Category: US Department of Justice

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

The Justice Department announced today that it has entered into a settlement agreement with the Orange County, California, District Attorney on the use of custodial informants at the Orange County jails in California. The agreement resolves the department’s civil investigation finding that custodial informant activity by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office (OCDA) from 2007 through 2016 with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) violated criminal defendants’ right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment and right to due process of law under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.    

Under the agreement, the District Attorney agrees to continue implementing reforms to protect against misuse of custodial informants at the Orange County jails and to disclose to criminal defendants exculpatory evidence about custodial informants, in accordance with constitutional guarantees to a fair trial and right to counsel. Specifically, the District Attorney agrees to maintain changes to OCDA policies, training, document and information systems and internal audits, as well as to engage with representatives of the Orange County criminal justice system on additional improvements. The department will also have full and direct access to independently validate that the reforms have taken hold at OCDA and are achieving their intended results.

“Under the Sixth Amendment, law enforcement cannot use custodial informants as their agents to elicit incriminating statements from defendants represented by counsel,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “We commend the District Attorney and his staff for initiating corrective action at OCDA to comply with constitutional requirements. The District Attorney’s proactive efforts, together with today’s agreement, will not only protect the constitutional rights of individual defendants; they will also help restore the public’s confidence in the fundamental fairness of the criminal justice system in Orange County.”

The out-of-court agreement is the result of extensive cooperation from the District Attorney and members of OCDA following the release of the department’s investigative findings in October 2022. The agreement is also the result of systemic improvements initiated by the District Attorney, including suspending the use of custodial informants without his express, prior approval in 2016.

The department opened its investigation into OCDA and OCSD in 2016. The evidence uncovered by the department revealed that custodial informants in the Orange County Jail system acted as agents of law enforcement to elicit incriminating statements from defendants represented by counsel and that, for years, Orange County sheriff deputies maintained and concealed systems to track, manage and reward those custodial informants. The evidence also revealed that Orange County prosecutors failed to seek out and disclose exculpatory information regarding custodial informants to defense counsel.

The Civil Rights Division’s Special Litigation Section conducted the investigation pursuant to 34 U.S.C. § 12601. The statute prohibits state and local governments from engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives individuals of rights protected by the Constitution or federal law. The department’s negotiations with the Orange County Sheriff on remedial measures at OCSD are ongoing.

Since January 2021, the division has opened 12 investigations into law enforcement agencies. The section is enforcing 15 agreements with law enforcement agencies and two post-judgment orders. The department also reached a court enforceable agreement with Louisville and Minneapolis to resolve its findings. Both are pending review by the court.

The department’s investigative findings from October 2022 can be found here.

Information about the Civil Rights Division is available at www.justice.gov/crt.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

The Justice Department announced today its findings that conditions of confinement at the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center (the Jail) in Columbia, South Carolina, violate the Eighth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The department’s report details the findings of a comprehensive investigation of the Jail, which is funded and operated by Richland County through an Administrator and Director. The Jail currently houses approximately 965 people.

The department concluded that the county and Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center violate the constitutional rights of people incarcerated at the Jail. Specifically, the department found that the Jail fails to provide reasonable safety and to protect incarcerated people from serious harm and death by physical violence from other incarcerated people, including assaults with weapons, assaults by multiple people on single victims and sexual assaults. 

“Incarceration in our nation’s jails should not expose a person to severe and pervasive violence like that in the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Most people in the jail have not been convicted of any crime — they are awaiting hearings or trial dates. They have a right to be free of violence, threats and sexual assault. The Jail has a constitutional duty to protect people in its care from the horrific violations we uncovered here. We hope Richland County and the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center will respond to our findings by working with the Justice Department to implement much-needed reforms.”

“The conditions inside the Richland County jail are a matter of life and death. Individuals accused of crimes in Richland County should not face a death sentence before they ever see a court room,” said U.S. Attorney Adair F. Boroughs for the District of South Carolina. “By addressing the remedial measures outlined in our findings, we believe this can change. We hope to work with Richland County and the detention center to make it a safer place for both detainees and staff.”

Systemic problems that have persisted at the Jail for years engender severe violence and avoidable harm. There were at least 60 stabbings in the Jail in 2023. Gangs prey on incarcerated people. Weapons, drugs and contraband cell phones are commonplace and facilitate gang control and violence in the Jail. Inadequate staffing, a deteriorating facility and systemic security lapses, such as deficient prisoner supervision, inadequate internal investigations and lax contraband prevention, yield an ongoing failure to protect incarcerated people from violence. Jail leadership knows about these conditions, and others detailed in the report, which fall far below the constitutional minimum.

