Bill No. 4119. The EIB CEO wrote: ?Brian Joyce needs us to pull
the language out of the California bill as it relates to guarantees and how they
need to have collateral including one option being insurance. Needs to make
sure it is in this bill.?

M. On or about July 13, 2012, at approximately 4:49 the EB relative
emailed defendant Joyce and the EIB CEO additional PACE language that was
favorable to the EIB Company for inclusion in House Bill No. 4119, which
included: ?For energy ef?ciency improvements that exceed ?ve hundred
thousand dollars the contractor installing the improvements or the
property owner shall obtain a guarantee on the energy and water cost savings .
. . by obtaining a security in the amount of the cost savings. The security
shall be in any of the following forms Energy savings insurance issued by
an A.M. Best or better rated carrier (hereinafter, the insurance

language?).

N. On or about July 16, 2012, defendant Joyce?s Senate Of?ce Legislative Director
emailed counsel for the Senate Ways and Means Committee: ?Senator Joyce
would like to request that the following language be added to subsection 2 
which included the PACE insurance language. The email further stated:
?Unfortunately this change came to our attention a little too late!?

0. On or about July 17, 2012, at defendant Joyce?s request, House Bill No. 4119
was amended to include the PACE insurance language.

P. On or about July 19, 2012, during a State Senate Session, defendant Joyce spoke
in support of the PACE amendments to House Bill No. 4119. Defendant
Joyce?s PACE amendments to House Bill No. 4119 were not approved in the
2012 legislative session, but were submitted to the Massachusetts Department
of Energy Resources for further study.

Q. On or about December 21, 2012, the EIB relative emailed defendant
Joyce, defendant Joyce?s Chief of Staff, and the EIB CEO to discuss how the
EIB Company could ?potentially collaborate and or provide assistance? on
PACE legislation. On December 21, 2012, defendant Joyce emailed the EIB

21

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 22 of 102

CEO, the EIB relative, and his Chief of Staff, directing the EIB 
relative to coordinate with his Chief of Staff.

R. On or about January 4, 2013, the BIB relative recommended to
defendant Joyce?s Chief of Staff that insurance guarantees be part of any PACE
legislation enacted in Massachusetts.

S. On or about January 8, 2013, the EIB relative emailed defendant Joyce?s
Chief of Staff recommending that the DOER include the PACE insurance
language in legislation for statewide PACE programs. The EIB 
relative added that if the PACE insurance language was not included in
legislation, an acceptable alternative would be ?speci?cations within the
underwriting guidelines set forth by the The DOER ultimately did
not recommend including the PACE insurance language.

T. On or about January 14, 2013, the EIB relative proposed to defendant
Joyce?s Chief of Staff that the phrase ?fueling jobs? should be used in the title
of proposed PACE legislation.

U. On or about January 17, 2013, defendant Joyce ?led PACE legislation as a
stand-alone bill under Senate Bill No. 177, titled ?An Act ?ieling job creation
through energy ef?ciency? 177? or the ?Commercial PACE Bill?). The
Commercial PACE Bill did not contain the PACE insurance language, but it
included the alternative language, which required that any PACE project be
evaluated for ?compliance with ?nancial underwriting guidelines established
by the agency.?

V. On or about July 26, 2013, defendant Joyce emailed the EIB CEO regarding the
Commercial PACE Bill: had dinner with the Majority Leader last night, and
we discussed the legislation. I will begin pushing it to the?forefront of the
legislative agenda after Labor Day.?

W. On or about September 10, 2013, defendant Joyce testi?ed in support of the
Commercial PACE Bill at a joint legislative committee hearing in Spring?eld,
Massachusetts. Defendant Joyce?s Senate Of?ce also issued a press release
promoting PACE legislation. That same day, defendant Joyce sent the EIB
CEO an email that stated, ?Tell [the EIB relative] that I?m in Spring?eld
testifying on behalf of our clean jobs bill (Commercial PACE Bill).?

X. On or about November 11, 2013, the EIB relative emailed defendant
Joyce?s Chief of Staff, inviting the Chief of Staff to promote the Commercial
PACE Bill at a meeting before the City of Cambridge Climate Protection Action
Committee (?Cambridge an advisory committee to the Cambridge
City Manager.

22

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 23 of 102

Y. On or about November 14, 2013, defendant Joyce?s Chief of Staff and an EIB
Company representative promoted the Commercial PACE Bill before the
Cambridge CPAC at its committee meeting.

Z. In or about December 2013, the EIB relative continued to advise and
collaborate with defendant Joyce?s Senate Of?ce on re-dra?ing the
Commercial PACE Bill to include language on ?building resiliency?
improvements in order to garner additional statewide support for PACE
legislation.

AA. In or about July 2014, the Commercial Pace Bill was amended under Senate
Bill No. 2255 2255? or the ?Amended Commercial Pace Bill?) to include
this language: ?The department may promulgate regulations to include
eligibility for resiliency improvements in the commercial sustainable energy
program.?

BB. On or about July 10, 2014, during a State Senate Session, defendant Joyce
spoke in support of PACE legislation in the Amended Commercial Pace Bill
and asked that the State Senate take a vote upon the proposed legislation. On
or about that date, defendant Joyce voted in favor of SB. 2255 and the State
Senate passed SB. 2255, but the proposed bill did not pass the State House of
Representatives that year.

CC. From at least as early as in or about August 2014 to December 2014, the
EIB CEO permitted defendant Joyce to participate in EIB Company?s private
offering of its common stock Common Stock?), which was not open to
the public. During this period, defendant Joyce purchased 65,000 shares of
EIB Common Stock for approximately $471,250.

DD. On or about January 8, 2015, defendant Joyce requested, as his ?rst choice,
to sit on the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, a
joint Senate and House committee that considered legislation involving
alternative energy, including PACE legislation.

EE. On or about January 15, 2015, defendant Joyce re-?led the Amended
Commercial Pace Bill, under Senate Bill No. 1774 1774?).

FF. On or about January 21, 2015, defendant Joyce gained appointment to the
Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy and became one

of three Senate Assistant Majority Leaders.

GG. On or about March 30, 2015, a Boston Globe reporter called the EIB
Company to request an interview with the EIB CEO to discuss EIB Company?s

23

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 24 of 102

relationship with defendant Joyce. The EIB CEO then told defendant Joyce
about the Boston Globe phone call.

HH. On or about March 30, 2015, defendant Joyce emailed the EIB CEO:
?Suggest you not return call please.?

11. On or about April 1, 2015, defendant Joyce emailed the EIB relative
a progress report on the Amended Commercial Pace Bill.

On or about April 7, 2015, the Boston Globe asked defendant Joyce about
defendant Joyce?s relationship with the EIB Company.

K. On or about April 17, 2015, defendant Joyce resigned from the Joint
Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy.

LL. On or about June 25, 2015, defendant Joyce wrote and ?led a letter with the
Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, in support of
SB. 1774: write today in support of S. 1774, An Act fueling job creation
through energy e?iciency, which I ?led. This bill will be heard by the Joint
Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy on June 30, 2015. I
respectfully request your prompt and favorable consideration.?

Massachusetts Division of Insurance Of?cial Action

A. From in or about June 2010 through December 2011, at the EIB 
direction, defendant Joyce used his of?cial position to advise DOI of?cials to
assist the EIB Company in obtaining DOI approval to sell a certain insurance
product to oil dealers. By in or about December 2011, the DOI took no
adverse action with respect to EIB Company?s oil dealer insurance product.

B. Prior to June 3, 2013, an out-of-state insurance company (?Ins. Co. ?led a
complaint with the DOI against EIB Company. Because Ins. Co. A?s
complaint with the DOI had the potential to result in license suspension, ?ne,
or other administrative action by the DOI against the EIB Company, the EIB
CEO determined that obtaining favorable DOI action was vital to EIB
Company?s business. Defendant Joyce and the EIB CEO agreed that
defendant Joyce would use his of?cial position to advise the Commissioner of
the DOI (the ?Commissioner?) to refrain from taking of?cial action adverse
?ne, license suspension, or administrative action) to the EIB Company.

C. On or about June 3, 2013 at the Department of Insurance, defendant Joyce, the
EIB CEO, and other EIB Company representatives met with the Commissioner
to obtain favorable DOI action on Ins. Co. A?s complaint against the EIB
Company. In recounting the meeting, defendant Joyce emailed the

24

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 25 of 102

Commissioner on or about July 1 1, 2013:

[Commissioner], You?ll recall that we met on June 3 to discuss the 
Company/Ins. Co. situation wherein we detailed the dispute between the
parties and addressed the issues contained in [Ins. Co. A?s] letter to the
Insurance Division. I have a conference call with Company]
tomorrow morning. Is it fair to say that no further action is required of
them at this time from the Division? Thanks, Brian

The Commissioner responded that no further action was required and,
ultimately, with respect to Ins. Co. A?s complaint, the DOI took no action 
license suspension, ?ne, or other administrative action) that was adverse to the
EIB Company, and terminated its investigation of the matter.

D. Prior to September 17, 2014, at the EIB direction, defendant Joyce used
his of?cial position to obtain a certi?cation letter from the DOI to permit the
EIB Company to secure managing general agent insurance licenses
in other states. On or about September 17, 2014, the DOI issued the MGA
certi?cation letter to the EIB Company.

37. In order to promote, facilitate, and prevent detection of this corrupt scheme,
defendant Joyce took numerous steps to conceal the extent of his relationship with the EIB
Company, which included, but was not limited to, the following:

A. Defendant Joyce did not disclose to Partner 1 the $5,000 payment from
EIB Company to defendant Joyce, and began to use Partner 1?s law associate
to do work pursuant to the $5,000 payment. Only after Partner I discovered
that defendant Joyce was using Partner 1?s law associate did defendant Joyce
disclose the $5 ,000 payment and begin to share a portion of it.

B. Defendant Joyce did not disclose his receipt of $5,000 from the EIB
Company to his Senate Chief of Staff.

C. During the time that defendant Joyce performed of?cial acts in support of
PACE legislation House Bill No. 4119, SB. 177, SB. 2255, and SB.
1774), defendant Joyce did not disclose to the Ethics Commission: his
receipt of $5,000 from the EIB Company; (ii) his bene?cial ownership
of approximately $471,250 in EIB Common Stock; and the fact that
Defendant Joyce was using the Senate Of?ce to promote, draft, and ?le
legislation at the EIB and the EIB relative?s direction.

D. On or about April 3, 2015, in response to a Globe reporter?s inquiry, defendant

25

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 26 of 102

Joyce falsely claimed, through his counsel: ?Senator Joyce has not ?led ?y
legislation to bene?t [the EIB Company]? (underline in original).

E. From in or about October 2015 to January 2016, defendant Joyce, through an
attorney, made materially false and misleading statements to the Ethics
Commission, which included, but were not limited to, defendant Joyce?s claim
that: because such PACE bills did not contain an insurance provision, he
?did not believe that his bill 177; SB. 1774], either directly or indirectly,
could reasonably be viewed as bene?tting Company];? and (ii) defendant
Joyce understood and believed that his role in the June 3, 2013 meeting with
the DOI Commissioner ?was simply to provide notice to [the DOI of Ins. Co.
A?s complaint against EIB Company]? and that defendant Joyce ?believed that
his attendance at the meeting was ministerial in nature.?

F. Defendant Joyce did not disclose to the Ethics Commission as required On his
2011 SFI that his relative received over $2,000 in compensation ?om EIB
Company.

The EIB Common Stock - IRS Wire Fraud Scheme

38. In 2014, EIB Company sought to raise additional capital by selling shares of its
common stock. In or about the summer and fall of 2014, defendant Joyce learned from the EIB
Company?s Director of Finance that EIB Company planned to issue stock as part of its plan to go
public and/or be acquired by another company. EIB Common Stock, however, was not publicly
traded and EIB Company was permitted only to sell its stock privately via a ?private placement?
to certain individuals and entities, and during a certain time window.

39. Defendant Joyce, however, wanted to obtain EIB Common Stock from the private
placement so that defendant Joyce could become one of the larger and more in?uential
shareholders of EIB Company, and also reap a greater pro?t from his corrupt relationship with the
EIB CEO by obtaining the EIB Common Stock prior to any public offering of EIB Common Stock.
The EIB CEO agreed to offer defendant Joyce the privately held EIB Common Stock in exchange

for defendant Joyce?s continued of?cial action with respect and D01 matters.

26

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 27 of 102

40. To ensure that potential investors were qualified to purchase EIB Common Stock,
EIB Company required each investor to enter into an agreement (?Subscription Agreement?) with
the EIB Company and to ?ll out a questionnaire (?Accredited Investor Questionnaire? or
?Questionnaire?). The Subscription Agreement required each investor to represent and warrant
that the information provided by the investor in the Accredited Investor Questionnaire was true
and accurate. The Questionnaire also required each investor to declare whether the investor
would hold EIB Common Stock as an individual, through a trust, or through a corporation,
partnership, or limited liability company.

41. With EIB Company?s assistance, however, defendant Joyce concealed his
ownership of EIB Common Stock from the public and the Ethics Commission by doing the
following:

A. Defendant Joyce did not complete any Accredited Investor Questionnaires,
which would have required defendant Joyce to truthfully disclose the capacity
in which defendant Joyce owned and bene?cially held EIB Common Stock.

B. Defendant Joyce created a fictitious individual retirement account to
disguise defendant Joyce?s ownership of EIB Common Stock as a retirement
plan, which did not require disclosure on the SFI to the Ethics Commission.

C. In October 2015, defendant Joyce, through an attorney, falsely declared to the
Ethics Commission that defendant Joyce ?did direct his retirement account
?Brian A. Joyce SEP to purchase stock in late 2014 and again in 2015,?
when in fact, no third party purchased the stock on the defendant Joyce?s behalf,
and defendant Joyce personally orchestrated the purchase of EIB Common
Stock. 

