Case: 1:18-cr-00701-SL Doc 1 Filed: 11/20/18 1 of 10. PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, I I PlaintiffCASE NO. Title 18, Sections 666(a)(2), ERIC WITHERSPOON, 1343, and 1346, and 2 United States Code Defendant. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS i Li) GE At all times relevant to this Indictment, unless otherwise specified: 1. The City of Cleveland (hereinafter ?the City?) was a political subdivision within the State of Ohio. 2. Defendant ERIC WITHERSPOON owned and operated Arick?s Environmental Management Services, Inc., and Arick?sl Services, Inc., (hereinafter, ?Defendant?s businesses?), which were asbestos removal and demolition businesses operating in the Cleveland, Ohio, area. 3. Defendant submitted'bid proposals to the City in an attempt to obtain contracts for abatement and demolition work on behalf of the City. 4. Rufus Taylor (hereinafter ?Taylor?) (charged separately) was employed by the City as the Chief of the Demolition Bureau and was an agent of the City. Among other Case: Doc Filed: 11/20/18 20f 10. Page D#: 2 responsibilities, Taylor was responsible for assigning ?board-ups? to contractors for vacant and abandoned properties within the City, as well as locating contractors for and assigning emergency demolition jobs. Taylor also advised other City officials on which contractors should be solicited for bids on demolition jobs, to include emergency demolition jobs. Taylor was also responsible for conducting inspections and for supervising others conducting inspections, which had to be completed and passed before a contractor could be paid for a' demolition project. COUNTS 1 7 (Honest Services-Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1346, and 2) The Grand Jury charges: 5. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 of this indictment are incorporated by reference as if stated fully herein. THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD 6. From in or around November 2013, and continuing through in or around September 2017, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Defendant ERIC WITHERSPOON devised and intended to devise a scheme and arti?ce to defraud and to deprive the City of Cleveland and the citizens of Cleveland of their intangible right to the honest services of Rufus Taylor (charged separately), a city of?cial, through bribery. I THE PURPOSE OF THE SCHEME 7. The purpose of the-scheme was for Defendant unlawfully to bene?t and enrich himself and Defendant?s businesses through bribery of Taylor. MANNER AND MEANS OF THE SCHEME 8. The manner and means by which Defendant carried out the scheme included, but were not limited to, the following: Case: Doc 1 Filed: 11/20/18 3 of 10. PagelD 3 9. Defendant corruptly gave, offered, and promised things of value to Taylor, including multiple cash payments, to obtain of?cial information and action favorable to. Defendant and Defendant?s businesses. 10. - From time to?time, Defendant and Taylor met at local restaurants, at job sites, and in parked cars to discuss Defendant?s requests for access to information and action favorable to Defendant and Defendant?s businesses. During some of these meetings, Defendant paid Taylor in cash. '11. Defendant made such payments to Taylor with the intent to in?uence, and in exchange for, of?cial acts, including Taylor?s own decisions and actions on matters, such as conducting inspections. Defendant also provided these payments to Taylor with the intent to in?uence, and in exchange for, Taylor?s use of his of?cial position to provide advice to other public of?cials regarding the solicitation and selection of contractors for demolition and abatement jobs for the City. Defendant and Taylor knew and intended that Taylor?s advice would form the basis for of?cial acts by other public of?cials. 12. Defendant also provided cash to Taylor with the intent to induce Taylor to act in violation of Taylor?s lawful duty to the City and its citizens. Specifically, Defendant discussed with Taylor con?dential information about potential board?up and demolition jobs in the City. 13. In order to conceal the scheme, Defendant instructed Taylor to keep secret the payments Defendant made to Taylor in exchange for Taylor?s use of his of?cial position to give Defendant and Defendant?s businesses the opportunity to bid for certain City contracts or advise other public officials to do so, and in exchange for Taylor?s use of his of?cial position to award certain contracts and to select Defendant?s businesses for certain City contracts, or advise other public of?cials to do so. