Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

FILEtr'
APR

1

L[odf 

..EH8ffil,E R[YI8U*
I-INITED STATES OF

UNITED STATES DISTzuCT COURT
NORTHERN DISTzuCT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMEzuCA

N.

)

lgcR 922

Violations: Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 666(a)(2), 1 00 1 (a)(2),
and t9s2(a)(3)

CHARLES CUI

UUDGE
MAG ISIM]E JUDGE COI,E

COT]NT ONE

The SPECIAL DECEMBER 2017 GRAND JURY charges:

1.

At times material to this indictment:
Relevant Entities and Individuals

a.

The City of Chicago was a unit of local government known as a municipal

corporation, and a political subdivision of the State of Illinois. The City of Chicago received in
excess of $10,000 in federal benefits during the period from

b.

April l,20l7,through March 31, 2018.

The City of Chicago's legislative branch of government was the Chicago

City Council, which was comprised of fifty City Council members, each of whom represented one
of Chicago's fifty wards, and who were also known
and

as

Aldermen. The Aldermen were compensated

publicly elected.

c.

The City Council maintained a Committee on Finance, which exercised

broad powers pertaining to the City's finances. The Committee on Finance's powers included
making recommendations to the full City Council on whether to approve requests for tax increment

financing ("TIF"). TIF was a special funding tool used by the City of Chicago to promote public
and private investment across the

City. TIF funds were

used, among other things, to put vacant

,/l

 Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2

properties back to productive use, such as in conjunction with private development projects. Private

individuals or entities seeking to obtain TIF funds in connection with their projects had to submit

an application to the City

of Chicago

Department

of Planning and Development for review.

Applications were thereafter referred to the Committee on Finance for review, and if approved by
the Committee on Finance, the application would be submitted to the fuIl City Council for a vote.

d.

Alderman

A was Alderman of the Fourteenth

Ward

in Chicago and

Chairman of the Committee on Finance. As Chairman of the Committee on Finance, Alderman

A

had authority over which matters would be considered by that Committee. Alderman A was an
employee and agent of the City of Chicago, and was paid a salary by the City of Chicago.

e.

Alderman A was admiued to practice law in Illinois and was the proprietor

of a private law firm, Law Firm A, which specialized in contesting tax assessments made on real
property and seeking reductions in such tax assessments for the firm's clients.

f.

The City of Chicago Department of Buildings was an agency of the City

of

Chicago. The Department of Buildings issued building permits and sign permits in the City of
Chicago.

g.

The City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development was an

agency ofthe City of Chicago. The Department of Planning and Development ensured that building

permits complied with the Chicago ZontngOrdinance.

h.

Defendant CHARLES CUI was the managing member of Company A, a

limited liability company which owned the property located at 4901 West Irving Park Road in
Chicago, Illinois (the "4901 Property"), which was located in an area outside of Alderman A's

ward. CUI

graduated from a law school located

Michigan, and operated his own law firm.

in Chicago, was admitted to practice law in

 Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3

1.

Company B was a retailer with multiple retail outlets in the Chicagoland

area. Company B had contracted with Company A to operate a retail outlet at the 4901 Property.

j.

Individual

A

was associated with a real estate consulting and project

management firm in Chicago.

k.

Individual B was areal estate attorney located in Park Ridge, Illinois.

TIF Fundine for the 4901 Propertv

2.

On or about February 10,2016, an ordinance was submitted to the City Council

seeking approval of a redevelopment agreement between the City of Chicago and Company A that

provided

for

$2,000,000

in TIF funding for the redevelopment of the 4901 Properfy

(the

"Ordinance"). The Ordinance was referred to the Committee on Finance.

3.

On or about March

lI,

2016, the Committee on Finance, with Alderman A

presiding, recommended that the Ordinance pass.

4.

On or about March 16,2016, on the motion of Alderman A, the City Council passed

the Ordinance. Alderman A voted in favor of the Ordinance.

5.

On or about June 28, 2016, the City of Chicago and Company A signed a

redevelopment agreement for the 4901 Property, which gave Company A access to $2,000,000 in

TIF funds for the redevelopment of the 4901 Property. These TIF funds were payable only after
the conditions provided in the redevelopment agreement were met, and no TIF funds had been
disbursed on or before September 5,2017.

Permit for the 4901 Propertv

6.

On or about April 17, 2017, CUI caused to be submitted to the Department of

Buildings an application for a permit for an existing pole sign located at the 4901 Property. The
application proposed that the sign would be used to advertise Company B.

 Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4

7.

On or about May 18,2017, the application for the permit was denied by the

Department of Planning and Development.

8.
agreement

On or about

llly

21,2017, CUI, on behalf of Company A, entered into

an

with Company B that provided that, if Company A was unable to obtain the necessary

approvals to allow Company B to use the pole sign at the 4901 Property, then Company A would

reduce Company B's rent for the 4901 Property according to an agteed-upon formula. CUI
estimated this rent reduction to have a total cost to Company A of $750,000.

9.

