SO OFTEN THOSE PRETENDING TO BE MORAL AND "GODLY" ARE JUST CROOKS AND SCOUNDRELS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OTHERS UNDER THE COVER OF RELIGION. THIS IS TRUE FOR MORE THAN A FEW MINISTERS, MULLAHS, RABBIS AND PRIESTS.
RELIGIOUS CORRUPTION NEEDS TO BE ROOTED OUT AND THE VEIL OF RELIGIOUS NONSENSE NEEDS TO BE PULLED ASIDE SO WE CAN SEE THE TRUTH OF HOW THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD ARE BEING EXPLOITED BY RELIGIOUS CONMEN, AND WORSE.
How do intelligent people who claim to be the followers of bizarre and intricate laws that make no obvious sense to anyone, how do they justify trafficking in human body parts? Well, that's one thing about being intelligent your can rationalize any act, no matter how reprehensible.
Rabbi Rosenbaum must have been aware of notorious Nazi physician Dr. Mengele and I suppose he thought, "Well, I'm not really performing experiments on the people I buy these kidneys from and someone gets the kidney." No doubt. And that's the nub of it.
So many Zionists think in those terms, "If it isn't as bad as Hitler, Mengele, etc. then its ok."
I wonder if the Israeli residents involved in this illegal trafficking in human organs will be ignored by Israeli authorities, given a slap on the hand or perhaps become heroes? Only time will tell.
The breaking news reads like the ravings of a delusional antisemite. Rabbis in New Jersey laundering money for Democrats and Republicans. The same Rabbis running an illegal organ trading ring. The same Rabbis often sending money raised in these illicit enterprises to New Jersey. Yet there the News story is. Jewish nonprofits are allegedly being used to commit all the aforementioned crimes. That is apparently a state-wide network of Rabbi enabled and orchestrated corruption which has already led to the arrest of more than forty individuals including the apparent ringleaders, five Rabbis operating under the veil of "Judaism".
The so-called "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" are a bunch of crap, but this story, unfolding in 2009 is real. Corrupt Rabbis are playing the general public for fools and sending the cash they raise to support the belligerent nation destroying state of Israel. Israel, the invader of Lebanon, the invader of Egypt, the invader of Palestine, the bomber of Iraq and Syria, Israel the white supremacist colonial settler state, an artifact of the British and American empires. And oh yes, Israel, the nation that threatens to destroy Iran.
And where did these human organs the Rabbis traded in come from? Is there an even more ghastly story yet to be uncovered? But will it be investigated or covered up?
Do such networks of Rabbinical organ trading, money laundering and illegal support for the belligerent state of Israel exist in other states? Is there another state capable of prosecuting a criminal Rabbi or is New Jersey going to be the only state to at least try and enforce the law?
I call upon every Congressperson and Senator to respond to this discovery with the enthusiasm of servants of the people, not as servants of the foreign nation or Israel or its powerful domestic lobby. Attorney Generals of every state must take note. How many millions of dollars are being laundered in other states in similar conspiracies?
Will the Christian and Jewish Zionist polity be able to cover this one up and continue their ideological domination of the American political imagination? I hope not.
It's so ironic as these Rabbis pretended to be obsessive compulsive about following the law they were in fact breaking it in more ways than they are currently being prosecuted. Charges of public corruption are only the tip of the iceberg but will these powerful politicians in New Jersey and their Rabbinical mafia be prosecuted for their real crimes?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL COMPLAINT v. : ARYE WEISS : Mag. No. 09-3617 I, Robert J. Cooke, being duly sworn, state that the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SEE ATTACHMENT A I further state that I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and that this complaint is based on the following facts: SEE ATTACHMENT B continued on the attached page and made a part hereof. _______________________________ Robert J. Cooke, Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence, July , 2009, at Newark, New Jersey HONORABLE MARK FALK ___________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Signature of Judicial Officer Attachment A COUNT 1 From in or about June 2007 to in or about February 2009, in Monmouth County, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendant ARYE WEISS did knowingly and willfully conspire with others to conduct and attempt to conduct financial transactions involving property represented to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, specifically, bank fraud, bankruptcy fraud and trafficking in counterfeit goods, with the intent to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the property believed to be proceeds of specified unlawful activity, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(3). In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h). COUNT 2 From in or about June 2007 to in or about February 2009, in Monmouth County, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendant ARYE WEISS did knowingly and willfully conspire with others to conduct, control, manage, supervise, direct and own all and part of an unlicensed money transmitting business--such operation being punishable as a misdemeanor and felony under New Jersey and New York law, namely, N.J.S.A. 17:15C-24 and McKinney’s Banking Law §§ 641, 650--contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1960, where a coconspirator committed an overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. 1 Attachment B I, Robert J. Cooke, a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), following an investigation and discussions with other law enforcement officers, am aware of the following facts. Because this Attachment B is submitted for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause, I have not included herein the details of every aspect of this investigation. Nor have I recounted every conversation involving the defendant. All conversations referred to in this attachment were recorded and are related in substance and in part. 1. At all times relevant to this Complaint, defendant Arye Weiss (“defendant WEISS”) resided in Brooklyn, New York. A check with the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance and the New York State Department of Banking has revealed that defendant WEISS does not hold a license to transmit or remit money. 2. At all times relevant to this Complaint: (a) There was a coconspirator named Eliahu “Eli” Ben Haim (hereinafter, “Coconspirator Ben Haim”), who was a resident of Elberon, New Jersey, and the principal rabbi of Congregation Ohel Yaacob, a synagogue located in Deal, New Jersey. Coconspirator Ben Haim operated several charitable tax-exempt organizations in conjunction with his synagogue, including one called Congregation Ohel Eliahu (hereinafter, “COE”). A check with the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance and the New York State Department of Banking has revealed that Coconspirator Ben Haim does not hold a license to transmit or remit money; (b) There was a coconspirator with the initials I.M. (hereinafter, “Coconspirator I.M.”) who was an individual based in Israel. A check with the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance and the New York State Department of Banking has revealed that Coconspirator I.M. does not hold a license to transmit or remit money; and (c) There was a cooperating witness (the “CW”) who had been charged in a federal criminal complaint with bank fraud in or about May 2006. Pursuant to the FBI’s investigation and under its direction, the CW from time to time represented that the CW purportedly was engaged in illegal businesses and schemes including bank fraud, trafficking in counterfeit goods and concealing assets and monies in connection with bankruptcy proceedings. 2 3. On or about June 26, 2007, Coconspirator Ben Haim met with the CW at Coconspirator Ben Haim's residence in Elberon. During the meeting, Coconspirator Ben Haim accepted a $50,000 check, drawn upon an account for a fictitious company set up by the FBI for the purpose of enabling the CW to launder money represented to be the proceeds of illegal activities. The check was made payable to COE, Coconspirator Ben Haim’s charitable organization, and was provided to Coconspirator Ben Haim with the expectation that the proceeds would be returned to the CW at a later date, minus a ten percent fee to be retained by Coconspirator Ben Haim. The CW represented that the proceeds of this $50,000 check came from “that guy who was holding, uh, my, uh, money for me on that Florida insurance, uh, scam that I did.” In response to that statement, Coconspirator Ben Haim asked “[a]nd you need forty-five thousand?” The CW responded in the affirmative, prompting Coconspirator Ben Haim to reply “[o]kay . . . Give me a couple days.” During the same conversation, Coconspirator Ben Haim described Coconspirator I.M.’s activities in the following manner: “He washes money for people [u/i]. He washes money for people here . . . He gives me a check. I deposit it . . . from a third party . . . He give me –- I deposit it. I wire it to him. He gives me, uh, like, one percent.” Coconspirator Ben Haim further stated that he had known Coconspirator I.M. for four to five years. At the conclusion of the conversation, the CW mentioned that the CW would be in Brooklyn the following Thursday, and offered to pick up cash on Coconspirator Ben Haim's behalf. Coconspirator Ben Haim seemed hesitant because he anticipated that it would be a large amount of money. The CW asked if the amount would be “half a mill,” prompting Coconspirator Ben Haim to respond “yeah.” 4. On or about June 28, 2007, Coconspirator Ben Haim met with the CW at Coconspirator Ben Haim’s residence in Elberon. During the meeting, Coconspirator Ben Haim accepted from the CW a bank check in