Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and James P. O’Neill, Police Commissioner of the City of New York (“NYPD”), announced the unsealing of a superseding indictment and the arrest of EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ, a police officer with the NYPD, for conspiring to commit bank and loan fraud, as well as making false statements to federal law enforcement officers. RODRIGUEZ was arrested and was presented before U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman stated: “As alleged, Eduardo Rodriguez, an officer with the New York Police Department, misled a financial institution about his intentions for a loan. Instead of using the loan proceeds for a car, he allegedly used the money for other purposes. If anything, law enforcement officers should be held to a higher standard than the general public. At a minimum, they should be expected to obey the law.”
NYPD Commissioner James P. O’Neill said: “There is no place in the NYPD for criminal or unethical behavior. NYPD officers swear an oath to uphold the law and protect the public. If an officer fails to uphold this oath, they must be held accountable.”
According to the allegations in the Superseding Indictment[1]:
In June 2017, RODRIGUEZ agreed with at least two other individuals (identified in the Superseding Indictment as CC-1 and CC-2) to submit an application to a lending institution (“Lender-1”) for an automobile loan for the express – but false – purpose of financing RODRIGUEZ’s purchase of a vehicle from a real automobile dealer that RODRIGUEZ did not own and never intended to own. In connection with that application, Lender-1 issued to RODRIGUEZ a loan (“Loan-1”) and, specifically, a check representing the proceeds of that loan. RODRIGUEZ, in turn, endorsed that check and provided it to CC-1 and CC-2 with the understanding they would deposit and withdraw money against that check for RODRIGUEZ’s enrichment.
In March 2018, USPIS inspectors interviewed RODRIGUEZ, and he falsely denied any involvement in applying for, or any knowledge about, Loan-1.
In April 2018, RODRIGUEZ was again interviewed by federal law enforcement officers. Although RODRIGUEZ admitted during that interview that he did, in fact, endorse the check issued in connection with Loan-1, RODRIGUEZ claimed to have endorsed the check and provided it to CC-1 and CC-2 for the purpose of CC-1 and/or CC-2 returning the check to Lender-1. That statement was false: as noted, RODRIGUEZ endorsed the check not for the purpose of returning it to Lender-1 but to obtain proceeds from Loan-1. Similarly, although RODRIGUEZ admitted during the April 2018 interview that he did, in fact, work with CC-1 to obtain Loan-1, RODRIGUEZ denied any previous relationship with CC-1, stating in substance and in part that CC-1 had contacted RODRIGUEZ without any prior prompting by RODRIGUEZ. That statement was false: RODRIGUEZ had a prior business relationship with CC-1 dating back to at least December 2015 and had been in substantial telephone contact long before when he claimed he first met CC-1.
RODRIGUEZ, 41, of Goshen, New York, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison; one count of conspiracy to commit loan fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; and one count of making false statements, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
The statutory maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Internal Affairs Bureau of the NYPD.
The charges contained in the Superseding Indictment are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Superseding Indictment and the description of the Superseding Indictment set forth below constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation
