sampson criminal complaint

7/30/2019 Sampson Criminal Complaint

1/25

JDG:DAS/PT/AASF.#2012R01872

...-: -:"'\", ... -

' - - - ~ - - - . ''\. . '::J

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --- - - - - - - - -x

UNITED STATES OF AMERICAaga ins t

JOHN SAMPSON,Defendant .AMON, CH.J.GOLD, M.J.- - - - - - - -x

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

I N N TCr.(T . 18, u.s.c. I

666(a ) (1) (A ) ,981 (a) (1) (C), 1001 (a) (2 ) ,1503 (a) t 1503 (b ) (3) t1512(b) (2) (A) I1512 (b) (2) (B) I1512 (b) (2) (C) I1512(b) (3) , 1512(c) (1 ) ,1519, 2 and 3551 e t se g . ;T. 21, u.s.c. I 853 (p))

INTRODUCTIONAt a l l t imes r e levan t to t h i s Indictment , unle ss

otherwise i nd ica t ed :I . The Defendant

1. From 1997 through th e presen t , th e defendan t JOHNSAMPSON was a member of the New York S ta t e Senate ( the "Senate")represent ing the 19th Senate D i s t r i c t in sou theas t e rn Brooklyn.From June 2009 to December 2012, SAMPSON was th e l e ad e r of theDemocratic Conference of the Senate . From January 2011 toDecember 2012, SAMPSON was a l so th e Minor i ty Leader of theSenate .

2. Since 1992, th e defendan t JOHN SAMPSON was ana t to rney l i c ensed to p ra c t i c e law in th e Sta te o f New York. His

Case 1:13-cr-00269-DLI Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 1


2/25

law prac t i ce included, among o ther th ings , c r imina l defense workand l eg a l work involving the sa le of forec losed prope r t i e s .

3. In September 2005, the defendant JOHN SAMPSONpar t ic ipa ted as a cand ida te in the Democrat ic Par ty pr imarye lec t ion fo r the pos i t ion of Kings County D i s t r i c t Attorney .SAMPSON l o s t t h i s pr imary e l e c t i o n .I I . Overview of JOHN SAMPSON's Criminal Schemes

4. Since the 1990 ' s , the defendant JOHN SAMPSONserved as a cour t -appointed re fe ree fo r foreclosure proceedingsconducted by the Kings County Supreme Court . In t ha t capac i ty ,SAMPSON, ac t ing on beha l f of the Kings County Supreme Court ,con t ro l l ed escrow accounts holding proceeds of fo rec losure sa le sof Brooklyn r e a l es t a t e proper t i e s .

5. Since approximately 1998, th e defendant JOHNSAMPSON embezzled approximately $440,000 in funds from escrowaccounts r e l a t i ng to forec losure proceed ings involving fourBrooklyn r e a l es t a t e proper t i e s .

2

6. On o r about Ju ly 21, 2006, th e defendant JOHNSAMPSON asked an assoc ia t e ( the "Assoc ia te") , an ind iv idua linvolved in the r e a l es t a t e business whose i den t i t y i s known toth e Grand Jury , fo r $188,500. The Associa te agreed and, a tSAMPSON'S d i rec t ion , provided SAMPSON with these funds (the"Associate Transact ion") in the form of th ree bank checks payableto t h i rd pa r t i e s . SAMPSON asked fo r t h i s $188,500 because he



3/25

3

feared t ha t h i s embezzlement of funds from foreclosure s a l e s ,which he to ld the Associate he had used to pay expenses a r i s i ngfrom h is campaign fo r Kings County D i s t r i c t Attorney in 2005,could sub jec t him to cr imina l prosecut ion . SAMPSON t he re fo resought the funds from the Associa te Transac t ion to repay th eembezzled funds before the embezzlement was uncovered .

7. The defendant JOHN SAMPSON ch a r ac t e r i z ed th eAssoc ia te Transac t ion as a loan t ha t he would repay. However,SAMPSON accepted t h i s "loan" without wri t t en documentat ion o f thet ransac t ion o r a contemplated ra te of i n t e r e s t . SAMPSON neverrepa id these funds to the Assoc ia te . Fur the r , SAMPSON d id notdivulge the Associa te Transac t ion in h is Senate f i n a n c i a ldisc losure forms, as requi red .