the amount of $50,000 made payable to COE, Coconspirator Ben Haim’s charitable organization. Coconspirator Ben Haim was informed by the CW that this check represented the proceeds of what the CW termed “that insurance, uh, scam deal from Florida.” The CW also purported to Coconspirator Ben Haim that the CW had a great deal of money available to the CW because the CW was able to shield from the CW’s ongoing bankruptcy court proceedings the money that the CW was earning on property deals involving “silent partnerships.” The CW explained that “this way, you know, they give me a check or a bank check to you. They get a write off. It’s good for them. I get the money back. So this way there’s no trace, you know, through you, and it works out for everybody. That’s why I have a lot of money coming through.” Coconspirator Ben Haim was further informed by the CW 1 An additional $40.00 was included in the sum of cash provided to CW on this date. 3 that the CW’s reason for laundering the money through Coconspirator Ben Haim was “so the court doesn’t know, the [bankruptcy] trustee doesn’t know, no one knows nothin’.” In exchange, Coconspirator Ben Haim gave the CW cash totaling approximately $53,140, which represented the completion of two money laundering transactions: $45,000 in cash for a $50,000 check that the CW had provided to Coconspirator Ben Haim on June 26, 2007, and $8,100 from a separate $9,000 check which Coconspirator Ben Haim had received from the CW the previous day.1 As he collated the cash to give to the CW, Coconspirator Ben Haim ran the bills through a cash-counting machine. Coconspirator Ben Haim also mentioned that he owed another individual $495,000. This individual, according to Coconspirator Ben Haim, had wired money from Hong Kong to Israel, and stated that “he has money in Hong Kong from his –- the kickbacks from the factories.” Coconspirator Ben Haim also further described the activities of Coconspirator I.M. in the following terms: “The head contact’s in Israel . . . He has different people, he has, . . . he has a hundred cus-, no customer in New York [u/i] money in Israel [u/i] real estate investments, they, they want to hide their money. They don’t want it to show. So they give the cash here to him and he gives me the cash . . . You see the merry-go-round? This guy’s been doing it for 20, 30 years.” Coconspirator Ben Haim also indicated that he would pick up cash, as coordinated by Coconspirator I.M., at locations in Brooklyn. The CW offered to pick up the cash that Coconspirator Ben Haim anticipated would be available to him the following week. 5. On or about July 2, 2007, Coconspirator Ben Haim met with the CW at Coconspirator Ben Haim’s residence in Elberon. During the meeting, Coconspirator Ben Haim gave the CW approximately $65,600 in cash to complete earlier transactions involving the proceeds of money laundering. Of the monies provided to the CW, approximately $45,000 represented the proceeds from the $50,000 check provided by the CW on June 28, 2007, minus the ten percent fee kept by Coconspirator Ben Haim. Coconspirator Ben Haim noted that “I owe you 45 [thousand],” in reference to the $50,000 check provided on June 28, 2007. In addition, $20,250 of the cash given by Coconspirator Ben Haim was in anticipation of a $22,500 check which the CW was to provide drawn upon the account of a charitable organization administered by another money launderer, Rabbi Saul Kassin. The CW promised to bring Coconspirator Ben Haim this check for “twenty-two-five,” and also stated that the CW would have another 100 thousand 4 dollar bank check. Coconspirator Ben Haim agreed to provide the CW with $90,000 in cash in exchange for this $100,000 check. During the meeting, Coconspirator Ben Haim also mentioned that another customer had sent him “200 [thousand]” that morning, and that he was expecting another check in the near future in the amount of $450,000. 6. On or about July 10, 2007, after Coconspirator Ben Haim contacted the CW by telephone to inform the CW that $100,000 was available to be picked up from defendant WEISS, the CW met with defendant WEISS at defendant WEISS’s residence in Brooklyn. During that meeting, defendant WEISS handed the CW a plastic bag containing approximately $98,500 in cash. Defendant WEISS confirmed to the CW that the bag should contain $98,500, and that there were two envelopes inside, representing cash from two different sources. However, defendant WEISS indicated that he had not counted the cash. 7. On or about July 10, 2007, after returning to New Jersey from the meeting with defendant WEISS in Brooklyn, the CW met with Coconspirator Ben Haim at Coconspirator Ben Haim’s residence in Elberon. During the meeting, the CW provided to Coconspirator Ben Haim the plastic bag containing approximately $98,500 that the CW had received from defendant WEISS. In addition, Coconspirator Ben Haim accepted from the CW a check in the amount of $100,000 made payable to COE. In exchange, Coconspirator Ben Haim gave the CW approximately $89,850 in cash, explaining that he was withholding money from the $90,000 that he normally would have paid because he had inadvertently overpaid the CW during the July 2, 2007 transaction. 8. On or about August 1, 2007, Coconspirator Ben Haim met with the CW in Coconspirator Ben Haim’s vehicle, as it was parked in front of a residence in Deal. During the meeting, Coconspirator Ben Haim accepted from the CW a bank check made payable to COE. The CW described the bank check, which was in the amount of $75,000, as follows: “this is 75 from that bank schnookie deal. And I have one more 75 from him and that’s the –- we got a half million from a bank . . .” Coconspirator Ben Haim wondered what he should tell authorities “[i]f they ask me where did you get this check from?” After the CW again referred to the check as stemming from a fraudulent loan, Coconspirator Ben Haim answered his own question by stating that he would tell authorities that “[the CW] mailed me an anonymous donation. . . .” During the same conversation, Coconspirator Ben Haim provided further details about Coconspirator I.M.’s laundering operation and referred to a specific individual as Coconspirator I.M.'s partner, and further stated that “there’s six people involved in 5 this thing.” Coconspirator Ben Haim also referred to the pickups of cash in New York City, and the CW offered to pick up the cash for Coconspirator Ben Haim. When the CW asked whether it would be the same guy from whom the CW had previously received money several weeks earlier, Coconspirator Ben Haim stated that the pickup “[c]ould be [in] Queens, could be a hotel in Manhattan, it could be anywhere. Lately, it’s been Boro Park.” 9. On or about August 6, 2007, Coconspirator Ben Haim met with the CW at Coconspirator Ben Haim’s residence in Elberon. During the conversation, Coconspirator Ben Haim accepted a bank check in the amount of $50,000 from the CW. As with previous checks, this bank check was made payable to COE. The CW described the check as follows: “This is a check for, uh, fifty thousand from that, uh, bank, uh, schnookie deal.” On this occasion, Coconspirator Ben Haim gave the CW approximately $67,500 in cash to complete the money laundering transaction from August 1, 2007, during which the CW had provided Coconspirator Ben Haim with the aforementioned $75,000 check. Coconspirator Ben Haim also indicated that he had picked up cash from numerous individuals over the years, stating that “[i]n the five years [I’m] with [Coconspirator I.M.], maybe I saw over a hundred different people.” 10. On or about August 8, 2007, the CW met with defendant WEISS at defendant WEISS’s residence in Brooklyn. During the meeting, defendant WEISS provided the CW with a box of Apple Jacks cereal in which were secreted bundles containing approximately $97,000 in cash. When the CW took possession of this box, the CW removed a few bundles and asked “[s]o this is the, uh, the ninety-seven, right?” Defendant replied “[y]eah. I didn’t count it.” Defendant WEISS did confirm that he had removed $3,000, apparently for himself, noting that he had taken $500 and then “I took for me, uh, 2,500.” The CW stated that “I’ll count it and, uh, should be okay.” As the CW departed, the CW told defendant WEISS that “[m]aybe we’ll have some more [to pick up] next week. We’ll see.” 11. On or about August 8, 2007, after returning to New Jersey from the meeting with defendant WEISS in Brooklyn, Coconspirator Ben Haim met with the CW at Coconspirator Ben Haim’s residence in Elberon. During the meeting, the CW provided to Coconspirator Ben Haim the box of Apple Jacks cereal containing the approximately $97,000 in cash that the CW had earlier obtained from defendant WEISS. In addition, Coconspirator Ben Haim accepted two checks from the CW, both of which were in the amount of $5,000 and made payable to COE. In exchange for the checks, Coconspirator Ben Haim provided the CW 6 with approximately $53,100 in cash. This amount included $45,000 from the $50,000 check which Coconspirator Ben Haim accepted on August 6, 2007, and $8,100 pertaining to the two checks which the CW gave to Coconspirator Ben Haim during the meeting. During their conversation, Coconspirator Ben Haim spoke of his ongoing business with Coconspirator I.M., and referred to the fact that while his volume of money laundering had subsided during the current year, he had done between six and eight million dollars of laundering business per annum during the previous two years. 