Friday, September 29, 2017

BOARD OF HEALTH AMENDS HEALTH CODE, ENHANCING REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AND SAFETY FOR DROP-OFF CHILDCARE AT SHELTERS CITYWIDE


Parents who have recently entered shelter will have expanded flexibility to use drop-off childcare services

  Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services Dr. Herminia Palacio, Department of Social Services Commissioner Steven Banks, Department of Health Commissioner Dr. Mary Bassett, and City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, joined by not-for-profit homeless services providers, today announced that the Board of Health has voted to amend the Health Code to enhance the safety and welfare of children at 37 shelter-based drop-off childcare facilities across New York City. Developed in close collaboration with the Department of Homeless Services and originally proposed at the June 12 Board of Health meeting, the amendment will extend the city’s childcare regulations and authority to city family shelters, ensuring that the facilities’ physical plant and egresses met safety standards, and that the childcare supervisors meet educational requirements. During the Board's notice and comment period, eight entities, including community-based organizations, homeless advocates, and elected officials offered feedback on the proposed amendment. Responsive to comments from community and not-for-profit homeless service provider partners, the amendment adopted by the Board on Tuesday September 12  increases flexibility for parents needing additional support during their first several months in shelter. Additionally, the Health Department will allow time for shelter-based drop-off programs to come into compliance with staff educational requirements. The health and safety provisions of the amendment did not change from the original proposal.

“Access to child care is critical for families in shelter, as it provides an opportunity for parents and caregivers to search for permanent housing or employment as they stabilize their lives,” said Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services Dr. Herminia Palacio. “I am proud to announce enhanced health and safety regulations for drop-off child care at family shelters, which will work to ensure that families across the city can access high-quality child care, no matter where they live.”

“Our first and foremost concern is for the health and safety of the young children who attend shelter-based child care,” said Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Commissioner Dr. Mary T. Bassett. “This amendment ensures that our littlest New Yorkers in shelter have the same protections as those at City-regulated sites, while also giving homeless families the flexibility they need to provide child care for their children while taking steps to improve their lives. I want to thank WIN and other shelter providers and advocates for their very thoughtful and helpful comments, which ultimately improved the proposal.”

“As we work to turn the tide on homelessness, ensuring that families experiencing homelessness have the services and supports to succeed are our top priorities. Safe, secure and high-quality childcare that provides parents with the opportunity to search for permanent housing and employment as they stabilize their lives will help us go further in delivering on that goal,” said Department of Social Services Commissioner Steven Banks. “This amendment ensures that our youngest homeless neighbors receive the attention, supervision and safe environment that they deserve, and I am grateful to our City agency and not-for-profit partners for their collaboration as we reimagine a shelter system that enables and empowers families experiencing homelessness to get back on their feet.”  

“In recent years, we have simply seen too many tragic deaths of children due to negligence, especially in the homeless or child welfare system. That is precisely why we need reform now, and urgently,” said City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito. “On behalf of the Council, we are proud to join Commissioner Banks in his efforts to improve child care facilities in shelters, and we remain committed to helping alleviate the myriad difficulties that homeless New Yorkers – especially children – face.”

The original amendment had imposed a ten hour weekly cap on drop-off childcare service usage by parents. Following feedback from homeless services providers, the amendment was revised to offer additional flexibility for those parents new to shelter. For a family’s first 90 days in shelter there will be no cap on use of drop-off services. This will allow the family to settle in and arrange for childcare outside the shelter. After 90 days, the cap would be 20 hours per week. Finally, the cap may be modified for families with outlying circumstances, such as they do not qualify for subsidized childcare, or there is no capacity available in community-based childcare centers in the vicinity of the shelter.

In April 2016, the City released the results of a 90-day review of homeless programs, which examined all aspects of homeless services and made recommendations for improvements. One outgrowth of the 90-day review was the convening of an internal Task Force on Child Care and Day Care in Homeless Shelters, made up of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH), the Department of Homeless Services (DHS) and other partner agencies, to examine the childcare services available to homeless children and develop recommendations. Current New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) regulations in 18 NYCRR Part 900 require licensed Tier II shelters for families with children to provide parents with access to childcare so  parents can meet their shelter-related social services obligations. Under this OTDA regulation, childcare may be provided through one of three ways: (1) on-site licensed full-time day care; (2) on-site (currently unlicensed) “supervised care” also known as drop-off childcare; or (3) referral to off-site licensed full-time day care.

