(c) A prosecution is barred if the defendant was formerly prosecuted in a DistrictCourt of the United States or in a sister state for an offense that is within the
concurrent jurisdiction of this State, if that former prosecution:
esulted in either a conviction or an acquittal, and the subsequentprosecution is for the same conduct, unless each prosecution requiresproof of a fact not required in the other prosecution, or the offense was not
consummated when the former trial began.
The Defendant contends that Illinois' collateral estoppel statute applies in the instant matter,
specifically sections 3-4 (a) (1) and (c) (1), and that pursuant to this statute further prosecutionmust be barred.
The Defendant has entered into a Plea Agreement in the Northern District of IllinoisUnited States District Court, Case Number 12 CR 50027, in which Defendant was sentenced to
235 months in Federal prison on a conviction of Wire Fraud. This sentence was ordered on
February 14, 2013. That Plea Agreement, which was entered November 14, 2012, states that theDefendant "from at least as early as December 18, 1990, and continuing to April 17,
2012...knowingly devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud and obtain more than$53,000,000 from the City of Dixon, Illinois..."5.
The Plea Agreement and conviction in Federal court includes all acts and dates that are
contained within the State's Bill of Indictment in the instant matter. The State's indictment
charges Class X Theft of governmental property in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars($100,000.00) on numerous specific occasions between January 19, 2010 and April 16, 2012.The Federal matter covers these dates and more in charging Defendant with defrauding the Cityof Dixon from at least as early as December 18, 1990, and continuing to April 17, 2012.