12. On or about October 31, 2007, Coconspirator Ben Haim met with the CW in Coconspirator Ben Haim’s vehicle in Deal. During the meeting, Coconspirator Ben Haim accepted two checks from the CW –- both of which were made payable to COE as part of money laundering transactions. One of these checks was a bank check in the amount of $50,000, while the other check was in the amount of $22,500 and drawn upon the account of a charitable organization administered by another money launderer, Rabbi Saul Kassin. During the meeting, Coconspirator Ben Haim remarked that he was currently low on cash, and that it was difficult to get a sufficient supply of cash on a timely basis from Coconspirator I.M. to keep pace with the demand of his customers. Coconspirator Ben Haim stated that “four, five years I’m doing this with this guy. I know at the end of the year it’s tight.” Coconspirator Ben Haim related that prior to his dealings with Coconspirator I.M., he had moved cash through another individual, but stated that “they caught him laundering . . . he got a slap on the wrist.” Coconspirator Ben Haim indicated that this individual was finishing a ten-month sentence that he was serving at F.C.I. Otisville. Subsequently, Coconspirator Ben Haim complained that he was “lucky” if he could move one to two million dollars a year at present. He remarked that “the most I ever did was seven to eight” million dollars in a year, and indicated that he earned “a million dollars a year” during that period. 13. On or about January 14, 2008, Coconspirator Ben Haim met with the CW at Coconspirator Ben Haim's residence in Elberon. During this meeting, Coconspirator Ben Haim accepted a cashier’s check from the CW in the amount of $100,000 made payable to COE. When the CW handed Coconspirator Ben Haim the check, the CW stated “[u/i] bank check there for a hundred thousand. Now that, you have to understand, that’s from one of the [Bank] schnookie deals.” During their discussion, Coconspirator Ben Haim also mentioned that he had picked up cash in Brooklyn from defendant WEISS in or about late December 2007. 7 14. On or about January 20, 2008, Coconspirator Ben Haim met the CW at Coconspirator Ben Haim’s residence in Elberon. During that meeting, Coconspirator Ben Haim gave the CW approximately $95,200 in cash to complete their previous money laundering transactions, including the one from January 14, 2008. 15. On or about March 9, 2008, defendant WEISS met with the CW at defendant WEISS’s residence in Brooklyn. During the meeting, the CW observed defendant WEISS go into a bedroom and close the door. Shortly thereafter, defendant WEISS emerged with a black plastic bag containing approximately $50,000 in cash and gave the bag to the CW. This cash was provided to the CW at the direction of Coconspirator Ben Haim to complete two previous money laundering transactions that occurred in or about February 2008. In addition, the CW observed a list of names with corresponding amounts. This list included the name of Coconspirator Ben Haim followed by a notation for $50,000. The CW observed at least 7 more names on this list. Defendant WEISS indicated that his cash-counting machine was broken and that a replacement had not yet been provided by a coconspirator who, he stated, worked for him. 16. On or about March 10, 2008, Coconspirator Ben Haim met with the CW in Coconspirator Ben Haim’s vehicle in Deal. During the meeting, Coconspirator Ben Haim and the CW discussed the amount of money Coconspirator Ben Haim owed to the CW to complete their prior money laundering transactions. Coconspirator Ben Haim stated that he believed that he would soon have cash, as defendant WEISS was holding $30,000 for him and another individual would soon have available another $200,000 for him. 17. On or about June 13, 2008, Coconspirator Ben Haim met with the CW in Coconspirator Ben Haim’s vehicle in Elberon. During that meeting, Coconspirator Ben Haim accepted from the CW a bank check in the amount of $50,000. The CW informed Coconspirator Ben Haim that the funds from this check were generated from the sale of counterfeit high-end merchandise manufactured “from my factory in Brooklyn where I have the–-where I make the bags. I take the labels . . .” The CW further clarified that “I’m switching the labels. . . Business is very good. Prada, Gucci, boom, boom, boom. This is from my profits. This is not–-I put up 400 thousand principal. These are only my profits. Profits from this, profits from the PNC.” This last remark referred to the bank fraud scheme involving PNC Bank which led to criminal charges being filed against the CW in about 2006. After Coconspirator Ben Haim demanded a higher percentage fee than he normally collected from the CW to conduct the transaction, the CW complained that “I’m a repeat customer,” and 8 asked “[a]m I your best customer?” After Coconspirator Ben Haim responded in a hushed tone, “[n]o,” the CW replied “[n]o. Why, ‘cause you’ve got guys who do a million dollars a month . . .?” Coconspirator Ben Haim responded “[n]o, that was once upon a time.” Coconspirator Ben Haim then retrieved a bag from the trunk of Coconspirator Ben Haim’s car which contained a box with Power Rangers logos. The box contained tens of thousands of dollars in bundles of cash, and Coconspirator Ben Haim provided the CW with approximately $45,000. The CW reiterated that the money from the check was “all offshore,” and noted that “[w]e have the factory. We make the stuff in Brooklyn, but we offshore it,” and added that “[t]here’s no trace, no nothing.” By way of explanation, the CW stated that “[i]t’s offshore. So all the profits are hidden.” After the two discussed whether Coconspirator Ben Haim would be doing additional deals with other individuals in the near future, Coconspirator Ben Haim noted, in an apparent reference to Coconspirator I.M., that “[h]e called me up 14 times. He says ‘I got another 300 [thousand]. You want it?’” Coconspirator Ben Haim indicated that he had declined the offer but then noted that “I have orders for Sunday . . . I don’t have enough,” thus indicating that the money remaining from the Power Rangers box would be insufficient for the customers he would see on Sunday. At the conclusion of the meeting, Coconspirator Ben Haim asked the CW if the CW wished to launder “a hundred [thousand] next week?” The CW responded “[l]et me see how much, what our profits are next week,” and agreed to contact Coconspirator Ben Haim if another laundering transaction was to be conducted. 18. On or about December 16, 2008, Coconspirator Ben Haim met the CW in Coconspirator Ben Haim’s vehicle in Deal. During the meeting, Coconspirator Ben Haim accepted a bank check made out to COE in the amount of $160,000. The CW explained that the money represented the profits from the CW’s counterfeit handbag business, but explained that the CW’s partner had provided the CW less than the CW had hoped because “[e]ven the knock-off business is tough today.” Coconspirator Ben Haim informed the CW that in exchange for the $160,000 check he would provide the CW with $130,000 in cash. Coconspirator Ben Haim explained that “I’m putting the order in the pipeline” and related that he had spoken with his contact - believed to be a reference to Coconspirator I.M. - the previous Sunday. Coconspirator Ben Haim stated that he expected the pickup of the cash would occur in the near future in either Williamsburg or Boro Park in Brooklyn. 19. On or about December 30, 2008, Coconspirator Ben Haim met the CW in Coconspirator Ben Haim’s vehicle in Deal. During the meeting, Coconspirator Ben Haim provided the CW with 9 approximately $64,850 in cash as partial payment for the $160,000 check provided by the CW on or about December 16, 2008. During the conversation, Coconspirator Ben Haim was informed by the CW that “things are picking back up in my, uh, knock-off pocketbook business, my counterfeit business.” Coconspirator Ben Haim also was told that the money involved in their laundering transaction “is only profits - principal I keep in there.” Coconspirator Ben Haim informed the CW that he had a lot of “orders” for laundering transactions because it was near the end of the year, but that some clients wished to wait until the turn of the year to consummate the transactions. It is believed that Coconspirator Ben Haim was referring to the efforts of some of his customers to select the year during which they would claim deductions for charitable contributions on their income tax returns based on the checks provided to Coconspirator Ben Haim. As the conversation continued, Coconspirator Ben Haim indicated that the nearly $65,000 that he was providing to the CW had been retrieved by Coconspirator Ben Haim the previous day from defendant WEISS at defendant WEISS's residence in Brooklyn. 20. On or about January 18, 2009, Coconspirator Ben Haim met with the CW at a location on Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn. During the meeting, Coconspirator Ben Haim and the CW discussed a potential pickup of approximately $150,000 in Brooklyn during the following week, the proceeds of which would be used to complete the money laundering transaction commenced on or about December 16, 2008. Coconspirator Ben Haim told the CW about “customers from two, three years ago that are calling me,” and indicated that “[t]hat’s a signal that the market is tight.” Coconspirator Ben Haim also discussed his source for cash, Coconspirator I.M., and stated that he spoke to Coconspirator I.M. “[e]very day - every other day.” Referring to Coconspirator I.M., Coconspirator Ben Haim then asked the CW “[d]id you know that he had me in the last four years send out wires every time to a different place in the world to a different name? It’s unbelievable. I never saw anything like it.” When the CW asked whether Coconspirator Ben Haim was referring to different locations in only Israel, Coconspirator Ben Haim replied “[n]o, all over the world. . . All over the world. From Australia to New Zealand to Uganda. I mean [u/i] every country imaginable. Turkey, you can’t believe it. . . . All different names. It’s never the same name. . . . Switzerland, everywhere, France, everywhere, Spain . . . . China, Japan.” Coconspirator Ben Haim also explained that the market for cash was tight “only in the beginning of the year and the end of the year.” 10 21. On or about January 4, 2009, January 25, 2009, and February 13, 2009, the CW received from Coconspirator Ben Haim a total of approximately $50,000 in further partial payment for the money laundering transaction commenced on or about December 16, 2008. 22. Between approximately June 2007 and February 2009, defendant WEISS transferred a total of more than $300,000 to Coconspirator Ben Haim and the CW, as part of money laundering transactions.