The purpose of on-site unlicensed “supervised care” programs is to allow parents to attend housing, social service and other obligations. These are not meant to be full-time licensed day care programs. As such, the OTDA Tier II regulations on on-site supervised care programs set a basic minimum: they require staff to have unspecified experience and training, but do not require specific background checks or establish physical space and safety standards (i.e. window guards, panic bars, a second means of egress).

In the fall of 2016, as part of the Task Force’s work, the DOHMH conducted a system-wide review of on-site shelter childcare programs by visiting shelters. As a result, the City required some shelters to immediately remediate harmful risks and violations, including requiring background checks for staff and physical repairs. In addition, the Task Force examined the regulation of these on-site childcare programs.

Based on the site visits to “supervised care” programs in shelter, the Task Force recommended that the City amend Article 47 of the NYC Health Code to: require all childcare programs in shelter to be licensed by DOHMH; and create a new permit category specifically for “supervised care” programs in shelter. Requiring that all childcare programs in shelter receive a DOHMH permit would enable the City to consistently enforce and regulate standards that assure child safety and sufficiently mitigate the risk of harm. Creating a new permit category would allow the City to differentiate between the requirements of licensure for shelters operating “supervised care” programs from the requirements for other licensed day care programs.

The Task Force is also promoting Universal Pre-K and full-time licensed childcare through outreach in shelter, and, as a result, DHS shelters have strengthened referrals to these programs. These steps, along with the proposed regulation, aim to increase access for homeless children to early educational services that offer enrichment, a nurturing environment, improved supervision, and a daily routine, while parents obtain the services necessary to assist them to return to independence.

CITY COUNCIL PASSES WILLIAMS' LANDMARK CONSTRUCTION SAFETY TRAINING BILL


  The City Council unanimously passed Int. 1447-C, a landmark construction safety bill sponsored by Council Member Jumaane D. Williams (D-Brooklyn), Deputy Leader and Chair of Council's Housing and Buildings Committee, which will institute mandatory construction worker safety training standards. 

Council Member Jumaane D. Williamsa prime sponsor of the bill, celebrated its passage as a critically important and long awaited step toward changing the culture of a construction industry that devalues worker safety and well-being.

"I am proud of the City Council for taking this landmark step to help ensure that the safety of workers is a priority. Requiring a uniform baseline amount of safety training is a long overdue and critically important measure to having a tangible impact on worker's well-being," Williams said. "This action begins to address the eroded culture of worker safety in the New York City construction industry, an erosion that has led to unsafe conditions, injuries, and death."

The bill mandates that workers have a cumulative total of 40-55 hours of training, phased in over time. The first ten hours must be completed by March of 2018, thirty hours by December 1 of that year, and 40-55 within five months of that date. Extensions can be granted to the second and third milestone if necessary. A task force has been created to help facilitate the training and determine its content in conjunction with the Department of Buildings.

"I want to thank Speaker Mark-Viverito and my colleagues on the Council for recognizing necessity to make worker safety an immediate priority," said Council Member Williams. "Our efforts over these months, and in passing this bill today, will have a lasting impact on the health and safety of our workers." The bill was widely praised on the floor of City Council Chambers during its passage.

"As Chair of the City Council Committee on Immigration, I have a special responsibility to speak out for immigrant workers who lack access to training and workplace protections," said Council Member Carlos Menchaca, the co-prime sponsor of the bill. "Intro 1447 will set new construction safety training standards and save lives. No other industry tolerates such high levels of danger, and there is no justification for delay imposing strict new training requirements. Our construction safety emergency must end now. New York City has endured an unacceptably high number serious injuries, preventable incidents and 39 construction worker deaths since 2015. I commend my Council colleagues for recognizing that construction worker safety is achievable. I call on New York City developers, contractors and agencies to adopt a culture of construction safety through worker education and strict enforcement of workplace regulations."
"The wellbeing of all New Yorkers is paramount, and legislation to ensure safety on and around the hundreds of construction sites that operate each day in our city has been long overdue," said Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito. "I thank Council Member Williams and Council Member Menchaca for their dedication to making construction sites safer for everyone - from the people who live and work near them, to the workers who build them. The Council will continue to look for productive ways to improve safety standards and protect workers and the public."