42. From August 2014 to December 2014, defendant Joyce coordinated the purchase
of EIB Common Stock through the use of a home equity line of credit and the liquidation of his

and his spouse?s simpli?ed employee pension IRA ?mds, which were held by

quali?ed IRA custodians, as follows:

27

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 28 of 102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Check SEP-IRA Liquidation EIB JOYCE Personal Memo on
Date (or Line of Credit Common Check (or Line of Check
Withdrawal indicated Stock Credit Check 
with Purchase Issued to EIB-
Date Company
8/30/2014 $50,750* 9/5/2014 $50,750* 7,000 Shares
SEP IRA
8/30/2014 $25,375* 9/5/2014 $25,375* 3,500 Shares
SEP IRA
10/4/2014 $105,125 10/4/2014 $105,125 14,500
(Spouse SEP IRA) Shares
[Spouse]
SEP IRA
12/8/2014 $72,500 12/10/2014 $72,500 10,000
(Spouse SEP IRA) Shares
[Spouse]
SEP IRA
12/8/2014 $250,000 12/10/2014 $217,500 30,000
(Defendant Joyce SEP Shares SEP
IRA) IRA
Totals $503,750 withdrawn $471,250 paid to 65,000
EIB Company shares of
EIB
Common
Stock
43. Defendant Joyce?s creation of ?ctitious retirement accounts for himself (?Brian A.

Joyce and his spouse (?[Spouse] furthered the bribery scheme with the

EIB CEO in that: it permitted defendant Joyce to conceal his signi?cant bene?cial ownership

of EIB Common Stock from the public and the Ethics Commission, while he actively pushed

PACE legislation at the direction of the EIB and it served as a vehicle for defendant

Joyce to utilize retirement funds to purchase EIB Common Stock by defrauding the Internal

Revenue Service in claiming that his purchase of EIB Common Stock was a tax-free IRA 

rollover, when, in fact, it was an early liquidation subject to additional taxation and early

withdrawal penalties.

28

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 29 of 102

44. To qualify as a non-taxable IRA rollover, IRA assets must be withdrawn from one
quali?ed custodian and be received by another quali?ed custodian within a 60-day period. Prior
to August 2014, defendant Joyce and his spouse held over half a million dollars in SEP-IRA
accounts that were maintained with quali?ed IRA custodians for several years. Also, prior to his
purchase of EIB Common Stock in or about August 2014, defendant Joyce had used his ?nancial
advisor (the ?Financial Advisor?) to complete proper tax-?ee transfers, or rollovers, of a portion
of his SEP-IRA assets through a quali?ed IRA custodian custodian?).

45. In or about October 2014, the Financial Advisor stated to defendant Joyce that he
?strongly advise[d]? against defendant Joyce?s proposal to use a signi?cant amount of 
assets to buy EIB Common Stock. Additionally, during in or about August 2014 to October 2014,
the IRA custodian stated that it would not authorize a purchase of EIB Common Stock as a tax-
free rollover using defendant Joyce?s existing SEP-IRA assets.

46. Despite these admonitions, defendant Joyce created sham retirement accounts for
himself and his spouse in order to conceal his stock ownership from the Ethics Commission and
to defraud the IRS, as well as portray defendant Joyce?s purchase of EIB Common Stock as a tax-
free IRA rollover, as follows:

A. On or about August 30, 2014, defendant Joyce borrowed $76,125 from a home
equity line of credit to purchase 10,500 shares of EIB Common
Stock. Defendant Joyce then, with the assistance of the EIB Company,
created the appearance that the stock purchase was made through SEP
retirement accounts by writing in the Subscription Agreements and
on the memo lines of the HELOC ?inded checks that were used to purchase the
shares.

B. On or about October 2, 2014, defendant Joyce caused his spouse to liquidate
$105,125 from the spouse?s SEP-IRA account (maintained by a quali?ed IRA

custodian) with the proceeds going to defendant Joyce?s personal joint bank
account with his spouse. Defendant Joyce then issued a personal check for

29

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 30 of 102

$105,125 payable to EIB Company for 14,500 shares, causing ?[Spouse] SEP
to be inscribed in the Subscription Agreement and the memo line of the
check.

C. On or about December 8, 2014, defendant Joyce caused $250,000 and $72,500
to be liquidated from his and his spouse?s respective custodian-managed SEP-
IRA accounts with the proceeds going to defendant Joyce?s personal joint bank
account. Defendant Joyce then used the proceeds to issue personal checks for
$217,500 and $72,500, respectively, from his joint account payable to the EIB
Company for 30,000 and 10,000 shares, with the inscription and
?[Spouse] SEP in the Subscription Agreements and the memo lines of
each respective check.

D. On or about October 30, 2015, defendant Joyce, through counsel, submitted a
letter to the Ethics Commission that falsely claimed that defendant Joyce ?did
direct his retirement account ?Brian A. Joyce SEP to purchase 
Common] stock in late 2014 and again in 2015.? Defendant Joyce knew this
statement was false because defendant Joyce personally executed the
purchases, and not through a third party, and (ii) defendant Joyce initially
purchased EIB Common Stock with ?nds that he obtained from a HELOC loan,
and not with retirement funds.

E. From 2015 to 2016, defendant Joyce submitted EIB Company shareholder
letters to his Financial Advisor and the Ethics Commission as ?proof? that his
and his spouse?s thousands of shares of EIB Common Stock were held in IRA
accounts despite the fact that:

i. There was no IRA custodian for the shares.

ii. Defendant Joyce and his spouse maintained full ownership and control
of 65,000 shares of EIB Common Stock.

As an EIB Company shareholder, defendant Joyce had the right to
personally attend shareholder meetings, vote at meetings of EIB
Company shareholders, and vote to elect members of EIB Company?s
board of directors.
47. On or about September 8, 2015, defendant Joyce willfully caused to be
electronically ?led with the IRS a US. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040 for himself and

his spouse for tax year 2014, falsely reporting early withdrawals from defendant Joyce?s and his

spouse?s SEP-IRAs as qualifying tax-exempt rollovers in the amount of $427,629, and falsely

30

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 31 of 102

reporting a SEP-IRA deductible contribution of $80,502, of which $76,125 consisted of defendant
Joyce?s purchase of EIB Common Stock with home equity line of credit funds.
The Coffee Franchise Bribery Scheme
48. There was an individual (the ?Franchise Owner?), who owned approximately over
one hundred franchises of a nationally branded coffee and pastry fast-food business (the ?Coffee
Franchise?) in Massachusetts and elsewhere. From in or about 2010 to in or about early 2015,
defendant Joyce and the Franchise Owner conspired to use defendant Joyce?s of?cial position as
State Senator to promote, sponsor, and ?le state legislation that favored the Franchise Owner, as
speci?c opportunities arose, in exchange for a stream of bene?ts that included payments for
purported legal services and regular free deliveries of up to a thousand dollars? worth of coffee
and other goods to defendant Joyce. From 2010 to 2015, defendant Joyce also never disclosed
that he had received any gifts from the Franchise Owner on his yearly SFI.
49. The Franchise Owner provided and agreed to provide the following, among other
things, to defendant Joyce in exchange for defendant Joyce?s of?cial action:
A. From at least as early as 2010 to 2013, the Franchise Owner paid defendant
Joyce approximately $125,089 for purported legal services provided by
defendant Joyce.
B. Approximately each December from 2010 to 2014, the Franchise Owner
provided defendant Joyce with approximately 50 to up to 200 pounds of Coffee
Franchise coffee at no charge on each occasion for defendant Joyce to distribute
at town hall meetings and other events, or to give to other public of?cials.
C. Approximately each August from 2010 to 2014, the Franchise Owner provided
defendant Joyce with Coffee Franchise food and beverages at no charge for
defendant Joyce to distribute at a summer event that defendant Joyce hosted as

State Senator.

D. In or about January 2015, following defendant Joyce?s request for 500 pounds
of coffee at cost, the Franchise Owner provided approximately 504 pounds of

31

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 32 of 102

Coffee Franchise coffee approximate retail value of $4,278 at no charge to
defendant Joyce.

. From in or about 2011 and continuing through the beginning of 2016, the

Franchise Owner, via the Energy Broker Company, paid approximately
$16,438 in solar energy commissions to defendant Joyce, a?er defendant Joyce
had persuaded the Franchise Owner to install solar panels on his franchises with
the assistance of the Energy Broker Executive.

In exchange for the stream of money, goods, and services that the Franchise Owner

provided and agreed to provide to defendant Joyce, defendant Joyce took the following of?cial

action:

. In January 2011, defendant Joyce ?led Senate Bill No. 1843, titled, ?An Act

further regulating ?anchise agreements? 1843?). SB. 1843, if passed,
would have provided greater protections to the Franchise Owner to operate
franchise businesses and better avoid termination of any franchise license in
Massachusetts.

. In July 2012, defendant Joyce moved to amend Senate Bill No. 2350 

2350?) to include a provision that would protect ?quick service restaurant?
establishments, which included the Coffee Franchise, from lawsuits known as
?tip pooling? lawsuits.

. In January 2013, defendant Joyce petitioned for legislation contained in Senate

Bill No. 887, titled, ?An Act relative to the pooling of tips? 887?). If
passed, SB. 887 operated to protect the Franchise Owner from potential tip
pooling lawsuits.

. In January 2013, defendant Joyce ?led Senate Bill No. 73, titled, ?An Act

protecting small business investments? If passed, SB. 73
operated to afford the Franchise Owner similar franchise protections as SB.
1843.

. In May 2013, defendant Joyce sponsored an amendment to Senate Bill No. 3,

titled, ?Protecting Small Business Investments,? which operated to afford the
Franchise Owner similar franchise protections to SE. 1843.

. On or about November 19, 2013, at a State Senate legislative session, defendant

Joyce obtained Senate consent to make a statement, and made a statement in
support of amending Senate Bill No. 1925 to include language that would
protect quick service restaurants from tip pooling lawsuits.

32

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 33 of 102

G.

In January 2015, defendant Joyce ?led Senate Bill No. 114, titled, ?An Act
protecting small business investments? 114?). If passed, SB. 114
operated to afford the Franchise Owner similar protections as SB. 1843 and
SB. 73.

In January 2015, defendant Joyce petitioned for legislation contained in Senate
Bill No. 1001 titled, ?An Act relative to the pooling of tips? 1001?). If
passed, SB. 1001, similar to? SE. 887, operated to protect the Franchise Owner
from potential tip pooling lawsuits.

51. To perpetuate this bribery scheme, defendant Joyce and others took steps to

conceal his corrupt relationship with the Franchise Owner, including:

A.

On or about December 14, 2011, defendant Joyce emailed the Franchise Owner
requesting that the Franchise Owner make $10,000 in donations to the
Massachusetts Democratic Party, writing, ?Each check should be for $5000,
with no reference to me.?

In or about December 2013 to January 2014, at defendant Joyce?s request, the
Franchise Owner gave at least approximately 12 boxes of coffee to defendant
Joyce for distribution at a January 2014 annual meeting and trade show.

In or about December 2014, defendant Joyce provided one pound of coffee from
the Coffee Franchise to each State Senator as a holiday gi?. This conduct was
reported by the Boston Globe on or about January 30, 2015.

From in or about January 31, 2015 to February 1, 2015, defendant Joyce
contacted the Franchise Owner and the Franchise Owner?s relative (the
?Relative?), who was also a Coffee Franchise employee, regarding the article.

On or about February 1, 2015, during an interstate telephone call between
defendant Joyce and the Relative, defendant Joyce stated, in sum and substance,
that defendant Joyce had a problem with the ?ee coffee that the Franchise
Owner provided to him in December 2014 and that defendant Joyce needed the
Relative to create an invoice for the December 2014 coffee.

After the February 1, 2015 call, at defendant Joyce?s direction, the Relative
created a backdated invoice. The invoice was backdated to December 20,
2014 and purported to bill defendant Joyce $1,698 for 200 pounds of Coffee
Franchise coffee.

In or about February 2015, defendant Joyce issued a check for $1,698 to one of

33

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 34 of 102

the Franchise Owner?s Coffee Franchises. Defendant Joyce fraudulently
backdated the check to December 21, 2014 in order to create the false
impression that defendant Joyce had paid for the 200 pounds of coffee at or
around the time that defendant Joyce had received the ?'ee coffee in December
2014.

H. On or about April 7, 2015, a Boston Globe reporter contacted defendant Joyce?s
attorney inquiring about Coffee Franchise coffee that defendant Joyce
distributed in or about January 2014 and (ii) Coffee Franchise Coffee that
defendant Joyce received in December 2014.

I. On or about April 10, 2015, defendant Joyce emailed the Franchise Owner and
the Relative, claiming, ?For the 2013 coffee, I did not bill you the attached legal
charges, which would have totaled $1312.50. I got 120 bags plus 20 gift boxes
for a total cost of $1218.60.? Prior to April 10, 2015, however, the Franchise
Owner and the Relative: had never been invoiced for the attached legal
charges of $1,312.50, which purported to pertain to a Coffee Franchise drive-
thru in Millis, and (ii) had never agreed to pay defendant Joyce with coffee
in exchange for legal work pertaining to the Millis drive?thru.

J. From October to November 2015, the Ethics Commission contacted defendant
Joyce through his attorney, inquiring about whether defendant Joyce had
received Coffee Franchise coffee at no charge in late 2013 and in 2014.

K. On or about December 1, 2015, at defendant Joyce?s direction, defendant
Joyce?s counsel emailed the Ethics Commission copies of the fraudulently
backdated invoice and check, and stated that: ?In late 2014, Senator Joyce
purchased coffee from a [Coffee Franchise] franchisee owned by [the
Franchise Owner].? Defendant Joyce knew this statement was false because
defendant Joyce had made no efforts to purchase the coffee before the
publication of the January 30, 2015 Boston Globe article that referenced the
coffee that defendant Joyce had distributed to other State Senators in December
2014.

L. On or about January 5, 2016, the Ethics Commission contacted defendant
Joyce?s attorney, requesting the Franchise Owner?s contact information so that
the Commission could interview the Franchise Owner regarding defendant
Joyce?s claim that he had provided legal services in exchange for free coffee in
2013.

M. From in or about January 5,2016 to mid-January 2016, defendant Joyce met
with the Franchise Owner and the Relative at the Franchise Owner?s business.
At the meeting, defendant Joyce instructed the Franchise Owner and the
Relative to falsely represent to the Ethics Commission that the Franchise Owner

34

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 35 of 102

had agreed to provide defendant Joyce coffee in exchange for legal services.

N. On or about January 27, 2016, the Ethics Commission emailed the Relative a
series of written questions related to defendant Joyce?s claim that he provided
legal services in exchange for coffee ?'om the Franchise Owner.