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SHIMON HABER
4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL COMPLAINT v. : SHIMON HABER : Mag. No. 09-8134 (MCA) I, Robert J. Cooke, being duly sworn, state the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. From in or about March 2007 to at least in or about November 2007, in Hudson County, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant SHIMON HABER knowingly and willfully conspired with others to conduct and attempt to conduct financial transactions involving property represented to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, specifically, bank fraud and bankruptcy fraud, with the intent to promote bribery and to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the property believed to be proceeds of specified unlawful activity, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(3). In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h). I further state that I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and that this complaint is based on the following facts: SEE ATTACHMENT A continued on the attached page and made a part hereof. _______________________________ Robert J. Cooke, Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence, July , 2009, at Newark, New Jersey HONORABLE MADELINE COX ARLEO ________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Signature of Judicial Officer ATTACHMENT A 2 I, Robert J. Cooke, a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), following an investigation and discussions with other law enforcement officers, am aware of the following facts. Because this Attachment A is submitted for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause, I have not included herein the details of every aspect of this investigation. Nor have I recounted every conversation involving the defendant. All conversations referred to in this attachment were recorded, unless otherwise indicated, and are related in substance and in part. 1. At all times relevant to this Complaint, defendant Shimon Haber (hereinafter “defendant Haber”) was a real estate developer, who worked in New York and New Jersey. A check with the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance and the New York State Department of Banking revealed that defendant Haber did not hold a license to transmit or remit money. 2. At all times relevant to this Complaint: A. Coconspirator Moshe Altman, a/k/a “Michael Altman” (hereinafter “Altman”) was a real estate developer based in Hudson County. B. Coconspirator Itzak Friedlander, a/k/a “Isaac Friedlander,” (hereinafter “Friedlander”) was a business partner of defendant Altman and an employee of defendant Altman’s real estate development company. C. A check with the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance and the New York State Department of Banking revealed that Altman and Friedlander did not hold a license to transmit or remit money. D. There was a cooperating witness (the "CW") who had been charged with bank fraud in a federal criminal complaint in May 2006. Thereafter, for the purposes of this investigation conducted by the FBI, the CW posed as a real estate developer interested in development in the greater Jersey City area. The CW represented that the CW did business in numerous states, including New York and New Jersey, and that the CW paid for goods and services in interstate commerce. 3. On or about March 6, 2007, defendant Haber and Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City, New Jersey. During this meeting, defendant Haber, Altman, and the CW 3 discussed the mechanics of a scheme wherein they would make corrupt payments to various public officials in Hudson County in exchange for various forms of official action and approvals. In that regard, the CW asked Altman and defendant Haber about their ability to launder money that the CW would provide to these officials in furtherance of these corrupt deals. The CW stated, “Question is. If I bring in money. How many of these guys can convert it? No?” Referring to Altman, defendant Haber advised the CW, “Talk to him, he has ‘washing machines’,” meaning money–laundering contacts. Given the amounts and breadth of the illicit laundering scheme being discussed, defendant Haber remarked, the CW “needs a laundromat.” Referencing the fact that the first floor of the building in which Altman’s place of business was located actually housed a laundromat, with a prominent sign reading “LAUNDROMAT,” Altman quipped that they “got one down here.” As the conversation continued, the CW asked Altman, “he converts from green to check . . . whatever?” Altman responded that his money-laundering contact performed such laundering and likened his contact to money-laundering “converters” based in Israel. Defendant Haber then reaffirmed the “money-laundering” scheme as he emphasized to Altman, the CW “needs a converter,” a reference to an individual who converts criminally derived monies into some other form of asset or monetary instrument in order to conceal its illegal origins. Thus, in this conversation, defendant Haber and Altman discussed the prospect of Altman’s utilizing his money-laundering contacts in furtherance of an overarching scheme to bribe public officials in Hudson County in exchange for their official action and influence. 4. On or about March 28, 2007, defendant Haber and Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. Defendant Haber, Altman, and the CW discussed a money-laundering arrangement. Altman asked the CW if the CW needed a “washing machine,” a reference to a money-laundering transaction. The CW replied, “Yeah, but not all in one shot.” The CW continued, “I’m talking 20 to 50 now,” a reference to $20,000 to $50,000, with more to follow. Altman asked the CW, “Which way is it going?” The CW responded, “I have checks.” At this point in the conversation, the parties began to whisper and Altman instructed the CW, “Do me a favor, just write,” meaning communicate about the scheme in a non-audible, written manner in order to evade detection. 5. With the assistance of defendant Haber, the CW wrote the following three questions on a scrap of paper for Altman: (1) “Check to who”?; (2) “How much do charge 10% is fine”; and (3) “how long to wash”? In response to question one, Altman wrote 1 Note that during the course of the investigation, the subjects and the CW have alternated spellings between “Gmach” and “Gemach” but there is no substantive difference. 4 “Gemach Shefa Chaim.”1 Altman did not provide a written response to question two. In response to the final question concerning the laundering period, Altman wrote “1 wk To 2 wks.” After completing the written questions and answers, Altman confirmed for the CW that charities would be utilized to launder the monies that the CW would provide. Lastly, the CW stated, “Because of the bankruptcy court no one can know nothing,” a reference to concealing from the bankruptcy court the money/assets that the CW proposed to utilize in this arrangement. The CW informed defendant Haber and Altman that ongoing bankruptcy proceedings that involved the CW required the CW to declare “all assets,” to include anything of value, even items such as “cars,” “watches,” “furs,” “firearms,” “jewelry,” and “suits.” Defendant Haber and Altman indicated that they understood and that concealing these matters from the authorities was not an issue. 6. On or about May 8, 2007, Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City and continued to discuss, among other things, the money-laundering arrangement. The CW asked Altman, “How much can [the Gemach] handle at once for me?” Altman responded, “What’s the numbers? Just tell me the numbers.” When the CW discussed a “silent partner” owing the CW money from “deals” and that the partner would provide the CW with checks ranging from $25,000 to $100,000 for conversion to cash, Altman reassured the CW that he could handle it and that he would conceal the illicit arrangement from anyone at the organizational front and all others, to include the bankruptcy trustee and the bankruptcy court. With regard to turnaround time for converting the checks to cash, Altman stated that it could take “A week, 10 days, it depends. It’s not all taken out right away. So it can take two weeks.” 7. On or about May 21, 2007, in the morning, another individual met with the CW in Deal, New Jersey. At that meeting, this individual furnished the CW with a check in the amount of $18,000. The check was made payable to Gmach Shefa Chaim, the charitable organization that Altman specified to defendant Haber and the CW in the March 28th meeting. 8. On or about May 21, 2007, in the early afternoon, Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During the meeting, Altman received this $18,000 check from the CW. After providing Altman with the check, the CW indicated that 5 the CW did not need a copy of the check “because I don’t keep records.” Altman agreed that was best. As the conversation continued, Altman was informed by the CW of the illegal source of the funds. The CW stated, “basically, guy owes me money from bank deals, ‘schnookie’ bank deals no one knows about and no one could know about . . . this guy’s a partner of mine.” Altman was further advised by the CW that the CW expected another $50,000 check from the partner next week that the CW would need laundered into cash. Altman replied, “Okay, very good.” Altman further indicated that he would launder the check into cash for return to the CW by June 12, 2007. Thus, in this conversation, Altman acknowledged that he understood the illegal source and nature of the funds that the CW supplied him with for both laundering purposes and to hide assets from the CW’s ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. 9. Further to the March 7th and March 28th, 2007 meetings with defendant Haber detailed above, between approximately May 2007 and August 2007, Altman and Friedlander engaged in money laundering transactions with the CW totaling approximately $268,000 in funds represented by the CW to be proceeds from the CW’s bank fraud that needed to be concealed from the bankruptcy court and authorities. Consistent with the money-laundering arrangement discussed and agreed to at those meetings with defendant Haber, Altman and Friedlander accepted numerous checks for laundering into cash from the CW. Pursuant to their instructions, the checks were made payable to the Gmach Shefa Chaim and other such charitable organizations utilized in furtherance of the money-laundering scheme. 10. On or about August 10, 2007, Altman met with the CW at Altman's place of business in Union City. During the meeting, Altman gave the CW approximately $44,500 in cash. This cash amount represented $24,500 in cash to complete a money laundering transaction of July 16, 2007 and a partial return of $20,000 on a $50,000 check Friedlander accepted for laundering on or about August 8, 2007. Friedlander and Altman mistakenly overpaid the CW $250 on this occasion. Haggling over the laundering fee charged, the CW stated to Altman that Friedlander “ . . . told me 10% with these new guys, fast turnaround, 10% he told me.” Insisting that 15% was the correct fee, Altman countered, “What are you talking about? . . . You misunderstood him [meaning Friedlander] . . . I made it very clear,” a reference to the money laundering fee to be charged. 