8. In July 2011, law enforcement au t hor i t i e s a r res tedthe Associate on bank and wire f raud charges as p a r t o f a schemeto defraud mortgage l enders ( the "Mortgage Fraud Case") . Thesecharges were f i l ed by the United Sta tes Atto rney ' s Office fo r th e

\Eastern D i s t r i c t of New York ( the "USAO").9. Shor t ly a f t e r the Assoc ia te was a r res ted , th e

defendant JOHN SAMPSON began engaging in a scheme t o o b s t ru c tj u s t i c e , so as to preven t th e Associa te from coopera t ing with lawenforcement a u thor i t i e s , and the reby prevent au t hor i t i e s froml ea rning of SAMPSON's cr imina l conduct . SAMPSON engaged inmult ip le ins tances of obs t ruc t ive conduct , inc luding



4/25

(1) at tempt ing to obta in conf iden t i a l , nonpubl ic informat ionregarding the Mortgage Fraud Case through a person who, a t th et ime, was an admin is t r a t ive employee in the USAO; and(2) d i rec t ing the Associa te to withhold documentat ion of theAssoc ia te Transac t ion from th e government.I I I . Kings County Forec losure Proceedings

10. Forec losure proceedings fo r r e a l proper ty loca tedin Kings County were admin i s te red by the Kings County SupremeCourt . Jus t ices of th e Kings County Supreme Court appo in tedloca l a t to rneys t o ac t as re fe rees fo r foreclosure proceed ings .

4

A r e fe ree was en t rus ted with conduct ing the foreclosure sa le of aproper ty , and using th e proceeds to repay any out s t and ingmortgages on the prope r ty . I f a fo rec losure sa le genera ted asurplus a f t e r repayment o f these mortgages and o t h e r expenses ,the r e fe ree was requ i red to t ender t h i s surplus to the KingsCounty Clerk ' s Office unless otherwise d i rec ted by the KingsCounty Supreme Court . Once the surp lus funds were depos i t ed withthe Kings County Clerk, the pr i o r owners of the proper ty , and anyo ther i n t e r e s t e d pa r t i e s , had the r i g h t to receive these funds .The r e fe ree owed a f iduc ia ry duty to the Kings County SupremeCourt and was proh ib i ted by law from enr iching h imse l f a t th eexpense of the Kings County Supreme Court .

11. In o r about and between 2007 and 2009, th e KingsCounty Supreme Court was a component of th e New York Sta te



5/25

Unif ied Court System, which rece ived in excess o f $10,000 infedera l grants each year .IV. The Embezzlement Scheme

5

12. Beginning in the 1990s, the defendant JOHN SAMPSONserved as a cour t -appointed re fe ree for foreclosure proceedingsconducted by the Kings County Supreme Court . In t ha t capac i ty ,SAMPSON held surp lus proceeds of foreclosure sa le s in escrowaccounts (or "surplus funds") , from which he would r ece ive anddisburse the funds on beha l f of the Kings County Supreme Court( the "Referee Accounts") .

13. The defendant JOHN SAMPSON breached h is f iduc ia ryob l iga t ions as re fe ree by embezzling approximate ly $440,000 insurplus funds from the Referee Accounts he oversaw, involving a tl e a s t four Brooklyn proper t i e s ( the "Brooklyn P ro p e r t i e s " ) . TheBrooklyn Proper t ies were located a t 165 Forbe l l S t r e e t ( the"Forbe l l St r e e t Proper ty") , 1915 Eighth Avenue ( the "EighthAvenue Proper ty") , 831 Linden Boulevard ( the "Linden BoulevardProper ty") and 224 Bay Ridge Avenue ( the "Bay Ridge AvenueProper ty") .

14. In pa r t i c u l a r , the defendant JOHN SAMPSON breachedh is f iduc ia ry ob l iga t ions as re fe ree by (1 ) embezzl ingapproximately $80,000 of surplus funds from th e Referee Accountfo r the Forbe l l St r e e t Property ; (2 ) embezzling approximately$80,000 of surp lus funds from the Referee Account fo r th e Eighth



6/25

6

Avenue Property ; (3) embezzl ing approximate ly $145,000 of su rp lusfunds from the Referee Account fo r th e Bay Ridge Avenue Proper ty ;and (4 ) embezzl ing approximately $135,000 of surp lus funds fromthe Referee Account fo r the Linden Boulevard Proper ty .

15. The defendant JOHN SAMPSON used $161,000 from th eAssocia te Transac t ion to pay the Kings County Clerk and o ther sdesignated by the Kings County Supreme Court a por t ion of th esurplus funds SAMPSON had embezzled from th e Referee Accounts fo rthe Bay Ridge Avenue Proper ty and the Linden Boulevard Proper ty .However, SAMPSON never repa id any of the su rp lus funds he hadembezzled from the Referee Accounts fo r t he Forbe l l St r e e tProperty and the Eighth Avenue Proper ty .

A. The Forbe l l St r e e t Embezzlement16. On February 17, 1998, a J us t i c e of the Kings

County Supreme Court appoin ted th e defendant JOHN SAMPSON r e f e re efo r the forec losure proceeding fo r t he Forbe l l S t r e e t Proper ty .Pursuant to t h i s appointment , SAMPSON was r equ i red by law to : (1 )depos i t the proceeds from the sa le of the Forbe l l S t r e e t Proper tyin to a Referee Account ( the "Forbe l l St r e e t Referee Account") ;(2) s a t i s f y the mortgage and any o th e r outs tanding expensesr e l a t e d to the Forbe l l S t re e t Property ; and (3) prompt ly d e p o s i twith the Kings County Clerk any surplus funds from th eforec losure sa l e .