The department conducted its investigation of the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), which authorizes the Attorney General to file a lawsuit in federal court seeking court-ordered remedies to eliminate a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct. The department provided Richland County and the Jail with written notice of the supporting facts for its conclusions and the minimum remedial measures necessary to address the alleged violations. The department is committed to working with the county and Jail toward a cooperative solution.

The Civil Rights Division’s Special Litigation Section conducted this investigation jointly with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina. The findings announced today are the result of the department’s civil investigation and are separate from any criminal cases brought by the Justice Department.    

The Civil Rights Division continues to prioritize unconstitutional conditions and violations of federal law in correctional and juvenile justice facilities. It opened new investigations into prisons and jails in Tennessee, California, South Carolina and juvenile justice facilities across Kentucky. The division also issued findings in its investigations of Mississippi prisons, Texas juvenile justice system’s facilities, the Georgia Department of Corrections and San Luis Obispo County, California, Jail. The division entered into agreements, including consent decrees, covering the Fulton County, Georgia, Jail, Cumberland County, New Jersey, Jail, the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women in New Jersey, the Broad River Road Complex in South Carolina, the Manson Youth Institution in Connecticut and the Massachusetts Department of Correction. The division is also litigating matters related to the constitutionality of conditions in Alabama’s prisons for men and the incarceration of people beyond their release dates in Louisiana prisons.   

For more information about the Civil Rights Division and its Special Litigation Section, please visit www.justice.gov/crt/special-litigation-section. You can also report civil rights violations by completing the complaint form available at civilrights.justice.gov/. To provide information related to the department’s investigation of the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center, please call 1-888-473-3201 or email the department at Community.Glenn@usdoj.gov.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Bollinger Shipyard LLC (Bollinger), a Lockport, Louisiana, based company, has agreed to pay $1,025,000 to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by knowingly billing the U.S. Coast Guard for labor provided by workers who were not eligible to work in the United States.  

Bollinger manufactures ships for the United States, including the Coast Guard’s Fast Response Cutter (FRC). The United States alleged that, from 2015-2020, Bollinger knowingly billed the Coast Guard for labor prohibited under the FRC contracts. Specifically, the United States alleged that Bollinger was contractually required to confirm that its employees were eligible to work in the United States. The United States further alleges that Bollinger failed to comply with this requirement and, as a result, several ineligible employees worked on the contract.  Further, the United States alleged that Bollinger billed the Coast Guard for the labor provided by the ineligible employees and received payment for those bills.

“It is essential to the safety and operational readiness of our fleet that contractors comply with all contractual requirements,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “We will continue to hold accountable those who knowingly disregard their contractual obligations.”

“Companies that conduct business with the United States are required to do so in a legitimate manner,” said U.S. Attorney Duane A. Evans for the Eastern District of Louisiana. “The favorable resolution of these False Claims Act allegations illustrates the collaboration and commitment by our federal partners to use all available remedies to address signs of fraud, waste and abuse.”

“Today’s settlement sends a clear message that contractors providing services to DHS programs will be held accountable for breaking the law,” said Inspector General Joseph V. Cuffari Ph.D. of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). “DHS’ Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG) and our law enforcement partners will continue to prioritize protecting our national security from these kinds of schemes.”

“The Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) is committed to continually working with all our law enforcement partners to protect and secure taxpayer funds and aggressively act to fully investigate allegations of false claims involving the Coast Guard,” said Assistant Director William Hicks of CGIS.

Senior Trial Counsel Art J. Coulter of the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Sandra Lee Sears for the Eastern District of Louisiana handled the matter.  

DHS OIG and CGIS assisted in the investigation.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only. There has been no determination of liability.

Settlement

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Four defendants pleaded guilty in the District of Maryland for their roles in schemes to rig bids, defraud the government and pay and receive bribes in connection with the sale of IT products and services to federal government purchasers, including the Department of Defense (DoD). The charges were previously announced on Oct. 29, 2024.  

These are the first guilty pleas in the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation into IT manufacturers, distributors and resellers who sell products and services to government purchasers, including to the intelligence community.