11. On or about that same date, defendant Haber and Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. Regarding defendant Haber’s and Altman's assisting the CW in 2 The Palisades project refers to an area on Palisades Avenue in Union City, where defendant Haber and Altman worked to assist the CW in obtaining official approvals to build a multi-story condominium containing as much as 150 units. Five, 2-family residential homes preoccupied the area. 6 making corrupt payments to various public officials in Hudson County in exchange for various forms of official action, defendant Haber discussed the fact that he had already paid for “tickets,” a reference to political contributions, in an effort to procure official approvals for the Palisades project in Union City2 and that more money was needed. To that end, defendant Haber asked the CW for money to pay for more “tickets” for the benefit of a Union City official (the “Union City Official”). Referencing the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings and the continuing need to conceal their illicit arrangement, the CW stated, “I can get you a check probably . . . from one of my . . . I have a management company that doesn’t show up anywhere.” Defendant Haber asked the CW for $4,000 and counseled the CW to funnel the payment through Altman, who would send it to “some charity,” in order to make the corrupt payment for the benefit of the Union City Official. Questioning whether this was necessary, the CW stated, “I don’t need a Gmach. I can do a check straight. I don’t show anywhere. It’s an offshore management thing . . .” In response, defendant Haber continued to talk about sending it to a “charity account.” At the conclusion of the meeting, defendant Haber, Altman, and the CW discussed using the CW’s represented offshore management account to purchase $5,000 worth of “tickets” in furtherance of the scheme to obtain the Union City Official’s influence in approving the Palisades project. 12. On or about August 16, 2007, Altman sent the CW a “text message” via Altman’s cellular telephone advising the CW that Altman would be meeting with the Union City Official and/or a representative of the Union City Official (the “Representative”) and that the CW should bring another “10,” meaning $10,000 more for the purposes of securing approvals in Union City. 13. On or about that same day, August 16th, defendant Haber and Altman met with the CW in a car in Union City. As they awaited their meeting with the Representative for the purpose of giving checks in exchange for approvals, defendant Haber asked the CW how much money the CW brought. The CW advised $10,000, and Altman asked, “How are the checks made out?” Pursuant to the laundering arrangement defendant Haber and Altman previously discussed with the CW, the CW stated that the CW had one $4,000 check made out to a political committee and “$6,000 to the Gemach.” 3 The $4,000 check made payable to the political committee was drawn on the account of a company that the CW represented to be the CW’s offshore management company that was concealed from the bankruptcy trustee and authorities but that, in reality, was an FBI front company. 4 The $6,000 check the CW showed the Representative was a “cashier’s check” made payable to the Gmach Shefa Chaim. 7 14. Shortly thereafter, at a banquet facility in Union City, Altman introduced the CW and re-introduced defendant Haber to the Representative, whom Altman previously described as a middleman for the Union City Official. Concerning the CW, Altman stated to the Representative that the CW’s “involved in the Palisades deal.” Referring to defendant Haber, Altman stated to the Representative, “Shimon Haber . . . you met him before,” to which the Representative responded, “I heard things about you . . . good stuff.” Regarding the desire to obtain approvals, the CW stated to the Representative, “We want to invest a lot of money in the City . . . we want to make sure everyone does the right thing by us.” The Representative responded, “I understand . . . we want development. We want people that come up with good projects.” The Representative indicated that the only current problem was an individual, who was filing many appeals, but that Altman “knows how to get around” the problem. 15. Immediately after mentioning to the Representative an upcoming Union City Planning Board meeting, wherein the Palisades project would be addressed, the CW stated to the Representative, “I gave him [i.e., Altman] $10,000 . . . $4,000 for [a political committee] and $6,000 to him which he’ll get to you this week.” The Representative responded, “Okay,” and accepted the $4,000 check payable to the political committee,3 placing it in his pocket. Regarding the $6,000 check4 for Altman to structure for payment for the benefit of the Union City Official and approvals, the CW indicated that it was necessary in order to circumvent campaign contribution limits. The CW stated, “The problem is I come with limitations. What are the limits?” In response to the CW’s subsequent statement that the CW had “no limitations” in terms of making corrupt payments in exchange for Union City official action in the CW’s favor, the Representative said, “Okay, thank you very much.” 16. After the meeting with the Representative, defendant Haber and Altman scolded the CW for speaking so openly regarding the making of corrupt payments in exchange for official action. 8 Altman stated, “Ay, Ay, Ay . . . too much talking . . . you can’t talk to them like this.” Agreeing with Altman, defendant Haber counseled the CW, “You gotta start slow with these guys.” Near the end of their meeting, the CW asked Altman how he would structure the $6,000 check for payment to the Union City Official in furtherance of the scheme. Altman responded, “We break it up into different names . . . it’s no problem.” Admonishing the CW that Union City officials were afraid, a reference to an ongoing law-enforcement investigation, Altman advised the CW that the CW should not openly discuss the “breaking up” of the checks and the Gmach’s role. Turning to a different subject, defendant Haber asked the CW for approximately $10,000 so that he could pay mortgages on properties that were losing money. When the CW indicated that the CW was afraid of a “trace” on the CW’s account, defendant Haber responded, “how do they trace anything . . . give it to the Gmach . . . the Gmach will give it to me . . .” 17. On or about August 23, 2007, Altman met with the CW at Altman's place of business in Union City. During the meeting, Altman explained, among other things, how Altman structured the CW’s $6,000 check made payable to the Gmach Shefa Chaim for the benefit of the Union City Official’s political fund. In response to the CW’s question, “How did you do it?,” Altman explained “I took three LLCs [a reference to limited liability companies] . . . I have 11, 12 different LLCs . . . each building has its own LLC.” Thus, in this conversation, Altman acknowledged that he utilized limited liability companies, at least in part, to structure and conceal payments and campaign contributions to public officials in exchange for their exercising official influence and action in his favor. 18. After explaining his use of the three limited liability companies to the CW, Altman stated to the CW, the Union City Official “called me today.” Checking his cell phone, Altman advised the CW that the Union City Official called him at “11:41 a.m.” Altman further advised the CW that the Union City Official just had a fundraiser and was looking for more money. Altman stated that the Union City Official called him “hinting” and that the Union City Official asked him, “Can we come with anything better?” The CW asked Altman, “How did he know how much?,” meaning how did the Union City Official know the sums of money that Altman gave to him. Altman responded that “he [i.e., the Union City Official] won’t talk” about money but that he knows from whom it comes. Altman further indicated that he would meet with the Union City Official the next day to follow up on the matter. 9 19. On or about November 1, 2007, defendant Haber met with the CW in defendant Haber’s car in Tinton Falls, New Jersey. During the meeting, defendant Haber explained to the CW that Altman was “very upset” with how open the CW was with respect to the corrupt intention of making payments for the benefit of the Union City Official in exchange for approvals on the Palisades project. Indicating that he agreed with Altman, defendant Haber advised the CW that Altman thought “the CW was a fool for wanting to put [the CW’s] face into the picture at this stage,” a reference to being physically present for the planned corrupt payments. Defendant Haber emphasized this was particularly true in light of pending federal criminal charges against the CW. Advising the CW that the corrupt payments would be made in exchange for approvals irrespective of whether or not the CW was present, defendant Haber stated, “At the end of the day, you have a federal case against you . . . and I don’t understand why you want to put yourself in jeopardy . . . so hide, it doesn’t make a difference!” 20. Discussing a forthcoming corrupt $10,000 payment to a political committee for the benefit of the Union City Official, structured again in the form of four checks, the CW asked defendant Haber, “Is it to make [Altman] look good or is it for [the Union City Official] and [the Representative] who said give us the $10,000 and we’ll get you the approvals?” Defendant Haber responded, “I’m going to go with [Altman] with the $10,000 and I’ll make sure he [meaning the Union City Official] knows its for Palisades . . . Is that good enough for you?” Defendant Haber told the CW that the Union City Official called inquiring about the Palisades project and solicited another $10,000 for its approval. Defendant Haber recounted, “[the Union City Official] said we need another $10,000 . . . when are you going up for Palisades . . . we need $10,000" for the project “it was clearly tied to that.” Defendant Haber further advised the CW, “If you want, I will be there when [Altman] gives the [Union City Official] the check.” Voicing his own concerns about having his participation in the corrupt scheme detected, defendant Haber stated, “The truth is, I’d rather not go. I don’t want to be fronted. Let him [i.e., Altman] do the work [a reference to the corrupt payoff]. What do I care? I still get my approval.” At this meeting, defendant Haber accepted from the CW and left with four, $2,500 checks to be given to the Union City Official. As defendant Haber, Altman, and Friedlander previously instructed, each check was made payable to a civic association in the name of the Union City Official. Two of the four checks were cashiers checks, and the other two checks were drawn on the account of the CW’s purported offshore management company. 10 21. In subsequent meetings, Altman and the co-schemers advised the CW that defendant Haber and Altman gave the checks to the Representative and reiterated that the payments were for the proposed Palisades project in Union City.