7/25

7

17. On October 7, 1998, the defendant JOHN SAMPSONs igned a document en t i t l ed "Referee ' s Report of Sale" fo r th eForbe l l S t re e t Proper ty . In t h i s r ep o r t , SAMPSON rep re sen ted toth e Kings County Supreme Court t h a t : (1) on o r about February 17,1998, SAMPSON sold the Forbe l l S t re e t Proper ty fo r $115,000; and(2) t he re were su rp lus funds of approximately $80,000 (the"Forbe l l S t re e t Surplus") re su l t ing from th e sa l e , a f t e rrepayment of the mortgage and expenses .

18. The defendant JOHN SAMPSON breached h is f iduc ia ryob l iga t ions as r e f e r ee and never depos i ted any o f the Forbe l lS t re e t Surplus with the Kings County Clerk . Ins t ead , betweenJuly 1998 and June 2008, SAMPSON embezzled approximate ly $80,000of the Forbe l l S t re e t Surplus through cash withdrawals ande lec t ron ic t r ans fe r s from the Forbe l l St r e e t Referee Account .For example, on o r about February 13, 2008, SAMPSON t r ans fe r red$8,000 from th e Forbe l l S t re e t Referee Account i n to SAMPSON'spersona l bank account ( the "Sampson Account") . SAMPSON neverpaid the Kings County Clerk any of the funds he embezzled fromthe Forbe l l S t re e t Surplus .

B. The Eighth Avenue Embezzlement19. On December 20, 2001, a J us t i c e of th e Kings

County Supreme Court appoin ted the defendant JOHN SAMPSON r e f e re efor the forec losure proceeding fo r the Eighth Avenue Proper ty .Pursuant to t h i s appointment , SAMPSON was requ i red by law to :



8/25

(1) depos i t the proceeds from the sa le of the Eighth AvenueProperty in to a Referee Account ( the "Eighth Avenue RefereeAccount") ; (2 ) s a t i s f y the mortgage and any o th e r out s t and ingexpenses re la ted to the Eighth Avenue Proper ty ; and (3 ) prompt lydepos i t with th e Kings County Clerk any su rp lus funds from th eforec losure sa le o f th e Eighth Avenue Proper ty .

8

20. On June 28, 2002, the defendant JOHN SAMPSONs igned a document e n t i t l e d the "Refe ree ' s Report of Sale" fo r th eEighth Avenue Proper ty . In t h i s r ep o r t , SAMPSON rep re sen ted tothe Kings County Supreme Court t ha t : (1 ) on May 17, 2002, SAMPSONsold the 8 th Avenue Property fo r $180,000; and (2) the re weresurplus funds o f approximately $80,000 (the "Eigh th AvenueSurplus") re su l t ing from th e sa l e , a f t e r repayment of themortgage and expenses .

21. The defendant JOHN SAMPSON, however, d id n o tdepos i t the Eighth Avenue Surplus with th e Kings County Clerk .Ins tead , s t a r t i ng in approximately 2002, SAMPSON began toembezzle funds from the Eighth Avenue Referee Account .

22. As a r e s u l t of the defendant JOHN SAMPSON'sembezzlement , on o r about Ju ly 21, 2006, a balance of $55,167.94remained in the Eighth Avenue Referee Account. On o r aboutJuly 21, 2006, SAMPSON rece ived the Associa te Transac t ion in th eform of th ree bank checks t o t a l i ng $188,500, one of which was inthe amount of $27,500. SAMPSON combined t h i s $27,500 check with



9/25

9

th e $55,167.94 remaining in the Eighth Avenue Referee Account topurchase a bank check in the amount of $82,667.94 (the "2006 BankCheck"). The 2006 Bank Check was made payable to th e "KingsCounty Clerk Off ice , " os ten s ib ly to repay su rp lus funds embezzledfrom the Eighth Avenue Referee Account to th e Kings County Clerk .

23. However, the defendant JOHN SAMPSON neverdepos i t ed th e 2006 Bank Check with the Kings County Clerk .Ins tead , nea r ly tw o years l a t e r , on o r about June 7, 2008,SAMPSON exchanged the 2006 Bank Check fo r e igh t bank checks worth$10,000 each and one bank check fo r $2,667.94 ( c o l l e c t i v e l y , th e"2008 Bank Checks") . Each of the 2008 Bank Checks was madepayable to "John Sampson," and the r e m i t t e r was l i s t e d as "JohnSampson."

