FILED CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 05/27/2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NICOLA T. HANNA United States Attorney BRANDON D. FOX Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division MACK E. JENKINS (Cal. Bar No. 242101) Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Public Corruption & Civil Rights Section VERONICA DRAGALIN (Cal. Bar No. 281370) Assistant United States Attorney Public Corruption & Civil Rights Section 1500 United States Courthouse 312 North Spring Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-2091/0647 Facsimile: (213) 894-6436 E-mail: mack.jenkins@usdoj.gov veronica.dragalin@usdoj.gov CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DM BY: ___________________ DEPUTY 10 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Plaintiff, 16 17 No. CR 2:20-cr-00208-SVW COOPERATION PLEA AGREEMENT FOR DEFENDANT GEORGE ESPARZA v. GEORGE ESPARZA, 18 Defendant. 19 20 1. This constitutes the plea agreement between GEORGE ESPARZA 21 (“defendant”) and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central 22 District of California (“the USAO”) in the above-captioned case. 23 This agreement is limited to the USAO and cannot bind any other 24 federal, state, local, or foreign prosecuting, enforcement, 25 administrative, or regulatory authorities. 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S OBLIGATIONS 2. Defendant agrees to: 1 a. Give up the right to indictment by a grand jury and, 2 at the earliest opportunity requested by the USAO and provided by the 3 Court, appear and plead guilty to a one-count information in the form 4 attached to this agreement as Exhibit 1 or a substantially similar 5 form, which charges defendant with Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 6 Organization (“RICO”) Conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 7 § 1962(d). 8 9 Not contest the Factual Basis agreed to in this c. Abide by all agreements regarding sentencing contained agreement. 10 11 b. in this agreement. 12 d. Appear for all court appearances, surrender as ordered 13 for service of sentence, obey all conditions of any bond, and obey 14 any other ongoing court order in this matter. 15 e. Not commit any crime; however, offenses that would be 16 excluded for sentencing purposes under United States Sentencing 17 Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.” or “Sentencing Guidelines”) § 4A1.2(c) are not 18 within the scope of this agreement. 19 20 f. Be truthful at all times with the United States Probation and Pretrial Services Office and the Court. 21 g. Pay the applicable special assessment at or before the 22 time of sentencing unless defendant has demonstrated a lack of 23 ability to pay such assessment. 24 3. Defendant further agrees to cooperate fully with the USAO, 25 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and, as directed by the 26 USAO, any other federal, state, local, or foreign prosecuting, 27 enforcement, administrative, or regulatory authority. 28 cooperation requires defendant to: 2 This 1 a. Respond truthfully and completely to all questions 2 that may be put to defendant, whether in interviews, before a grand 3 jury, or at any trial or other court proceeding. 4 b. Attend all meetings, grand jury sessions, trials or 5 other proceedings at which defendant’s presence is requested by the 6 USAO or compelled by subpoena or court order. 7 c. Produce voluntarily all documents, records, or other 8 tangible evidence relating to matters about which the USAO, or its 9 designee, inquires. 10 4. For purposes of this agreement: (1) “Cooperation 11 Information” shall mean any statements made, or documents, records, 12 tangible evidence, or other information provided, by defendant 13 pursuant to defendant’s cooperation under this agreement; and 14 (2) “Plea Information” shall mean any statements made by defendant, 15 under oath, at the guilty plea hearing and the agreed to factual 16 basis statement in this agreement. 17 18 THE USAO’S OBLIGATIONS 5. 19 20 21 22 23 The USAO agrees to: a. Not contest the Factual Basis agreed to in this b. Abide by all agreements regarding sentencing contained agreement. in this agreement. c. At the time of sentencing, provided that defendant 24 demonstrates an acceptance of responsibility for the offenses up to 25 and including the time of sentencing, recommend a two-level reduction 26 in the applicable Sentencing Guidelines offense level, pursuant to 27 U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, and recommend and, if necessary, move for an 28 additional one-level reduction if available under that section. 3 1 2 6. The USAO further agrees: a. Not to offer as evidence in its case-in-chief in the 3 above-captioned case or any other criminal prosecution that may be 4 brought against defendant by the USAO, or in connection with any 5 sentencing proceeding in any criminal case that may be brought 6 against defendant by the USAO, any Cooperation Information. 7 Defendant agrees, however, that the USAO may use both Cooperation 8 Information and Plea Information: (1) to obtain and pursue leads to 9 other evidence, which evidence may be used for any purpose, including 10 any criminal prosecution of defendant; (2) to cross-examine defendant 11 should defendant testify, or to rebut any evidence offered, or 12 argument or representation made, by defendant, defendant’s counsel, 13 or a witness called by defendant in any trial, sentencing hearing, or 14 other court proceeding; and (3) in any criminal prosecution of 15 defendant for false statement, obstruction of justice, or perjury. 16 b. Not to use Cooperation Information against defendant 17 at sentencing for the purpose of determining the applicable guideline 18 range, including the appropriateness of an upward departure, or the 19 sentence to be imposed, and to recommend to the Court that 20 Cooperation Information not be used in determining the applicable 21 guideline range or the sentence to be imposed. 22 understands, however, that Cooperation Information will be disclosed 23 to the United States Probation and Pretrial Services Office and the 24 Court, and that the Court may use Cooperation Information for the 25 purposes set forth in U.S.S.G § 1B1.8(b) and for determining the 26 sentence to be imposed. 27 28 4 Defendant 1 c. In connection with defendant’s sentencing, to bring to 2 the Court’s attention the nature and extent of defendant’s 3 cooperation. 4 d. If the USAO determines, in its exclusive judgment, 5 that defendant has both complied with defendant’s obligations under 6 paragraphs 2 and 3 above and provided substantial assistance to law 7 enforcement in the prosecution or investigation of another 8 (“substantial assistance”), to move the Court pursuant to U.S.S.G. 9 § 5K1.1 to fix an offense level and corresponding guideline range 10 below that otherwise dictated by the sentencing guidelines, and to 11 recommend a term of imprisonment within this reduced range. 