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST MOSHE ALTMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL COMPLAINT v. : MOSHE ALTMAN, : Mag. No. 09-8125 (MCA) a/k/a “Michael Altman” I, Robert J. Cooke, being duly sworn, state that the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SEE ATTACHMENT A I further state that I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and that this complaint is based on the following facts: SEE ATTACHMENT B continued on the attached pages and made a part hereof. _______________________________ Robert J. Cooke, Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence, July , 2009, at Newark, New Jersey HONORABLE MADELINE COX ARLEO ________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Signature of Judicial Officer 2 ATTACHMENT A Count 1 In or about July 2007, in Hudson County, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant MOSHE ALTMAN, a/k/a “Michael Altman” did knowingly and willfully conspire with a Jersey City Building Inspector to obstruct, delay, and affect interstate commerce by extortion under color of official right, by assisting in arranging for corrupt cash payments to be paid by another, with that person’s consent, for the JC Building Inspector’s benefit in exchange for the Building Inspector’s official assistance. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a) and Section 2. Count 2 From in or about March 2007 to in or about June 2009, in Hudson County, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant MOSHE ALTMAN, a/k/a “Michael Altman” knowingly and willfully conspired with others to conduct and attempt to conduct financial transactions involving property represented to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, specifically, bank fraud, bankruptcy fraud and trafficking in counterfeit goods, with the intent to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the property believed to be proceeds of specified unlawful activity, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(3). In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h). 3 ATTACHMENT B I, Robert J. Cooke, a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), following an investigation and discussions with other law enforcement officers, am aware of the following facts. Because this Attachment B is submitted for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause, I have not included herein the details of every aspect of this investigation. Nor have I recounted every conversation involving the defendant. All conversations referred to in this attachment were recorded, unless otherwise indicated, and are related in substance and in part. Count 1 1. At all times relevant to this Complaint, defendant Moshe Altman, a/k/a “Michael Altman” (hereinafter, “defendant Altman”) was a real estate developer based in Hudson County. 2. At all times relevant to Count 1 of this Complaint, there was an individual who served as a Building Inspector for the City of Jersey City (“JC Building Inspector”). The JC Building Inspector was responsible for, among other things, performing inspections and certifying buildings for compliance with pertinent federal, state, and local standards, codes, regulations and procedures including zoning standards. 3. There was a cooperating witness (the "CW") who had been charged with bank fraud in a federal criminal complaint in May 2006. Thereafter, for the purposes of this investigation conducted by the FBI, the CW posed as (a): a real estate developer interested in development in the greater Jersey City area and (b) the owner of a counterfeit handbag business. The CW represented that the CW did business in numerous states, including New York and New Jersey, and that the CW paid for goods and services in interstate commerce. 4. On or about July 10, 2007, defendant Altman met with the CW at defendant Altman’s place of business in Union City, New Jersey. During this meeting, defendant Altman explained to the CW that defendant Altman had arranged for the CW and defendant Altman to make a corrupt cash payment to the JC Building Inspector in exchange for zoning approvals for properties that the CW and defendant Altman sought to develop in Jersey City. During this same meeting, defendant Altman acknowledged to the CW that defendant Altman had made corrupt cash payments to the JC Building Inspector in the past, in exchange for the JC Building Inspector’s approvals and other official assistance. 4 5. On or about July 11, 2007, defendant Altman met with the CW at defendant Altman's place of business in Union City. During that meeting, defendant Altman explained to the CW that defendant Altman would accompany the CW to meet with the JC Building Inspector and that defendant Altman would take the JC Building Inspector to the boiler room in the building where the meeting would take place. 6. On or about July 11, 2007, defendant Altman, the JC Building Inspector, and the CW met at a building that defendant Altman owned in Jersey City. After entering the building, defendant Altman informed the JC Building Inspector that the CW was interested in developing properties in Jersey City, but was looking for a “comfort level” on “zoning” and other matters. The JC Building Inspector responded, “[y]ou’re not gonna have any problem with anything with me . . . whatever we have to do, I can get it done.” Then, the JC Building Inspector explained that he could help the CW gain approval for more units in a particular building: “[w]orst-case scenario . . . we have to put in for a variance . . . go before the Board of Adjustment, we present the set of plans, the whole bit, but I get the blessing from everybody up above for that to go through.” 7. As defendant Altman stepped into the building’s boiler room, the JC Building Inspector and the CW continued their meeting. The JC Building Inspector then accepted $20,000 in cash from the CW with the JC Building Inspector being advised by the CW: “got there 20,” meaning $20,000. The JC Building Inspector was advised by the CW that the $20,000 was “on deposit” and that there would be additional payments in exchange for the JC Building Inspector’s future official assistance. The JC Building Inspector was further advised by the CW “[t]ake care of me. I’ll take care of you.” Indicating that he was comfortable with the corrupt relationship, the JC Building Inspector replied, “Absolutely.” The JC Building Inspector further stated that he was “around all the time” and supplied the CW with his cell phone number. The JC Building Inspector then briefly met with defendant Altman in the boiler room. To create the pretext of an inspection, the JC Building Inspector stated, “Everything looks good here,” as he began to leave the building. Count 2 8. At all times relevant to Count 2 of this Complaint, a check with the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance and the New York State Department of Banking revealed that defendant Altman did not hold a license to transmit or remit money. 5 9. At all times relevant to Count 2 of this Complaint: A. Coconspirator Itzak Friedlander, a/k/a “Isaac Friedlander,” (hereinafter “Friedlander”) was a business partner of defendant Altman and an employee of defendant Altman’s real estate development company. B. Coconspirator Shimon Haber was a real estate developer, who worked in New York and New Jersey. C. A check with the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance and the New York State Department of Banking revealed that Friedlander and Haber did not hold a license to transmit or remit money. 10. On or about March 6, 2007, defendant Altman and Haber met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During this meeting, defendant Altman, Haber and the CW discussed the mechanics of a scheme wherein they would make corrupt payments to various public officials in Hudson County in exchange for various forms of official action and approvals. In that regard, the CW asked defendant Altman and Haber about their ability to launder money that the CW would provide in furtherance of these illicit deals. The CW stated, “Question is. If I bring in money. How many of these guys can convert it? No?” Referring to defendant Altman, Haber advised the CW, “Talk to him, he has ‘washing machines’,” meaning money–laundering contacts. Given the amounts and breadth of the illicit laundering scheme being discussed, Haber remarked, the CW “needs a laundromat.” Referencing the fact that the first floor of the building in which Altman’s place of business was located actually housed a laundromat, with a prominent sign reading “LAUNDROMAT,” defendant Altman quipped that they “got one down here.” As the conversation continued, the CW asked defendant Altman, “he converts from green to check . . . whatever?” Defendant Altman responded that his money-laundering contact performed such laundering and likened his contact to money-laundering “converters” based in Israel. Haber then reaffirmed the “moneylaundering” scheme as he emphasized to defendant Altman, the CW “needs a converter,” a reference to an individual who converts criminally derived monies into some other form of asset in order to conceal its illegal origins. Thus, in this conversation, defendant Altman and Haber discussed the prospect of Altman’s utilizing his money-laundering contacts in furtherance of an overarching scheme to bribe public officials in Hudson County in exchange for their official action and influence. 