24. On o r about and between June 12, 2008 andJanuary 12, 2009, the defendant JOHN SAMPSON redeemed fo r cashtw o of the $10,000 bank checks , nego t i a t ed the $2,667.94 bankcheck and depos i t ed th ree of th e $10,000 bank checks in to th eSampson Account. The remaining th ree 2008 Bank Checks, each witha value of $10,000, were not nego t i a t ed . SAMPSON never pa id theKings County Clerk the funds he embezzled from th e Eighth AvenueReferee Account.



10/25

10V. JOHN SAMPSON's Obst ruc t ion of J us t i c e

25. Shor t ly a f t e r the A s s o c i a t e ' s a r r e s t in th eMortgage Fraud Case in July 2011, the defendant JOHN SAMPSONbegan engaging in a mul t i f ace ted scheme to obs t ruc t j u s t i c e .

26. From mid-December 2011 through mid-March 2012, lawenforcement a u thor i t i e s conducted a j u d i c i a l l y -a u t h o r i z e d wire tapof th e defendan t JOHN SAMPSON'S c e l l u l a r te lephone ( the "SampsonWiretap") .

A. JOHN SAMPSON'S Use of a USAO Employee to Obst ruc tJu s t i c e27. Soon a f t e r the Assoc ia te ' s a r r e s t , th e defendan t

JOHN SAMPSON informed th e Associa te t ha t SAMPSON knew ani nd iv idua l who, a t t h a t t ime, was an admin is t r a t ive employee inthe USAO ( the "Employee"), an ind iv idua l whose i den t i t y i s knownto the Grand Jury . SAMPSON to ld th e Associa te t h a t th e Employeecould provide informat ion t h a t would a s s i s t th e Assoc ia t e ' sdefense in the Mortgage Fraud Case.

28. The defendan t JOHN SAMPSON took numerous s t ep s toobta in from the Employee conf iden t i a l , nonpubl ic informat ionregarding USAO mat te r s . Spec i f i ca l ly , SAMPSON asked th e Employeeto determine whether th e USAO was conduct ing a c r imina li n v es t i g a t i o n of SAMPSON. In add i t ion , SAMPSON t o ld th eAssociate t ha t he was a t t empt ing to dete rmine th e i d e n t i t i e s ofcooperat ing wi tnesses in the Mortgage Fraud Case ( the "MortgageFraud Cooperators") . During one meet ing , SAMPSON t o ld th e



11/25

11Assoc ia te t ha t , i f SAMPSON and th e Associa te were able toident i fy the Mortgage Fraud Cooperators , SAMPSON could arrange to" take them out ."

29. When meeting with the defendant JOHN SAMPSON, theAssoc ia te asked about SAMPSON'S add i t iona l e f fo r t s to ob ta ininformat ion concerning th e Mortgage Fraud Case through theEmployee. SAMPSON, however, was re luc tan t to d iscuss ove r thete lephone th e Employee 's i l l e g a l e f f o r t s to ob ta in nonpubl icinformat ion concerning the Mortgage Fraud Case. For example,while meeting with the Associate on November 22, 2011, SAMPSONs t a t ed , " I c a n ' t t a lk on the phone . . From now on, ourconversa t ion i s , 'I d o n ' t have no con tac t s , you d o n ' t knowno th ing . ' When we t a lk , t ha t ' s how we t a l k . "

30. In Apr i l 2012, law enforcement au t hor i t i e sconfronted the Employee concerning the Employee 's con tac t s withthe defendant JOHN SAMPSON. Immediately t he rea f t e r , agentssearched the Employee's of f ice and loca ted a s l ip o f paper whichconta ined the handwri t ten names of severa l ind iv iduals who weredefendants in proceedings re la ted to the Mortgage Fraud Case.The Employee was then suspended and subsequent ly t e rmina ted fromh is employment a t the USAO.

B. JOHN SAMPSON'S Witness Tampering and Evidence Tampering31. On February 22, 2012, the defendant JOHN SAMPSON

met with the Associa te a t a res t au ran t in Queens, New York.



12/25

12Acting a t the di rec t ion of law enforcement , the Assoc ia te t o ldSAMPSON t h a t the f edera l government had subpoenaed the Assoc ia tefo r bus iness records . The Associate a l so to ld SAMPSON t ha t ,while reviewing the Assoc ia t e ' s records , the Assoc ia te hadlocated a check r e g i s t e r page which memorial ized SAMPSON'srece ip t of the funds from the Associa te Transac t ion ( the "CheckRegis te r Page") . The Associate s t a t e d t ha t the Assoc ia te wantedto show the Check Regis te r Page to SAMPSON before d i sc los ing itto the government. The Associate then handed th e Check Regis te rPage to SAMPSON. Afte r examining th e Check Regis te r Page,SAMPSON s ta ted , "That ' s a problem . I mean fo r me."