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 11/20/18 4 of 10. PagelD 4 ACTS 1N FURTHERANCE OF THE SCHEME 14. The acts caused by Defendant in furtherance of the scheme included, but were not limited to, the following: 15. Beginning in or around November 2013, and continuing through in or around December 2015, Defendant paid, and offered to pay, Taylor sums of cash. 16. Defendant offered to pay and did pay Taylor money in exchange for non~public information about upcoming demolition jobs with the City, and for Taylor to use his of?cial position to help ensure that Defendant would have the Opportunity to bid on those jobs. 17. Taylor assisted Defendant in obtaining contracts with the City by including Defendant?s businesses on the lists of businesses eligible to bid on certain jobs, and by advising other of?cials to include Defendant?s businesses on the lists of businesses eligible to bid on certain jobs, in exchange for payments from Defendant. 18. I Taylor agreed to provide, and did provide, assistance to Defendant in ensuring that work performed by Defendant?s businesses would be quickly inspected after completion, in exchange for payments from Defendant. Premises 1 19. In or around November 2013, Defendant and Taylor met to discuss a demolition job at 887 Parkwood Drive, Cleveland, Ohio (?Premises Defendant agreed to pay Taylor $8,000 cash inexchange for Taylor getting Defendant On the bid list for Premises 1. 20. In or around November 2013, Taylor provided Defendant information regarding the Premises 1 job. 21. In or around November 2013, Taylor ensured that Defendant would be invited to bid on the Premises 1 job. Case: 1:18-cr-00701-SL Doc 1 Filed: 11/20/18 5 of 10. PagelD 5 22. On or about November 1 1, 2013, Defendant submitted a bid, via e-mail, for Premises 1. 23. On or about November 12, 2013, the City awarded Defendant the demolition job for Premises 1. 24. On or about November 15, 2013, Defendant sent an email to a City official, requesting partial payment for the work Defendant?s business had performed at Premises 1. 25. On or about December 4, 2013, Defendant Withdrew approximately $3,000 cash from a federally insured ?nancial institution and gave that money to Taylor. 26. I On or about December 4, 2013, Taylor deposited $3,000 in cash into his bank account. 27. On or about December 4, 2013, Defendant sent a City official, via e~mail, an invoice for the work Defendant?s business had performed at Premises 1. 28. On or about December 9, 2013, a City of?cial sent an e-mail toDefendant requesting another invoice for the work Defendant?s business had performed at Premises 1. 29. On or about December 18, 2013, the City issued a check to Defendant?s business ?for approximately $81,541.00, which represented partial payment for the work Defendant?s business performed at Premises 1. 30. On or about February 13, 2014, Defendant sent a City of?cial, via e-mail, a ?nal invoice for the work Defendant?s business had performed at Premises 1. 31. On or about April 28, 2014, Defendant sent an email to a City of?cial inquiring when Defendant would receive the full payment for the work Defendant?s business had completed at Premises 1. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 11/20/18 6 of 10. PagelD 6 32. On or about May 8, 2014, a check was mailed from the City to Defendant for the work Defendant?s business performed at Premises 1. 33. At various other times between November 2013 and November 2015, Defendant gave Taylor an additional $5,000 in cash. I Premises 2 34. In or around October 2015, Taylor noti?ed Defendant about an emergency demolition job on East 1231?d Street and 1885 Coltrnan Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio (?Premises . and provided Defendant with information about the Premises 2 job. Taylor instructed Defendant to contact the City so that Defendant?s businesses could be placed on the bid list for Premises 2. Defendant agreed to pay Taylor $12,000 in exchange for notifying Defendant about the emergency demolition job. 35. In or around October 2015, based in part on the information provided to him by Taylor, Defendant?s business was awarded abatement work for Premises 2. 36. In or around October 2015, Defendant completed emergency demolition services at Premises 2. 37. On or about October 28, 2015, Defendant sent a City of?cial, via e-mail, the initial invoice for the emergency debris clean-up work that Defendant?s business had performed at Premises 2. 38. On or about November 28, 2015, Defendant sent a City of?cial, via e-mail, a proposal for the completed emergency debris clean-up work at Premises 2. 39. On or about November 30, 2015, Defendant sent a City of?cial, via e-mail, the proposals for work at Premises 2. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 11/20/18 7 of 10. PagelD 7 40. On or about December 8, 2015?, the City issued two checks to Defendant, totaling approximately $94,640, for the emergency debris clean~up work that Defendant?s business performed at Premises 2. 