12 DEFENDANT’S UNDERSTANDINGS REGARDING COOPERATION 13 14 7. Defendant understands the following: a. Any knowingly false or misleading statement by 15 defendant will subject defendant to prosecution for false statement, 16 obstruction of justice, and perjury and will constitute a breach by 17 defendant of this agreement. 18 b. Nothing in this agreement requires the USAO or any 19 other prosecuting, enforcement, administrative, or regulatory 20 authority to accept any cooperation or assistance that defendant may 21 offer, or to use it in any particular way. 22 c. Defendant cannot withdraw defendant’s guilty plea if 23 the USAO does not make a motion pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 for a 24 reduced guideline range or if the USAO makes such a motion and the 25 Court does not grant it or if the Court grants such a USAO motion but 26 elects to sentence above the reduced range. 27 28 d. At this time the USAO makes no agreement or representation as to whether any cooperation that defendant has 5 1 provided or intends to provide constitutes or will constitute 2 substantial assistance. 3 substantial assistance will rest solely within the exclusive judgment 4 of the USAO. 5 e. The decision whether defendant has provided The USAO’s determination whether defendant has 6 provided substantial assistance will not depend in any way on whether 7 the government prevails at any trial or court hearing in which 8 defendant testifies or in which the government otherwise presents 9 information resulting from defendant’s cooperation. That is, whether 10 any other person, after trial, is found guilty or not guilty of any 11 offense will have no effect on the government’s sentencing 12 recommendation for defendant. 13 14 NATURE OF THE OFFENSES 8. Defendant understands that for defendant to be guilty of 15 the crime charged in count one, that is, RICO Conspiracy, in 16 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), the following must be true: 17 a. First, there was an agreement between two or more 18 persons that: (i) an enterprise, namely, the CD-A Enterprise would 19 exist, as alleged in the Information; and (ii) a member of the 20 agreement associated with the CD-A Enterprise would conduct or 21 participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the CD-A 22 Enterprise affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity, as 23 described in the Information; 24 25 26 b. Second, defendant became a member of the agreement knowing of its purpose and agreeing to further or facilitate it; and c. Third, the CD-A Enterprise would or did engage in, or 27 its activities would or did affect, interstate or foreign commerce. 28 An “enterprise” includes a group of people associated together for a 6 1 common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct over a period of 2 time. 3 acts chargeable under provisions of federal and state law listed in 4 the RICO Act, including Giving or Offering a Bribe, in violation of 5 California Penal Code § 67, Requesting or Taking a Bribe, in 6 violation of California Penal Code § 68, Honest Services Fraud 7 through Mail and Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 1341, 8 and 1343, Money Laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957, 9 and Obstruction of Justice and Witness Tampering, in violation of 18 “Racketeering activity” refers to the commission of multiple 10 U.S.C. § 1512. 11 racketeering acts, the last of which occurred within ten years of the 12 commission of a prior act of racketeering, that have a relationship 13 to each other and pose a threat of continuity. 14 pattern if it consists of criminal acts that have the same or similar 15 purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, 16 or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and 17 are not isolated. 18 guilty of this offense as described in count one of the Information. 19 A “pattern of racketeering activity” is at least two Conduct forms a Defendant admits that defendant is, in fact, PENALTIES 20 9. Defendant understands that the statutory maximum sentence 21 that the Court can impose for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) is: 22 20 years’ imprisonment; a 3-year period of supervised release; a fine 23 of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or gross loss resulting from the 24 offense, whichever is greatest; and a mandatory special assessment of 25 $100. 26 10. Defendant understands that supervised release is a period 27 of time following imprisonment during which defendant will be subject 28 to various restrictions and requirements. 7 Defendant understands that 1 if defendant violates one or more of the conditions of any supervised 2 release imposed, defendant may be returned to prison for all or part 3 of the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the 4 offense that resulted in the term of supervised release, which could 5 result in defendant serving a total term of imprisonment greater than 6 the statutory maximum stated above. 7 11. Defendant understands that, by pleading guilty, defendant 8 may be giving up valuable government benefits and valuable civic 9 rights, such as the right to vote, the right to possess a firearm, 10 the right to hold office, and the right to serve on a jury. 11 Defendant understands that he is pleading guilty to a felony and that 12 it is a federal crime for a convicted felon to possess a firearm or 13 ammunition. 14 may also subject defendant to various other collateral consequences, 15 including but not limited to revocation of probation, parole, or 16 supervised release in another case and suspension or revocation of a 17 professional license. 18 collateral consequences will not serve as grounds to withdraw 19 defendant’s guilty plea. 20 21 Defendant understands that the conviction in this case Defendant understands that unanticipated FACTUAL BASIS 12. Defendant admits that defendant is, in fact, guilty of the 22 offense to which defendant is agreeing to plead guilty. 23 and the USAO agree to the statement of facts attached hereto as 24 Attachment A and agree that this statement of facts is sufficient to 25 support a plea of guilty to the charge described in this agreement 26 and to establish the Sentencing Guidelines factors set forth in 27 paragraph 14 below but is not meant to be a complete recitation of 28 8 Defendant 1 all facts relevant to the underlying criminal conduct or all facts 2 known to either party that relate to that conduct. 3 4 SENTENCING FACTORS 13. Defendant understands that in determining defendant’s 5 sentence the Court is required to calculate the applicable Sentencing 6 Guidelines range and to consider that range, possible departures 7 under the Sentencing Guidelines, and the other sentencing factors set 8 forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 9 Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, that defendant cannot have Defendant understands that the 10 any expectation of receiving a sentence within the calculated 11 Sentencing Guidelines range, and that after considering the 12 Sentencing Guidelines and the other § 3553(a) factors, the Court will 13 be free to exercise its discretion to impose any sentence it finds 14 appropriate up to the maximum set by statute for the crime of 15 conviction. 