You are on page 1of 20

Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 1 of 20

THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


For the Western District of New York

OCTOBER 2018 GRAND JURY


(Impaneled 10/24/2018)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


SUPERSEDING
-vs- INDICTMENT
19-CR-6074-EAW

GEORGE MOSES Violations:


Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 1001(a)(2), 1028A(a)(1),
1343,1349 and 2
(28 Counts)

INTRODUCTION

The Grand Jury Charges That:

At all times relevant to this Indictment:

A. The Defendant and Entities Involved in the Schemes to Defraud:

North East Area Development Association

1. The defendant, GEORGE MOSES, resided in Rochester, New York and was

the Executive Director of the North East Area Development Association (“NEAD”) in

Rochester, New York. NEAD was a not-for-profit neighborhood organization governed by a

volunteer board of directors. The volunteers and staff worked with city officials and agencies

to revitalize and stabilize the Sector 8 neighborhood in the northeast quadrant of Rochester.
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 2 of 20

Quad A for Kids

2. Adam McFadden (McFadden) resided in New York and was the Executive

Director of Quad A for Kids from approximately 2004 until 2014. In 2014, McFadden left as

Executive Director and, until September 2016, worked as an independent contractor for Quad

A for Kids. From September 2016 until 2019, McFadden was again the Executive Director

of Quad A for Kids.

3. Quad A for Kids provided after-school and extended-day learning programs at

some elementary schools in the Rochester City School District. Quad A for Kids operated as

an entity separate from the Rochester City School District and received funding from the

Rochester Area Community Foundation Initiatives Inc. (“RACF”). Quad A for Kids shared

some of the RACF’s administrative staff but employed its own executive director, executive

assistant, and program staff.

4. Quad A for Kids submitted an annual budget to the RACF that is set by the

Executive Director. The RACF handled the finances for Quad A for Kids and paid any

vendor invoices submitted by Quad A for Kids for services or goods. McFadden submitted

invoices and receipts for reimbursement generally through e-mail utilizing a Google Gmail

account. The invoices and receipts traveled interstate through servers owned by Google in

other states.

Rochester Housing Authority and Rochester Housing Charity

5. The defendant MOSES was the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of

the Rochester Housing Authority (“RHA”) until sometime in 2018. The defendant MOSES

2
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 3 of 20

was also a member of the board of directors of the Rochester Housing Charities (“RHC”)

from in or about March 2015 to sometime in 2017.

6. McFadden was an elected City Councilmember representing the south district

of the City of Rochester. From on or about October 14, 2014, to on or about December 20,

2014, McFadden was the Interim Executive Director of the RHA.

7. The RHA was located in Rochester, New York and provided housing

opportunities and services for the Rochester community. The RHA oversaw approximately

2,500 public-housing units, millions of dollars, and subsidies for tens of thousands of people.

The RHA had an annual contract with the United States Department of Housing and Urban

Development from which it received millions of dollars.

8. The RHC was located in Rochester, New York. On or about March 26, 2012,

the RHA formed the RHC to assist in advancing the purposes of the RHA. Prior to on or

about March 25, 2015, the RHC had effectively been a dormant company with no funds or

assets since its inception.

Caesar Development LLC

9. McFadden owned Caesar Development LLC, a limited liability company

located in Rochester, New York.

Capital Connection Partners LLC

10. In 2013, four individuals who resided in Washington, D.C. formed Capital

Connection Partners LLC (“CCP”) in Washington, D.C. Its purported mission was to
3
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 4 of 20

provide premier business and consulting services to government entities and organizations

wishing to conduct business involving Washington, D.C. and the Federal government. CCP’s

only client was the RHC and other than the four founding members, CCP had no other

employees.

B. Contracts between RHC, CCP and Caesar Development

11. On or about October 14, 2014, the RHA Board of Commissioners, including

the defendant MOSES, voted to appoint McFadden the Interim Executive Director of the

RHA.