0. Following the January 27, 2016 email, defendant Joyce met with the Relative
in Canton. During the meeting, defendant Joyce requested that the Relative
respond to the written questions in the way defendant Joyce wanted the Relative
to respond. When the Relative suggested to defendant Joyce that the Relative
respond to the Ethics Commission that the Relative did not remember the events
in question, defendant Joyce stressed that he needed the Relative to
affirmatively and falsely represent to the Ethics Commission that defendant
Joyce received the coffee in exchange for legal services. 

P. On or about February 4, 2016, the Relative emailed false written responses to
the Ethics Cornmission?s questions in accordance with defendant Joyce?s
instructions, and called defendant Joyce to inform him that the Relative had
done so.

Q. On or about February 5, 2016, at defendant Joyce?s direction, defendant Joyce?s
counsel emailed the Ethics Commission a materially false response to its

inquiry, claiming that defendant Joyce had received coffee in exchange for legal
services in late 2013.

The Philadelphia Solar Company Extortion

52. There was an individual (the Solar Representative?), who was a managing
director of a Philadelphia, solar company (the Solar Company?), a company
that did business in and affecting interstate commerce. The PA Solar Representative met with
defendant Joyce at his District Of?ce in or about May 2012 to seek defendant Joyce?s of?cial
assistance regarding local permitting and pending solar legislation that could potentially affect PA
Solar Company?s project in West Bridgewater. West Bridgewater was a town within defendant
Joyce?s Senate District.

53. Defendant Joyce attempted to use his of?cial position as State Senator to obtain

?legal? work for the Joyce Law Of?ce from the PA Solar Company in West Bridgewater, as

35

follows:

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 36 of 102

. From in or about 2011 to 2012, the PA Solar Representative was involved in

developing a solar panel project in West Bridgewater. At least as early as
April 2012, the?PA Solar Representative had spoken with West Bridgewater
town of?cials regarding construction permitting and potential town taxes to be
applied to the PA Solar Company?s project.

. In or about April 2012, the PA Solar Company retained a lobbyist (the

?Lobbyist?) to act as its agent and assist it with state and local legislative
matters, speci?cally, local permitting and town taxes to be levied on the PA
Solar Company project in West Bridgewater and ongoing solar energy
legislation in Massachusetts.

. In late April 2012, the Lobbyist contacted defendant Joyce?s Senate Of?ce to

arrange a meeting with defendant Joyce and the PA Solar Representative.
During a telephone conversation at around that time, the Lobbyist told
defendant Joyce that PA Solar Company representatives wanted to meet with
defendant Joyce to discuss pending State solar legislation and its ongoing
negotiations with West Bridgewater town of?cials regarding permitting and
taxes. Defendant Joyce agreed and scheduled a meeting at his District Of?ce.

. On or about May 2, 2012, the PA Solar Representative, another representative

from the PA Solar Company (together, the Solar Representatives?), and
the Lobbyist met with defendant Joyce at his District Of?ce in Canton.

. At the May 2, 2012 meeting, the PA Solar Representatives sought defendant

Joyce?s assistance as State Senator to expedite the local permitting process in
West Bridgewater. In response to this, defendant Joyce stated, in sum and
substance, ?Yeah, I think I can get this permit for you. It would be through
my law ?rm, and our fee would be $25,000 to get this permit for you.?

. Based on the May 2, 2012 meeting, the PA Solar Representatives and the

Lobbyist concluded that in order to obtain defendant Joyce?s of?cial assistance
as State Senator in recommending and advising West Bridgewater town
of?cials to expedite and approve PA Solar Company?s permits, the PA Solar
Company needed to hire and pay the Joyce Law Of?ce the ?legal? fees that
defendant Joyce quoted to them at the meeting. The PA Solar Representative
declined to engage the Joyce Law Of?ce for such a purpose.

36

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 37 of 102

The Racketeering Violation

54. From in or before 2010 and continuing through February 2016, in the District of

Massachusetts and elsewhere, defendant
BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE,

and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, being persons employed by and associated with
an enterprise, the Senate Of?ce of Brian A. Joyce, did unlawfully and knowingly conduct and
participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise, which enterprise
was engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate commerce, through a pattern of
racketeering activity, as that term is de?ned in Sections 1961(1) and 1961(5) of Title 18, United

States Code and as set forth below in paragraphs 55 to 70.

The Pattern of Racketeering Activig

55. The pattern of racketeering activity, as that term is de?ned in Sections 1961(1) and

1961(5) of Title 18, United States Code, consisted of the following acts:

(continued on following page)

37

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 38 of 102

Racketeering Act #1
(The Energy Broker Kickback Scheme Town of Randolph}

56. Defendant Brian Augustine Joyce committed the following acts, any one of which
alone constitutes the commission of Racketeering Act 

On or about October 27, 2011, in the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere,
the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, having devised and intending to devise a scheme
and arti?ce to defraud the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Senate District, and its citizens
of the right to defendant Joyce?s honest services as a Massachusetts State Senator, knowingly did
cause to be placed in post of?ces and authorized depositories for mail matter any matter and thing
whatever to be sent and delivered by the Postal Service, did cause to be deposited any matter and
thing whatever to be sent and delivered by any private and commercial interstate carrier, and did
cause to take and receive therefrom any such matter and thing, namely, a check from the Energy
Broker Company (NY) that was mailed to defendant Joyce (MA) that included approximately
$298.67 in Randolph energy commissions, for the purpose of executing and attempting to execute
this scheme and arti?ce to defraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341,
1346, and 2.

#1 B. From in or about early 201 1 through 2014, in the District of Massachusetts and
elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did obstruct, delay, and affect interstate
commerce and the movement of any article and commodity in interstate commerce, and attempt
so to do, by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by agreeing to obtain and obtaining a
stream of payments from the Energy Broker Company, with its consent, in exchange for defendant
Joyce?s of?cial action, which included using his of?cial position to exert pressure on the Randolph

Town Manager to perform an of?cial act, and using his of?cial position to advise the Randolph

38

Case 1:17-cr-10378-NMG Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 39 of 102

Town Manager, intending that such advice would form the basis for an official act by the Randolph
Town Manager, which official acts included the appointment of the Energy Broker Company as
the exclusive energy consultant for the Town of Randolph, and the Town of Randolph's approval
of an energy contract that was brokered by the Energy Broker Company, as specific opportunities
arose, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

#1C.

From in or about early 2011 through 2014, in the District of Massachusetts and

elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did conspire to obstruct, delay, and
affect interstate commerce and the movement ofany article and commodity in interstate commerce
by extortion under color of official right - that is, by agreeing to obtain a stream of payments from

the Energy Broker Company, with its consent, in exchange for defendant Joyce's official action,
which included using his official position to exert pressure on the Randolph Town Manager to

perform an official act, and using his official position to advise the Randolph Town Manager,
intending that such advice would form the basis for an official act by the Randolph Town Manager,
which official acts included the appointment of the Energy Broker Company as the exclusive

energy consultant for the Town of Randolph, and the Town of Randolph's approval of an energy
contract that was brokered by the Energy Broker Company, as specific opportunities arose, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).

39

 Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 40 of 102

Racketeering Act #2
(The Energy Broker Kickback Scheme Town of Randolph-Renewal)

57. Defendant Brian Augustine Joyce committed the following acts, any one of which
alone constitutes the commission of Racketeering Act 

On or about May S, 2014, in the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere, the
defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, having devised and intending to devise a scheme and
arti?ce to defraud the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Senate District, and its citizens of the
right to defendant Joyce?s honest services as a Massachusetts State Senator, knowingly transmitted
and caused to be transmitted in interstate and foreign commerce by means of wire, radio, and
television communication certain writings, signals, pictures, and sounds, namely, a wire payment
from the Energy Broker Company (NY) to defendant Joyce (MA) that included approximately
$2,757.62 in Randolph energy commissions, for the purpose of executing this scheme and arti?ce
to de?'aud, in Violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 1346, and 2.

#23. From in or about April 2014 through February 2016, in the District of
Massachusetts and elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did obstruct, delay,
and affect interstate commerce and the movement of any article and commodity in interstate
commerce, and attempt so to do, by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by agreeing to
obtain and obtaining a stream of payments from the Energy Broker Company, with its consent, in
exchange for defendant Joyce?s of?cial action, which included using his of?cial position to exert
pressure on the Randolph Town Manager to perform an of?cial act, and using his of?cial position
to advise the Randolph Town Manager, intending that such advice would form the basis for an
of?cial act by the Randolph Town Manager, which of?cial acts included the re-appointment of the

Energy Broker Company as the exclusive energy consultant for the Town of Randolph, and the

40

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 41 of 102

Town of Randolph?s renewal of an energy contract that was brokered by the Energy Broker
Company, as speci?c opportunities arose, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections
1951(a) and 2.

From in or about April 2014 through February 2016, in the District of
Massachusetts and elsewhere, the defendant, BRLAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did conspire to
obstruct, delay, and affect interstate commerce and the movement of any article and commodity
in interstate commerce by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by agreeing to obtain a
stream of payments from the Energy Broker Company, with its consent, in exchange for defendant
Joyce?s official action, which included usinghis of?cial position to exert pressure on the Randolph
Town Manager to perform an of?cial act, and using his of?cial position to advise the Randolph
Town Manager, intending that such advice would form the basis for an of?cial act by the Randolph
Town Manager, which of?cial acts included the re?appointment of the Energy Broker Company
as the exclusive energy consultant for the Town of Randolph, and the Town of Randolph?s renewal
of an energy contract that was brokered by the Energy Broker Company, as specific opportunities

arose, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).

41

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 42 of 102

Racketeering Act #3
(The Energy Broker Kickback Scheme Town of Easton)

58. Defendant Brian Augustine Joyce committed the following acts, any one of which
alone constitutes the commission of Racketeering Act 

On or about July 2, 2014, in the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere, the
defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, having devised and intending to devise a scheme and
arti?ce to defraud the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Senate District, and its citizens of the
right to defendant Joyce?s honest services as a Massachusetts State Senator, knowingly did cause
to be placed in post of?ces and authorized depositories for mail matter any matter and thing
whatever to be sent and delivered by the Postal Service, did cause to be deposited any matter and
thing to be sent and delivered by any private and commercial interstate carrier, and did cause to
take and receive therefrom any such matter and thing, namely, a check from the Energy Broker
Company (N Y) that was mailed to defendant Joyce (MA) that included approximately $3,309.42
in Easton energy commissions, for the purpose of executing and attempting to execute this scheme
and arti?ce to defraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341, 1346, and 2.

From in or about AugUst 2013 through January 2016, in the District of
Massachusetts and elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did obstruct, delay, A
and affect interstate commerce and the movement of any article and commodity in interstate
commerce, and attempt so to do, by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by agreeing to
obtain and obtaining a stream of payments from the Energy Broker Company, with its consent, in
exchange for defendant Joyce?s of?cial action, which included using his of?cial position to exert
pressure on the Easton Town Administrator to perform an of?cial act, and using his of?cial

position to advise the Easton Town Administrator, intending that such advice would form the basis

42

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 43 of 102

for an of?cial act by the Easton Town Administrator, which of?cial acts included the appointment
of the Energy Broker Company as the exclusive energy consultant for the Town of Easton, and the
Town of Easton?s approval of an energy contract that was brokered by the Energy Broker
Company, as speci?c opportunities arose, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections
1951(a) and 2.

From in or about August 2013 through January 2016, in the District of
Massachusetts and elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did conspire to
obstruct, delay, and affect interstate commerce and the movement of any article and commodity
in interstate commerce by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by agreeing to obtain a
stream of payments from the Energy Broker Company, with its consent, in exchange for defendant
Joyce?s of?cial action, which included using his of?cial position to exert pressure on the Easton
Town Administrator to perform an of?cial act, and using his of?cial position to advise the Easton
Town Administrator, intending that such advice would form the basis for an of?cial act by the
Easton Town Administrator, which of?cial acts included the appointment of the Energy Broker
Company as the exclusive energy consultant for the Town of Easton,? and the Town of Easton?s
approval of an energy contract that was brokered by the Energy Broker Company, as speci?c

opportunities arose, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).

43

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 44 of 102

Racketeering Act #4
(The Energy Broker Kickback Scheme Town of East Bridgewater]

59. Defendant Brian Augustine Joyce committed the following acts, any one of which
alone constitutes the commission of Racketeering Act 

On or about September 19, 2014, in the District of Massachusetts and
elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, having devised and intending to devise
a scheme and arti?ce to defraud the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Senate District, and its
citizens of the right to defendant Joyce?s honest services as a Massachusetts State Senator,
knowingly did cause to be placed in post of?ces and authorized depositories for mail matter any
matter and thing whatever to be sent and delivered by the Postal Service, did cause to be deposited
any matter and thing whatever to be sent and delivered by any private and commercial interstate
carrier, and did cause to take and receive therefrom any such matter and thing, namely, a check
from the Energy Broker Company (NY) that was mailed to defendant Joyce (MA) that included
approximately $4,473.93 in East Bridgewater energy commissions, for the purpose of executing
and attempting to execute this scheme and arti?ce to defraud, in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 1341, 1346, and 2.

From in or about February 2014 through January 2016, in the District of
Massachusetts and elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did obstruct, delay,
and affect interstate commerce and the movement of any article and commodity in interstate
commerce, and attempt so to do, by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by agreeing to
obtain and obtaining a stream of payments ?om the Energy Broker Company, with its consent, in
exchange for defendant Joyce?s of?cial action, which included using his of?cial position to exert

pressure on the East Bridgewater Town Administrator to perform an of?cial act, and using his

44

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 45 of 102

of?cial position to advise the East Bridgewater Town Administrator, intending that such advice
would form the basis for an of?cial act by the East Bridgewater Town Administrator, which
of?cial acts included the appointment of the Energy Broker Company as the energy Consultant for
the Town of East Bridgewater, and the Town of East Bridgewater?s approval of an energy contract
that was brokered by the Energy Broker Company, as speci?c opportunities arose, in violation of
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

From in or about February 2014 through January 2016, in the District of
Massachusetts and elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did conspire to
obstruct, delay, and affect interstate commerce and the movement of any article and commodity
in interstate commerce by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by agreeing to obtain a
stream of payments ?'om the Energy Broker Company, with its consent, in exchange for defendant
Joyce?s of?cial action, which included using his of?cial position to exert pressure on the East
Bridgewater Town Administrator to perform an of?cial act, and using his of?cial position to advise A
the East Bridgewater Town Administrator, intending that such advice would form the basis for an
of?cial act by the East Bridgewater Town Administrator, which of?cial acts included the
appointment of the Energy Broker Company as the energy consultant for the Town of East
Bridgewater, and the Town of East Bridgewater?s approval of an energy contract that was brokered
by the Energy Broker Company, as speci?c opportunities arose, in violation of Title 18, United

States Code, Section 1951(a).