16 17 14. Defendant and the USAO agree to the following applicable Sentencing Guidelines factors: 18 Base Offense Level: 12 19 More than 1 Bribe: +2 20 Bribe Value >$550,000: 21 +14 Elected Official: +4 U.S.S.G. §§ 2E1.1(a)(2); 2C1.1(a)(1) U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(1) U.S.S.G. §§ 2C1.1(b)(2); 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(3) 22 23 24 25 26 27 Defendant and the USAO reserve the right to argue that additional specific offense characteristics, adjustments, and departures under the Sentencing Guidelines are appropriate. 15. Defendant understands that there is no agreement as to defendant’s criminal history or criminal history category. 28 9 1 16. Defendant and the USAO reserve the right to argue for a 2 sentence outside the sentencing range established by the Sentencing 3 Guidelines based on the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), 4 (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(6), and (a)(7). 5 6 7 WAIVER OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 17. Defendant understands that by pleading guilty, defendant gives up the following rights: 8 a. The right to persist in a plea of not guilty. 9 b. The right to a speedy and public trial by jury. 10 c. The right to be represented by counsel – and if 11 necessary have the Court appoint counsel - at trial. 12 understands, however, that, defendant retains the right to be 13 represented by counsel – and if necessary have the Court appoint 14 counsel – at every other stage of the proceeding. 15 d. Defendant The right to be presumed innocent and to have the 16 burden of proof placed on the government to prove defendant guilty 17 beyond a reasonable doubt. 18 19 20 e. The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against defendant. f. The right to testify and to present evidence in 21 opposition to the charges, including the right to compel the 22 attendance of witnesses to testify. 23 g. The right not to be compelled to testify, and, if 24 defendant chose not to testify or present evidence, to have that 25 choice not be used against defendant. 26 h. Any and all rights to pursue any affirmative defenses, 27 Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment claims, and other pretrial 28 motions that have been filed or could be filed. 10 1 2 WAIVER OF APPEAL OF CONVICTION 18. Defendant understands that, with the exception of an appeal 3 based on a claim that defendant’s guilty plea was involuntary, by 4 pleading guilty defendant is waiving and giving up any right to 5 appeal defendant’s conviction on the offense to which defendant is 6 pleading guilty. 7 but is not limited to, arguments that the statute to which defendant 8 is pleading guilty is unconstitutional, and any and all claims that 9 the statement of facts provided herein is insufficient to support 10 defendant’s plea of guilty. 11 12 Defendant understands that this waiver includes, LIMITED MUTUAL WAIVER OF APPEAL OF SENTENCE 19. Defendant agrees that, provided the Court imposes a total 13 term of imprisonment of no more than 87 months, defendant gives up 14 the right to appeal all of the following: (a) the procedures and 15 calculations used to determine and impose any portion of the 16 sentence; (b) the term of imprisonment imposed by the Court; (c) the 17 fine imposed by the Court, provided it is within the statutory 18 maximum; (d) to the extent permitted by law, the constitutionality or 19 legality of defendant’s sentence, provided it is within the statutory 20 maximum; (e) the term of probation or supervised release imposed by 21 the Court, provided it is within the statutory maximum; and (g) any 22 of the following conditions of probation or supervised release 23 imposed by the Court: the conditions set forth in General Order 20-04 24 of this Court; the drug testing conditions mandated by 18 U.S.C. 25 §§ 3563(a)(5) and 3583(d). 26 20. The USAO agrees that, provided all portions of the sentence 27 are at or below the statutory maximum specified above, the USAO gives 28 up its right to appeal any portion of the sentence. 11 1 2 RESULT OF WITHDRAWAL OF GUILTY PLEA 21. Defendant agrees that if, after entering a guilty plea 3 pursuant to this agreement, defendant seeks to withdraw and succeeds 4 in withdrawing defendant’s guilty plea on any basis other than a 5 claim and finding that entry into this plea agreement was 6 involuntary, then (a) the USAO will be relieved of all of its 7 obligations under this agreement, including in particular its 8 obligations regarding the use of Cooperation Information; (b) in any 9 investigation, criminal prosecution, or civil, administrative, or 10 regulatory action, defendant agrees that any Cooperation Information 11 and any evidence derived from any Cooperation Information shall be 12 admissible against defendant, and defendant will not assert, and 13 hereby waives and gives up, any claim under the United States 14 Constitution, any statute, or any federal rule, that any Cooperation 15 Information or any evidence derived from any Cooperation Information 16 should be suppressed or is inadmissible. 17 18 EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT 22. This agreement is effective upon signature and execution of 19 all required certifications by defendant, defendant’s counsel, and an 20 Assistant United States Attorney. 21 22 BREACH OF AGREEMENT 23. Defendant agrees that if defendant, at any time after the 23 signature of this agreement and execution of all required 24 certifications by defendant, defendant’s counsel, and an Assistant 25 United States Attorney, knowingly violates or fails to perform any of 26 defendant’s obligations under this agreement (“a breach”), the USAO 27 may declare this agreement breached. 28 knowingly, in an interview, before a grand jury, or at trial, falsely 12 For example, if defendant 1 accuses another person of criminal conduct or falsely minimizes 2 defendant’s own role, or the role of another, in criminal conduct, 3 defendant will have breached this agreement. 4 obligations are material, a single breach of this agreement is 5 sufficient for the USAO to declare a breach, and defendant shall not 6 be deemed to have cured a breach without the express agreement of the 7 USAO in writing. 8 the Court finds such a breach to have occurred, then: 9 a. All of defendant’s If the USAO declares this agreement breached, and If defendant has previously entered a guilty plea 10 pursuant to this agreement, defendant will not be able to withdraw 11 the guilty plea. 12 b. The USAO will be relieved of all its obligations under 13 this agreement; in particular, the USAO: (i) will no longer be bound 14 by any agreements concerning sentencing and will be free to seek any 15 sentence up to the statutory maximum for the crime to which defendant 16 has pleaded guilty; and (iii) will no longer be bound by any 17 agreement regarding the use of Cooperation Information and will be 18 free to use any Cooperation Information in any way in any 19 investigation, criminal prosecution, or civil, administrative, or 20 regulatory action. 