12. On or about December 20, 2014, McFadden resigned as the Interim Executive

Director of the RHA due to a conflict of interest regarding his position as a Rochester City

Councilmember.

13. On or about January 23, 2015, McFadden incorporated Caesar Development

LLC as a limited liability company.

14. On or about March 25, 2015, the defendant MOSES, as chairperson of the

RHA Board of Commissioners, caused the RHA Board of Commissioners: (a) to appoint him

and J.P., an individual known to the Grand Jury, as two of the three new board members of

the RHC; and (b) to fund the RHC by having the RHA loan the RHC $300,000.

15. On or about March 25, 2015, the defendant MOSES had two telephone calls

with McFadden, one of which lasted approximately 40 minutes.

4
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 5 of 20

16. On or about May 11, 2015, the defendant MOSES had telephone calls with

McFadden.

17. On or about May 12, 2015, the defendant MOSES and the other two RHC

board members conducted a board meeting during which they approved the RHC’s hiring of

CCP to provide various services on behalf of the RHC, despite the fact that the RHC had not

received any bids from any companies, including from CCP. The defendant MOSES falsely

represented to the other two board members that the RHC had, in fact, received three bids

and that CCP had provided the lowest bid. No member of the board recorded minutes of the

board meeting.

18. On or about May 15, 2015, McFadden sent drafts of the RHC/CCP Contract

and a Pass Through Funding and Services Agreement (the “McFadden Pass-Through

Agreement”), which provided that CCP would pass through 75% of the funds it received from

the RHC to Caesar Development LLC, to CCP by e-mail.

19. On or about May 28, 2015, McFadden sent drafts of the RHC/CCP Contract

and the McFadden Pass-Through Agreement to the defendant MOSES by e-mail.

20. Later on May 28, 2015, after receiving the drafts of the contracts from

McFadden earlier in the day, the defendant MOSES called McFadden.

21. On May 29, 2015, a representative of CCP had a phone conference with the

defendant MOSES and McFadden during which they discussed the two contracts.

22. On or before June 19, 2015, McFadden created fraudulent minutes of the RHC

board meeting held on May 12, 2015. The minutes falsely stated, among other things, that:
5
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 6 of 20

(a) the RHC had contacted three vendors by telephone; (b) a Request for Qualifications was

sent to the three vendors; (c) the three vendors provided bid proposals containing amounts;

and (d) the RHC selected CCP as the winning bidder.

23. On or about June 19, 2015, McFadden emailed the fraudulent RHC board

minutes to the defendant MOSES and J.P.

24. On or about July 7, 2015, the RHC entered into a one year $87,500 contract

with CCP (“the RHC/CCP Contract”), which provided that CCP would perform various

services for the RHC, including: (a) advocating at the local, state, and federal levels of

government for policy and legislation, reviewing best practices, and issuing presentations to

elected officials; and (b) finding self sufficient resources to include creating entrepreneurial

opportunities and workforce development, developing revenue streams for residents, and

applying for federal home loan bank grants. J.P., on behalf of the RHC, executed the

RHC/CCP Contract.

25. On or about July 8, 2015, McFadden, on behalf of his company, Caesar

Development LLC, executed the McFadden Pass-Through Agreement.

26. On or about July 22, 2015, the fraudulent RHC board minutes from the May

12, 2015, board meeting, were provided to the RHA Board of Commissioners. The defendant

MOSES failed to advise the other Commissioners of the existence of the McFadden Pass-

Through Agreement and that CCP would be paying most of the funds it would be receiving

from the RHC to McFadden.

6
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 7 of 20

27. On or about August 3, 2015, the RHA, on behalf of the RHC, wire transferred

$43,750 to CCP, which represented the first installment payment under the terms of the

RHC/CCP Contract.

28. On or about August 8, 2015, CCP paid $32,812.50 to Caesar Development

LLC in Rochester, which represented seventy-five percent (75%) of the funds CCP received

under the terms of the RHC/CCP Contract ($43,750), in accordance with the McFadden

Pass-Through Agreement.

