Case ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.1 Page 1 of 11 ?0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Judge: Edmunds, Nancy G. MJ: Majzoub, Mona K. Plaintiff Filed: 08-14-2018 At 02:32 PM SEALED MATTER (NA) vs. Violations: D-l KAMEL MOHAMMAD Ct. 1-14: 18 U.S.C. ??1343, 2 RAMMAL and (Wire Fraud, Aiding and Abetting) NASSIF SAMI DAHER (Cts. 8, 10, 13-14), Defendants. I I THE GRAND JURY CHARGES: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS That at all times pertinent to this indictment: 1. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, was a federal welfare program ?inded by the United States Department of Agriculture and, in Michigan, administered by the Michigan Department of Human Services formerly known as the Michigan Family Independence Agency; 2. The SNAP was created by statute and administered by regulation, and Case ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.2 Page 2 of 11 was designed to provide economically disadvantaged persons, meeting speci?ed eligibility criteria, with the funds to purchase essential food products for themselves and their families; 3. Recipients of SNAP bene?ts could use those bene?ts solely for the purchase of eligible food items, and the sale of such bene?ts for cash was strictly prohibited; 4. Recipients of SNAP bene?ts could use those bene?ts only at retail food stores which were formally authorized to participate in the SNAP stores]; 5. To become an SNAP store in Michigan, a store owner was required to complete, sign and submit an SNAP Application for Stores (FNS Form 252) to the USDA Food and Nutrition Services Division showing that the store met eligibility requirements and containing an acknowledgment by the store owner that it was unlawful to trade cash for food stamp bene?ts and to accept bene?ts in exchange for anything but eligible food items; 6. The FNS 252 also contained an express promise that the applicant store I owner would prevent violations of the SNAP rules and regulations such as trading cash for food stamp bene?ts, or accepting bene?ts from people not authorized to use them or for payment for ineligible items; Case ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.3 Page 3 of 11 7. SNAP bene?ts recipients received Electronic Bene?ts Transfer cards, commonly referred to as ?Bridge Cards? due to a depiction of the Mackinaw Bridge on the face of the card, along with Personal Identi?cation Numbers from the MDHS which were used to make food purchases from participating merchants; 8. The MDHS authorized a speci?c dollar amount of SNAP bene?ts to eligible recipients which could be accessed only with their EBT cards and 9. When authorized to participate in the SNAP, retail food stores received electronic terminals, known as ?Point of Sale? terminals, from the FNS, which were required to process SNAP sales; 10. The purchase of eligible food items using SNAP bene?ts was accomplished in the following manner: A. The recipient would select authorized food items at an SNAP store and present them for purchase; B. The recipient?s EBT card would then be scanned by the POS terminal which would read the magnetic strip on the BET card containing the basic electronic information necessary to make the purchase; C. The SNAP recipient would enter the PIN into the POS terminal; Case ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.4 Page 4 of 11 D. The POS terminal would then communicate electronically with a central database computer located outside of the State of Michigan by electronic transmission to determine whether suf?cient bene?ts were available for the purchase; E. The central database computer would then send the POS terminal, by wire, information that the purchase was authorized or denied based on the amount of bene?ts available; F. If authorized, the central database would deduct the purchase price from the balance on the recipient?s account and add a corresponding amount to the SNAP store?s account; G. The central database would calculate the cumulative SNAP bene?t sales for each SNAP store on a daily basis and initiate electronic wire transfers of Department of Agriculture funds from the United States Treasury to the SNAP participating retail store?s designated bank account to pay the SNAP store for SNAP purchases made that day; 11. In August 2007, D?l KAMEL MOHAMMAD RAMMAL and another individual, whose initials are ZS, formed a Michigan corporation under the name Petro to operate a gas station located at 9365 Van Dyke, Detroit, Michigan; Case ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.5 Page 5 of 11 12. On or about December 10, 2007, Petro applied to become an eligible SNAP retailer; 13. On or about December 17, 2007, RAMMAL received noti?cation from the USDA that the application of Petro to become an eligible SNAP retailer was denied because RAMMAL had been previously permanently disquali?ed from participating in the SNAP due to a prior ?nding that he was involved in exchanging cash for bene?ts at a different gas station; 14. In March 2008, Petro, Inc. was incorporated in Michigan to operate a ?Service Station Mini Mart? at 9365 Van Dyke, Detroit, M1 (the same location as Petro) by the individual whose initials are ZS and wife; 15. In September 2008, ZS purportedly bought wife?s share of Petro, Inc., thereby becoming, nominally, the sole owner of Petro; 16. In October 2008, Petro applied to become an authorized SNAP retailer and also advised the USDA that ZS was the sole owner and would not permit any former owners of the disquali?ed business to have jobs at Petro; 17. In fact, RAMMAL owned and managed Petro, and had authority over the Petro Comerica Bank account designated to receive SNAP proceeds for SNAP sales completed at Petro; 18. In about August 2016, NASSIF SAMI DAHER began his Case ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.6 Page 6 of 11 employment at Petro; COUNTS WIRE FRAUD, AIDING AND ABETTIN (18 U.S.C. ??1343, 2: Defendants Speci?ed in Counts) l. The General Allegations are included in this count; 2. Beginning sometime before March 2, 2016, and continuing through May 2017, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, D-l KAMEL MOHAMAD RAMMAL and D-2 NASSIF SAMI DAHER defendants, both directly and aiding and abetting one another, did, having devised a scheme?to defraud and to obtain money from the USDA by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, and for the purpose of