32. The defendant JOHN SAMPSON ins t ruc ted theAssoc ia te not to d isc lose th e Check Regis te r Page to thegovernment. When the Associate s t a t e d t h a t it might be a problemto withhold the document from the government, SAMPSON t o ld theAssoc ia te to claim t h a t the Associa te d id not mainta in a l l of theAssoc ia te ' s records . SAMPSON i n s t ruc ted , "Don' t say you don ' thave it. Jus t say you d o n ' t know. I don ' t want you to l i e , j u s tsay you d o n ' t know." SAMPSON r e i t e ra t ed severa l t imes t ha t hedid not want th e Associate to l i e , while r epea ted ly i n s t ruc t ingthe Associate to t e l l the government, " I don ' t have i t . "

33. The defendant JOHN SAMPSON a l so t o ld the Assoc ia teto remove o ther i tems from any documents the Assoc ia te providedto the government, to make it appear as though the Assoc ia t e ' s



13/25

13records were incomplete . In add i t ion , SAMPSON suggested t ha t th eAssociate could fa l se ly claim t h a t the funds from the Assoc ia teTransac t ion were payment fo r l ega l work SAMPSON performed.

34. Late r during t h i s conversa t ion , the defendant JOHNSAMPSON i n s t ruc ted th e Associa te tha t , i f the government askedthe Associate whether the Associate ever loaned SAMPSON money,the Associate should say "No." SAMPSON a l so suggested t ha t ,a l t e rna t ive ly , the Associate could fa l se ly claim t ha t theAssociate "forgave" any loan to SAMPSON.

35. The defendant JOHN SAMPSON re t a ined the CheckRegis te r Page during and a f t e r t h i s meet ing , and never r e tu rnedit to the Assoc ia te .

36. On the evening o f February 22, 2012, a f t e r th emeeting descr ibed above, the defendant JOHN SAMPSON ca l led theAssociate on the te lephone. This conversa t ion was captured onthe Sampson Wiretap . During the ca l l , SAMPSON asked i f theAssociate was making "copies of everyth ing." The Assoc ia teresponded t ha t th e Associate had brought the or ig ina l CheckRegis te r Page to SAMPSON and had not kept any copies .VI. The In terv iew of JOHN SAMPSON

37. On July 27, 2012, Spec ia l Agents from the Federa lBureau of Inves t iga t ion ( the "FBI") approached th e defendant JOHNSAMPSON outs ide h is Brooklyn res idence and asked him about h isinvolvement in , among o ther th ings , the cr iminal schemes



14/25

14descr ibed above. During the in te rv iew, SAMPSON made thefol lowing s ta tements in sum and substance, and in p a r t .

38. When shown a copy of the Check Regis te r Page, thedefendant JOHN SAMPSON s t a t e d t ha t the document "d i dn ' t r ing abel l" and t ha t he " d idn ' t have a recol lec t ion from i t . " SAMPSONalso s t a t e d t ha t he did not r e c a l l seeing the Check Regis te r Pageprevious ly .

39. The defendant JOHN SAMPSON admi t ted t ha t he hadasked the Employee fo r informat ion on the Mortgage Fraud Case,bu t claimed t h a t he only reques ted publ ic informat ion from theEmployee, such as the name of the judge ass igned to the MortgageFraud Case. When asked why he would reques t publ ic informat ionfrom an employee of th e USAO, when SAMPSON himsel f was anat torney, SAMPSON s t a t e d t ha t he was not "good" with computers.

40. At the conc lus ion of the in te rv iew, the agentsadvised th e defendant JOHN SAMPSON t h a t he had l i ed to f edera lagents , which cons t i tu t ed a f edera l crime. A f te r be ing askedwhether he wished to rev ise h is s ta tement , SAMPSON s t a t e d , "Noteverything I to ld you was fa l se . "

COUNT ONE(Embezzlement - Forbel l St ree t )41. The a l l ega t ions in paragraphs one through for ty

a re r ea l l eged and incorpora ted as i f fu l l y se t fo r th i n t h i sparagraph.



15/25

1542. On o r about February 13, 2008, wi th in the E as t ern

Di s t r i c t of New York and elsewhere, th e defendant JOHN SAMPSON,an agent of the Kings County Supreme Court , a component of th eNew York Sta te Unif ied Court System, d id knowingly andi n t en t iona l ly embezzle, s t e a l , ob ta in by f raud , misapply andotherwise wi thout au thor i ty knowingly conver t to th e use o f aperson o th e r than the r i g h t f u l owner, prope r ty o f t he KingsCounty Supreme Court , a component of the New York Sta te Unif iedCourt System, an agency of s t a t e government t h a t rece ivedbenef i t s in excess of $10,000 under one o r more Federa l programsinvolving gran ts , con t rac t s , subs id ies , loans , guarantees ,insurance and o th e r forms of Federal ass i s t ance in one o r moreone-year pe r iods , which prope r ty was valued a t $5,000 o r more,and was owned by, and was under the ca re , cus tody and con t ro l o f ,the Kings County Supreme Court , to wit : $8,000 of the Forbe l lS t re e t Surplus .