29. On or about December 10, 2015, two members of CCP traveled to Rochester

for the purpose of attending a meeting the next day and met with the defendant MOSES and

McFadden at a restaurant in Rochester, New York.

30. On or about December 11, 2015, the two members of CCP attended a meeting

with the defendant MOSES, McFadden, and others at a local hotel in Rochester, New York.

31. On or about December 16, 2015, the defendant MOSES voted to authorize the

second payment of $43,750 by the RHC to CCP, knowing that the McFadden Pass-Through

Agreement required CCP to pay 75% of the money to McFadden.

32. On or about December 23, 2015, at approximately 8:07 a.m., McFadden sent

by e-mail to the defendant MOSES and the other RHC board members amended monthly

activity reports for CCP that identified McFadden’s company as purportedly doing work for

CCP.

33. On or about December 23, 2015, beginning at approximately 9:28 a.m., the

defendant MOSES and McFadden had a telephone call for approximately fifty-five minutes.
7
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 8 of 20

34. On or about December 23, 2015, at approximately 10:35 a.m., despite knowing

that McFadden would be receiving most of the funds from the payment from the RHA to

CCP, the defendant MOSES sent an e-mail to other RHC board members, the attorney for

the RHA, and employees of the RHA, in which he stated that “after … receiving counsel from

(the RHA’s attorney) on potential risk I believe the payment should be wired today.”

35. On or about December 24, 2015, the RHC wire transferred $43,750 to CCP,

which represented the final installment payment under the terms of the RHC/CCP Contract.

36. On or about December 26, 2015, CCP wire transferred $32,812.50 to Caesar

Development LLC, which represented seventy-five percent (75%) of the funds CCP received

under the terms of the RHC/CCP Contract, in accordance with the McFadden Pass-Through

Agreement.

8
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 9 of 20

COUNT 1
(Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud)

The Grand Jury Further Charges That:

1. The allegations in the Introduction are incorporated herein by reference.

THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY

2. Between in or about July 2017, and in or about March 2018, in the Western

District of New York, and elsewhere, the defendant, GEORGE MOSES, did knowingly, willfully,

and unlawfully combine, conspire, and agree with Adam McFadden and others, known and

unknown to the Grand Jury, to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud Quad A for Kids and the

RACF, and to obtain money from Quad A for Kids and the RACF by means of false and fraudulent

pretenses, representations, and promises, and for the purposes of executing such scheme and

artifice, to transmit, and cause to be transmitted, by means of wire communication in interstate

commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, in violation of Title 18, United States

Code, Section 1343.

MEANS BY WHICH THE OBJECT OF THE


CONSPIRACY WAS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED

The object of the conspiracy was accomplished through the following means and

methods:

First $4,000 Payment

3. In or about August 2017, McFadden created a false invoice which stated that

Quad A for Kids owed NEAD $4,000 for purported training and other services NEAD

9
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 10 of 20

provided on behalf of Quad A for Kids at various Rochester City schools. On or about August

8, 2017, McFadden emailed in the interstate commerce the fraudulent invoice to the RACF

so that the RACF would pay NEAD $4,000.

4. Although knowing that NEAD never performed the training and other services,

on or about August 11, 2017, the defendant MOSES and McFadden fraudulently caused the

RACF, on behalf of Quad A for Kids, to pay NEAD $4,000.

5. In or about August 2017, McFadden then created two invoices which falsely

stated that NEAD owed his company Caesar Development LLC a total of $3,000 for

purported consultation services Caesar Development LLC provided to NEAD. In fact, Caesar

Development LLC had not provided such consultation services to NEAD.

6. In or about August 2017, McFadden submitted the two fraudulent invoices to

NEAD so that NEAD would pay Caesar Development LLC $3,000 from the $4,000 which

the defendant MOSES and McFadden had fraudulently induced RACF to send to NEAD.