executing that scheme, cause the transmission of writings, signs and signals by means of wire and radio transmission in interstate commerce; 3. The object of the scheme to defraud and to obtain money by false and fraudulent pretenses and representations was to obtain SNAP funds from the USDA by purchasing bene?ts from SNAP recipients for cash at a fraction of their value, usually about 50%, and then obtaining the full value of the bene?ts from the USDA by processing the transactions through Petro?s EBT terminal as though the bene?ciary had purchased eligible food items with the bene?ts, a process known as ?discounting.? The SNAP bene?ciaries were willing to accept Case ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.7 Page 7 of 11 cash for their bene?ts at a highly discounted rate because it allowed them to use the bene?ts for any purpose, rather than being restricted to the purchase of eligible food items. The SNAP store engaged in discounting because it allowed the store to obtain money for nothing other than the use of its EBT terminal; 4. On or about the dates indicated below, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, the defendants speci?ed below did, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme to defraud, cause the transmission of writings, signs and signals by means of wire and radio transmission in interstate commerce, speci?cally signals from Detroit, Michigan to Austin, Texas, each such transmission representing a separate count of this indictment: COUNT: DATE: DEFENDANTS: One March 2, 2016 D-l KAMEL MOHAMMAD RAMMAL Two April 6, 2016 D-l KAMEL MOHAMMAD RAMMAL Three May 31, 2016 D-l KAMEL MOHAMMAD RAMMAL Four June 21, 2016 D-l KAMEL MOHAMMAD RAMMAL Five August 12, 2016 D-l KAMEL MOHAMMAD RAMMAL Six September 14, 2016 D-1 KAMEL MOHAMMAD RAMMAL Seven December 13, 2016 D-l KAMEL MOHAMMAD RAMMAL Eight December 20, 2016 D-1 KAMEL MOHAMMAD RAMMAL D-2 NASSIF DAHER 7 Case ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.8 Page 8 of 11 COUNT: DATE: DEFENDANTS: Nine February 24, 2017 D-l KAMEL MOHAMMAD RAMMAL Ten March 21, 2017 D-l KAMEL MOHAMMAD RAMMAL D-2 NASSIF DAHER Eleven April 27, 2017 D-l KAMEL MOHAMMAD RAMMAL Twelve April 28, 2017 D?l KAMEL MOHAMMAD RAMMAL Thirteen May 28, 2017 D-l KAMEL MOHAMMAD RAMMAL NASSIF DAHER Fourteen May 29, 2017 D-l KAMEL MOHAMMAD RAMMAL D-2 NASSIF DAHER . all in violation in Sections 1343 and 2 of Title 18 of the United States Code. FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS (18 U.S.C. 982, 981 and 28 U.S.C. 2461 Criminal Forfeiture) 1. Upon being convicted of Violating Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2 as charged in this Indictment, the convicted defendant(s) shall forfeit to the United States any property which constitutes, or is derived from, proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of such violation(s), pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461, and/or Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2). 2. Money Judgment: Upon being convicted of Violating Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2 as charged in this Indictment, the convicted Case ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.9 Page 9 of 11 defendant(s) shall forfeit to the United States a sum of money equal to the amount representing the total amount of proceeds the convicted defendant obtained as a result of the violations charged in this Indictment. 3. Substitute Assets: If the property described above as being subject to forfeiture, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant(s): (C) (6) Cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; Has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; Has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; Has been substantially diminished in value; or Has been commingled with other property that cannot be subdivided Without dif?culty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p) as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461, to seek to forfeit any other property of defendant(s) up to the value of the forfeitable Case ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 Page 10 of 11 property described above. THIS ISA TRUE BILL 0rep_erson ofthe Grand Jury FOREPERSON OF THE GRAND JURY MATTHEW SCHNEIDER United States Attorney NEAL JOHN K. NEAL Assistant United States Attorney Chief, White Collar Crimes Unit CA THLEEN CORKIN CATHLEEN CORKIN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, National Security Unit CRAIG A. WEIER CRAIG A. WEIER (P33261) Assistant United States Attorney 211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001 Detroit, Michigan 48226 (313) 226?9678 craig.weier@usdoi . gov August 14, 2018 10 Case ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.11 ommuAL United States District Court Criminal Case Casez2218?cr-20559 Eastern District of Michigan Judge: EdmundS, Nancy G. MJ: Majzoub, Mona K. NOTE: It is the responsibility of the Assistant U.S. Attorney signing this form to 1 Filed: 08'1 4,201 8 At 02:32 PM SEALED MATTER (NA) Companion Case Number: This may be a companion case based upon 57.10 Judge Assigned: Yes No Initials: Case Title: USA V- Kamel Mohammad Rammal and Nassif Sami Daher County where offense occurred Wayne Check One: Felony DMisdemeanor EIPetty Indictment! Information no prior complaint. Indictment] information based upon prior complaint [Case number: Indictment] Information based upon 57.10 [Complete Superseding section below]. Superseding to Case No: - Judge: : Corrects errors; no additional charges or defendants. [j Involves, for plea purposes, different charges or adds counts. Embraces same subject matter but adds the additional defendants or charges below: Defendant name Charges Prior Complaint (if applicable) Please take notice that the below listed Assistant United State Attorney is th the above captioned case. - orney of record for August 14, 2018 Date Craig A. Weier Assistant United States Attorney 211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226-3277 Phone:(313) 226-9678 Fax: (313) 226-2873 . . E-Mail address: Attorney Bar P33261 1 Companion cases are matters in which it appears that (1) substantially similar evidence will be offered at trial, or (2) the same or related parties are present, and the cases arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Cases may be companion cases even though one of them may have already been terminated. 5 1&5;