45

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 46 of 102

Racketeering Act #5
(The Energy Broker Kickback Scheme Town of Holbrook)

60. Defendant Brian Augustine Joyce committed the following acts, any one of which
alone constitutes the commission of Racketeering Act 

On or about November 25, 20.14, in the District of Massachusetts and
elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, having devised and intending to devise
a scheme and arti?ce to de?aud the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its citizens of the right
to defendant Joyce?s honest services as a Massachusetts State Senator, knowingly did cause to be
placed in post of?ces and authorized depositories for mail matter any matter and thing whatever
to be sent and delivered by the Postal Service, did cause to be deposited any matter and thing
whatever to be sent and delivered by any private and commercial interstate carrier, and did cause
to take and receive therefrom any such matter and thing, namely, a check from the Energy Broker
Company (NY) that was mailed to defendant Joyce (MA) that included approximately $1,531.53
in Holbrook energy commissions, for the purpose of executing and attempting to execute this
scheme and arti?ce to defraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341, 1346,
and 2.

From in or about August 2014 through January 2016, in the District of
Massachusetts and elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did obstruct, delay,
and affect interstate commerce and the movement of any article and commodity in interstate
commerce, and attempt so to do, by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by agreeing to
obtain and obtaining a stream of payments from the Energy Broker Company, with its consent, in
exchange for defendant Joyce?s of?cial action, which included using his of?cial position to exert

pressure on the Holbrook Town Administrator to perform an of?cial act, and using his of?cial

46

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 47 of 102

position to advise the Holbrook Town Administrator, intending that such advice would form the
basis for an of?cial act by the Holbrook Town Administrator, which of?cial acts included the
appointment of the Energy Broker Company as the exclusive energy consultant for the Town of
Holbrook, and the Town of Holbrook?s approval of an energy contract that was brokered by the
Energy Broker Company, as speci?c opportunities arose, in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

From in or about August 2014 through January 2016, in the District of
Massachusetts and elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did conspire to
obstruct, delay, and affect interstate commerce and the movement of any article and commodity
in interstate commerce by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by agreeing to obtain a
stream of payments from the Energy Broker Company, with its consent, in exchange for defendant
Joyce?s of?cial action, which included using his of?cial position to exert pressure on the Holbrook
Town Administrator to perform an of?cial act, and using his of?cial position to advise the
Holbrook Town Administrator, intending that such advice would form the basis for an of?cial act
by the Holbrook Town Administrator, which of?cial acts included the appointment of the Energy
Broker Company as the exclusive energy consultant for the Town of Holbrook, and the Town of
Holbrook?s approval of an energy contract that was brokered by the Energy Broker Company, as

speci?c opportunities arose, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).

47

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 48 of 102

Racketeering Act #6
{The Energy Broker Kickback Scheme Town of Southbridgel

61. A Defendant Brian Augustine Joyce committed the following acts, any one of which
alone constitutes the commission of Racketeering Act 

On or about June 15, 2015, in the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere, the
defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, having devised and intending to devise a scheme and
arti?ce to defraud the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its citizens of the right to defendant
Joyce?s honest services as a Massachusetts State Senator, knowingly did cause to be placed in post
of?ces and authorized depositories for mail matter any matter and thing whatever to be sent and
delivered by the Postal Service, did cause to be deposited any matter and thing whatever to be sent
and delivered by any private and commercial interstate carrier, and did cause to take and receive
therefrom any such matter and thing, namely, a check from the Energy Broker Company (NY) that
was mailed to defendant Joyce (MA) that included approximately $664.36 in Southbridge energy
commissions, for the purpose of executing and attempting to execute this scheme and arti?ce to
de?aud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341, 1346, and 2.

From in or about February through June 2015, in the District of Massachusetts
and elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did obstruct, delay, and affect
interstate commerce and the movement of any article and commodity in interstate commerce, and
attempt so to do, by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by agreeing to obtain and
obtaining a stream of payments from the Energy Broker Company, with its consent, in exchange
for defendant Joyce?s of?cial action, which included using his of?cial position to exert pressure
on the Southbridge Town Manager to perform an of?cial act, and using his of?cial position to

advise the Southbridge Town Manager, intending that such advice would form the basis for an

48

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 49 of 102

of?cial act by the Southbridge Town Manager, which of?cial acts included the appointment of the
Energy Broker Company as the exclusive energy consultant for the Town of Southbridge, and the
Town of Southbridge?s approval of an energy contract that was brokered by the Energy Broker
Company, as speci?c opportunities arose, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections
1951(a) and 2.

From in or about February through June 2015, in the District of Massachusetts
and elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did conspire to obstruct, delay, and
affect interstate commerce and the movement of any article and commodity in interstate commerce
by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by agreeing to obtain a stream of payments from
the Energy Broker Company, with its consent, in exchange for defendant Joyce?s of?cial action,
which included using his of?cial position to exert pressure on the Southbridge Town Manager to
perform an of?cial act, and using his of?cial position to advise the Southbridge Town Manager,
intending that such advice would form the basis for an of?cial act by the Southbridge Town
Manager, which of?cial acts included the appointment of the Energy Broker Company as the
exclusive energy consultant for the Town of Southbridge, and the Town of Southbridge?s approval
of an energy contract that was brokered by the Energy Broker Company, as speci?c opportunities

arose, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).

49

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 50 of 102

Racketeering Act #7
{The Energy Broker Kickback Scheme Easton College Solar Panel Proiect)

62. Defendant Brian Augustine Joyce committed the following acts, any one of which
alone constitutes the commission of Racketeering Act 

On or about October 31, 2014, in the District of Massachusetts and
elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, having devised and intending to devise
a scheme and arti?ce to defraud the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Senate District, and its
citizens of the right to defendant Joyce?s honest services as a Massachusetts State Senator,
knowingly transmitted and caused to be transmitted in interstate and foreign commerce by means
of wire, radio, and television communication certain writings, signals, pictures, and sounds,
namely, a wire payment from the Energy Broker Company (NY) to defendant Joyce (MA) that
included approximately $89,157 in Easton College Solar Panel Project energy commissions, for
the purpose of executing this scheme and arti?ce to defraud, in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 1343, 1346, and 2.

From at least as early as in or about March 2012 through January 2016, in the
District of Massachusetts and elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did
obstruct, delay, and affect interstate commerce and the movement of any article and commodity
in interstate commerce, and attempt so to do, by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by
agreeing to obtain and obtaining a stream of payments from the Energy Broker Company, with its
consent, in exchange for defendant Joyce?s of?cial action, which included ?ling Senate Bill
number 1599 and an amendment to Senate Bill number 2200, using his of?cial position to exert
pressure on of?cials at the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) to perform an

of?cial act, and using his of?cial position to advise DPU of?cials, intending that such advice

50

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 51 of 102

would form the basis for an of?cial act by of?cials at the DPU, which of?cial acts included the
DPU taking no adverse action against the Easton College Solar Panel Project and the DPU
declining to issue an adverse advisory ruling pertaining to the Easton College Solar Panel Project,
as speci?c opportunities arose, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and
2.

From at least as early as in or about March 2012 through January 2016, in the
District of Massachusetts and elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did
conspire to obstruct, delay, and affect interstate commerce and the movement of any article and
commodity in interstate commerce by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by agreeing
to obtain a stream of payments from the Energy Broker Company, with its consent, in exchange
for defendant Joyce?s of?cial action, which included ?ling Senate Bill number 1599 and an
amendment to Senate Bill number 2200, using his of?cial position to exert pressure on of?cials at
the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) to perform an of?cial act, and using his
of?cial position to advise DPU of?cials, intending that such advice would form the basis for an
of?cial act by of?cials at the DPU, which of?cial acts included the DPU taking no adverse action
against the Easton College Solar Panel Project and the DPU declining to issue an adverse advisory
ruling pertaining to the Easton College Solar Panel Project, as speci?c opportunities arose, in

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).

51

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 52 of 102

Racketeering Acts #8-#10
(The Energy Broker Kickback Scheme Money Laundering)

63. On or about the dates set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts and
elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, knowing that the property involved in
?nancial transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, and knowing
that the transactions were designed in whole and in part to conceal and disguise the nature, the
location, the source, the ownership, and the control of the proceeds of speci?ed unlawful activity,
that is, extortion contrary to 18 U.S.C. 1951(a) and wire fraud contrary to 18 U.S.C. 1343,
conducted and attempted to conduct ?nancial transactions which in fact involved the proceeds of

such speci?ed unlawful activity, as set forth below:

 

 

RACKETEERING Transaction Approximate
ACT (Energy Broker Company EBC) Dates
8 Electronic transmittal of funds 5/5/2014

including $2,757.62 in Randolph
energy commissions from BBC, from
Windswept?s bank account to
bank account

9 Electronic transmittal of funds 2/4/2015
including $10,000 in Easton College
Solar Panel Project energy
commissions from BBC, from
Windswept?s bank account to
bank account

 

 

10A Electronic transmittal of $39,671 in 11/24/2014
Easton College Solar Panel Project
energy commissions from BBC, from

Windswept?s bank account to
bank account

 

 

 

 

 

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and 2.

52

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 53 of 102

64. In or about November 2011, in the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere, the
defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, knowingly engaged in and attempted to engage in a
monetary transaction affecting interstate commerce as set forth below in criminally derived
property that was of a value of greater than $10,000, said property having been derived from
speci?ed unlawful activity, that is, the proceeds of extortion contrary to 18 U.S.C. 1951(a) and

wire fraud contrary to 18 U.S.C. 1343, as follows:

 

 

RACKETEERING APPX. DESCRIPTION OF WIRE
ACT DATE TRANSMISSION
10B 11/24/2014 Electronic transmittal of $39,671

in Easton College Solar Panel
Project energy commissions from
BBC, from Windswept?s bank
account to the BAJ PC bank account

 

 

 

 

 

Allin violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957(a) and 2.
The commission of either Racketeering Act or Racketeering Act constitutes

the commission of Racketeering Act #10.

53

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 54 of 102

Racketeering Act #11
(The Developer Kickback Scheme)

65. Defendant Brian Augustine Joyce committed the following acts, any one of which
alone constitutes the commission of Racketeering Act #11:

On or about the dates set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts and
elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, having devised and intending to devise
a scheme and arti?ce to defraud the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Senate District, and its
citizens of the right to defendant Joyce?s honest services as a Massachusetts State Senator,
knowingly transmitted and caused to be transmitted in interstate and foreign commerce by means
of wire, radio, and television communications certain writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds,

for the purpose of executing this scheme and arti?ce to defraud, as set forth below:

 

 

RACKETEERING APPX. DESCRIPTION OF WIRE
ACT DATE TRANSMISSION
llA-l 10/ 15/2012 Defendant Joyce email to

Developer telling Developer ?We
would make money even if four
lots.? (MA-Interstate computer
server transmission)

11A-2 4/15/2013 Defendant Joyce email to Flaming
Board Chair telling Chair that
MWC project ?falls apart? if waiver
not approved. (MA-Interstate
computer server transmission)
11A-3 4/18/2013 Defendant Joyce email to Planning
Board Chair asking Chair whether
Board would ?waive the 50?
requirement.? (MA-Interstate
computer server transmission)
11A-4 8/7/2013 Defendant Joyce email to
Developer telling Developer he
?can set up meeting [with Chair]
upon [his] return.? (MA-Interstate 
computer server transmission)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 55 of 102

 

 

RACKETEERING APPX. DESCRIPTION OF WIRE
ACT DATE TRANSMISSION
11A-5 9/27/2013 Defendant Joyce email to

Developer to coordinate
concealment to reporter, was
asked to help by women?s club
members and wouldn?t take any
fee.? (MA-Interstate computer
server transmission)

11A-6 10/9/2013 Defendant Joyce email to
Developer advising Developer to
?[ask] for a continuance? of the
Planning Board meeting. (MA-
Interstate server transmission)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Allin violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346, and 2.

From in or about October 2012 through 2014, in the District of Massachusetts
and elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did obstruct, delay, and affect
interstate commerce and the movement of any article and commodity in interstate commerce, and
attempt so to do, by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by agreeing to obtain and
obtaining money from the Developer, with the Developer?s consent, in exchange for defendant
Joyce?s of?cial action, which included using his of?cial position to exert pressure on other of?cials
to perform an of?cial act, and using his of?cial position to advise other of?cials, intending that
such advice would form the basis for an of?cial act by the other of?cial, as speci?c opportunities

arose, as set forth below:

55

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 56 of 102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RACKETEERING Of?cia1(s) Advised Of?cial Act(s) to be Approximate
ACT by Defendant Joyce Obtained for the Dates
Developer

11B Milton Plarming Vote in favor of waiver April 2013 to
Board Chair; for Milton Women?s January 2014

Milton Planning Club development;

Board member Planning Board
approval of waiver

 

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

#1 1C. From in or about October 2012 through 2014, in the District of Massachusetts
and elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did conspire to obstruct, delay, and
affect interstate commerce and the movement of any article and commodity in interstate commerce
by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by agreeing to obtain money from the Developer,
with the Developer?s consent, in exchange for defendant Joyce?s of?cial action, which included
using his of?cial position to exert pressure on other of?cials to perform an of?cial act, and using

his of?cial position to advise other of?cials, intending that such advice would form the basis for

an of?cial act by the other of?cial, as speci?c opportunities arose, as set forth below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

RACKETEERING Of?cial(s) Advised Of?cial Act(s) to be Approximate
ACT by Defendant Joyce Obtained for the Dates
Developer

11C Milton Flaming Vote in favor of waiver April 2013 to
Board Chair; for Milton Women?s January 2014

Milton Planning Club development;

Board member Planning Board
approval of waiver

 

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 57 of 102

Racketeering Act #12
(The Developer Kickback Scheme Money Laundering)

66. Defendant Brian Augustine Joyce committed the following acts, any one of which
alone constitutes the commission of Racketeering Act #12:

On or about the dates set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere, the
defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, knowing that the property involved in ?nancial
transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlaw?il activity, and knowing that the
transactions were designed in whole and in part to conceal and disguise the nature, the location,
the source, the ownership, and the control of proceeds of speci?ed unlawful activity, that is,
extortion contrary to 18 U.S.C. 1951(a) and wire fraud contrary to 18 U.S.C. 1343, conducted
and attempted to conduct ?nancial transactions, which in fact involved the proceeds of such

speci?ed unlawful activity, as set forth below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

RACKETEERIN Transaction Approximate
ACT Dates

12A Defendant Joyce bank deposit of 1/16/2014
$20,500 check from Developer

12B Developer bank deposit of $15,000 1/27/2014
check from defendant Joyce

12C Developer bank deposit of $5,000 2/4/2014
check from defendant Joyce

12D Developer bank deposit of $4,500 2/18/2014
check from defendant Joyce

 

 

 

 

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and 2.