The need for dramatic shifts toward focus on worker safety became even more evident just last Thursday, when two workers were killed and one injured in accidents on separate construction sites in Manhattan. At the time, Williams called for more to be done to "protect those who build this great city" adding that "No other industry would be allowed to witness such death" without the kind of change that this bill is aimed at instigating.

The measures passed also address the reality in the construction industry that responsibility for worker safety does not sufficiently extend to owners and developers. It escalated obligations for those parties and imposes fines of up to $5,000 per untrained worker.

The passing of this bill comes with a $5 million dollar commitment by the City Council to help ensure access to the training for all workers, regardless of affiliation.

New York City Receives More Than Two Dozen Proposals For New Amazon HQ Totaling Over 50 Million Square Feet of Commercial Space


Proposals Represent Twenty Three Neighborhoods in All Five Boroughs

  Mayor Bill de Blasio, Deputy Mayor for Housing and Economic Development Alicia Glen, and New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) President James Patchett announced that the city has received more than two dozen proposals for possible locations for Amazon’s second headquarters. Collectively, these proposals total over 50 million square feet of commercial space across 23 different neighborhoods in all five boroughs.

These proposals were submitted in response to a Request for Expressions of Interest published by NYCEDC on September 15, which sought to identify privately controlled sites that could complement a number of publically owned properties as potential locations for Amazon’s second headquarters. Amazon has requested that cities identify sites that could provide at least 500,000 square feet of commercial space by 2019 and up to 8,000,000 square feet beyond 2027.

“We’ve gotten strong responses from all five boroughs,” said Mayor Bill de Blasio. “There’s no question New York City will make a powerful case to bring these jobs here.”

“From the moment Amazon released its request for proposals, New York’s real estate, business, and community leaders have worked together to best position the city to win the company’s second headquarters,” Deputy Mayor Alicia Glen said. “Thanks to this collaborative effort, we now see the tremendous potential we have for development sites. No other city in North America has the space, the ingenuity, or the energy that we can offer Amazon.”

“We know New York is the only city that can immediately meet Amazon’s needs for 50,000 of the most talented workers in the world,” said NYCEDC President and CEO James Patchett. “Now we know that New York can choose from dozens of potential headquarters sites with over 50 million square feet of office space to make the strongest possible bid. We continue to separate ourselves from the competition and demonstrate that we are the clear choice for Amazon’s second headquarters.”

More than 40 organizations and developers contributed to responses, demonstrating New Yorkers’ willingness to band together in order to attract Amazon to New York City. These proposals reflect at least 50 individual sites that span every borough, with many proposals containing multiple site options.

The City will review each proposal over the coming days and is closely coordinating this effort with the State of New York. The City will present its proposal to Amazon by October 19.

New York has a number of advantages over its competitors also vying to become Amazon’s second home. The company already has a sizable presence throughout the five boroughs, including corporate offices, a distribution and fulfillment center, and retail space. New York has a large, growing, and educated workforce from which Amazon can source over 50,000 employees. It has more Fortune 500 companies than any other city in the U.S., and is second only to the Bay Area in venture capital funding and new business starts. It also has an incredibly diverse workforce: 45 percent of the labor force is foreign-born, and over 200 languages are spoken here.