7. On or about August 25, 2017, the defendant MOSES, knowing that Caesar

Development LLC had not provided consultation services to NEAD, fraudulently caused

NEAD to pay Caesar Development LLC $3,000 from the $4,000 the defendant and

McFadden had fraudulently induced RACF to send to NEAD.

10
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 11 of 20

Second $4,000 Payment

8. In or about February 2018, McFadden created another false invoice which

stated that Quad A for Kids owed NEAD $4,000 for purported training and other services

NEAD provided on behalf of Quad A for Kids at various Rochester City schools. On or

about February 14, 2018, McFadden emailed in interstate commerce the fraudulent invoice

to the RACF so that the RACF would pay NEAD $4,000.

9. Although knowing that NEAD never performed the training and other services,

on or about February 16, 2018, the defendant MOSES and McFadden fraudulently caused

the RACF, on behalf of Quad A for Kids, to pay NEAD $4,000.

10. In or about February 2018, McFadden then created an invoice which falsely

stated that NEAD owed his company Caesar Development LLC $4,000 for purported

consultation services Caesar Development LLC provided to NEAD. In fact, Caesar

Development LLC had not provided such consultation services to NEAD.

11. In or about February 2018, McFadden submitted the fraudulent invoice to

NEAD so that NEAD would pay Caesar Development LLC $4,000 from the $4,000 which

the defendant MOSES and McFadden had fraudulently induced RACF to send to NEAD.

12. On or about March 22, 2018, the defendant MOSES, knowing that Caesar

Development LLC had not provided consultation services to NEAD, fraudulently caused

11
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 12 of 20

NEAD to pay Caesar Development LLC $4,000 from the $4,000 the defendant and

McFadden had fraudulently induced RACF to send to NEAD.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349.

COUNTS 2 and 3
(Wire Fraud Scheme to Defraud
Quad A For Kids and RACF)

The Grand Jury Further Charges That:

1. The allegations in the Introduction and in Count 1 are incorporated herein by

reference.

2. Between in or about July 2017, and in or about March 2018, in the Western

District of New York, and elsewhere, the defendant, GEORGE MOSES, did devise, and

intend to devise, a scheme and artifice to defraud Quad A for Kids and the RACF, and to

obtain money and property from Quad A for Kids and the RACF by means of false and

fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises.

3. On or about the dates set forth below, in the Western District of New York,

and elsewhere, the defendant MOSES, for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice,

did transmit, and cause to be transmitted, by means of wire communication in interstate

commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, that is, the false invoices set forth

below:

12
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 13 of 20

COUNT DATE COMMUNICATION

2 08/08/2017 The fraudulent invoice in the name


of NEAD emailed to the RACF

3 02/14/2018 The fraudulent invoice in the name


of NEAD emailed to RACF

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.

COUNTS 4 through 25
(Wire Fraud Scheme to Defraud RHC)

The Grand Jury Further Charges That:

1. The allegations in the Introduction are incorporated herein by reference.

2. Between in or about December 2017, and in or about September 2019, in the

Western District of New York, and elsewhere, the defendant, GEORGE MOSES, did devise,

and intend to devise, a scheme and artifice to defraud the RHC and the RHC’s Executive

Director, whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, and to obtain money and property from

the RHC and the RHC’s Executive Director by means of false and fraudulent pretenses,

representations, and promises, and for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice, did

transmit, and cause to be transmitted, by means of wire communication in interstate

commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds.

3. It was a part of the scheme and artifice that the defendant MOSES, caused the

RHC to overpay the RHC’s Executive Director’s salary and to make other payments to the

Executive Director to which the Executive Director was not entitled. The defendant then

13
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 14 of 20

received a portion of the funds which were overpaid to the Executive Director, either in the form

of a cash payment to the defendant from the Executive Director, or a wire transfer from the

payroll company which processed RHC’s payroll to a bank account controlled by the defendant.