21 c. The USAO will be free to criminally prosecute 22 defendant for false statement, obstruction of justice, and perjury 23 based on any knowingly false or misleading statement by defendant. 24 d. In any investigation, criminal prosecution, or civil, 25 administrative, or regulatory action: (i) defendant will not assert, 26 and hereby waives and gives up, any claim that any Cooperation 27 Information was obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment 28 privilege against compelled self-incrimination; and (ii) defendant 13 1 agrees that any Cooperation Information and any Plea Information, as 2 well as any evidence derived from any Cooperation Information or any 3 Plea Information, shall be admissible against defendant, and 4 defendant will not assert, and hereby waives and gives up, any claim 5 under the United States Constitution, any statute, Rule 410 of the 6 Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 11(f) of the Federal Rules of 7 Criminal Procedure, or any other federal rule, that any Cooperation 8 Information, any Plea Information, or any evidence derived from any 9 Cooperation Information or any Plea Information should be suppressed 10 or is inadmissible. 11 COURT AND UNITED STATES PROBATION AND PRETRIAL SERVICES 12 OFFICE NOT PARTIES 13 24. Defendant understands that the Court and the United States 14 Probation and Pretrial Services Office are not parties to this 15 agreement and need not accept any of the USAO’s sentencing 16 recommendations or the parties’ agreements to facts or sentencing 17 factors. 18 25. Defendant understands that both defendant and the USAO are 19 free to: (a) supplement the facts by supplying relevant information 20 to the United States Probation and Pretrial Services Office and the 21 Court, (b) correct any and all factual misstatements relating to the 22 Court’s Sentencing Guidelines calculations and determination of 23 sentence, and (c) argue on appeal and collateral review that the 24 Court’s Sentencing Guidelines calculations and the sentence it 25 chooses to impose are not error, although each party agrees to 26 maintain its view that the calculations in paragraph 14 are 27 consistent with the facts of this case. 28 the USAO and defendant to submit full and complete factual 14 This paragraph permits both 1 information to the United States Probation and Pretrial Services 2 Office and the Court, even if that factual information may be viewed 3 as inconsistent with the Factual Basis agreed to in this agreement. 4 26. Defendant understands that even if the Court ignores any 5 sentencing recommendation, finds facts or reaches conclusions 6 different from those agreed to, and/or imposes any sentence up to the 7 maximum established by statute, defendant cannot, for that reason, 8 withdraw defendant’s guilty plea, and defendant will remain bound to 9 fulfill all defendant’s obligations under this agreement. Defendant 10 understands that no one –- not the prosecutor, defendant’s attorney, 11 or the Court –- can make a binding prediction or promise regarding 12 the sentence defendant will receive, except that it will be within 13 the statutory maximum. 14 NO ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS 15 27. Defendant understands that, except as set forth herein, 16 there are no promises, understandings, or agreements between the USAO 17 and defendant or defendant’s attorney, and that no additional 18 promise, understanding, or agreement may be entered into unless in a 19 writing signed by all parties or on the record in court. 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 15 PLEA AGREEMENT PART OF THE GUILTY PLEA HEARING 28. The parties agree that this agreement will be considered AGREED AND ACCEPTED UNITED STATES OFFICE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NICOLA T. HANNA Uniteg States Attorney MACK .i??mkg?s VERO IC Assi tant ghited States Attorneys TERREN Attorn Defendant GEORGE ESPARZA 16 part of the record of defendant?s guilty plea hearing as if the entire agreement had been read into the record of the proceeding. CERTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT I have read this agreement in its entirety. I have had enough time to review and consider this agreement, and I have carefully and thoroughly discussed every part of it with my attorney. I understand the terms of this agreement, and I voluntarily agree to those terms. I have discussed the evidence with my attorney, and my attorney has advised me of my rights, of possible pretrial motions that might be filed, of possible defenses that might be asserted either prior to or at trial, of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), of relevant Sentencing Guidelines provisions, and of the consequences of entering into this agreement. No promises, indUcements, or representations of any kind have been made to me other than those contained in this agreement. No one has threatened or forced me in any way to enter into this agreement. I am satisfied with the representation of my attorney in this matter, and I am pleading guilty because I am guilty of the charge and wish to take advantage of the promises set forth in this agreement, and not for any other reason . WW s/zr /zo GEORGE ESPARZA Date Defendant 17 LON CERTIFICATION OF ATTORNEY I am GEORGE attorney. I have carefully and thoroughly discussed every part of this agreement with my client. Further, I have fully advised my client of his rights, of possible pretrial motions that might be filed, of possible defenses that might be asserted either prior to or at trial, of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), of relevant Sentencing Guidelines provisions, and of the consequences of entering into this agreement. To my knowledge: no promises, inducements, or representations of any kind have been made to my client other than those contained in this agreement; no one has threatened or forced my client in any way to enter into this agreement; my client?s decision to enter into this agreement is an informed and voluntary one; and the factual basis set forth in this agreement is sufficient to support my client?s entry of a guilt I a pursuant to this agreement. 55/925 TERRENCE Attorney Defendant GEORGE ESPARZA Date 18 ATTACHMENT A FACTUAL BASIS A. The CD-A Enterprise 1. Throughout the period described in the attached Information, the Council District A Enterprise Enterprise?), . located in the City of Los Angeles (?the City?), is and was a criminal enterprise composed of a group of individuals associated for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct, which course includes bribery, extortion, honest services fraud, money laundering, structuring, and obstruction of justice, to achieve the goals of the enterprise. The goals of the CD-A Enterprise included, but were not limited to: a. enriching the members and associates of the CD-A Enterprise; b. advancing the political goals and maintaining the control and authority of the Enterprise by elevating members and associates of the CD-A Enterprise to, and maintaining those individuals? placement in, prominent political positions; c. concealing the financial activities of the Enterprise through money laundering and structuring; and d. protecting the Enterprise by obstructing justice. 