On or about August 23,2017, at approximately 9:58 a.m., CUI sent an email to

Alderman A, which stated, "Good Morning, [Alderman

A]. I had the chance to meet you with

[Individual A] couple of months ago. Hope you still remember me. I have a legal matter that may
need your representation,

if your schedule allows. I own a property located at 4901 W. Irving Park

Road, which used to be a Bank of America

building. My tenant [Company B] applied to reuse the

existing pole sign in fronl of the building (see attached photo), but was denied by zoning, stating
the pole sign was abandoned for several years, and now is illegal. Can you look into the matter,
and advise how to proceed? [Company B] really needs it, otherwise they
Iease, or ask

will either cancel the

for significant rent reduction. It is such a beautiful sign, it is becoming a landmark

for the community and it costs lots of money to remove it."

10.

On or about August 24,2017, at approximately 11:59 a.m., CUI forwarded to

Individual A the email he wrote to Alderman A on or about August 23,2017, and further wrote,

"fyi. I threw your

name there. Maybe he [Alderman

A] thinks there is conflict of interest, because

of his position. I'11 ask him to represent me for property tax appeal, which will be a big bite,
comparing with this."

 Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5

I

l.

On or about August 24, 2017, at approximately 12:03 p.m., CUI sent an email to

Individual B, who had represented CUI in property tax appeals for the 4901 Property. In that
email, CUI wrote, "Can I ask you for a favor? Can I have [Alderman A] handle 4901 W. Irving
Park property tax appeal for me, at least for this year? I have TIF deal going with the City, and he

is the Chairman of Finance Committee. He handled [sic] his tax appeal business card to me, and

I need his favor for my tif money. In addition, I need his help for my zoning etc for my project.
He is a powerful broker in City Hall, and I need him now.

I'll transfer the case back to you after

this year."

12.

On or about August 24,2077, at approximately 12:17 p.m., CUI sent an email to

Alderman A, that stated, 'oDear [Alderman A], I currently have this property 4901,4925,4939 W.

Irving Park Road under redevelopment.

I

may need your representation for tax appeal. The

property was totally vacant till July this year. . . . . Please let me know if you have time to handle
this matter for me. Please let me know when we can schedule a brief phone call. Thank you!"

13.

On or about September 5,2017, CUI signed a contingent fee agreement with Law

Firm A that provided, among other things, CUI would retain Law Firm A to perform real estate

tax work and pay Law Firm A a fee for its work, based on a specified percentage of any tax
reduction obtained for CUI.

14.

Between in or around August 201.7 and continuing until in or around 2018, in the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,
CHARLES CUI,
defendant herein, comrptly offered and agreed to give things of value, namely, fees arising from
the retention of Law Firm A, intending to influence and reward Alderman A,

ffi

agent of the City

of Chicago, in connection with a business, transaction, and series of transactions of the City of

 Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6

Chicago involving a thing of value

of $5,000 or more, namely, a permit and tax

financing conceming the 4901 Property;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(2).

increment

 Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7

COT]NT TWO
The SPECIAL DECEMBER2O17 GRAND JURY turther charges:

On or about August 24, 2017, at approximately 12:03 p.m., at Chicago, in the Northem

District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,
CHARLES CUI,
defendant herein, caused the use of a facility in interstate commerce, namely, an electronic mail
account and associated communication network operated by the service provider Yahoo!, with

intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management,
establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, namely, a violation of 720ILCS 5/33-l

(Bribery), 720 ILCS 5133-3($@) (Official Misconduct), 720 ILCS 5129A-l (Commercial
Bribery), ardT2}lLCS 5129A-2 (Commercial Bribe Receiving), and thereafter, the defendant did
perform and attempt to perform an act to carry on and facilitate the promotion and carrying on
said unlawful activity;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952(a)(3).

of

 Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8

COUNT THREE
The SPECIAL DECEMBER 2017 GRAND JURY turther charges:

On or about August 24, 2017, at approximately 12:17 p.m., at Chicago, in the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,
CHARLES CUI,
defendant herein, caused the use of a facility in interstate commerce, namely, an electronic mail
account and associated communication network operated by the service provider Yahoo!, with

intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management,
establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, namely, a violation

of 720ILCS

5i33-1

(Bribery), 720 ILCS 5133-3($@) (Official Misconduct), 720 ILCS 5/29A-l (Commercial
Bribery), andTZ}lLCS 5129A-2 (Commercial Bribe Receiving), and thereafter, the defendant did
perform and attempt to perform an act to carry on and facilitate the promotion and carrying on
said unlawfrrl activity;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952(a)(3).

of

 Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9

COUIIT X'OUR
The SPECIAL DECEMBER 2017 GRAND JURY turther charges:

1.

Paragraphs 1 through 13 of Count One of this indictment are incorporated here.

2.

Prior to on or about November 29,2078, the Federal Bureau of Investigation had

initiated an investigation of Alderman

A

and CUI concerning potential violations of federal

criminal law.

3.

One issue material to the investigation was the reason why CUI offered to hire

Alderman A as a tax appeal attomey in or around August 2017.

4.

On or about November 29,2018, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division,

CHARLES CUI,
defendant herein, did knowingly and

statement and representation

willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent

in a matter within

the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the government ofthe United States, when
he stated the following:

 Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10

i.

CUI had made no business offers to Alderman A during the pole signage matter;

ii.

CUI offered business to Alderman A "just because he is a good tax appeal lawyer";

iii.

The information CUI provided to federal agents during his interview was accurate

to the best

ofhis knowledge.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(aX2).

A TRUE BILL:

FOREPERSON

I-INITED STATES ATTORNEY

10