1 Note that during the course of the investigation, the subjects and the CW have alternated spellings between “Gmach” and “Gemach” but there is no substantive difference. 6 11. On or about March 28, 2007, the CW met with defendant Altman and Haber at Altman’s place of business in Union City. Defendant Altman, Haber and the CW discussed a money-laundering arrangement. Defendant Altman asked the CW if the CW needed a “washing machine,” a reference to a money-laundering transaction. The CW replied, “Yeah, but not all in one shot.” The CW continued, “I’m talking 20 to 50 now,” a reference to $20,000 to $50,000, with more to follow. Defendant Altman asked the CW, “Which way is it going?” The CW responded, “I have checks.” At this point in the conversation, the parties began to whisper and defendant Altman instructed the CW, “Do me a favor, just write,” meaning communicate about the scheme in a non-audible, written manner in order to evade detection. 12. With the assistance of Haber, the CW wrote the following three questions on a scrap of paper for defendant Altman: 1) “Check to who”?; 2) “How much do charge 10% is fine”; and 3) “how long to wash”? In response to question one, defendant Altman wrote “Gemach Shefa Chaim.”1 Defendant Altman did not provide a written response to question two. In response to the final question concerning the laundering period, defendant Altman wrote “1 wk To 2 wks.” After completing the written questions and answers, defendant Altman confirmed for the CW that charities would be utilized to launder the monies that CW would provide. Lastly, the CW stated, “Because of the bankruptcy court no one can know nothing,” a reference to concealing the illicit arrangement. The CW informed defendant Altman and Haber that the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings required the CW to declare “all assets,” to include anything of value, even items such as “cars,” “watches,” “furs,” “firearms,” “jewelry,” and “suits.” Defendant Altman and Haber indicated that they understood and that concealing these matters from the authorities was not an issue. 13. On or about May 8, 2007, defendant Altman met with the CW at defendant Altman’s place of business in Union City and continued to discuss, among other things, the money-laundering arrangement. The CW asked defendant Altman, “How much can [the Gemach] handle at once for me?” Defendant Altman responded, “What’s the numbers? Just tell me the numbers.” When the CW discussed a “silent partner” owing the CW money from “deals” and that the partner would provide the CW with checks ranging from $25,000 to $100,000 for conversion to cash, defendant Altman reassured the CW that he could handle it and that he would 7 conceal the illicit arrangement from anyone at the organizational front and all others, to include the bankruptcy trustee and the bankruptcy court. With regard to turnaround time for converting the checks to cash, defendant Altman stated that it could take “A week, 10 days, it depends. It’s not all taken out right away. So it can take two weeks.” 14. On or about May 21, 2007, in the morning, another individual met with the CW in Deal, New Jersey. At that meeting, this individual furnished the CW with a check in the amount of $18,000. The check was made payable to Gmach Shefa Chaim that defendant Altman specified to the CW in the March 28th meeting. 15. On or about May 21, 2007, in the early afternoon, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During the meeting, defendant Altman received this $18,000 check from the CW. After providing defendant Altman with the check, the CW indicated that the CW did not need a copy of the check “because I don’t keep records.” Defendant Altman agreed that was best. As the conversation continued, defendant Altman was informed by the CW of the illegal source of the funds. The CW stated, “basically, guy owes me money from bank deals, ‘schnookie’ bank deals no one knows about and no one could know about . . . this guy’s a partner of mine.” Defendant Altman was further advised by the CW that the CW expected another $50,000 check from the partner next week that the CW would need laundered into cash. Defendant Altman replied, “Okay, very good.” Defendant Altman further indicated that he would launder the check into cash for return to the CW by June 12, 2007. Thus, in this conversation, defendant Altman acknowledged that he understood the illegal source and nature of the funds that the CW supplied him with for both laundering purposes and to hide assets from the CW’s ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. 16. On or about June 12, 2007, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During the meeting, defendant Altman supplied the CW with approximately $15,300 in cash, which represented the proceeds of the $18,000 check from May 21st less a 15% money-laundering fee. Defendant Altman stated to the CW that “he [a reference to Altman’s money laundering contact] took off 15%” rather than 10% because the amount of money was low. Defendant Altman further advised the CW that his money-laundering contact asked him where the check was from, but that defendant Altman did not disclose the CW’s identity as defendant Altman promised. Defendant Altman stated, “I keep my word.” As before, defendant Altman and the CW also discussed the illicit nature of the CW’s proceeds and the need to conceal the money-laundering arrangement from defendant Altman’s 8 money-laundering contact, as well as from the bankruptcy court and authorities. The CW stated, “Number one, I have the bankruptcy thing. Number two, I have at least $100,000 a month coming from money I ‘schnookied’ from banks for bad loans. This guy can’t know nothing.” In response, defendant Altman assured the CW that there would be no problem. 17. At this same meeting, defendant Altman also accepted a $75,000 check from the CW to launder. Defendant Altman and the CW discussed the turnaround time to launder the check and defendant Altman indicated that “he’ll [a reference to Altman’s money-laundering contact] do it quickly.” The check was made payable to the Gemach Shefa Chaim and drawn on the account of BH Property Management–- an FBI undercover company. A review of bank records indicates that on or about June 15, 2007, BH Property Management Check No. 1023, in the amount of $75,000, was posted to an account maintained by Valley National Bank in the name of Gmach Shefa Chaim. 18. On or about June 26, 2007, Friedlander met with the CW at defendant Altman’s place of business in Union City. During the meeting, Friedlander advised the CW that defendant Altman had “stepped out” and then handed the CW a white plastic bag containing approximately $54,800 in cash. This cash amount was a partial return on the $75,000 check that defendant Altman had accepted on or about June 12, 2007, for laundering. 19. Approximately twenty-five minutes after the CW had arrived at defendant Altman’s place of business in Union City, defendant Altman arrived and met with the CW. During their meeting, defendant Altman and the CW discussed the fact that the cash that Friedlander had provided the CW was “short.” Pursuant to the laundering fee arrangement that defendant Altman struck with the CW, the remaining cash due from defendant Altman was approximately $8,950. Defendant Altman indicated to the CW that he would advise the CW in the next day or two as to whether he had the remaining $8,950 in cash. As the conversation continued, defendant Altman accepted for laundering another $50,000 check from the CW, which the CW characterized as further proceeds from the CW’s “bank ‘schnookie’ deals.” The check was drawn on the account of BH Property Management and made payable to Organization 1. When the CW asked defendant Altman if his moneylaundering contact could convert the checks to cash more quickly, defendant Altman laughed in agreement with the CW stating, “You’re right. I should teach him the business.” A review of bank records indicates that on or about July 6, 2007, the $50,000 check was posted to an account maintained by Valley National Bank in the name of the Gemach Shefa Chaim. 9 20. On or about July 5, 2007, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. At this meeting, defendant Altman gave the CW approximately $9,050 in cash to complete the money laundering transaction of June 12, 2007. Defendant Altman mistakenly overpaid the CW $100 on this occasion since the return due was approximately $8,950. 