On Nov. 7 and 13, 2024, Brandon Scott Glisson, a government contractor, and Lawrence A. Eady, a federal government official, both pleaded guilty to separate counts of bribery. According to public documents, between August 2019 and October 2020, Glisson paid approximately $630,000 in bribes to Eady from Glisson’s company, Alpha Greatness Omega (AGO). In exchange for the bribe payments, Eady ensured that the U.S. government purchased IT products from one of their co-conspirators’ companies at artificially inflated, non-competitive prices, and then diverted the inflated portion of the payments to AGO, which Glisson used for personal luxury purchases and to pay Eady bribes.

Antwann C.K. Rawls, an on-site government IT consultant, and Scott A. Reefe, an IT sales executive, also pleaded guilty in related cases. On Jan. 8, Reefe pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and, on Jan. 9, Rawls pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States. According to public documents, from at least 2018 until at least May 2019, Rawls, Reefe and their co-conspirators used their positions of trust to learn sensitive, confidential procurement information, including procurement budgets for large U.S. government IT contracts. They and their co-conspirators used that inside information to rig bids for U.S. government IT procurements at artificially determined, non-competitive and non-independent prices, ensuring one of their co-conspirators’ companies would win the procurement. The defendants submitted their collusive bids despite knowing the government sought independent, competitive bids for these valuable contracts, causing the U.S. government to suffer at least $1,300,000 in losses.

“These convictions bring to justice individuals who cheated and defrauded the United States government for their own personal gain,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Doha Mekki of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “Holding these individuals accountable shows that rigging bids for government contracts will not go unnoticed or unpunished.”

“Today’s outcome demonstrates our commitment to aggressively investigate those who enrich themselves with federal procurement dollars while cheating taxpayers,” said Special Agent in Charge Christopher Dillard of the DoD Office of Inspector General, Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), Mid-Atlantic Field Office. “DCIS is proud to work with our law enforcement partners to protect the integrity of the procurement process, including when it impacts the intelligence community.”

Sentencing hearings will be set at a later date. Glisson and Eady each face a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison. Reefe faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and Rawls faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

DCIS, FBI’s Baltimore Field Office, Central Intelligence Agency Office of Inspector General and National Security Agency Office of Inspector General are investigating the case.

Trial Attorneys Michael Sawers, Zachary Trotter and Elizabeth French of the Antitrust Division’s Washington Criminal Section and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sean M. Delaney and Darren Gardner for the District of Maryland are prosecuting the case.

In November 2019, the Justice Department created the Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF), a joint law enforcement effort to combat antitrust crimes and related fraudulent schemes that impact government procurement, grant and program funding at all levels of government — federal, state and local. To learn more about the PCSF, or to report information on bid rigging, price fixing, market allocation and other anticompetitive conduct related to government spending, go to www.justice.gov/procurement-collusion-strike-force. Anyone with information in connection with this investigation can contact the PCSF at the link listed above.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Today, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division and Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), jointly affirmed that corporate non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that deter individuals from reporting antitrust crimes undermine the goals of whistleblower protection laws, including the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act of 2019 (CAARA). CAARA prohibits employers from discharging or otherwise retaliating against a worker for (1) reporting potential criminal antitrust violations and related crimes to their employer or the federal government or (2) assisting a federal government investigation or proceeding.

NDAs that undermine CAARA or otherwise interfere with employees’ freedom to report potential crime will cost the employer when the Antitrust Division makes its charging decisions and sentencing recommendations. Companies should also be aware that using NDAs to obstruct or impede an investigation may also constitute separate federal criminal violations. Any company that so interferes with its employees’ cooperation would jeopardize its ability to satisfy its obligations under the Antitrust Division’s leniency policy, which requires an applicant to “use its best efforts to secure the timely, truthful, continuing, and complete cooperation of all current and former employees.” And the Antitrust Division’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in Criminal Antitrust Investigations guidelines consider a company’s policies around NDA and anti-retaliation training in assessing the effectiveness of the company’s compliance program.

“Members of the public are often best positioned to detect and blow the whistle on antitrust crimes,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Doha Mekki of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “The Antitrust Division values this information and works to ensure that individuals are free to report misconduct without fear of retaliation or retribution.”

“By working jointly with partner agencies to break down barriers to employee reporting, OSHA is committed to strengthening our enforcement of whistleblower laws and protecting workers’ voices,” said Deputy Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Jim Frederick. “This collaboration fosters a culture of accountability and upholds the integrity of worker rights.”