(Ti t le 18, United S ta t e s Code, Sec t ions 666(a) (1 ) (A)and 3551 e t seq. )

COUNT TWO(Embezzlement - Eighth Avenue)43. The a l l ega t ions in paragraphs one through fo r t y

are r ea l l eged and incorpora ted as if fu l ly s e t fo r t h in t h i sparagraph.

44. On o r about June 7, 2008, within the Eas te rnD i s t r i c t o f New York and elsewhere, the defendant JOHN SAMPSON,



16/25

16an agent o f the Kings County Supreme Court , a component of theNew York S ta t e Unif ied Court System, d id knowingly andi n t en t iona l ly embezzle, s t e a l , ob ta in by f raud , misapply andotherwise wi thout au thor i ty knowingly conver t to the use of aperson o ther than the r i g h t f u l owner, prope r ty o f t he KingsCounty Supreme Court , a component of the New York Sta te Unif iedCourt System, an agency of s t a t e government t h a t rece ivedb en e f i t s in excess of $10,000 under one o r more Federa l programsinvolving gran ts , con t rac t s , subs id ies , loans , guarantees ,insurance and o th e r forms of Federa l ass i s t ance in one o r moreone-year pe r iods , which prope r ty was valued a t $5,000 o r more,and was owned by, and was under the care , cus tody and con t ro l o f ,the Kings County Supreme Court , to wit : $82,667.94 of the EighthAvenue Surplus .

(Ti t le 18, United Sta tes Code, Sec t ions 666(a) (1 ) (A)and 3551 e t seq . )

COUNT THREE(Obst ruct ion of Ju s t i c e - Mortgage Fraud Case)45. The a l l ega t ions in paragraphs one through fo r t y

a re r ea l l eged and incorpora ted as if fu l l y s e t fo r t h i n t h i sparagraph.

46. In o r about and between Ju ly 2011 and July 2012,both da tes being approximate and inc lus ive , within th e Eas te rnDi s t r i c t of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JOHN SAMPSON,t oge the r with o ther s , d id knowingly, i n t e n t iona l ly and cor rup t ly



17/25

17endeavor to inf luence , obs t ruc t and impede th e due admin is t r a t ionof j u s t i ce in an o f f i c i a l proceeding, to wit : the Mortgage FraudCase.

(Ti t le 18, United Sta tes Code, Sec t ions 1503(a ) ,1503 (b ) (3) , 2 and 3551 e t seq . )

COUNT FOUR(Witness Tampering - Check Regis te r Page)47. The a l l ega t ions in paragraphs one through fo r t y

a re r ea l l eged and incorpora ted as if fu l l y s e t fo r t h in t h i sparagraph.

48. On o r about February 22, 2012, within the Eas te rnDi s t r i c t of New York, the defendant JOHN SAMPSON d id knowingly,i n t en t iona l ly and cor rup t ly persuade and a t t empt to persuade th eAssociate , with i n t e n t : (a) to cause and induce th e Assoc ia te to(1) withhold the Check Regi s t e r Page, (2) concea l th e CheckRegi s t e r Page with i n t e n t to impa i r its ava i l ab i l i t y fo r use, and(3 ) evade l eg a l process summoning the Associa te to produce th eCheck Regi s t e r Page, a l l in connect ion with one o r more o f f i c i a lproceedings, to wit : (i) a grand ju ry i nves t iga t ion in th eEastern D i s t r i c t o f New York, and ( i i ) the Mortgage Fraud Case;and (b) to hinder , delay and preven t th e communication to one o rmore law enforcement of f i c e r s of the United Sta tes , t o wit :Specia l Agents of the FBI and prosecu to rs in th e USAO, ofin format ion , s pe c i f i c a l l y , the Check Regis te r Page, r e l a t i ng to



18/25

18th e commission and poss ib le commission o f one o r more Federa lof fenses , to wit : (1) f edera l program embezzlement, i n v io l a t i onof T i t l e 18, United Sta tes Code, Sect ion 666(a) (1) (A), asdescr ibed in paragraphs f ive , s ix and twelve th rough twen ty- four ,and as charged in Counts One and Two above, and (2) f ed e r a lprogram br ibe ry , in v i o l a t i o n of T i t l e 18, United Sta tes Code,Sect ion 666(a) (1) (B), in connect ion with the Assoc ia teTransact ion as descr ibed in paragraphs s ix and seven.

(T i t l e 18, United S ta t e s Code, Sect ions 1512(b) (2 ) (A),1512 (b) (2) (B), 1512 (b) (2) (C), 1512 (b) (3) and 3551 e t seq . )

COUNT FIVE(Witness Tampering - Associate Transact ion)49. The a l l ega t ions in paragraphs one through fo r t y

are r ea l l eged and incorpora ted as if fu l l y s e t fo r th in t h i sparagraph.