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

U.S. Attorney Announces The Arrest Of 10 Individuals, Including Four Division I Coaches, For College Basketball Fraud And Corruption Schemes


Coaches Alleged To Have Accepted Cash Bribes In Return For Steering College Players Under Their Control To Corrupt Financial Advisors

  Joon H. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and William F. Sweeney Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced the arrest today of 10 individuals, including four Division I NCAA men’s basketball coaches and a senior executive at a major athletic apparel company (“Company-1”), in connection with two related fraud and corruption schemes.  In the first scheme, as alleged in the three Complaints unsealed today, college basketball coaches took cash bribes from athlete advisors, including business managers and financial advisors, in exchange for using their influence over college players under their control to pressure and direct those players and their families to retain the services of the advisors paying the bribes.  In the second scheme, a senior executive at Company-1, working in connection with corrupt advisors, funneled bribe payments to high school-aged players and their families to secure those players’ commitments to attend universities sponsored by Company-1, rather than universities sponsored by rival athletic apparel companies. 

The three Complaints unsealed today charge four coaches, CHUCK CONNORS PERSON, LAMONT EVANS, EMANUEL RICHARDSON, a/k/a “Book,” and ANTHONY BLAND, a/k/a “Tony”; three athlete advisors, CHRISTIAN DAWKINS, MUNISH SOOD, and RASHAN MICHEL; a senior executive at Company-1, JAMES GATTO, a/k/a “Jim,” along with two individuals affiliated with Company-1, MERL CODE and JONATHAN BRAD AUGUSTINE, with wire fraud, bribery, travel act, and conspiracy offenses.  The defendants were all arrested this morning in various parts of the country.  DAWKINS, SOOD, and AUGUSTINE are scheduled to appear before U.S. Magistrate James L. Cott in federal court later today.

Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said:  “The picture of college basketball painted by the charges is not a pretty one – coaches at some of the nation’s top programs taking cash bribes, managers and advisors circling blue-chip prospects like coyotes, and employees of a global sportswear company funneling cash to families of high school recruits.  For the ten charged men, the madness of college basketball went well beyond the Big Dance in March.  Month after month, the defendants allegedly exploited the hoop dreams of student-athletes around the country, treating them as little more than opportunities to enrich themselves through bribery and fraud schemes.  The defendants’ alleged criminal conduct not only sullied the spirit of amateur athletics, but showed contempt for the thousands of players and coaches who follow the rules, and play the game the right way.”

FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said:  “Today’s charges detail a corrupt practice in which highly rated high school and college basketball players were steered toward lucrative business deals with agents, advisors, and an international athletics apparel company.  As alleged, NCAA Division I and AAU coaches created a pay-to-play culture, agreeing to provide access to their most valuable players while also effectively exerting their influence over them.  Today’s arrests should also serve as a warning to those who conduct business this way in the world of college athletics.”

According to allegations contained in the three Complaints[1] unsealed today in Manhattan federal court, and other publicly available documents:


Overview of the Investigation

The charges in the Complaints result from a scheme involving bribery, corruption, and fraud in intercollegiate athletics.  Since 2015, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the FBI have been investigating the criminal influence of money on coaches and student-athletes who participate in intercollegiate basketball governed by the NCAA.  The investigation has revealed two related schemes.  In the first scheme (the “Coach Bribery Scheme”), athlete advisors – including financial advisors and business managers, among others – allegedly paid bribes to assistant and associate head basketball coaches at NCAA Division I universities, and sometimes directly to student-athletes at those universities, facilitated by the coaches.  In exchange for the bribes, the coaches agreed to pressure and exert influence over student-athletes under their control to retain the services of the bribe-payors once the athletes entered the National Basketball Association (“NBA”).  

In the second scheme (the “Company-1 Scheme”), athlete advisors working with high-level Company-1 employees, allegedly paid bribes to student-athletes playing at, or bound for, NCAA Division I universities, and to the families of such athletes.  These bribes were paid in exchange for a commitment by the athletes to matriculate at a specific university sponsored by Company-1, and a promise to ultimately sign agreements to be represented by the bribe-payors once the athletes entered the NBA.

Participants in both schemes allegedly took steps to conceal the illegal payments, including (i) funneling them to athletes and/or their families indirectly through surrogates and entities controlled by the scheme participants; and (ii) making or intending to make misrepresentations to the relevant universities regarding the involvement of student-athletes and coaches in the schemes, in violation of NCAA rules.

