Vendors, Consultants,School Administrator Charged In Wide-Ranging Scheme To Defraud Federal "E -Rate

[nitpicker]

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/vendors-consultants-and-school-administrator-charged-wide-ranging-scheme-defraud

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Southern District of New York

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Vendors, Consultants, And School Administrator Charged In Wide-Ranging Scheme To Defraud Federal “E Rate” Subsidy Program

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F. Sweeney, Assistant Director in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (the “FBI”), David L. Hunt, Inspector General of the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC-OIG”), and Thomas P. Zugibe, the District Attorney for Rockland County, announced today the return of an Indictment charging SIMON GOLDBRENER, a/k/a “Simon Goldbrenner,” a/k/a “Shimon Goldbrenner,” PERETZ KLEIN, SUSAN KLEIN, a/k/a “Suri Klein,” BEN KLEIN, a/k/a “Benzion Klein,” a/k/a “Benzi Klein,” MOSHE SCHWARTZ, SHOLEM STEINBERG, and ARON MELBER, a/k/a “Aharon Melber,” with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud charges in connection with the federal program known as “E‑rate,” which provides subsidies for affordable telecommunications equipment and related services to qualified schools This case has been assigned to United States District Judge Kenneth M. Karas.
(snip)

The E‑rate distributes funds to schools and libraries mostly serving economically disadvantaged children, so that those institutions can afford needed telecommunication services, internet access, and related equipment. Over 30,000 applications from schools and libraries seeking funds to serve economically disadvantaged children were received each year during the relevant time period; every year, requests for E‑rate funds have exceeded funds available. In order to obtain those funds, educational institutions certify that they are purchasing equipment and services from a private vendor; if approved, the program defrays the cost by up to 90%. The educational institution is supposed to enter into an open bidding process in order to select a vendor, and the educational institution and vendor submit a series of certifications that they comply with a number of requirements of the E‑rate program. A school applying for E‑rate funds may employ a consultant, but that consultant must be independent of the vendors competing to sell E‑rate funded equipment and services.

PERETZ KLEIN, SUSAN KLEIN, BEN KLEIN, and SHOLEM STEINBERG (collectively, the “Vendor Defendants”) held themselves out as vendors to schools participating in the E‑rate program. Corporations controlled by the Vendor Defendants requested over $35 million in E‑rate funds, and received over $14 million in E‑rate funds, from in or about 2010 to in or about 2016.

SIMON GOLDBRENER and MOSHE SCHWARTZ (collectively, the “Consultant Defendants”) held themselves out as consultants who assisted educational institutions that desired to participate in the E rate program. The Consultant Defendants, and individuals acting at their direction, completed and filed E‑rate documents that resulted in the payment of millions of dollars in E‑rate funds to the Vendor Defendants.

ARON MELBER is an official at a private religious school in Rockland County, New York. MELBER and his school have participated in the E‑rate program with certain of the Vendor Defendants and Consultant Defendants, and filed certifications purporting to have obtained authorized E‑rate funded equipment and services from Vendor Defendants selected through a fair and open bidding process. From in or about 2009 through in or about 2015, MELBER’s school received over one million dollars in E‑rate funds.

From at least 2009 up to and including 2016, certain private religious schools, including MELBER’s school, sought and received E‑rate funds for the purpose of paying the Vendor Defendants for equipment and services that the schools, the Vendor Defendants, and the Consultant Defendants falsely claimed the Vendor Defendants had provided to the schools.

However, the schools never received millions of dollars’ worth of these items and services. In other cases, the schools, Vendor Defendants, and Consultant Defendants requested hundreds of thousands of dollars of sophisticated technology that served no real purpose for the student population.
(snip)