2. The Enterprise was led by Councilmember A, Councilmember for CD-A, who had jurisdiction over a large number of development projects undergoing the application and approval process in the City. Members and associates of the Enterprise conspired with one another to facilitate bribery schemes that would provide Councilmember A and other City officials financial benefits and keep DEFT . INITIALS ?6 Councilmember A in power and maintain the Enterprise?s political stronghold in the City. 3. In exchange, Councilmember A and members and associates of the Enterprise would take official action to ensure certain development projects and CD-A Enterprise associates received favored treatment from the City and thereby secure their bribe-financed influence. In addition, members and associates of the Enterprise sought political contributions from developers and their proxies lobbyists, consultants, etc.) to benefit Councilmember A and allies in exchange for official acts to benefit those . developers and their proxies. 4. In order to protect and hide the financial payments that flowed from the developers and their proxies to the public officials, members and associates of the CD-A Enterprise engaged in money laundering and other illegal activities to conceal monetary transactions and bribe payments. 5. In order to protect the CD-A Enterprise and avoid law enforcement detection, members and associates of the CD-A Enterprise engaged in the following types of obstructive conduct: (1) lying to law enforcement in an effort to impede the investigation into 7 criminal conduct of the Enterprise; and (2) attempting to corruptly influence the statements of others to law enforcement. 6. As a result of its bribery, extortion, honest services fraud, money laundering, and structuring conduct, throughout the period described in the attached Information, and as known to defendant ESPARZA, Enterprise members and associates engaged in, and their activities in some way affected, commerce between one state and another state. DEFT. INITIALS ?6 2 Defendant's Role in the Enterprise 7. Beginning no later than February 2013, and continuing at least until November 2018, defendant ESPARZA was a member of the CD-A Enterprise. In that capacity, defendant ESPARZA conspired and agreed with other CD-A Enterprise members that a conspirator would commit at least two racketeering acts, in the form of conspiracy to commit bribery, honest services fraud, and structuring, which acts had a relationship to one another and the CD-A Enterprise, and posed a threat of continued criminal activity. Defendant ESPARZA became a member of this conspiracy knowing of this object, knowing it was illegal, and intending to help accomplish it. 8. Defendant ESPARZA was Councilmember A's Special Assistant and an employee of the City from September 2009 until December 31, 2017. 9. Defendant ESPARZA, along with other members and associates of the CD-A Enterprise, operated and helped to operate a pay-to-play scheme within the City, wherein public officials solicited and demanded direct and indirect financial benefits from developers and their proxies in exchange for official acts. In exchange for such financial benefits from developers and their proxies, defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A agreed to perform and performed the following types of official acts, among others: (1) filing motions and voting on projects in various City committees, including City Council; (2) taking, or not taking, action on the Planning and Land Use Management Committee to influence the approval process and project costs; (3) negotiating with and exerting pressure on labor unions and other City entities to resolve issues on projects; (4) exerting pressure on developers with projects pending before the DEFT . INITIALS QE. 3 City to affect their business practices; and (5) taking official action to enhance the professional reputation and marketability of businesspersons in the City. 10. Also in furtherance of the racketeering conspiracy, defendant ESPARZA facilitated and participated in at least the following schemes: 1. Project Bribery Scheme 11. In or around February 2013, Individual 1, then the Interim General Manager of the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety introduced defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A to Chairman at a dinner in Los Angeles, California. Chairman E, a Chinese national and billionaire, owned Company E, one of China?s leading real estate development companies. Chairman also owned Property E, located in CD-A, and another property, located in another Council District in the City. 12. Between March 2013 and November 2018, Chairman E, aided and abetted by Individual 1 and others, provided financial benefits directly and indirectly to defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A, in exchange for defendant ESPARZA's and Councilmember A's assistance to Chairman and Company in Councilmember A?s official capacity as a City Councilmember on an ongoing and as-needed basis and related to specific matters. Defendant ESPARZA, Councilmember A, Chairman E, Individual 1, and others established a mutually beneficial agreement to exchange a stream of benefits for official acts and to further the Enterprise?s goals. Specifically, Chairman provided defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A financial benefits in over a dozen trips to casinos in Las Vegas and Australia. Between June 2014 and January 2018, defendant ESPARZA personally accepted at least approximately DEFT. INITIALS ?6 4 I $32,000 in gambling chips, plus flights on private jets and commercial airlines, stays at luxurious hotels, expensive meals and alcohol, spa services, event tickets, and escort services from Chairman E. 13. For example, on January 1, 2016, defendant ESPARZA, Councilmember A, Chairman E, and Executive Director E, Chairman Efs right hand man, traveled to Australia (the ?January 2016 Australia trip?), where defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A accepted financial benefits from Chairman E, including private jet flights for defendant ESPARZA, a $10,980 commercial airline ticket for Councilmember A, hotels, meals, alcohol, and other expenses. In addition, Chairman provided defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A casino chips, which defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A cashed out in Australian dollars. 