57

Case Documents Filed 12/07/17 Page 58 of 102

Racketeering Act #13
(The Energy Insurance Brokerage Commv Bribery Scheme)

67. Defendant Brian Augustine Joyce committed the following acts, any one of which

 

 

alone constitutes the commission of Racketeering Act #13:

On or about the dates set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts and
elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, having devised and intending to devise
a scheme and arti?ce to defraud the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Senate District, and its
citizens of the right to defendant Joyce?s honest services as a Massachusetts State Senator,
knowingly transmitted and caused to be transmitted in interstate and foreign commerce by means
of wire, radio, and television communications certain writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds,

for the purpose of executing this scheme and arti?ce to defraud, as set forth below:

 

 

RACKETEERING APPX. DESCRIPTION OF WIRE
ACT DATE TRANSMISSION
13A-l 12/30/2011 Defendant Joyce email to EIB CEO

agreeing to $5000 
payment. (MA?Interstate computer
server transmission)
13A-2 7/11/2012 Defendant Joyce email to EIB CEO
on Mass Development bond
offering. (MA-Interstate computer
server transmission)
13A-3 7/13/2012 EIB CEO relative email to
defendant Joyce and EIB CEO with
PACE insurance language to
include in bill. (MA-Interstate
computer server transmission)
13A-4 7/11/2013 Defendant Joyce email to EIB CEO
stating that defendant Joyce
?con?rmed with the
[Cormnissioner] that we have
already satisfactorily addressed the
issues raised in [Ins. Co. A?s] letter
to him.? (MA-Interstate computer
server transmission)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

58

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 59 of 102

 

 

RACKETEERING APPX. DESCRIPTION 
ACT DATE TRANSMISSION
13A-5 7/26/2013 Defendant Joyce email to EIB CEO

describing meeting with Majority
Leader and agreeing to push PACE
bill. (MA-Interstate computer
server transmission)

13A-6 3/30/2015 Defendant Joyce email to EIB
CEO, ?Suggest you not return call
please,? regarding reporter. (MA-
Interstate computer server
transmission)

 

 

 

 

 

 

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 1346, and 2.

On or about the dates set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts, and
elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, having devised and intending to devise
a scheme and arti?ce to defraud the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Senate District, and its
citizens of the right to defendant Joyce?s honest services as a Massachusetts State Senator,
knowingly did cause to be placed in post of?ces and authorized depositories for mail matter any
matter and thing whatever to be sent and delivered by the Postal Service, did cause to be deposited
any matter and thing whatever to be sent and delivered by any private and commercial interstate
carrier, and did cause to take and receive any such matter and thing therefrom, for the purpose of

executing and attempting to execute said scheme and arti?ce to defraud, as set forth below:

59

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 60 of 102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RACKETEERING APPX. DESCRIPTION OF MAILING IN

ACT DATE FURTHERANCE OF SCHEME

1/ 17/2012 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
2/7/2012 $5 ,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-3 3/6/2012 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-4 4/10/2012 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-5 5/8/2012 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-6 6/5/2012 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-7 7/10/2012 $5 ,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-8 8/7/2012 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
9/18/2012 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-10 10/9/2012 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-11 11/6/2012 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-12 12/ 18/2012 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-13 1/8/2013 $5,000 check ?om EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-14 2/5/2013 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-15 3/ 19/2013 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
4/9/2013 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-17 5/7/2013 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-18 7/9/2013 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-19 7/ 16/2013 $5,000 check ?'om EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
8/13/2013 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-21 9/10/2013 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
10/8/2013 $5 ,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-23 11/5/2013 $5 ,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-24 1/23/2014 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
2/12/2014 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-26 2/ 19/2014 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-27 3/ 17/2014 $5 ,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-28 4/18/2014 $5 ,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-29 5/7/2014 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-30 6/9/2014 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-31 7/22/2014 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-32 8/13/2014 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-33 9/ 17/2014 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-34 10/8/2014 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-35 11/10/2014 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-36 12/ 16/2014 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-37 1/ 14/2015 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
13B-38 2/11/2015 $5 ,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce
l3B?39 4/ 14/2015 $5 ,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce

 

 

 

6O

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 61 of 102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RACKETEERING APPX. DESCRIPTION OF MAILING IN

ACT DATE FURTHERANCE OF SCHEME

13B-40 5/13/2015 $10,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant
Joyce

13B-41 6/8/2015 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce

13B-42 7/8/2015 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce

13B-43 8/19/2015 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce

13B-44 9/9/2015 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce

13B-45 10/28/2015 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce

13B-46 12/ 16/2015 $5,000 check ?'om EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce

13B-47 1/21/2016 $5,000 check from EIB Co. to Defendant Joyce

13B-48 12/9/2014 Defendant Joyce Fed-ex of checks to purchase
40,000 shares of EIB Common Stock

13B-49 1/6/2016 BAJPC $5,000 invoice mailed to Energy
Insurance Brokerage Company

13B-50 1/27/2016 Defendant Joyce?s letter sent to Ethics
Commission, via his attorney, claiming that
because his PACE bills did not contain an
insurance provision, he ?did not believe that his
bill 177; SB. 1774], either directly or
indirectly, could reasonably be viewed as
bene?tting Company]?; and claiming that
Joyce?s dealings with the DOI on June 3, 2013
were ministerial.

 

Allin violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341, 1346, and 2.

From at least as early as in or about January 2010 through January 2016, in the
District of Massachusetts and elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did
obstruct, delay, and affect interstate commerce and the movement of any article and commodity
in interstate commerce, and attempt so to do, by extortion under color of of?cial right that is,
by agreeing to obtain and obtaining a stream of money and property from the Energy Insurance
Brokerage Company, with its consent, in exchange for defendant Joyce?s of?cial action, which
included using his of?cial position to exert pressure on other of?cials to perform an of?cial act,

and using his of?cial position to advise other of?cials, intending that such advice would form the

61

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 62 of 102

basis for an of?cial act by the other of?cial, as speci?c opportunities arose, as set forth below:

 

 

 

 

 

from EIB Co. to defendant
Joyce?s relative for summer
internship at 

- $5,000
payments from EIB Co. to
BAJPC, totaling

RACKETEERING APPX. OFFICIAL 
ACT DATES OBTAINED BY
DEFENDANT JOYCE
13C 1/2010 to - Legal fees paid to DOI taking no adverse
1/2016 Joyce Law Of?ce; action against EIB Co.
- $2,796 in payments oil dealer insurance

product; DOI taking no
adverse actiOn regarding
Ins. Co. A complaint;
DOI issuance of MGA
certi?cation letter

approximately $240,000; Sponsor, ?le, amend,
- 65,000 shares of EIB and vote on PACE
Co. Stock legislation

 

 

A11 in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

 

From at least as early as in or about January 2010 through January 2016, in
the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did
conspire to obstruct, delay, and affect interstate commerce and the movement of any article and
commodity in interstate commerce by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by agreeing
to obtain a stream of money and property from the Energy Insurance Brokerage Company, with
its consent, in exchange for defendant Joyce?s of?cial action, which included using his of?cial
position to exert pressure on other of?cials to perform an of?cial act, and using his of?cial
position to advise other of?cials, intending that such advice would form the basis for an of?cial

act by the other of?cial, as speci?c opportunities arose, as set forth below:

62

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 63 of 102

 

 

 

 

 

from EIB Co. to defendant
Joyce?s relative for summer
internship at 

- $5,000
payments from EIB Co. to
BAJPC, totaling
approximately $240,000;

- 65,000 shares of EIB
Co. Stock

 

RACKETEERING APPX. OFFICIAL 
ACT DATES OBTAINED BY
DEFENDANT JOYCE .
13D 1/2010 to - Legal fees paid to DOI taking no adverse
1/2016 Joyce Law Of?ce; action against EIB Co.
- $2,796 in payments oil dealer insurance

product; DOI taking no
adverse action regarding
Ins. Co. A complaint;
DOI issuance of MGA
certi?cation letter

Sponsor, ?le, amend,
and vote on PACE
legislation

 

Allin violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).

On or about the dates set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts, and

elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, a state employee, did directly and

indirectly corruptly ask, demand, exact, solicit, seek, accept, receive, and agree to receive

anything of value for himself in return for being in?uenced in his performance of any of?cial act

and any act within his of?cial responsibility, as set forth below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RACKETEERING APPX. THING OF VALUE OFFICIAL ACT OR
ACT DATES ACT WITHIN 
OFFICIAL .
RESPONSIBILITY
13E-1 6/2011- $2,796 in payments from Sponsor, ?le, amend,
8/2011 EIBC to defendant Joyce?s and vote on PACE
relative for summer legislation
internship at EIBC
13E-2 1/2012- $5,000 payments Sponsor, ?le, amend,
1/2016 from EIBC to BAJ PC and vote on PACE
totaling approximately legislation
$240,000

 

63

 

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 64 of 102

 

THING OF VALUE

 

 

 

 

 

RACKETEERING APPX. OFFICIAL ACT OR
ACT DATES ACT WITHIN
OFFICIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
13E-3 8/2014- 65,000 shares of EIB Stock Sponsor, ?le, amend,
12/2014 and vote on PACE
legislation

 

All in violation of Massachusetts General Laws, ?Chapter 268A, Section 

On or about the dates set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts, and
elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, a state employee, did knowingly,
otherwise as provided by law for the proper discharge of of?cial duty, directly and indirectly, ask,
demand, exact, solicit, seek, accept, receive, and agree to receive anything of substantial value for 

himself for and because of any of?cial act and act within his of?cial responsibility performed and

to be performed by him, as set forth below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RACKETEERING APPX. THING OF VALUE OFFICIAL ACT OR
ACT DATES ACT WITHIN
OFFICIAL .
RESPONSIBILITY
l3F-l 6/2011? $2,796 in payments from Sponsor, ?le, amend,
8/2011 EIBC to defendant Joyce?s and vote on PACE
relative for summer legislation
internshiLat EIB Co.
1/2012- $5,000 payments Sponsor, ?le, amend,
1/2016 ?om EIB Co. to BAJPC and vote on PACE
totaling approximately legislation
$240,000
13F -3 8/2014- 65,000 shares of EIB Co. Sponsor, ?le, amend,
12/2014 Stock and vote on PACE
legislation

 

All in violation of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 268A, Section 

64

 

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 65 of 102

Racketeering Act #14
(The EIB Common Stock IRS Wire Fraud Scheme)

68. On or about the date set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts, and
elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, having devised and intending to devise
a scheme and arti?ce to defraud the Internal Revenue Service, and for obtaining money and
property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises,
knowingly transmitted and caused to be transmitted in interstate commerce by means of wire,
radio, television communications certain writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds for the

purpose of executing such scheme and arti?ce to defraud, as set forth below:

 

 

RACKETEERING APPX. DESCRIPTION OF WIRE IN
ACT DATE FURTHERANCE OF SCHEME
14 9/8/2015 Electronically ?led U.S. Individual Income Tax

Return, Form 1040 for himself and his spouse
for tax year 2014, falsely reporting early
withdrawals from defendant Joyce?s and his
spouse?s SEP-IRAs as qualifying tax-exempt
rollovers in the amount of $427,629, and falsely
reporting a SEP-IRA deductible contribution of
$80,502, of which $76,125 consisted of
defendant Joyce?s purchase of EIB Common
Stock with home equity line of credit funds

 

 

 

 

 

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.

65

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 66 of 102

Racketeering Act #15
{The Coffee Franchise Bribery Scheme)

69. Defendant Brian Augustine Joyce committed the following acts, any one of which
alone constitutes the commission of Racketeering Act #15:

On or about the dates set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts and
elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, having devised and intending to devise
a scheme and arti?ce to defraud the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Senate District, and its
citizens of the right to defendant Joyce?s honest services as a Massachusetts State Senator,
knowingly did cause to be placed in post of?ces and authorized depositories for mail matter
any matter and thing whatever to be sent and delivered by the Postal Service, did cause to be
deposited any matter and thing whatever to be sent and delivered by any private and commercial
interstate carrier, and did cause to take and receive therefrom for the purpose of executing and
attempting to execute this scheme and arti?ce to defraud; and transmitted and caused to be
transmitted in interstate and foreign commerce by means of wire, radio, and television
communications certain writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, for the purpose of executing

this scheme and arti?ce to defraud, as set forth below:

 

 

RACKETEERING APPX. DESCRIPTION OF
ACT DATE IRE
TRANSMISSION
15A-1 12/ 17/2010 Defendant Joyce email to Franchise

Owner thanking Franchise Owner
for free coffee. (MA-Interstate
computer server transmission)
15A-2 12/ 16/2014 Defendant Joyce email to Franchise
Owner: ?Can I get coffee to
distribute at town halls again??
(MA-Interstate computer server
transmission)

 

 

 

 

 

 

66

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 67 of 102

 

 

RACKETEERING APPX. DESCRIPTION OF
ACT DATE IRE
TRANSMISSION
1.5A-3 12/17/2014 Defendant Joyce email to Franchise

Owner: ?No decaf. Usually I
bring around 200 bags to various
town halls, maybe fewer. We like
cups at my of?ce if possible.?
(MA-Interstate computer server
transmission)

ISA-4 1/5/2015 Defendant Joyce email to Franchise
Owner: am attending the
Massachusetts Municipal
Association convention in a week.
I would like to bring 500 bags of
coffee, but I don?t want to further
burden you. Would it be possible
for me to obtain the coffee at cost??
(MA-Interstate computer server
transmission)

ISA-5 2/1/2015 Defendant Joyce phone call with
the Franchise Owner?s Relative
directing the Relative to create
backdated invoice for ?ee 2014
coffee. (AZ to MA interstate call)
15A-6 4/3/2015 Defendant Joyce mailed letter, via
his attorney, to the Boston Globe
referencing backdated invoice and
check for 2014 coffee.