50. On o r about February 22, 2012, wi th in the Eas te rnD i s t r i c t o f New York, th e defendan t JOHN SAMPSON d id knowingly,i n t en t iona l ly and cor rup t ly persuade and a t t empt to persuade th eAssociate , with i n t e n t to hinder , delay and p rev en t th ecommunication to one o r more law enforcement o f f i c e r s o f th eUnited S ta t e s , to wit : Sp ec i a l Agents of the FBI and prosecu to rsin the USAO, of informat ion, to wit : in fo rmat ion regard ing th eAssocia te Transac t ion , r e l a t i ng to th e commission and poss ib lecommission of one o r more Federa l of fenses , to wi t : (a) f ed e r a lprogram embezzlement , i n v i o l a t i o n o f Ti t l e 18, Uni ted Sta tes



19/25

19Code, Sect ion 666(a) (1) (A), as descr ibed in paragraphs f i v e , s ixand twelve through twenty-four , and as charged in Counts One andTwo above, and (b) f edera l program br ibery , i n v io l a t i on of Ti t l e18, United S ta t e s Code, Sec t ion 666(a) (1 ) (B), in connec t ion wi ththe Associate Transac t ion as descr ibed in paragraphs s ix andseven.

(Ti t le 18, United Sta tes Code, Sec t ions 1512(b) (3) and3551 e t seq . )

COUNT SIX(Tampering with Evidence)51. The a l l ega t ions in paragraphs one through fo r t y

a re r ea l l eged and incorpora ted as if fu l l y s e t fo r t h in t h i sparagraph.

52. In o r about and between February 2012 and August2012, both da tes being approximate and i n c lu s iv e , wi th in theEas te rn D i s t r i c t of New York and elsewhere , th e defendan t JOHNSAMPSON did knowingly, i n t e n t iona l ly and co r r u p t l y concea l anda t tempt to conceal a record , document and o th e r objec t , to wit :the Check Regi s t e r Page, with the i n t e n t to impair th eava i l ab i l i t y of the Check Regi s t e r Page fo r use in one o r moreo f f i c i a l proceedings , to wit : (a) a grand j u ry inves t iga t ion inthe Eas te rn D i s t r i c t of New York, and (b ) th e Mortgage FraudCase.

(Ti t le 18, United Sta tes Code, Sec t ions 1512(c) (1 ) and3551 e t seq. )



20/25

COUNT SEVEN(Concealment of Records)53. The a l l ega t ions in paragraphs one through fo r t y

are r ea l l eged and incorpora ted as if fu l l y s e t fo r t h in t h i sparagraph.

54. In o r about and between February 2012 and August2012, both da te s be ing approximate and i n c lu s iv e , wi th in theEastern D i s t r i c t of New York and elsewhere , th e defendant JOHNSAMPSON d id knowingly and i n t e n t iona l ly concea l and cover up a

20

record , document and t ang ib le ob jec t , to wit : the Check Regis te rPage, with the i n t e n t to impede, o b s t r u c t and i n f luence a mat te rwi th in the j u r i s d i c t i on o f a department and agency o f th e UnitedSta tes , to wit : the United Sta tes Department o f J us t i c e , and inr e l a t i on to and in contemplat ion of such mat te r .

(T i t l e 18, United Sta tes Code, Sec t ions 1519 and 3551e t seq . )

COUNT EIGHT(False Statement - Check Regis te r Page)55. The a l l ega t ions in paragraphs one through fo r t y

are r ea l l eged and incorpora ted as if fu l l y s e t fo r t h in t h i sparagraph.

56. On o r about Ju ly 27, 2012, within the Eas te rnDi s t r i c t of New York, th e defendant JOHN SAMPSON d id knowinglyand w i l l fu l l y make a mate r i a l l y f a l s e , f i c t i t i o u s and f raudu len ts ta tement and r ep resen ta t ion , in a mat te r wi th in the j u r i sd i c t i on



21/25

21of the execu t ive branch of the Government of th e United S t a t e s ,to wit : the FBI, i n t ha t th e defendant f a l s e ly s t a t e d andrepresented to FBI Spec ia l Agents t h a t he did n o t r e c a l l see ingthe Check Regi s t e r Page previous ly , when i n f a c t , as he then andthe re wel l knew and be l ieved, the defendant d id r e c a l l see ing th eCheck Regi s t e r Page prev ious ly .

(Ti t le 18, United Sta tes Code, Sec t ions lOOl(a) (2 ) and3551 e t seq. )

COUNT NINE(False Sta tement - Request For Nonpublic Information)57. The a l l ega t ions in paragraphs one through fo r t y

are r ea l l eged and incorpora ted as if fu l l y s e t fo r th in t h i sparagraph.