41. For reasons beyond Taylor?s control, Defendant?s business was not awarded the full scope of work at Premises 2, and Defendant never paid Taylor the $12,000. The ExeCution of the Scheme 42. On or about the dates set forth below, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, Defendant, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme and-artifice to defraud and deprive, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication in interstate commerce the signals and sounds described below for each count, each transmission constituting a separate count: Originating E?Mail Receiving E?Mail Count Description Account Server Account Server . Location Location 1 12/4/13 E-mail from Defendant to Aol.com server City of Cleveland City official with subject located in Virginia server located in line ?887 Parkwood,? with Ohio attachments . 2 12/9/13 Email from City official City of Cleveland Aol.corn server I to Defendant with subject server located in located in Virginia line ?887 Parkwood? Ohio 3 2/13/14 Email from Defendant to Aol.corn server City of Cleveland City of?cial with subject located in Virginia server located in line ?Invoice 887 . Ohio Parkwood,? with attachment 4 4/28/14 Email from Defendant to Aol.corn server City of Cleveland City of?cial with subject located in Virginia server located in line ?Invoice 887 Ohio Parkwood,? with I attachment Case: Doc #:11 Filed; 11/20/18 8 of 10. PagelD 8 5 10/28/15 E?mail from Defendant to Aol_.corn server City of Cleveland City of?cial with subject located in Virginia server located in line ?1862 E. 123"d St, Ohio 1885 Coltman Intial [sic] Billing,? with attachment 6 11/28/15 E-mail from Defendant to Aol.com server City of Cleveland City of?cial with subject located in Virginia server located in line ?Re: Formal Ohio proposals and . noti?cations,? with attachment 7 11/30/15 E-mail from Defendant to Aol.com server City of Cleveland City of?cial with subject located in Virginia server located in line ?1862 E. 123rd Street Ohio and 1885 Coltman Ave Proposals,? with attachments All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 1346, and 2. COUNT 8 (Bribery in Federally Funded Programs, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2)) The Grand nry further charges: 43. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 and 7 through 33 are incorporated by reference as if stated fully herein. 44. During the one?year period beginning on or about November 1, 2013, and ending on or about October 31, 2014, the City of Cleveland, a government organization as de?ned by Title 18, United States Code, Section received bene?ts in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insuranCe and/or other form of Federal Assistance. 45. From on or about November 7, 2013, to on or about October 31, 2014, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Defendant ERIC WITHERSPOON did corruptly give, offer, and agree to give a thing of value to any person intending to in?uence and reward an agent of a local government and an agency thereof, in connection with any business,? Case: Doc 1 Filed: 11/20/18 9 of 10. PagelD 9 transactions, and series of transactions of such local government and agency involving something of value Of $5,000 or more, to wit: Defendant gave, offered, and agreed to give Rufus Taylor, a public official with the City of Cleveland, approximately $8,000 cash in exchange for Taylor helping get Defendant on the bid list with the City of CleVeland for a demolition job at Premises 1, which assisted Defendant in winning a. contract for work at Premises 1, a job valued at approximately $147,000. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(2). Count 9 (Bribery in Federally Funded Programs, in violation of 18 U.S.C. The Grand Jury further charges: I 46. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4, 7 through 18, and 34 through 41 are incorporated by reference as if stated fully herein. 47. During the one-year period beginning on or about October 1, 2015, and ending on or about September 30, 2016, the City of Cleveland, a government organization as defined by Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(d)(2), received benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance and/or other form of Federal Assistance. 48. From in or around October 2015, to in or around November 2015, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Defendant ERIC WITHERSPOON did corruptly give, offer, and agree to give a thing of value to any person intending to in?uence and reward an agent of a local government and an agency thereof, in connection with any business, transactions, and series of transactions of such local government and agency involving something of value of $5,000 or more, to wit: Defendant offered and agreed to pay Taylor approximately $12,000 cash in exchange for Taylor providing Defendant with non-public Case: Doc 1 Filed: 11/20/18 10 of 10. PagelD 10 information about emergency work at Premises 2 and otherwise assisting Defendant in winning a contract for work at Premises 2, for which the City paid Defendant approximately $94,640. All in Violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(2). A TRUE BILL. Original document - Signatures on ?le with the Clerk of Courts, pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002. 10