15A-7 4/10/2015 Defendant Joyce email to the
Franchise Owner and Relative
creating false paper trail of 201 3
free coffee in exchange for legal
services. (MA-Interstate computer
server transmission)

ISA-8 2/5/2016 Defendant Joyce mailed letter, via
hisattorney, to the Ethics
Commission claiming that
defendant Joyce received coffee in
exchange for legal services in late
201 3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341, 1343, 1346 and 2.

67

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 68 of 102

From at least as early as in or about January 2010 through February 2016, in
the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did
obstruct, delay, and affect interstate commerce and the movement of any article and commodity
in interstate commerce, and attempt so to do, by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by
agreeing to obtain and obtaining a stream of money and property from the Franchise Owner, with
the Franchise Owner?s consent, in exchange for defendant Joyce?s of?cial action, which included
using his of?cial position to exert pressure on other of?cials to perform an of?cial act, and using

his of?cial position to advise other of?cials, intending that such advice would form the basis for

an of?cial act by the other of?cial, as speci?c opportunities arose, as set forth below:

 

 

 

 

 

Franchise Owner to defendant
Joyce;

- Free Coffee Franchise
coffee and other products
provided to defendant Joyce
on aregular basis;

- Solar energy
brokerage commissions for
solar panels on Franchise
Owner property

 

RACKETEERING APPX. OFFICIAL 
ACT DATES OBTAINED BY 
DEFENDANT JOYCE
15B 2010- - $125,089 in payments Sponsor, ?le, amend,
2016 from and on behalf of the and vote on Franchise

legislation and Tip
Pooling legislation

 

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

From at least as early as in or about January 2010 through February 2016, in
the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did

conspire to obstruct, delay, and affect interstate commerce and the movement of any article and

68

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 69 of 102

commodity in interstate commerce by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by agreeing
to obtain a stream of money and property from the Franchise Owner, with the Franchise Owner?s
consent, in exchange for defendant Joyce?s of?cial action, which included using his official
position to exert pressure on other of?cials to perform an official act, and using his of?cial position

to advise other of?cials, intending that such advice would form the basis for an of?cial act by the

other of?cial, as speci?c opportunities arose, as set forth below:

 

 

 

 

 

Franchise Owner to defendant
Joyce;

- Free Coffee Franchise
coffee and other products
provided to defendant Joyce
on a regular basis;

- Solar energy
brokerage commissions for
solar panels on Franchise
Owner property

 

RACKETEERING APPX. OFFICIAL 
ACT DATES OBTAINED BY 
DEFENDANT JOYCE
15C 2010- - $125,089 in payments Sponsor, ?le, amend,
2016 ?om and on behalf of the and vote on Franchise

legislation and Tip
Pooling legislation

 

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).

On or about the dates set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts, and
elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, a state employee, did directly and
indirectly corruptly ask, demand, exact, solicit, seek, accept, receive, and agree to receive anything

of value for himself in return for being in?uenced in his performance of any of?cial act and any

act within his of?cial responsibility, as set forth below:

69

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 70 of 102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RACKETEERING APPX. THING OF VALUE OFFICIAL ACT OR
ACT DATES ACT WITHIN
OFFICIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
15D-1 2010- $125,089 in payments from Sponsor, ?le, amend,
2013 and on behalf of the and vote on Franchise
Franchise Owner to legislation and Tip
defendant Joyce Pooling legislation
15D-2 2010- Free Coffee Franchise Sponsor, ?le, amend,
2015 coffee and other products and vote on Franchise
provided to defendant Joyce legislation and Tip
on a regular basis Pooling legislation
15 D-3 2014- Solar energy brokerage Sponsor, ?le, amend,
2015 commissions for solar and vote on Franchise
panels on Franchise Owner legislation and Tip
property Pooling legislation

 

All in violation of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 268A, Section 

 

On or about the dates set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts, and
elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, a state employee, did knowingly,
otherwise as provided by law for the proper discharge of of?cial duty, directly and indirectly, ask,
demand, exact, solicit, seek, accept, receive, and agree to receive anything of substantial value for

himself for and because of any of?cial act and act within his of?cial responsibility performed and

to be performed by him, as set forth below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RACKETEERING APPX. THING OF VALUE OFFICIAL ACT OR
ACT DATES ACT WITHIN
OFFICIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
15E-1 2010- $125,089 in payments from Sponsor, ?le, amend,
2013 and on behalf of the and vote on Franchise
Franchise Owner to legislation and Tip
defendant Joyce Pooling legislation
15E-2 2010? Free Coffee Franchise Sponsor, ?le, amend,
2015 coffee and other products and vote on Franchise
provided to defendant Joyce legislation and Tip
on a regular basis Pooling legislation

 

70

 

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 71 of 102

 

 

RACKETEERING APPX. THING OF VALUE OFFICIAL ACT OR
ACT DATES ACT WITHIN
OFFICIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
2014- Solar energy brokerage Sponsor, ?le, amend,
2015 coMissions for solar and vote on Franchise

 

 

panels on Franchise Owner
property

 

legislation and Tip
Pooling legislation

 

All in violation of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 268A, Section 

71

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 72 of 102

Racketeering Act #16
{The Philadelphia Solar Company Attempted Extortion)

70. From in or about April 2012 through May 2012, in the District of Massachusetts
and elsewhere, the defendant, BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE, did obstruct, delay, and affect
interstate commerce and the movement of any article and commodity in interstate commerce, and
attempt so to do, by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by attempting to obtain money
from the PA Solar Company, with the PA Solar Company?s consent, in exchange for defendant
Joyce?s of?cial action, which included using his of?cial position to exert pressure on other of?cials
to perform an of?cial act, and using his of?cial position to advise other of?cials, intending that
such advice would form the basis for an of?cial act by the other of?cial, as speci?c opportunities

arose, as set forth below:

 

 

 

RACKETEERING APPX. OFFICIAL ACT TO BE
ACT DATE ATTEMPTED TO BE PERFORMED
OBTAINED BY
DEFENDANT JOYCE
16 May At least approximately West Bridgewater
2012 $25,000 in purported legal of?cials? approval of
fees from the PA Solar permit applications by
Company to defendant PA Solar Company to
Joyce construct solar panel
facility

 

 

 

 

 

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

All in violation Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(0).

72

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 73 of 102

COUNTS TWO THROUGH SEVENTY-NINE
(Scheme to Defraud the Senate District and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its
Citizens of Defendant Joyce?s Honest Services - 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343, and 1346)

71. Paragraphs 1 to 51 of Count One of this Indictment are incorporated herein.

72. On or about the dates set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts, and
elsewhere, defendant

BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE,

having devised and intending to devise a scheme and arti?ce to defraud the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, the Senate District, and its citizens of the right to defendant Joyce?s honest services
as a Massachusetts State Senator, knowingly did cause to be placed in post of?ces and
authorized depositories for mail matter any matter and thing whatever to be sent and delivered by
the Postal Service, did cause to be deposited any matter and thing whatever to be sent and delivered
by private and commercial interstate carrier, and did cause to take and receive said matter and
things therefrom for the purpose of executing and attempting to execute such scheme and arti?ce
to defraud; and transmitted and caused to be transmitted in interstate and foreign commerce by

means of wire, radio, and television communications certain writings, signs, signals, pictures, and

sounds, for the purpose of executing such scheme and arti?ce to defraud, as set forth below:

 

COUNT Racketeering Act APPX. DESCRIPTION OF
(for reference) DATE IRE
TRANSMISSION

2 1A 10/27/2011 $298.97 in Randolph energy
commissions mailed via check
from the Energy Broker
Company. (NY) to defendant
Joyce (MA)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

73

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 74 of 102

 

COUNT 

Racketeering Act 
(for reference)

APPX.
DATE

DESCRIPTION OF
IRE
TRANSMISSION

 

2A

5/5/2014

$2,757.62 in Randolph energy

commissions wired from the

Energy Broker Company bank
account (NY) to Windswept?s
bank account (MA).

 

3A

7/2/2014

$3,309.42 in Easton energy
commissions mailed via check
from the Energy Broker
Company (NY) to defendant
Joyce (MA).

 

4A

9/19/2014

$4,473.93 in East Bridgewater
energy commissions mailed via
check from the Energy Broker
Company (NY) to defendant
Joyce (MA).

 

5A

11/25/2014

$1,531.53 in Holbrook energy
commissions mailed via check
?'om the Energy Broker
Company (NY) to defendant
Joyce (MA).

 

6A

6/15/2015

$664.36 in Southbridge energy
commissions mailed via check
from the Energy Broker
Company (NY) to defendant
Joyce (MA).

 

7A

10/31/2014

$89,157 in Easton College Solar
Panel Project energy
commissions wired from the
Energy Broker Company bank
account to Windswept?s
bank account (MA).

 

 

 

11A-1

 

10/15/2012

 

Defendant Joyce email to
Developer telling Developer ?We
would make money even if four
lots.? (MA-Interstate computer
server transmission)

 

74

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 75 of 102

 

COUNT 

Racketeering Act 
(for reference)

APPX.
DATE

DESCRIPTION OF
IRE
TRANSMISSION

 

10

1 1A-2

4/15/2013

Defendant Joyce email to
Planning Board Chair telling
Chair that MWC project ?falls
apart? if waiver not approved.
(MA-Interstate computer server
transmission)

 

11

11A-3

4/18/2013

Defendant Joyce email to
Planning Board Chair asking
Chair whether Board would
?waive the 50? requirement.?
(MA-Interstate computer server
transmission)

 

12

1A-4

8/7/2013

Defendant Joyce email to
Developer telling Developer he
?can set up meeting [with Chair]
upon [his] return.? (MA-Interstate
computer server transmission)

 

13

11A-5

9/27/2013

Defendant Joyce email to
Developer to coordinate
concealment to reporter, was
asked to help by women?s club
members and wouldn?t take any
fee.? (MA~Interstate computer
server transmission)

 

14

11A-6

10/9/2013

Defendant Joyce email to
Developer advising Developer to
?[ask] for a continuance? of the
Flaming Board meeting. (MA-
Interstate computer server
transmission)

 

15

l3A-1

12/30/2011

Defendant Joyce email to EIB
CEO agreeing to $5000 
payment. (MA-Interstate
computer server transmission)

 

 

16

 



 

7/11/2012

 

Defendant Joyce email to EIB
CEO on Mass Development bond
offering. (MA-Interstate
computer server transmission)

 

75

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 76 of 102

 

COUNT 

Racketeering Act 
(for reference)

APPX.
DATE

DESCRIPTION OF
IRE 
TRANSMISSION

 

17

13A-3

7/13/2012

EIB CEO relative email to
defendant Joyce and EIB CEO
with PACE insurance language to
include in bill. (MA-Interstate
computer server transmission)

 

18

13A-4

7/11/2013

Defendant Joyce email to EIB
CEO stating that defendant Joyce
?con?rmed with the
[Commissioner] that we have
already satisfactorily addressed
the issues raised in [Ins. Co. A?s]
letter to him.? (MA-Interstate
computer server transmission)

 

19

13A-5

7/26/2013

Defendant Joyce email to EIB
CEO describing meeting with
Majority Leader and agreeing to
push PACE bill. (MA-Interstate
computer server transmission)

 

20

13A-6

3/30/2015

Defendant Joyce email to EIB
CEO, ?Suggest you not return
call please,? regarding reporter.
(MA-Interstate computer server
transmission)

 

21

133-]

1/17/2012

$5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

 

22

l3B-2

2/7/2012

$5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

 

23

13B-3

3/6/2012

$5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

 

24

13B-4

4/10/2012

$5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

 

25

13B-5

5/8/2012

$5 ,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

 

26

13B-6

6/5/2012

$5 ,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

 

27

13B-7

7/10/2012

$5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

 

28

13B-8

8/7/2012

$5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

 

 

29

 

l3B-9

 

9/18/2012

 

$5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

 

76

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 77 of 102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COUNT Racketeering Act APPX. DESCRIPTION OF
(for reference) DATE IRE
TRANSMISSION

30 133-10 10/9/2012 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

31 133-11 11/6/2012 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

32 133-12 12/18/2012 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

33 13B-13 1/8/2013 $5,000 check mailed from BIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

34 l3B-14 2/5/2013 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
. Co. to Defendant Joyce

35 13B-15 3/19/2013 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

36 13B-16 4/9/2013 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

37 133-17 5/7/2013 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

38 133-18 7/9/2013 $5,000 check mailed from BIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

39 13B-19 7/16/2013 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

40 13B-20 8/13/2013 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
. Co. to Defendant Joyce

41 13B-21 9/10/2013 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

42 13B-22 10/8/2013 $5,000 check mailed ?'om EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

43 13B-23 11/5/2013 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

44 13B-24 1/23/2014 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

45 13B-25 2/12/2014 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

46 13B-26 2/ 19/2014 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

47 13B-27 3/ 17/2014 $5,000 check mailed ?om EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

48 13B-28 4/18/2014 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

49 13B-29 5/7/2014 $5,000 check mailed from BIB

 

 

 

Co. to Defendant Joyce

 

77

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 78 of 102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COUNT Racketeering Act APPX. DESCRIPTION OF
(for reference) DATE IRE
TRANSMISSION

50 13B-3O 6/9/2014 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

51 13B-31 7/22/2014 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

52 13B-32 8/13/2014 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

53 133-33 9/17/2014 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

54 13B-34 10/8/2014 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

55 13B-35 11/10/2014 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

56 13B-36 12/ 16/2014 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

57 13B-37 1/ 14/2015 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

58 13B-38 2/11/2015 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

59 133-39 4/14/2015 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

60 13B-40 5/13/2015 $10,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

61 13B-41 6/8/2015 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

62 133?42 7/8/2015 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

63 13B-43 8/19/2015 $5,000 check mailed ?om EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

64 l3B-44 9/9/2015 $5,000 check mailed ?om EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

65 10/28/2015 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

66 133-46 12/16/2015 $5,000 check mailed from EIB
Co. to Defendant Joyce

67 133-47 1/21/2016 $5,000 check mailed from EIB

- Co. to Defendant Joyce
68 13B-48 12/9/2014 Defendant Joyce Fed-ex of

 

 

 

checks to BIB Company to
purchase 40,000 shares of EIB
Common Stock

 

78

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 79 of 102

 

COUNT 

Racketeering Act 
(for reference)

APPX.
DATE

DESCRIPTION OF
MAILIN IRE
TRANSMISSION

 

69

13B-49

1/6/2016

BAJ PC $5,000 invoice mailed to
EIB Company

 

70

l3B-50

1/27/2016

Defendant Joyce?s letter mailed
to Ethics Commission, via his
attorney, claiming that because
his PACE bills did not contain an
insurance provision, he ?did not
believe that his bill 177;
SB. 1774], either directly or
indirectly, could reasonably be
viewed as bene?tting 
Company]?; and that Joyce?s
dealings with the DOI on
6/3/2013 were ministerial.