14. After the January 2016 Australia trip, defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A discussed evading bank reporting requirements in converting Australian dollars to American dollars in an effort to conceal their financial relationship with Chairman E, to avoid law enforcement detection, and to protect the CD-A Enterprise. Specifically, on February 8, 2016 and February 9, 2016, defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A had a conversation via text message regarding evading bank reporting requirements when converting Australian dollars they received from Chairman E. Defendant ESPARZA told Councilmember A about the exchange rate, adding: ?They are asking me for my drivers license and social security for IRS record. Do you think it's fine to leave my info?? Councilmember A responded: ?No. Maybe we can change a little at a 10 in future.? Councilmember A also wrote: ?Don't exchange if they are asking for DEFT. INITIALS Q5 5 all that info." Councilmember A later instructed defendant ESPARZA by text message: ?Go to the other place tomorrow and take 9 k. See if they change 9 without getting your social security number.? Councilmember A added: ?Even if they take your social security, it doesn't mean that they will report to irs. They probably will just .keep it for their records but not do anything with tax reporting.9 Defendant ESPARZA responded: ?Ok cool. I'll go tomorrow.? Defendant ESPARZA later wrote: exchanged 10k today. Will do another tomorrow. If it's under 10k, they will not report.? 15. Between approximately July 2014 and September 2014, Chairman E, at Individual 1?s urging and with defendant knowledge, facilitated the payment of $600,000 to help Councilmember A privately and confidentially resolve a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Councilmember A during the time Councilmember A was facing re-election. Specifically, on June 7, 2013, a sexual harassment lawsuit was filed against Councilmember A by a former CD-A employee. Thereafter, Councilmember A, Chairman E, and Individual 1 orchestrated an arrangement whereby Chairman secured $600,000 in collateral for Councilmember A to obtain a personal loan from a bank for $570,000 to privately pay the sexual harassment settlement and legal fees and resolve it without publicly disclosing details. Defendant ESPARZA and Executive Director E, on behalf of Chairman E, facilitated the arrangement. Councilmember A expressed to defendant ESPARZA the need to conceal this arrangement, including concealing the fact that Chairman was the source of the $600,000 collateral. 16. In exchange for the $600,000 collateral for Councilmember A?s personal loan, Chairman asked for a series of benefits from defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A during the time Chairman was DEFT. INITIALS 6 also supplying financial benefits to defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A. 17. For example, in 2014, to benefit Chairman E?s reputation in the City's business community, Councilmember A introduced and signed a resolution before the City Council recognizing Chairman for Chairman E?s achievements and contributions to the economy of which the City Council signed and adopted. 18. Most significantly, Chairman provided bribes to defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A because, as the Chair of the PLUM Committee and CD-A Councilmember, Councilmember A was poised to significantly benefit Chairman E?s desire and plans to redevelop Property and transform it into a 77-story making it the tallest building west of the Mississippi River (?Project Project would require official acts from Councilmember A at various stages of the City approval process. 19. On August 4, 2016, Councilmember A, Individual 1, senior officials from the Planning Department, and senior CD-A staff members met with Chairman and his team to discuss Project E, including Chairman E?s interest in pursuing Transient Occupancy Tax rebates, Transfer of Floor Area Rights and other incentives from the City. 20. In or around August 2016, on a private jet flight back from Las Vegas, Chairman requested Councilmember A?s assistance in hiring a consultant on Project Thereafter, on August 15, 2016, defendant ESPARZA texted Councilmember A regarding Project E: ?Reminder boss to decide what land use expediters you want to recommend to the Chairman DEFT. INITIALS ?5 7 I December 16, 2016, defendant ESPARZA forwarded an e?mail to Councilmember A from City Staffer A-2, a CD-A staff member, listing a number of consultants, writing: ?Hi Boss, Here is the list of land use consultants per [City Staffer past recommendations. Chairman would like us to schedule interviews on Monday.? 22. On April 27, 2017, in a telephone call between defendant ESPARZA and Executive Director E, the two discussed a proposed consultant for Project E. Defendant ESPARZA stated: ?So, remember,l the Chairman was gonna hire [a specific consultant]? [Councilmember wanted me to tell the Chairman not to hire him anymore.? When Executive Director asked why, defendant ESPARZA responded: ?Because, ah, [Councilmember can't trust him he's too loyal to another elected So [Councilmember rdoesn?t think it's a good idea, it?s not a good idea to, to put him on the project.? 23. Chairman brought up Project on numerous occasions in the presence of defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A. Chairman E, through translation provided by Executive Director E, expressed to Councilmember A that Chairman wanted to build the tallest tower west of the Mississippi. In response, Councilmember A expressed support of the project. 24. On May 9, 2017, in a telephone call, defendant ESPARZA and Executive Director discussed the relationship between Chairman and Councilmember A. Executive Director stated that Chairman expected to lay everything in front of Councilmember A at an upcoming trip to Cabo San Lucas, which defendant ESPARZA understood to refer to the assistance Chairman expected from Councilmember A on Project DEFT . INITIALS ?5 8 Executive Director added that Chairman was ?going to make [Councilmember think that, make it, otherwise Chairman ask him to, uh, pay back that $600,000 already. Last night.? When defendant ESPARZA stated that ?[Councilmember A]?s not going to do that either,? Executive Director responded: ?Chairman will push him.? According to Executive Director E, Chairman raised this issue with Councilmember A the previous evening at the same time that Chairman told Councilmember A that Chairman heard from multiple sources that the FBI was looking into Councilmember A. 25. On May 9, 2017, in a telephone call between defendant ESPARZA and another CD-A staffer, defendant ESPARZA stated: ?Chairman should have all the leverage in the world [be]cause of what [Councilmember owes [Chairman Defendant ESPARZA meant that Chairman expected Councilmember A?s assistance on Project E, or any other requested assistance, from Councilmember A because of the financial benefits Chairman had provided to Councilmember A. 2. Project Bribery Scheme 26. In the summer of 2016, Labor Organization A filed an appeal requesting to suspend all activity to implement one of Developer C's development projects, Project C, that required City approval until Project was brought into compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act by correcting certain deficiencies (the ?appeal?). The appeal prevented Project from progressing through the rest of the City approval processes, including approvals by the PLUM Committee and City Council. 