As described in the complaints, these schemes operated as a fraud on the universities involved, all of which provide scholarships to players and salaries to coaches with the understanding and expectation that the players and coaches are in full compliance with all relevant NCAA rules and regulations.  Moreover, these schemes subject the universities to substantial potential penalties by the NCAA, including, but not limited to, financial fines and penalties as well as the potential loss of eligibility to compete in various NCAA events. 

The Coach Bribery Schemes

The first scheme alleged in the Complaints entailed bribes by DAWKINS and SOOD, among others, to four men’s basketball coaches, PERSON, EVANS, RICHARDSON and BLAND, in exchange for the coaches’ agreement to direct players under their control, and the players’ families, to retain DAWKINS and SOOD once the players entered the NBA.  These corrupt arrangements, which turn on the coaches’ abuse of their positions of trust at the universities, are valuable both to the coaches, who receive cash bribes, and to the bribe-payors, for whom securing a future NBA player as a client can prove extremely profitable. 

Allegations Involving Chuck Person

Beginning in or around 2016, and continuing into 2017, PERSON, a former NBA player and the associate head coach at University-1, abused his coaching position at University-1 to solicit and obtain approximately $91,500 in bribe payments from a financial advisor and business manager for professional athletes, who, unbeknownst to PERSON, was providing information to law enforcement (“CW-1”).  In exchange for the bribes, PERSON agreed to direct certain University-1 basketball players to retain the services of CW-1 when those student-athletes entered the NBA.  The bribe payments initially were arranged by MICHEL, who had a preexisting relationship with PERSON and operated a clothing store that specialized in making bespoke suits for professional athletes.  Over the course of the scheme, PERSON did, in fact, arrange multiple meetings between CW-1 and players and/or their family members, in which he falsely touted CW-1’s qualifications without disclosing that he was being bribed to recommend CW-1.  For example, at one meeting, PERSON told the mother of a player at University-1 that CW-1 was PERSON’s own financial advisor and had also advised NBA Hall of Fame inductee (and University-1 alumnus) Charles Barkley, neither of which was true.  PERSON similarly told another player that CW-1 would purchase him a separate cell phone over which they could communicate so as to conceal the nature of the scheme.  

In addition to the bribe payments that PERSON solicited and received, PERSON also arranged for CW-1 to make payments directly to the families of the players PERSON was steering to CW-1.  PERSON further claimed to have given approximately $18,500 of the bribe money he received to the families of two student-athletes whom PERSON sought to steer to retain CW-1.

Allegations Involving Lamont Evans

Beginning in 2016, and continuing into 2017, EVANS solicited at least $22,000 from CW-1 and SOOD in exchange for EVANS’s agreement to exert his official influence over certain student-athletes that EVANS coached at two NCAA Division I universities, University-3 and University-4, to retain SOOD and CW-1’s business management and financial advisory services once those players entered the NBA.  In return, EVANS (who had received bribe payments from DAWKINS previously), promised SOOD and CW-1 that he would steer multiple specific players to retain their services.  Indeed, as a part of the scheme, EVANS arranged for CW-1 to meet with a student-athlete EVANS coached at University-4 (“Player-4”), and arranged for SOOD to meet with the mother of another student-athlete EVANS had previously coached at University-3, for the purpose of pressuring them to retain SOOD and CW-1.  Moreover, and in return for the bribe payments, EVANS falsely touted the services of SOOD and CW-1 to players and their families, telling Player-4, for example, that CW-1 was “my guy,” adding, falsely, that CW-1 “has helped me personally.  And I trust that,” and assuring Player-4 that “[i]t’s going to benefit you.  I promise you that.”  In explaining the benefit of bribing an assistant coach such as EVANS, DAWKINS explained to SOOD and CW-1 that because coaches like EVANS could not get “caught” receiving bribes because “his job is on the line,” EVANS and other corrupt coaches would have an incentive to “block” other athlete advisors from accessing the players under the coaches’ supervision and directing those players to the bribe-payors.

