130506 Sampson Indictment

7/30/2019 130506 Sampson Indictment

1/24

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 NTCr.(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 seg . ;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

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


2/24

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 escrow

2



3/24

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 scheme



4/24

(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 Kings



5/24

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



6/24

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 e



7/24

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



8/24

(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 t



9/24

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 cash



10/24

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 ' s



11/24

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 with



12/24

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 the



13/24

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 on



14/24

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 agents



15/24

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 l


C 3 00269 il d 0 /29/ 3 6 f 2 6


16/24

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)


C 1 13 00269 DLI D t 1 Fil d 04/29/13 P 17 f 24 P ID # 17


17/24

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 Check


Case 1:13 cr 00269 DLI Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 18 of 24 PageID #: 18


18/24

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 rn




19/24

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 JOHN




20/24

COUNT SEVEN(Concealment of Records)

53. The a l l ega t ions in paragraphs one through fo r t yare 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 . )




21/24

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 t




22/24

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 the




23/24

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 YORK

A TRUE BILL

23

g g

F.#2012R01872 No.______Case 1:13-cr-00269-DLI Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 24 of 24 PageID #: 24


24/24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN District of NEW YORK

CRIMINAL DivisionTHE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

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)

Documents

130506 Sampson Indictment