27. Between August 2016 and July 2017, Developer agreed to fund a $500,000 cash bribe designed to benefit Councilmember A, through defendant ESPARZA and Justin Kim in exchange for DEFT. INITIALS QE 9 Councilmember A?s assistance on Project C. Developer C, through Kim, initially provided $400,000 in cash that Developer intended for Councilmember A between February and March 2017. Councilmember A directed defendant ESPARZA to hold on to $200,000 of the total bribe payment for Councilmember A. Defendant ESPARZA and Kim each kept a portion of the remaining $200,000 bribe payment for themselves as kickbacks for facilitating the bribe. In exchange, Developer C, through Kim and defendant ESPARZA, sought to use Councilmember A?s influence as the Councilmember of and Chair of the PLUM Committee to pressure Labor Organization A to withdraw, abandon, or otherwise lose its appeal opposing Project C, thereby allowing the project to move forward in its City approval process. 28. On September 1, 2016, defendant ESPARZA, Kim, and Councilmember A had dinner together and then visited a Korean karaoke establishment in Los Angeles. During the karaoke meeting, Kim asked Councilmember A for assistance with the appeal on Project C, and Councilmember A agreed to help. Kim then called Developer and asked him to join the group at karaoke, which Developer did. 29. On September 2, 2016, defendant ESPARZA and Kim met for lunch in Los Angeles. At Councilmember A?s direction, defendant ESPARZA expressed to Kim that Councilmember A would not help Project for free and that Councilmember A?s help would require a financial benefit in exchange for help ensuring Project moved forward through the City approval process. 30. On January 17, 2017, defendant ESPARZA, Councilmember A, Kim, and Developer C?s business associates met at Councilmember A?s City Hall office to discuss, among other things, Project C. During a private meeting that included only defendant ESPARZA, Councilmember DEFT . INITIALS Q2: 10 and Kim, Kim again asked Councilmember A for assistance with the appeal, and Councilmember A responded that he could help. 31. In or around January 2017, at the direction of Councilmember A, defendant ESPARZA learned that resolving the appeal on Project would save Developer an estimated $30 million on development costs. 32. In or around January 2017, based on conversations with Councilmember A and Lobbyist C, defendant ESPARZA told Kim that it would cost approximately $1.2 million to $1.4 million to get Councilmember A to resolve the appeal and allow Project to move forward in the City approval process. 33. Between February 2, 2017 and February 10, 2017, defendant ESPARZA had individual text message conversations with Councilmember A and Kim, discussing the negotiation of the bribe payment and the amount of the bribe payment from Developer to Councilmember A. 34. In approximately February 2017, defendant ESPARZA and Kim had discussions regarding the negotiation of the bribe amount. Kim conveyed a counteroffer of $500,000 cash from Developer for Councilmember A. Defendant ESPARZA then conveyed this counteroffer to Councilmember A. 35. In approximately February 2017, defendant ESPARZA and Kim met at a restaurant in Los Angeles to discuss the bribe amount. Defendant ESPARZA and Kim discussed that Developer agreed to pay $500,000 in cash in exchange for Councilmember A?s assistance in resolving the appeal so that Project could move forward in the City approval process, including approvals by the PLUM Committee and City Council. Thereafter, defendant ESPARZA conveyed this agreed?upon bribe payment amount to Councilmember A, stating specifically that DEFT. INITIALS ?5 11 Councilmember A would get $300,000 total and Kim would get $200,000 total for facilitating the bribery scheme. 36. In approximately February and March 2017, defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A discussed the appeal. Councilmember A instructed defendant ESPARZA to speak to Lobbyist C, a close associate of the Executive Director of Labor Organization A. Subsequently, Councilmember A told defendant ESPARZA that Councilmember A discussed the appeal with Lobbyist C. Councilmember A conveyed to Lobbyist that Councilmember A would oppose the appeal in the PLUM committee. Lobbyist agreed to discuss the issue with the Executive Director of Labor Organization A. 37. On February 14, 2017, defendant ESPARZA had a text message conversation with Lobbyist about setting up a private meeting between Lobbyist and Councilmember A. Specifically, defendant ESPARZA wrote: ?My boss [Councilmember asked if you guys can have a one on one on Tuesday at Just you and the Councilman." 38. On February 22, 2017, defendant ESPARZA had a text message conversation with Lobbyist about another private meeting at Councilmember A's request. Specifically, defendant ESPARZA wrote: ?Hi [Lobbyist free tomorrow to meet? Councilman asked me to meet with you.? Lobbyist responded: ?Yea.? Defendant ESPARZA then replied: still need to talk bosses [Councilmember request." Lobbyist responded: ?No problem." 39. On March 1, 2017, defendant ESPARZA had a text message conversation with Lobbyist regarding the appeal. Specifically, defendant ESPARZA asked: ?Everything good?? Lobbyist then replied: ?Think so, You?? Defendant ESPARZA responded: ?Yes sir.. just checking in.? DEFT. INITIALS ?6 12 March 3, 2017, Lobbyist sent defendant ESPARZA a text message regarding the appeal on Project C, writing: ?Appeal dropped today.? Defendant ESPARZA then informed Kim that Councilmember A had held up Councilmember A?s end of the bargain and helped resolve the appeal. 41. On March 14, 2017, defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A met at Councilmember A?s residence. Defendant ESPARZA told Councilmember A that Developer had provided $400,000 in cash to date, and that Developer would provide the remaining $100,000 later. Defendant ESPARZA stated that Kim had provided $200,000 of that cash to defendant ESPARZA. At the meeting, defendant ESPARZA showed Councilmember A a liquor box filled with approximately $200,000 cash. Councilmember A told defendant ESPARZA to hold on to and hide the money at defendant ESPARZA's residence until Councilmember A asked for it. Defendant ESPARZA understood this was because Councilmember A wanted to hide the money. Councilmember A told defendant ESPARZA that defendant ESPARZA could have $100,000 of the $300,000 total amount Councilmember A expected to receive from Developer C. 42. In or around July 2017, defendant ESPARZA asked Executive Director to hold on to approximately $250,000 in cash for defendant ESPARZA because defendant ESPARZA feared that law enforcement would search his residence and find the illicit cash. This cash was comprised of the cash provided by Kim as part of the Project bribery scheme for Councilmember A and defendant ESPARZA and additional cash defendant ESPARZA received from Chairman and Businessperson A, as discussed below. Executive Director agreed to hide the cash for defendant ESPARZA. DEFT . INITIALS 13 December 28, 2017, defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A met at City Hall and, in Councilmember A?s private