Allegations Involving Emanuel Richardson, a/k/a “Book”

Beginning in or around February 2017, and continuing through September 2017, DAWKINS and SOOD, along with two undercover law enforcement agents posing as financial backers of CW-1 (“UC-1” and “UC-2,” respectively), paid or facilitated the payment of $20,000 in bribes to RICHARDSON in return for RICHARDSON’s commitment to steer players under his control at University-4 to retain DAWKINS and SOOD’s services upon entering the NBA.  During that period, RICHARDSON repeatedly assured DAWKINS and SOOD that RICHARDSON would use his influence over players at Univeristy-4 to direct them to DAWKINS and SOOD, explaining, with respect to one particular player DAWKINS and SOOD sought to sign (“Player-6”), that Player-6 would be “insulated in who he talks to.”  RICHARDSON added, with respect to himself, that “you’re looking at the guy” whom Player-6 trusted.  RICHARDSON subsequently facilitated at least one meeting between DAWKINS, SOOD, and a representative of Player-6 for the purpose of having that representative commit the player to retain DAWKINS and SOOD’s business management and financial advisory services.  In addition, RICHARDSON appears to have provided a portion of the bribe money he received from DAWKINS, SOOD, UC-1, and UC-2 to at least one prospective high school basketball player (“Player-5”) in order to recruit that player to play for University-4. 

Allegations Involving Anthony Bland, a/k/a “Tony,”

Beginning in or around July 2017, and continuing into September 2017, DAWKINS and SOOD, working with UC-1, paid and/or facilitated the payment of at least $13,000 in bribes to BLAND in exchange for BLAND’s agreement to exert his official influence over certain student-athletes BLAND coached at University-5, to retain DAWKINS and SOOD’s business management and/or financial advisory services once those players entered the NBA.  In particular, as BLAND told DAWKINS and SOOD, in return for their bribe payments, “I definitely can get the players. . . .  And I can definitely mold the players and put them in the lap of you guys.”  In addition, and as part of the scheme, at BLAND’s direction DAWKINS and SOOD paid or facilitated the payment of an additional $9,000 directly to the families of two student-athletes at University-5.  In return, BLAND facilitated a meeting between DAWKINS and SOOD and a relative of a player currently attending University-5 (“Player-9”) for the purpose of pressuring Player-9 to retain DAWKINS and SOOD.

The Company-1 Scheme

In addition to the Coach Bribery Scheme described above, the investigation further revealed a second, related scheme.  In the second scheme, JAMES GATTO, a/k/a “Jim,” a high-level executive at Company-1, and MERL CODE, an individual affiliated with Company-1 and its high school and college basketball programs, conspired to pay high school basketball players or their families for commitments by those players to attend and play for aCompany-1-sponsored university, and to sign with Company-1 upon turning professional.  In addition, DAWKINS, SOOD, and JONATHAN BRAD AUGUSTINE brokered and facilitated the corrupt payments in exchange for a promise that the players also would retain the services of DAWKINS and SOOD upon turning professional. 

Specifically, in or around 2017, GATTO, CODE, DAWKINS, AUGUSTINE, and SOOD agreed to pay bribes to at least three high school basketball players or their families in the following manner:

Allegations Involving Player-10 and University-6

First, GATTO, CODE, DAWKINS, and SOOD worked together to funnel $100,000 from Company-1 to the family of a high school basketball player (“Player-10”) in exchange for Player-10’s commitment to play at an NCAA Division I university whose athletic programs are sponsored by Company-1 (“University-6”), and in further exchange for a commitment from Player-10 to retain DAWKINS and SOOD, and to sign with Company-1, once Player-10 joined the NBA.  DAWKINS told CW-1 and others on a recorded conversation that he did so at the request of a coach at University-6 (“Coach-2”), and call records show that GATTO spoke directly with Coach-2 multiple times in the days before Player-10 publicly committed to attending University-6. 

Moreover, because the payments to the family of Player-10 were both in violation of NCAA rules and illegal, they were disguised by GATTO, CODE, DAWKINS, and SOOD using fake purchase orders, invoices and related documents to make them appear to be payments from Company-1 to CODE’s company.  As CODE explained to DAWKINS, while such payments are sometimes made “off the books,” for this particular payment, GATTO and CODE had identified it to Company-1 as “as a payment to my team, to my organization, so it’s on the books, [but] it’s not on the books for what it’s actually for.”  Indeed, the money, once allocated by Company-1, was funneled back to DAWKINS to use to pay the father of Player-10 in cash.