4. It was a part of the scheme and artifice that, on or about December 15, 2017,

and on or about December 29, 2017, the defendant MOSES caused the RHC to pay to the

RHC’s Executive Director $500 in salary and a $380 miscellaneous non-taxable payment to

which the Executive Director was not entitled. After such payments, a representative of RHC,

whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, advised the RHC’s Executive Director that the

Executive Director had been overpaid and that the Executive Director should pay $380 in

cash for each “overpayment” to the defendant.

5. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice that thereafter, every two weeks,

between in or about January 2018, and in or about September 2019, the defendant MOSES

caused the RHC to pay to the RHC’s Executive Director $500 in salary to which the Executive

Director was not entitled. Each $500 payment was made from RHC’s bank account at ESL

Credit Union ending in 1751, to a JP Morgan Chase account of the payroll company which

processed RHC’s payroll (hereinafter “Company A”), and was part of a larger transfer of

funds from RHC to Company A which included RHC’s entire payroll.

6. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice, that the defendant MOSES then

caused $380 from each fraudulent payment described in the preceding paragraph to be

transferred from Company A’s bank account at Bank of America to the defendant’s bank

account, ending in 6200, at Visions Federal Credit Union in Rochester, New York. This

14
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 15 of 20

fraudulently directed transfer from the payroll company’s account to the defendant’s account

occurred at the same time the payroll company disbursed payroll to RHC’s employees.

7. Between on or about the dates set forth below, the defendant MOSES did

transmit, and cause to be transmitted, in interstate commerce the wire transfers of funds set

forth below: (1) from the RHC’s bank account at ESL Credit Union ending 1751 in Rochester,

New York, to Company A’s bank account at JP Morgan Chase in the State of New York,

which wire transfers of funds included the fraudulent $500 in additional salary paid to the

RHC’s Executive Director; and (2) from Company A’s bank account at Bank of America in

the State of California, to the defendant MOSES’s bank account ending in 6200 at Visions

Federal Credit Union in the State of New York, in the amount of $380:

COUNT DATE OF TRANSFER OF DATE OF TRANSFER OF FUNDS


FUNDS FROM RHC’S FROM COMPANY A’S BANK OF
ACCOUNT TO COMPANY A’S AMERICA ACCOUNT TO
JP MORGAN CHASE ACCOUNT DEFENDANT’S ACCOUNT

4 12/14/2017
12/26/2017
12/28/2017

5 01/11/2018 01/12/2018
01/25/2018 01/26/2018

6 02/08/2018 02/09/2018
02/22/2018 02/23/2018
7 03/08/2018 03/09/2018
03/22/2018 03/23/2018

8 04/05/2018 04/06/2018
04/19/2018 04/20/2018

15
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 16 of 20

9 05/03/2018 05/04/2018
05/17/2018 05/18/2018
05/31/2018 06/01/2018

10 06/14/2018 06/15/2018
06/28/2018 06/29/2018

11 07/12/2018 07/13/2018
07/26/2018 07/27/2018

12 08/09/2018 08/10/2018
08/23/2018 08/24/2018

13 09/06/2018 09/07/2018
09/20/2018 09/21/2018
14 10/04/2018 10/05/2018
10/18/2018 10/19/2018

15 11/01/2018 11/02/2018
11/15/2018 11/16/2018
11/29/2018 11/30/2018

16 12/13/2018 12/14/2018
12/27/2018 12/28/2018

17 01/10/2019 01/11/2019
01/24/2019 01/25/2019

18 02/07/2019 02/08/2019
02/21/2019 02/22/2019

19 03/07/2019 03/08/2019
03/21/2019 03/22/2019

20 04/04/2019 04/05/2019
04/18/2019 04/19/2019

21 05/02/2019 05/03/2019
05/16/2019 05/17/2019
05/30/2019 05/31/2019

22 06/13/2019 06/14/2019
06/27/2019 06/28/2019

16
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 17 of 20

23 07/11/2019 07/12/2019
07/25/2019 07/26/2019

24 08/08/2019 08/09/2019
08/22/2019 08/23/2019

25 09/05/2019 09/06/2019

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.