58. On o r about July 27, 2012, within the Eas te rnDi s t r i c t of New York, the defendan t JOHN SAMPSON d id knowinglyand w i l l fu l l y make a mate r i a l l y f a l s e , f i c t i t i o u s and f raudu len ts ta tement and r ep resen ta t ion , in a mat te r wi th in th e j u r i sd i c t i onof the execu t ive branch of the Government of the United S t a t e s ,to wit : the FBI, in t ha t the defendant f a l s e ly s t a t e d andrepresented to FB I Spec ia l Agents t ha t he only reques ted pub l icinformat ion from the Employee, when in f a c t , as he then and the rewel l knew and be l ieved, the defendant reques ted nonpubl icin format ion from the Employee.

(Ti t le 18, United Sta tes Code, Sec t ions lOOl(a) (2) and3551 e t seq . )



22/25

22CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION FOR COUNTS ONE AND TWO

59. The United Sta tes hereby gives no t ice to th edefendant t ha t , upon h is convic t ion of e i t h e r of the o f fensescharged in Counts One and Two of t h i s Indictment , th e governmentw i l l seek fo r f e i t u r e in accordance with Ti t l e 18, United Sta tesCode, Sect ion 98l(a) (1) (C), which r equ i res th e fo r f e i t u r e of a l lproper ty , r e a l o r persona l , t ha t c o n s t i t u t e s o r i s der ived fromproceeds t r aceab le to any such of fenses .

60. I f any of the above-descr ibed fo r f e i t a b l eproper ty , as a r e s u l t of any a c t o r omiss ion of the defendant :

(a) cannot be l oca t ed upon th e exerc i se of dued i l igence ;

(b) has been t r a n s fe r r e d or so ld to , o r depos i t edwith , a t h i rd par ty ;

(c) has been placed beyond th e j u r i sd i c t i on of thecour t ;

(d ) has been s ubs t a n t i a l l y diminished in va lue ; o r(e) has been commingled with o ther p roper ty which

cannot be divided without d i f f i c u l t y ;it i s th e i n t e n t of the United Sta tes , pursuan t to T i t l e 21,United Sta tes Code, Sec t ion 853(p) , to seek fo r f e i t u r e o f any



23/25

o t h e r p rope r ty of the defendan t up to th e value o f thefo r f e i t a b l e proper ty descr ibed in t h i s fo r f e i t u r e a l l e g a t i o n .

(T i t l e 18, United S ta t e s Code, Sec t ion 981(a) (1) (C);Ti t l e 21, United S ta t e s Code, Sect ion 853(p))

ckcclia. ~ NORETTA E. LYNCHUNITED STATES ATTORNEYEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKA TRUE BILL

23



24/25

F.#2012R01872 No.______UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN District of NEW YORKCRIMINAL Division

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAvs.

John Sampson,Defendant.

INDICTMENT(T. 18, U.S.C., 666(a)(l)(A), 981(a)(l)(C), 1001(a)(2), 1503(a), 1503(b), 1512(b)(2)(A), 1512(b)(2)(B), 1512(b)(2)(C), 1512(b)(3),

1512(c)(l) , 1519, 2 and 3551 e t ~ . ; T. 21, U.S.C. 85.J(p))

Filed in open court this _________________ day,of____ _ _____ A.D. 20 ____ _

Clerk

Bail,$ - - - - - - - - - - -Assistant U.S. Attorneys Paul Tuchmann (718-254-6294), Daniel Spector (718-254-6345) andAlexander Solomon (718-254-6074)



25/25

INFORMATION SHEETUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -, ,r_I

, ( ." )

USAO#: F#2012R018721.

2.

3.

4.

Title ofCase: United States v. John SampsonRelated Magistrate Docket Number(s)

None ( X)Arrest Date: Defendant not yet arrestedNature of offense(s): X FelonyMisdemeanor

0 9 . ~ 9V'.:;;p ' f j ~ " / IA1v1UN, CH.J.GOLD,M.J_

5. Related Civil or Criminal Cases - Title and Docket No(s). (Pursuant to Rule 50.3 of theLocal E.D.N.Y. Division ofBusiness Rules): See relation letter, attached hereto

6. Projected Length ofTrial: Less than 6 weeks (x )More than 6 weeks ( )7. County in which crime was allegedly committed: - ~ K = i = n _ . g s = ~ O _ u = e ~ e = n = s______(Pursuant to Rule 50.l(d) of the Local E.D.N.Y. Division ofBusiness Rules)8. Was any aspect of the investigation, inquiry and prosecution giving rise to the case

9.

10.

pending or initiated before March 10, 2012. 1 (X) Yes ( ) NoHas this indictment been ordered sealed?Have arrest warrants been ordered?

By:

(X) Yes ( ) No(X)Yes ( )No

LORETTA E. LYNCHATTORNEY

Alexander SolomonPaul TuchmannDaniel SpectorAssistant U.S. Attorneys(718) 254-7000

Rev. 10/01/03

Judge Brodie will not accept cases that were initiated before March 10, 2012.

Case 1:13-cr-00269-DLI Document 1-1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 25

sampson criminal complaint

Documents