Allegations Involving Player-11 and University-6

Second, DAWKINS and AUGUSTINE agreed to facilitate payments to the family of another high school basketball player (“Player-11”) in exchange for Player-11’s commitment to play at University-6 and ultimately to retain DAWKINS’s services.  While these payments were not directly funded by Company-1, they were made to benefit Company-1, which, as noted, sponsors University-6, and with the expectation that Company-1 would provide additional funding to AUGUSTINE in return.  AUGUSTINE noted, “all [Coach-2] has to do is pick up the phone and call somebody [and say] these are my guys, they’re taking care of us.” 

Because these payments from DAWKINS to Player-11’s family were both in violation of NCAA rules and illegal, AUGUSTINE suggested that the “easiest way” for DAWKINS to provide money for Player-11 and his family would be to send the money to AUGUSTINE’s “non-profit for the grassroots team,” although AUGUSTINE confirmed that he also would accept cash.

As DAWKINS subsequently explained to UC-2 in the context of providing such money to AUGUSTINE and others, “obviously some of it can’t be completely accounted for on paper because some of it is, whatever you want to call it, illegal.”

Allegations Involving Player-12 and University-7

Third, GATTO, CODE, DAWKINS, and AUGUSTINE agreed to make payments of as much as $150,000 from Company-1 to another high school basketball player (“Player-12”) in order to secure Player-12’s commitment to play at an NCAA Division I university whose athletic programs are also sponsored by Company-1 (“University-7”).  Because Player-12 played for an amateur team run by AUGUSTINE and sponsored by Company-1, AUGUSTINE, with the assistance of CODE and DAWKINS, attempted to broker the deal to secure Player-12’s commitment to attend University-7 rather than a school sponsored by a rival athletic apparel company.  In exchange for the payment, Player-12 similarly was expected to commit to retaining DAWKINS’s services and signing with Company-1 once Player-12 joined the NBA.

Much as with the payments to Player-10 described above, according to intercepted calls, GATTO stated that the payments from Company-1 to Player-12 were allegedly requested specifically by a coach at University-7 (“Coach-3”), who allegedly called GATTO directly and who, according to DAWKINS, CODE, and AUGUSTINE, “knows everything” and, in particular, “knows something’s gotta happen for” Player-12 to commit to attending University-7. 


Defendant Age
Hometown
Charges (Potential Maximum Term of Imprisonment)
Chuck Connors Person   53
Auburn, AL
Bribery conspiracy, Solicitation of bribes, Honest services fraud conspiracy, Honest services fraud, Wire fraud conspiracy; Travel Act conspiracy (80 years)  
Rashan Michel   43
Smyrna, GA
Bribery conspiracy, Solicitation of bribes, Honest services fraud conspiracy, Honest services fraud, Wire fraud conspiracy; Travel Act conspiracy (80 years)  
Lamont Evans   40
Stillwater, OK
Bribery conspiracy, Solicitation of bribes, Honest services fraud conspiracy, Honest services fraud, Conspiracy to commit wire fraud; Travel Act conspiracy (80 years)
Emanuel Richardson, a/k/a “Book” 44
Tucson, AZ
Bribery conspiracy, Solicitation of bribes, Honest services fraud conspiracy, Honest services fraud, Conspiracy to commit wire fraud; Travel Act conspiracy (80 years)
Anthony Bland, a/k/a “Tony” 37
Los Angeles, CA
Bribery conspiracy, Solicitation of bribes, Honest services fraud conspiracy, Honest services fraud, Conspiracy to commit wire fraud; Travel Act conspiracy (80 years)
Christian Dawkins 24
Atlanta, GA
Bribery conspiracy, Payments of bribes, Honest services fraud conspiracy, Honest services fraud (3 counts), Wire fraud conspiracy (2 counts), Wire fraud (2 counts), Travel Act conspiracy, Money laundering conspiracy (200 years)
Munish Sood 45
Trenton, NJ
Bribery conspiracy, Payments of bribes, Honest services fraud conspiracy, Honest services fraud (3 counts), Wire fraud conspiracy (2 counts), Wire fraud (2 counts), Travel Act conspiracy, Money laundering conspiracy (200 years)
James Gatto, a/k/a “Jim” 47
Wilsonville, OR
Wire fraud conspiracy, Wire fraud (2 counts), Money laundering conspiracy (80 years)
Merl Code 43
Greer, SC
Wire fraud conspiracy, Wire fraud (2 counts), Money laundering conspiracy (80 years)
Jonathan Brad Augustine 32
Winter Garden, FL
Wire fraud conspiracy, Wire fraud (2 counts), Money laundering conspiracy (80 years)