COUNT 26
(Aggravated Identity Theft)

The Grand Jury Further Charges That:

1. The allegations in the Introduction and in Counts 4 through 25 are

incorporated herein by reference.

2. Between in or about December 2017, and in or about September 2019, in the

Western District of New York, the defendant, GEORGE MOSES, did knowingly possess

and use, without lawful authority, means of identification of another person, that is, the name

and social security number of the RHC’s Executive Director, during and relation to felony

violations enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(c), that is, violations

of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, committed in the matter set forth in Counts 4

through 25 of this Superseding Indictment, knowing that the means of identification belonged

to another actual person.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(a)(1).

17
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 18 of 20

COUNT 27
(False Statements)

The Grand Jury Further Charges That:

1. The allegations in the Introduction are incorporated herein by reference.

2. On or about July 25, 2018, in the Western District of New York, the defendant,

GEORGE MOSES, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the

Government of the United States, that is, an official criminal investigation conducted by the

Federal Bureau of Investigation, did knowingly and willfully make materially false, fictitious,

and fraudulent statements and representations, that is, in an interview with Special Agents of

the Federal Bureau of Investigation the defendant MOSES stated that:

(a) he could not recall specifically how CCP was brought to the attention of the
RHC;

(b) he was unaware of any sub-contractors that CCP utilized to execute the
RHC/CCP Contract; and

(c) he did not know payments from the RHC/CCP Contract went to Caesar
Development and was surprised when FBI agents so advised him.

3. The above statements and representations by the defendant MOSES were

materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent because, as the defendant then and there well knew:

(a) McFadden brought CCP to the attention of the RHC;

(b) CCP used McFadden and his company Caesar Development as a sub-
contractor to execute the RHC/CCP Contract; and

(c) payments from the RHC/CCP Contract would be paid to Caesar


Development.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).

18
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 19 of 20

COUNT 28
(False Statements)

The Grand Jury Further Charges That:

1. The allegations in the Introduction and in Count 48 are incorporated herein by

reference.

2. On or about July 31, 2018, in the Western District of New York, the defendant,

GEORGE MOSES, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the

Government of the United States, that is, an official criminal investigation conducted by the

Federal Bureau of Investigation, did knowingly and willfully make materially false, fictitious,

and fraudulent statements and representations, that is, in an interview with Special Agents of

the Federal Bureau of Investigation the defendant MOSES stated that:

(a) he did not know who typed the minutes of the RHC board meeting held on
May 12, 2015;

(b) the first time he had seen the minutes of the RHC board meeting held on May
12, 2015, was at a RHA board meeting;

(c) he was surprised that McFadden was at the December 2015 meeting with CCP;
and

(d) he was surprised that CCP paid 75% of the RHC/CCP Contract amount to
McFadden’s firm Caesar Development.

3. The above statements and representations by the defendant MOSES were

materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent because, as the defendant then and there well knew:

(a) he was aware that McFadden typed and prepared the minutes of the RHC
board meeting held on May 12, 2015, which minutes McFadden e-mailed to
the defendant on or about June 19, 2015;

19
Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 20 of 20

(b) he had seen the minutes of the RHC board meeting held on May 12, 2015, prior
to a RHA board meeting;

(c) he was aware prior to the December 2015 meeting with CCP that McFadden
would be there; and

(d) he was aware before he was interviewed by agents on July 31, 2018, that CCP
paid 75% of the RHC/CCP Contract amount to McFadden’s firm Caesar
Development.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).

DATED: Rochester, New York, October 24, 2019.

JAMES P. KENNEDY, JR.


United States Attorney

By: s/RICHARD A. RESNICK


Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney=s Office
Western District of New York
100 State Street, Suite 500
Rochester, New York 14614
(585) 399-3941
Richard.Resnick@usdoj.gov

A TRUE BILL:

s/FOREPERSON

20