What Companies Should Know

Whistleblower Protections for Reporting Antitrust Crimes

Antitrust crimes hurt consumers, workers, and taxpayers — and threaten our free-market economy and democratic institutions. For over 130 years, criminal prosecutors have used antitrust laws as a charter of economic freedom to protect and promote competition.

Members of the public are often best positioned to detect and blow the whistle on antitrust crimes. Leads from the public about potentially illegal conduct enable the Antitrust Division and its law enforcement partners to uncover antitrust cartels and monopolization schemes, prosecute those crimes and protect competition. The Antitrust Division values this information and works to ensure that members of the public are free to report misconduct without fear of retaliation or retribution. The Antitrust Division protects to the fullest extent of the law the identity of those who report antitrust violations.

CAARA protects company employees, contractors, subcontractors or agents who report certain criminal antitrust violations. CAARA prohibits employers from discharging or otherwise retaliating against a worker for (1) reporting potential criminal antitrust violations and related crimes to their employer or the federal government or (2) assisting a federal government investigation or proceeding. Therefore, CAARA helps to incentivize the reporting of antitrust crimes and supports the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program.

NDAs and Contractual Restrictions on Reporting May Conflict with Antitrust Enforcement and CAARA

Individuals who seek to report antitrust violations must not be deterred or prevented from coming forward for fear of adverse employment consequences.

The Antitrust Division’s work prosecuting antitrust crimes is compromised when NDAs deter individuals from providing law enforcers with relevant information on wrongdoing. When individuals believe that a corporate NDA may prevent them from reporting illegal conduct to enforcers, crimes go undetected and competition suffers. For example, some NDAs are worded so broadly as to suggest that people who report potential crimes or cooperate with law enforcement could face lawsuits and adverse employment consequences as severe as termination.  This fear of retribution leads to less reporting of illegal activity and less vigorous antitrust enforcement.

NDAs that discourage individuals from reporting wrongdoing or cooperating with an antitrust investigation also undermine CAARA’s goal of protecting whistleblowers. Even the mere implication that an NDA would bar employees from reporting illegal conduct or assisting an investigation or proceeding clashes with the basic principles behind CAARA that encourage self-reporting and disclosure of wrongdoing to the government.

NDAs that Deter Reporting Will Cost Companies at Charging and Sentencing

CAARA encourages individuals to provide tips to law enforcement and cooperate in antitrust investigations, incentivizes companies to promote compliance and complements leniency and cooperation credit policies. For these reasons, NDAs that undermine CAARA or otherwise interfere with employees’ freedom to report potential crime will cost the employer when the Antitrust Division makes its charging decisions and its sentencing recommendations. Companies should also be aware that using NDAs in efforts to obstruct or impede an investigation may also constitute separate federal criminal violations. And of course, a company that interferes with its employees’ cooperation would jeopardize its ability to fulfill its obligations under the Antitrust Division’s leniency policy, which requires an applicant to “use its best efforts to secure the timely, truthful, continuing, and complete cooperation of all current and former employees.”

The Antitrust Division’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in Criminal Antitrust Investigations guidelines, which prosecutors use to assess the effectiveness of compliance programs when making charging decisions and sentencing recommendations, make clear that the sufficiency and efficacy of a compliance program depends on the existence of “reporting mechanisms that employees can use to report potential antitrust violations anonymously or confidentially and without fear of retaliation.” The questions prosecutors ask in evaluating a compliance program include:

• Whether a company has an anti-retaliation policy;
• Whether it trains employees, managers and supervisors on the provisions of CAARA;
• Whether the company’s use of NDAs is consistent with ensuring that employees can report antitrust violations without fear of retaliation;
• Whether NDAs are used in a way that deters whistleblowers or violates CAARA; and
• Whether NDAs and other employee policies make clear that employees can report antitrust violations, including to government authorities.

Companies that fail to address retaliation, CAARA and NDAs in their policies and compliance structure risk losing out on the benefits associated with maintaining an effective compliance program when the Antitrust Division is making charging decisions and sentencing recommendations.

To report potential antitrust crimes to the Antitrust Division, contact the Complaint Center. If your complaint relates to potential antitrust crimes affecting government procurement, grant or program funding, contact the Procurement Collusion Strike Force Tip Center.

If you feel that you have been a victim of retaliation or would like to learn more about protections for whistleblowers, please see OSHA Fact Sheet.