bathroom, discussed various topics, including defendant interviews with the FBI, and the cash bribe defendant ESPARZA was holding for Councilmember A. Specifically, during that conversation, Councilmember A stated: ?And secondly, um, look, uh, I have a lot of expenses now that with [Relative A?l] running, [Relative not going to be working anymore. I?m gonna need money. Um, that is mine, right? That is mine.? Defendant ESPARZA understood that Councilmember A was referring to the $200,000 cash bribe payment from Developer via Kim that Councilmember A had asked defendant ESPARZA to hide at defendant ESPARZA's residence. Defendant ESPARZA affirmed the bribe money was for Councilmember A. Defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A agreed to wait until April 1, 2018, for defendant ESPARZA to provide the $200,000 cash owed to Councilmember A, to allow some cooling off period after defendant interviews with the FBI in hopes that it would decrease the likelihood of law enforcement discovering the cash. However, defendant ESPARZA never gave Councilmember A the outstanding $200,000 cash because defendant ESPARZA was concerned about the FBI corruption investigation, so I instead defendant ESPARZA gave the money to Executive Director to hide. 3. Businessperson A Retainer Payment Scheme 44. Businessperson A was a business owner with businesses operating in CD-A. Defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A met Businessperson A in approximately 2016 or 2017 through Chairman and Executive Director E. Businessperson A requested assistance from defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A to enhance Businessperson A?s DEFT. INITIALS Q6 14 DON financial prospects. Specifically, Businessperson A asked defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A to use their official positions to make introductions to developers and advocate that such developers use Businessperson A?s business. 45. In order to facilitate this scheme, Businessperson A provided defendant ESPARZA retainer payments for his services. Specifically, from approximately January 2017 to June 2017, defendant ESPARZA accepted approximately $8,000 to $10,000 in cash from Businessperson A on a basis in exchange for defendant ESPARZA arranging meetings for Businessperson A with developers in the City. On several occasions, Businessperson A provided the cash to defendant ESPARZA in the bathroom during meetings in restaurants. 4. Businessperson A Funds June 2017 Las Vegas Trip 46. On or around June 1, 2017, defendant ESPARZA traveled to Las Vegas with, among others, Businessperson A, then Councilmember Mitchell Englander, City Staffer B, Lobbyist A, and? Developer A (the ?June 2017 Las Vegas trip?). During the June 2017 Las Vegas Trip, defendant ESPARZA, Englander, City Staffer B, and others each received at least the following benefits directly or indirectly (via hotel ?comps?) from Businessperson A: a hotel room at a Las Vegas Casino and Hotel, transportation to and from the hotel, casino chips to gamble, dinner and drinks at the hotel restaurant totaling approximately $2,481 (for the group), bottle service at a for which Businessperson A paid approximately $25,000 and Developer A paid an approximately additional $10,000 (for the group and others). 47. After the group returned to their hotel in the early morning of June 2, 2017, Businessperson A told defendant ESPARZA and DEFT. INITIALS ?5 15 Englander that Businessperson A was going to order female escorts to come to their hotel. When two escorts arrived to the hotel, Businessperson A paid approximately $300?400 in cash for the escorts? services for Businessperson A and defendant ESPARZA and instructed one of the escorts to go to Englander?s hotel room to provide him escort services. 48. On or about June 5, 2017, defendant ESPARZA and Councilmember A discussed the June 2017 Las Vegas trip in a telephone call. Specifically, Councilmember A asked about the use of escorts during the trip, referring to ?girls? that defendant ESPARZA and . Businessperson A sent to Englander. Defendant ESPARZA confirmed the use of escorts during the trip. C. Interviews of Defendant ESPARZA 49. On June 20, 2017, the FBI interviewed defendant ESPARZA regarding a public corruption investigation. At the beginning of this interview, defendant ESPARZA was advised that lying to the FBI was a crime. During the interview, defendant ESPARZA falsely stated that he had no knowledge of any City official helping on a project in exchange for money, gifts, or campaign contributions. During the interview, the FBI told defendant ESPARZA there was a Grand Jury investigation and asked defendant ESPARZA not to reveal the interview to others because it may negatively impact the federal investigation. Defendant ESPARZA told.the FBI he understood he should not reveal such information to others. 50. Nevertheless, on June 20, 2017, the same day as his first FBI interview, and in the days shortly thereafter, defendant ESPARZA disclosed to numerous associates, including Councilmember A, Kim, and Executive Director E, that he was interviewed by the FBI. For DEFT. INITIALS Q2: 16 example, on June 20, 2017, defendant ESPARZA told Councilmember A about his interview with the FBI. Councilmember A was worried that the FBI would ask questions about Businessperson A and Chairman E. Councilmember A instructed defendant ESPARZA not to tell anyone that defendant ESPARZA disclosed information to Councilmember A about the FBI interview. 51. On July 1, 2017, the FBI again interviewed defendant ESPARZA. At the beginning of this interview, defendant ESPARZA was advised that lying to the FBI was a crime. During the second interview, defendant ESPARZA falsely stated that: (1) other than the June 2017 Las Vegas trip with then-Councilmember Englander, defendant ESPARZA was not aware of any chip sharing with any other councilmember in Las Vegas; (2) Councilmember A told defendant ESPARZA to be cooperative with and not hide information from the (3) Executive Director had no City business with defendant (4) Kim did not have City business with defendant and (5) defendant ESPARZA did not know of anyone paying money to City officials. 52. On July 12, 2017, defendant ESPARZA and Kim met in person in a car near defendant ESPARZA's residence, and then drove around in the car. During this meeting, defendant ESPARZA and Kim discussed the content of their recent respective FBI interviews, in which both defendant ESPARZA and Kim lied to the FBI and deliberately failed to disclose information regarding the Project bribery scheme. During this meeting, Kim asked if defendant ESPARZA wanted the remaining $100,000 from Developer C. Due to defendant ESPARZA's Concern that the FBI investigation was closing in on him and Councilmember A, DEFT. INITIALS QB 17 defendant ESPARZA declined to take possession of the outstanding bribery money at that time. D. Defendant Concealment of Benefits 53. Defendant ESPARZA did not report any of the financial benefits from Chairman E, Developer C, Kim, or Businessperson A as gifts on his applicable Form 7003. DEFT. INITIALS gig: 18