 

71

14

9/8/2015

Electronically ?led U.S.
Individual Income Tax Return,
Form 1040 for himself and his
spouse for tax year 2014, falsely
reporting early withdrawals from
defendant Joyce?s and his
spouse?s SEP-IRAs as qualifying
tax-exempt rollovers in the
amount of $427,629, and falsely
reporting a SEP-IRA deductible
contribution of $80,502, of which
$76,125 consisted of defendant
Joyce?s purchase of EIB
Common Stock with home equity
line of credit ?mds.

 

72

15A-1

12/17/2010

Defendant Joyce email to
Franchise Owner thanking
Franchise Owner for free coffee.
(MA-Interstate computer server
transmission)

 

 

73

 

15A-2

 

12/16/2014

 

Defendant Joyce email to
Franchise Owner: ?Can I get
coffee to distribute at town halls
again?? (MA-Interstate computer
server transmission)

 

79

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 80 of 102

 

COUNT 

Racketeering Act 
(for reference)

APPX.
DATE

DESCRIPTION OF
IRE
TRANSMISSION

 

74

15A-3

12/17/2014

Defendant Joyce email to
Franchise Owner: ?No decaf.
Usually I bring around 200 bags
to various town halls, maybe
fewer. We like cups at my
of?ce if possible.? (MA-
Interstate computer server
transmission)

 

75



1/5/2015

Defendant Joyce email to
Franchise Owner: ?1 am attending
the Massachusetts Municipal
Association convention in a
week. I would like to bring 500
bags of coffee, but I don?t want to
further burden you. Would it be
possible for me to obtain the
coffee at cost?? (MA-Interstate
computer server transmission)

 

76

15A-5

2/1/2015

Defendant Joyce phone call with
the Franchise Owner?s Relative
directing the Relative to create
backdated invoice for free 2014
coffee. (AZ to MA interstate
call)

 

77

15A-6

4/3/2015

Defendant Joyce mailed letter,
via his attorney, to the Boston
Globe referencing backdated
invoice and check for 2014
coffee.

 

 

78

 

15A-7

 

4/10/2015

 

Defendant Joyce email to the
Franchise Owner and Relative
creating false paper trail of 2013
free coffee in exchange for legal
services. (MA-Interstate
computer server transmission)

 

80

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 81 of 102

 

 

 

COUNT Racketeering Act APPX. DESCRIPTION OF
(for reference) DATE IRE
TRANSMISSION
79 15A-8 2/5/2016 Defendant Joyce email, via his

 

 

 

attorney, to the Ethics
Commission claiming that
defendant Joyce received coffee
in exchange for legal services in
late 2013. (MA-Interstate
computer server transmission)

 

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341, 1343, 1346 and 2.

81

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 82 of 102

73. Paragraphs 1 through 14 and 32 through 47 of Count One of this Indictment are

incorporated herein.

74. On or about the date set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts, and

elsewhere, defendant

having devised and intending to devise a scheme and arti?ce to defraud the Internal Revenue
Service, and for obtaining money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations, and promises, knowingly transmitted and caused to be transmitted in

interstate commerce by means of wire, radio, television communications certain writings, signs,

922W
(Scheme to Defraud the Internal Revenue Service - 18 U.S.C. 1343)

BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE,

signals, pictures and sounds, as set forth below:

 

 

 

 

 

COUNT APPX. DESCRIPTION OF WIRING IN
DATE FURTHERANCE OF SCHEME
80 9/8/2015 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040

for himself and his spouse for tax year 2014,
falsely reporting early withdrawals from
defendant Joyce?s and his spouse?s SEP-IRAs
as qualifying tax-exempt rollovers in the
amount of $427,629, and falsely reporting a
SEP-IRA deductible contribution of $80,502, of
which $76,125 consisted of defendant Joyce?s
purchase of EIB Common Stock with home
equity line of credit funds

 

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 

82

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 83 of 102

COUNTS EIGHTY-ONE to NINETY-ONE
(Obstructing and Affecting Interstate and Foreign Commerce by Extortion Under Color of
Of?cial Right- 18 U. S. C. 1951(a))

75. Paragraphs 1 to 53 of Count One of this Indictment are incorporated herein.

76. On or about the dates set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts, and
elsewhere, defendant

BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE,

did obstruct, delay, and affect interstate commerce and the movement of any article and commodity
in interstate commerce, and attempt and so to do, by extortion under color of of?cial right that
is, by attempting to obtain and obtaining a stream of money and property from the individuals and
entities set forth below, with their consent, in exchange for defendant Joyce?s of?cial action, Which
included using his of?cial position to exert pressure on other of?cials to perform an of?cial act,

and using his of?cial position to advise other of?cials, intending that such advice would form the

basis for an of?cial act by the other of?cial, as speci?c opportunities arose, as set forth below:

 

COUNT RACKETEERING Of?cia1(s) to be Of?cial Act(s) to be Obtained Appx.

 

ACT Advised by Dates
Defendant Joyce
81 1B Randolph Appoint EBC exclusive energy Early 2011

Town Manager consultant for Randolph; Town to 2014
approval of BBC-brokered
energy contract

 

 

 

82 2B Randolph Reappoint EBC exclusive April 2014
Town Manager energy consultant for to Feb.
Randolph; Town approval of 2016
BBC-brokered energy contract
83 3B Easton Town Appoint EBC exclusive energy August
Administrator consultant of record for 2013 to
Easton; Town approval of Jan. 2016

 

 

BBC-brokered energy contract

 

 

 

83

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 84 of 102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COUNT RACKETEERING Of?cial(s) to be Of?cial Act(s) to be Obtained Appx.
ACT Advised by Dates
Defendant Joyce
84 4B East Bridgewater Appoint BBC energy Feb. 2014
Town consultant for East to Jan.
Administrator Bridgewater; Town approval 2016
of BBC-brokered energy
contract
85 5B Holbrook Appoint EBC exclusive energy August
Town consultant of record for 2014 to
Administrator Holbrook; Town approval of Jan. 2016
BBC-brokered energy contract
86 6B Southbridge Appoint EBC exclusive natural Feb. to
Town Manager gas energy consultant for June 2015
Southbridge; Town approval of
BBC-brokered energy contract
87 7B MA State Amend Senate Bill 2200, ?le March
Senate; Senate Bill 1599 (incl. by 2012 to
Massachusetts defendant Joyce); Decline Jan. 2016
Department of Issuance of Adverse Advisory
Public Utilities Ruling (Easton College Solar
of?cials Panel Project)
88 11B Milton Planning Vote in favor of waiver for April 2013
Board Chair; Milton Women?s Club to January
Milton Planning development; Planning Board 2014
Board member approval of waiver
89 13C DOI of?cials DOI taking no adverse action January
against EIB Co. oil dealer 2010 to
insurance product; DOI taking January
no adverse action regarding 2016
Ins. Co. A complaint; DOI
issuance of MGA certi?cation
letter
MA State Senate Sponsor, ?le, amend, and vote
on PACE legislation (incl. by
Defendant Joyce)
90 15B MA State Senate Sponsor, ?le, amend, and vote January
on Franchise legislation and 2010 to
Tip Pooling legislation (incl. February
by Defendant Joyce) 2016

 

84

 

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 85 of 102

 

 

COUNT RACKETEERING Of?cial(s) to be Of?cial Act(s) to be Obtained Appx.
ACT Advised by a Dates
Defendant Joyce
91 16 West Approval of permit April to
Bridgewater applications by PA Solar May 2012

 

 

town of?cials

Company to construct solar

 

panel facility

 

 

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

85

 

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 86 of 102

77.

78.

COUNTS NINETY-TWO to ONE HUNDRED ONE
(Conspiracy to Obstruct and Affect Interstate and Foreign Commerce by Extortion Under
Color of Of?cial Right - 18 U.S.C. 1951(a))

Paragraphs 1 to 51 of Count One of this Indictment are incorporated herein.

On or about the dates set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts, and

elsewhere, defendant

BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE,

did conspire to obstruct, delay, and affect interstate commerce and the movement of any article

and commodity in interstate commerce by extortion under color of of?cial right that is, by

agreeing to obtain a stream of money and property from the individuals and entities set forth below,

with their consent, in exchange for defendant Joyce?s of?cial action, which included using his

of?cial position to exert pressure on other of?cials to perform an of?cial act, and using his of?cial

position to advise other of?cials, intending that such advice would form the basis for an of?cial

act by the other of?cial, as speci?c opportunities arose, as set forth below:

 

COUNT

 

 

 

RACKETEERING Of?cial(s) to be Of?cial Act(s) to be Obtained Appx
ACT Advised by Dates
Defendant Joyce
92 1C Randolph Appoint EBC exclusive energy Early 2011
Town Manager consultant for Randolph; Town to 2014
approval of BBC-brokered
energy contract
93 2C Randolph Reappoint EBC exclusive April 2014
Town Manager energy consultant for to Feb.
Randolph; Town approval of 2016
BBC-brokered energy contract
94 3C Easton Town Appoint EBC exclusive energy August
Administrator consultant of record for 2013 to
Easton; Town approval of Jan. 2016

 

 

 

BBC-brokered energy contract

 

 

86

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 87 of 102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COUNT RACKETEERING Of?cial(s) to be Of?cial Act(s) to be Obtained Appx
ACT Advised by Dates
Defendant Joyce
95 4C East Bridgewater Appoint EBC energy Feb. 2014
Town consultant for East to Jan.
Administrator Bridgewater; Town approval 2016
of BBC-brokered energy
contract
96 5C Holbrook Appoint EBC exclusive energy August
Town consultant of record for 2014 to
Administrator Holbrook; Town approval of Jan. 2016
BBC-brokered energy contract
97 6C Southbridge Appoint EBC exclusive natural Feb. to
Town Manager gas energy consultant for June 2015
Southbridge; Town approval of
BBC-brokered energy contract
98 7C MA State Amend Senate Bill 2200, ?le March
Senate; Senate Bill 1599 (incl. by 2012 to
Massachusetts defendant Joyce); Decline Jan. 2016
Department of Issuance of Adverse Advisory
Public Utilities Ruling (Easton College Solar
of?cials Panel Project)
99 11C Milton Flaming Vote in favor of waiver for April 2013
Board Chair; Milton Women?s Club to January
Milton Flaming development; Planning Board 2014
Board member approval of waiver
100 13D DOI of?cials DOI taking no adverse action January
against EIB Co. oil dealer 2010 to
insurance product; DOI taking January
no adverse action regarding 2016
Ins. Co. A complaint; DOI
issuance of MGA certi?cation
letter
MA State Senate Sponsor, ?le, amend, and vote
on PACE legislation (incl. by
Defendant Joyce)
101 15C MA State Senate Sponsor, ?le, amend, and vote January
on Franchise legislation and 2010 to
Tip Pooling legislation (incl. February
by Defendant Joyce) 2016

 

A11 in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).

87

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 88 of 102

COUNTS ONE HUNDRED TWO to ONE HUNDRED EIGHT
(Money Laundering - 18 U.S.C. 

79. Paragraphs 1 to 31 of Count One of this Indictment are incorporated herein.

80. On or about the dates set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts, and
elsewhere, defendant

BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE,

knowing that the property involved in ?nancial transactions represented the proceeds of some form
of unlawful activity, and knowing that the transactions were designed in whole and in part to
conceal and disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, and the control of the
proceeds of speci?ed unlawful activity, that is, extortion contrary to 18 U.S.C. 1951(a) and wire
fraud contrary to 18 U.S.C. 1343, conducted and attempted to conduct financial transactions

which in fact involved the proceeds of such speci?ed unlawful activity, as set forth below:

 

 

. COUNT RACKETEERIN Transaction Approximate
ACT Dates
102 8 Electronic transmittal 5/5/2014
of funds including
$2,757.62 in Randolph

energy commissions
from BBC, from
Windswept?s bank
account to 
bank account

103 9 Electronic transmittal 2/ 4/ 201 5
of funds including
$10,000 in Easton
College Solar Panel
Project energy
commissions from
BBC, ?om
Windswept?s bank
account to 
bank account

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88

Case Document3 Filed 12/07/17

Page 89 of 102

 

COUNT 

RACKETEERING
ACT 

Transaction

Approximate
Dates

 

104

10A

Electronic transmittal
of $39,671 in Easton
College Solar Panel
Project energy
commissions from
BBC, from
Windswept?s bank
account to 
bank account

11/24/2014

 

105

12A

Defendant Joyce bank
deposit of $20,500
check from Developer

1/16/2014

 

106

12B

Developer bank deposit
of $15,000 check ?om
defendant Joyce

1/27/2014

 

107

12C

Developer bank deposit
of $5,000 check from
defendant Joyce

2/4/2014

 

108

 

 

12D

 

Developer bank deposit

of $4,500 check from
defendant Joyce

 

2/18/2014

 

 

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and 2.