The maximum potential sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as the sentencing of the defendants will be determined by a judge.

Mr. Kim praised the work of the FBI and the Criminal Investigators of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

Anyone with information relevant to the investigation is asked to contact the FBI at the special phone number established to receive such information, (212) 384-2135.

The case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Robert Boone, Russell Capone, Edward B. Diskant, and Noah Solowiejczyk are in charge of the prosecution.
 
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the texts of the Complaints and the descriptions of the Complaints set forth below constitute only allegations and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.

Statement Of Acting United States Attorney Joon H. Kim On the Decision Of the Court Of Appeals In U.S. v. Dean Skelos and Adam Skelos


   “The Second Circuit, while finding that the evidence was more than sufficient to convict Dean and Adam Skelos, held that a part of the jury instruction is no longer good law under the Supreme Court decision in McDonnell.  While we are disappointed in the decision and will weigh our appellate options, we look forward to a prompt retrial where we will have another opportunity to present the overwhelming evidence of Dean Skelos and Adam Skelos’s guilt and again give the public the justice it deserves.  Cleaning up corruption is never easy, and that is certainly true for corruption in New York State government.  But we are as committed as ever to doing everything we can to keep our government honest.  That is what we will do in this prosecution as well.”     

Donation Relief






Bronx Borough President - Help Puerto Rico & Mexico!






STATEMENT BY COUNCIL MEMBER YDANIS RODRIGUEZ ON BILLS 1075-A, 1076-A, AND 139-C BEFORE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON HEALTH


  I am Council Member Ydanis Rodriguez and lead sponsor of bills 1075-A and 1076-A, two actions to protect our youth from becoming susceptible to smoking and its accompanying health risks.

"New York, at the city and state levels, has been successful in curbing cigarette use and its health impacts. Now we're faced with similar challenges where the use of hookah is becoming prevalent, advertising makes it appealing to youth, and the public knows little about the consequences of use. We must address the issue of non-tobacco shisha use in our city and we must do it now. We must get ahead of this issue before it gets out of our hands.

"Forty minutes of smoking hookah is equal to 120 cigarettes. As with cigarettes, our communities of color are most negatively affected. In the last decade, hookah smoking has more than doubled among Hispanic youth and more than tripled among black youth. According to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New Yorkers between 18 and 20 are three times more likely to smoke hookah than people 21 and older. Bills 1075-A and 1076-A will require signage warning of the health risks associated with smoking shisha at non-tobacco smoking establishments and raise the age for hookah use form 18 to 21 year of age, respectively.
 
"We must also be mindful of the secondhand hookah smoke health impacts on workers of hookah establishments. They're exposed to harmful particulate matter and toxicants that may cause cancer, cardiovascular disease, and decreased lung function. I want to commend my colleague Council Member Gentile for addressing these dangers by introducing bill 139-C which would include non-tobacco shisha in the Smoke Free Air Act and regulate its use in bars, restaurants, and other places.
 
"This package of bills, 139-C, 1075-A and 1076-A, puts the health and well-being of New Yorkers first. I want to thank Council Health Committee Chair Johnson, Council Member Gentile, the members of the Committee on Health, Commissioner Dr. Mary Bassett, and her team at DOHMH."