89

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 90 of 102

COUNT ONE HUNDRED NINE
(Money Laundering - 18 U.S.C. 1957(a))

81. Paragraphs 1 to 24 of Count One of this Indictment are incorporated herein.
82. On or about the date set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts, and
elsewhere, defendant 
BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE,
knowingly engaged in and attempted to engage in a monetary transaction as set forth below in
criminally derived property that was of a value of greater than $10,000, said property having been
derived from speci?ed unlawful activity, that is, the extortion contrary to 18 U.S.C. 1951(a) and

wire fraud contrary to 18 U.S.C. 1343, as follows:

 

 

COUNT RACKETEERING APPX. DESCRIPTION OF WIRE
ACT DATE TRANSMISSION
109 10B 11/24/2014 Electronic transmittal of $39,671

in Easton College Solar Panel
Project energy commissions from
BBC, ?'om Windswept?s bank
account to the BAJPC bank
account

 

 

 

 

 

 

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957(a) and 2.

9O



Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 91 of 102

COUNTS ONE HUNDRED TEN to ONE HUNDRED TWELVE
(Fraud, Theft, Embezzlement, Misapplication Involving Federal Funds
- 18 U.S.C. 
83. Paragraphs 1 to 22 of Count One of this Indictment are incorporated herein.
84. The following towns were each local governments that received in excess of

$10,000 in federal grants and other federal assistance, respectively, in each of the following

calendar years, as set forth below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOWN CALENDAR YEAR
RECEIVING in EXCESS of
$10,000 in FEDERAL FUNDS
Town of Randolph 2014, 2015
Town of Easton 2014, 2015
Town of East Bridgewater 2014, 2015

 

85. Defendant Joyce, as the result of using his of?cial position as State Senator to
obtain Randolph, Easton, and East Bridgewater as energy clients for the Energy Broker Company,
and contrary to state ethics laws that prohibited the use of public of?ce for private gain, secretly
obtained kickbacks in the form of energy broker commissions that were generated by payments
made by each of the Towns of Randolph, Easton, and East Bridgewater, respectively, paid on a
basis.

86. On or about the dates set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts, and
elsewhere, defendant

BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE,
being an agent of each of the aforementioned local governments, embezzled, stole, obtained by
fraud and otherwise without authority knowingly converted to the use of a person other than the

rightful owner and intentionally misapplied, property valued at $5,000 or more, which included

91

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 92 of 102.

labor, services, funds, and other property, that was owned by, and was under the care, custody, and
control of the speci?ed local governments, each of which received in excess of $10,000 in federal
program bene?ts that was ?lnded by federal agencies, in any one-year period between in or about

2014 and in or about 2015, as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

COUNT TOWN PROPERTY DATES
OBTAINED (appx.)
1 10 Town of Randolph $14,175 2014-2015
11 1 Town of Easton $14,759 2014-2015
112 Town ofEast $10,131 2014-2015
Bridgewater

 

 

 

 

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 666(a)(1)(A) and 2.

92

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 93 of 102


(Conspiracy to Impede and Impair the Functions of the IRS
- 18 U.S.C. 371)

87. Paragraphs Count One of this Indictment are incorporated

herein.
The Conspiracy

88. From at least in or about 2011 to at least in or about 2015, in the District of

Massachusetts, and elsewhere, defendant
BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE,
and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire,
confederate, and agree among themselves and with others to defraud the United States and the
Internal Revenue Service of the United States Department of Treasury by impeding,
impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful governmental functions of the IRS to ascertain,
compute, assess, and collect income taxes.
Object of Conspiracy

89. It was an object of the conspiracy that defendant Joyce and others would subvert
the ?mction of the IRS to ascertain, compute, assess, and collect income taxes due and owing from
defendant Joyce by fraudulently in?ating his spouse?s self-employment income in order to
maximize retirement plan contributions; and (ii) creating a ?ctitious rollover of retirement savings
to conceal an early liquidation of retirement funds.

Manner and Means of Conspiracy
90. Among the manners and means employed by defendant Joyce and others to carry

out the conspiracy and to effect its unlawful object were the following:

93

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 94 of 102

A. Defendant Joyce and others fraudulently in?ated defendant Joyce?s
spouse?s yearly income by falsely allocating hundreds of thousands of dollars of BAJPC income,
which included corrupt payments from EIB Company and the Energy Broker Company, to Joyce?s
spouse in order to maximize her retirement fund contributions.

B. Defendant Joyce and others created documents to disguise a liquidation of
over $395,000 in his and his spouse?s accounts which defendant Joyce used to purchase
approximately $417,250 in EIB Common Stock as a tax?free rollover.

Overt Acts
91. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its unlawful objects, defendant Joyce
and his co?conspirators committed and caused to be committed the following acts in the District
of Massachusetts and elsewhere:

A. During the relevant time period, defendant Joyce employed two
bookkeepers and respectively) and worked with an accountant (the ?Accountant?)
to prepare and review the books and records of BAJ PC and to assist in the preparation and ?ling
of defendant Joyce?s joint personal federal income tax. From in or about 2011 to in or about
2015, defendant Joyce and the Accountant fraudulently allocated BAJ PC income to defendant
Joyce?s spouse in order to in?ate Joyce?s spouse?s personal income and falsely maximize SEP-

IRA retirement contributions on a yearly basis, as follows:

 

OVERT ACT DATE DESCRIPTION

A-l 10/4/2011 email to the Accountant: ?Brian would like you to
evaluate his personal tax situation in the event he _is able to
make a ?catch up? payment prior to year end He has
received in Fees, including personal expenses paid on his
behalf through 10/4/11: 280,600.00 I discussed the cash
situation with both you and BAJ, and he determined that
paying SEP IRA was the priority . . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

94

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 95 of 102

 

OVERT ACT

DATE

DESCRIPTION

 

A-2

1/17/2012

email to the Accountant: ?It was also Brian?s intention
to pay [defendant Joyce?s spouse?s]?s SEP IRA payment
from this check, but I do not know how much that will be.

I believe you [the Accountant] have to give me that number
when you see what her income is.?

 



4/5/2012

Accountant email to defendant Joyce: ?Brian, last year [tax
year 2010] we didn?t move any income from you to
[defendant Joyce?s spouse]. I?m not sure why that decision
was ?nally made. As of this writing I only moved 
over to [defendant Joyce?s spouse]. Any thoughts on what
you want to do??

 

4/5/2012

Defendant Joyce email to the Accountant: ?1 would move as
much as necessary so as to allow hit the lottery between now and October.?

 

A-S

4/9/2012

Defendant Joyce email to ?how much are you
comfortable saying that we will be able to pay toward
[defendant Joyce?s spouse?s] 2011 SEP IRA by October 15,
2012??

 

A-6

4/10/2012

Accountant email to and defendant Joyce with the
subject line ?[defendant Joyce?s spouse?s] income?: have
prepared the extension with $60,000 going to [defendant
Joyce?s spouse?s] Schedule business. Based on that her
contribution to her SEP-IRA would be $17,298.?

 

2/11/2013

Defendant Joyce email to the Accountant and 
and [the Accountant], Can you please reach an agreement
for the maximum SEP IRA payments for [defendant Joyce?s
spouse] and me for 2012? Could you do the same for

201 

 

2/12/2013

Accountant email to defendant Joyce: ?We agreed on
$20,000 for [defendant Joyce?s spouse] for both years.?

 

4/10/2014

Accountant email to defendant Joyce: ?1 allocated to
[defendant Joyce?s spouse]. That allows you to put another
in her SEP if you 

 

4/10/2014

Defendant Joyce email to the Accountant: ?If I need to
make payments to the government, I?d rather reduce those
payments?by maxing the SEP 

 

 

 

8/20/2014

 

Defendant Joyce email to the Accountant: for me (sic)
SEP IRA limit this year. How much can I allocate for
[defendant Joyce?s spouse]? Everything look ok with my
?nancials??

 

95

 

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 96 of 102

 

OVERT ACT DATE . DESCRIPTION

A-12 8/21/2014 Accountant email to defendant Joyce: ?Yes. I know you
want to maximize the SEP. The amount I used was based
on the income on the projection for both you and
[defendant Joyce?s spouse].?

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. As described in paragraph numbers 38 to 47 of Count One, above, defendant
Joyce used a home equity line of credit loan and the liquidation of defendant Joyce?s and his
spouse?s SEP-IRA retirement savings to fund the purchase of approximately $471,250 in BIB
Common Stock from August 30, 2014 to December 8, 2014. In order to avoid early withdrawal
taxes and penalties, defendant Joyce, and his co-conspirators, concealed his purchase of BIB

Common Stock as a ?ctitious rollover, as follows:

 

 

 

 

OVERT ACT APPX. DESCRIPTION
.

B-l 9/5/2014 Defendant Joyce sends HELOC check to EIB
Company for $50,750; Memo on Check: ?7,000
Shares SEP 

9/5/2014 Defendant Joyce sends HELOC check to EIB
Company for $25,375; Memo on Check: ?3,500
Shares SEP 

B-3 10/4/2014 Defendant Joyce causes liquidation of $105,125

from spouse?s issues personal check to EIB
Company for $105,125; Memo on Check:
?14,500 Shares [Spouse] SEP 

B-4 12/10/2014 Defendant Joyce causes liquidation of $72,500
from spouse?s issues personal check to EIB
Company for $72,500; Memo on Check: ?10,000
Shares [Spouse] SEP 

B-5 12/10/2014 Defendant Joyce causes liquidation of $250,000
from his issues personal check to EIB
Company for $217,500; Memo on Check:
?30,000 Shares SEP 

B-6 3/13/2015 Accountant email to defendant Joyce regarding
defendant Joyce?s withdrawal of $250,000 from
his IRA: ?No withholdings and to be treated as an
early withdrawal. This will have a signi?cant
effect on your return.?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

96

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 97 of 102

 

 

OVERT ACT APPX. DESCRIPTION

B-7 3/ 13/2015 Defendant Joyce email to the Accountant,

responding: ?All IRA withdrawals were either
reimbursed within 60 days, or invested in 
Company]. No taxes.?

 

 

 

 

 

C. On or about the following dates, defendant Joyce, with the Accountant?s
assistance, signed, ?led, and caused to be ?led with the IRS United States Individual Income Tax
Returns for tax years 2011 through 2014 that were false, in that those tax returns fraudulently
allocated BAJ PC income to defendant Joyce?s spouse?s income to maximize retirement
contributions and falsely claimed a rollover of IRA funds to conceal an IRA liquidation that was

made to purchase EIB Common Stock, as follows:

 

 

OVERT ACT TAX RETURN DESCRIPTION OF FILING
FILING DATE
C-l 9/26/2012 Defendant Joyce?s U.S. Personal Income Tax

Return Form 1040 allocating additional $60,000
income to defendant Joyce?s spouse for Tax Year
2011

C-2 4/10/2013 Defendant Joyce?s U.S. Personal Income Tax
Return Form 1040 allocating additional $80,000
income to defendant Joyce?s spouse for Tax Year
201 2

C-3 4/ 14/2014 Defendant Joyce?s U.S. Personal Income Tax
Return Form 1040 allocating additional $130,000
income to defendant Joyce?s spouse for Tax Year
201 3

C-4 9/8/2015 Defendant Joyce?s U.S. Personal Income Tax
Return Form 1040 allocating additional $120,000
income to defendant Joyce?s spouse for Tax Year
2014; and claiming a tax-free IRA rollover of
$427,629 for Tax Year 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

97

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 98 of 102

RACKETEERING FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
(18 U.S.C. 1963)

1. Upon conviction of the offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962,
set forth in Count One of this Indictment,
BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE,
the defendant herein, shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1963:

a. all interests the defendant has acquired or maintained in violation of Title
18, United States Code, Section 1962, wherever located, and in whatever
names held;

b. all interests in, securities of, claims against, or properties or contractual
rights of any kind affording a source of in?uence over, any enterprise which
the defendant has established, operated, controlled, conducted, or
participated in the conduct of, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1962; and

c. all property constituting, and derived from, any proceeds which the
defendants obtained, directly and indirectly, from racketeering activity in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962.

2. If any of the above property, including but not limited to the property described in
Paragraph 42 of the Indictment, as being forfeitable pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1963, as a result of any act and omission of the defendant 

a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

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

98

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 99 of 102

c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of this Court;

d. has been substantially diminished in value; or

c. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided
without dif?culty;

it is the intention of the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963(m),
to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendant up to the value of the property described
in this section?s Paragraph 1 above.

All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963.

99

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 100 of 102

FRAUD FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
(18 U.S.C. 981(a)(l)(C) 28 U.S.C. 2461(0))

1. Upon conviction of one or more of the offenses in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 666, 1341, 1343, 1951(a), set forth in Counts Two through One Hundred
One, and One Hundred Ten through One Hundred Twelve of this Indictment, .

BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE,

defendant herein, shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. and 28
U.S.C. 2461(0), any property, real or personal, that constitutes, or is derived from, proceeds
traceable to the commission of the offenses.

2. If any of the property described in this section?s Paragraph 1, above, as being
forfeitable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. and 28 U.S.C. 2461(0), 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 to, sold to, or deposited with a third party;

0. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of this Court;

(1. has been substantially diminished in value; or

e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided .
without dif?culty;

it is the intention of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2461(0), incorporating 21 U.S.C.
853(p), to seek forfeiture of all other property of the defendant up to the value of the property
described in this section?s Paragraph 1 above.

All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section and Title 28, United

States Code, Section 2461(0).

100

Case Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 101 of 102

MONEY LAUNDERING FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
(18 U.S.C. 982(a)(1))

1; Upon conviction of one or more of the offenses in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 1956, 1957, set forth in Counts One Hundred Two through Count One
Hundred Nine of this Indictment,

BRIAN AUGUSTINE JOYCE
defendant herein, shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,
Section 982(a)(1), any property, real or personal, involved in such offenses, and any property
traceable to such property.

2. If any of the property described in this section?s Paragraph 1, above, as being
forfeitable pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1), as a result of any act or
omission of the defendant --

cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;
(0) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;

has been substantially diminished in value; or

(6) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided
without dif?culty;

it is the intention of the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b),
incorporating Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any other
property of the defendant up to the value of the property described in this section?s Paragraph 1
above.

All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)( 1).

101

Case 1:17-cr-10378-NMG Document 3 Filed 12/07/17 Page 102 of 102

A TRUE BILL

FOREPERSON OF THE GRAND JURY

DUSTIN CHAO
WILLIAM F. BLOOMER
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEYS

U.S. DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS; December 7, 2017.

Returned into the District Court by the Grand Jurors and filed.

DEPUTY ^LERK

^

r. 10 pi<^

i2-hln

102