21. On or about July 16, 2007, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During the meeting, defendant Altman gave the CW approximately $30,000 in cash. This cash amount was a partial return on the $50,000 check that defendant Altman accepted on or about June 26, 2007 for laundering. While defendant Altman and the CW counted the cash, the CW joked about getting defendant Altman a cash-counting “machine” to make this aspect of the laundering process easier. Concerned about concealing his illicit conduct, defendant Altman responded, “See, if you have one [i.e., a cash-counting machine], it means . . . don’t want somebody goes to the office, sees one, and says, hey!” 22. During the meeting, defendant Altman and the CW discussed the next money-laundering transaction and the turnaround time entailed with defendant Altman’s money-laundering contact washing future checks that the CW would supply. The CW stated, “Now I have 75 more [i.e., $75,000] from one of my bank deals there. How quickly can he turn it, this guy?” Defendant Altman replied, “it’s anywhere normally two weeks to four weeks. That’s how he works.” Reaffirming the illicit origin of the monies that the CW was supplying to defendant Altman, the CW then explained, “The problem is the deal I have with the guy [meaning the CW’s purported partner], we took money from a bank on a nonexistent property, and I have half a million coming but I don’t want to take it until I know I can turn it fast.” In response, defendant Altman stated, “It doesn’t make any difference if its 75 or 300 [meaning $75,000 or $300,000] to me . . . when I give it to him there is not a lot of difference.” Regarding the structuring of the next series of money-laundering transactions, defendant Altman advised the CW that his moneylaundering contact uses the names of three other “Gmachs,” in addition to the Gmach Shefa Chaim that defendant Altman already had the CW use in earlier transactions, as charitable fronts to launder money. Again, the CW made clear the illegal genesis of the monies that the CW was furnishing defendant Altman, as the CW stated, “I did . . . a bank deal on a million-dollar property that didn’t even exist . . . the bank doesn’t know nothing . . . and they don’t care.” Undaunted, defendant Altman advised the CW that he would ask his money-laundering contact about “the names” to use and relate that information to the CW in short order. 10 Near the end of the meeting, defendant Altman accepted for laundering a $75,000 cashier’s check from the CW made payable to the Gemach Shefa Chaim. A review of bank records reflects that on or about July 19, 2007, the $75,000 cashier’s check was posted to an account maintained by Valley National Bank in the name of Gmach Shefa Chaim. 23. Approximately two days later, on or about July 18, 2007, defendant Altman and Friedlander met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During this meeting, defendant Altman gave the CW three Valley National Bank envelopes containing approximately $12,500 in cash to complete the moneylaundering transaction of June 26, 2007. Shortly after he gave the CW the cash, defendant Altman, Friedlander and the CW discussed the next group of money-laundering transactions. Because it was the summertime, defendant Altman indicated that it could take up to four weeks before his money-laundering contact could convert the CW’s checks to cash. Defendant Altman explained to the CW that “smaller amounts,” meaning approximately $50,000 to $150,000 at a time were preferable, because “[t]he way he [i.e., his money-laundering contact] works. The accounts he gets it . . . from A, from B, from C.” Defendant Altman continued to detail the laundering process, “If I give him everything, he puts it in the accounts and he sees how he can get it.” 24. During this meeting, defendant Altman provided the CW with the written names of the following four charitable organizations for laundering purposes: (a) Sanz International; (b) Bayaner Gemilas Chesed; (c) Cong. Shefa Chaim Dehasidi Sanz; and (d) Gmach Keren Hachased. Friedlander reiterated to the CW that the money-laundering process would be delayed because “summertime . . . it’s very tough.” Mindful of his illicit conduct, defendant Altman twice advised the CW that defendant Altman “didn’t want [his] handwriting” on the laundering note and had a secretary copy it. Defendant Altman then instructed the CW on how to structure the forthcoming checks for laundering purposes, “put[ting] the amounts” of $150,000 for Sanz International, $100,000 for Bayaner Gemilas Chesed, $250,000 for Cong. Shefa Chaim Dehasidi Sanz, and $100,000 for Gmach Keren Hachased. The CW advised defendant Altman and Friedlander that the CW would check with his “partners” and get back to them. 25. On or about July 30, 2007, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. At the outset of the meeting, defendant Altman entered the office-area holding a white plastic shopping bag from which defendant Altman removed stacks of cash that he placed on the desk in front of the 11 CW. Defendant Altman then removed from his front pants pocket a similar plastic bag, which contained additional cash, and gave it to the CW. In total, defendant Altman provided the CW with approximately $39,500 in cash, which was a partial return on the $75,000 check defendant Altman accepted for laundering on or about July 18, 2007. Pursuant to the laundering arrangement, defendant Altman promised to pay the CW approximately $24,250 in cash to complete the money-laundering transaction once the funds were available. 26. On or about August 7, 2007, Friedlander met with the CW in Friedlander’s car in Union City. At this meeting, Friedlander supplied the CW with the name of “Boyen Gimlas Chesed” for the purpose of laundering the CW’s next check. Friedlander and the CW arranged to meet the next day, with the CW agreeing to bring a $50,000 check made out to the “Boyen Gimlas Chesed” and with Friedlander agreeing to bring at least $30,000 in cash soon thereafter as a return on monies owed from the last moneylaundering deal. Friedlander stated, “If you bring me tomorrow [i.e., Tuesday] . . . I can have on Thursday . . . 30 for sure.” Explaining that he already made arrangements with the moneylaundering contact, Friedlander advised the CW, “I already called him up that I’m bringing a check . . .” Friedlander continued, “I already prepared him for 30 [meaning $30,000] . . . that’s what Michael [i.e., Altman] told me.” After placing a telephone call to and speaking with the money-laundering contact in the CW’s presence, Friedlander confirmed, “30, he has for sure . . . he has more coming in tomorrow.” Also, during the meeting, when the CW inquired as to whether the laundering fee could be cheaper if the CW supplied approximately $100,000, Friedlander indicated that he believed 10% was possible but that he would find out. 27. On or about August 8, 2007, Friedlander met with the CW outside on 5th Street in Union City. During the meeting, the CW provided Friedlander with a $50,000 cashier’s check that was made payable to the Boyen Gimlas Chesed, the name of the organizational front that Friedlander supplied the CW for future laundering at the August 7, 2007 meeting. The CW stated to Friedlander, “This is the $50,000, made out to “Boyen Gimlas Chesed”. Expecting the check for laundering, Friedlander replied, “Good, good . . . I’m going to see him today,” a reference to the money-laundering contact who would convert the illicit check to cash for the CW. While giving Friedlander the $50,000 check for laundering, the CW reiterated that the monies were bank fraud proceeds and that they must remain hidden from the CW’s ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. The CW stated, “Just don’t tell him [i.e., the money-laundering contact] my name or anything, because this is money that I . . . ‘schnookied’. . . 12 this is from a bank, and I have the bankruptcy . . .” Assuring the CW that he would conceal the criminal activity, Friedlander raised his hand and indicated that he would not say anything. Shortly thereafter, Friedlander placed a telephone call in the CW’s presence to someone Friedlander indicated to be involved in the laundering. Friedlander then advised the CW that he was working to have cash for the CW that afternoon. Friedlander told the CW, “I’m gonna push it . . . I’ll call you.” Bank records indicate that on or about August 9, 2007, the $50,000 cashier’s check was posted to an account maintained by North Fork Bank in the name of Boyen Oner Gemilas Chesed c/o David Goldhirsch. 28. On or about August 10, 2007, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During the meeting, defendant Altman gave the CW approximately $44,500 in cash. This cash amount represented $24,500 in cash to complete the money laundering transaction of July 16, 2007 and a partial return of $20,000 on the $50,000 check Friedlander accepted for laundering on or about August 8, 2007. Friedlander and defendant Altman mistakenly overpaid the CW $250 on this occasion. Haggling over the laundering fee charged, the CW stated to defendant Altman that Friedlander “ . . . told me 10% with these new guys, fast turnaround, 10% he told me.” Insisting that 15% was the correct fee, defendant Altman countered, “What are you talking about? . . . You misunderstood him [meaning Friedlander] . . . I made it very clear,” a reference to the money laundering fee to be charged. 29. On or about August 23, 2007, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During the meeting, defendant Altman supplied the CW with approximately $22,500 in cash to complete the money-laundering transaction of August 8, 2007. Eager to continue profiting by way of laundering the CW’s illicit proceeds, defendant Altman told the CW that his money-laundering contact advised him that if the CW needed more checks laundered, the money-laundering contact would be able to return cash to the CW more quickly. When the CW complained to defendant Altman that other money-launderers charge the CW 10% with a quick turnaround time and that Friedlander also quoted the CW a 10% fee, defendant Altman replied, “When he [i.e., the money-laundering contact] gave me this [i.e., the cash] he told me that he can get . . . money he can get it the same day . . . or something like that.” Near the end of this money-laundering discussion, defendant Altman asked the CW about how much defendant Altman should request from his laundering contact in connection with the next transaction. The CW replied, “I don’t know, 50, 75, [meaning $50,000 to $75,000] whatever he can do . . . the more he can do the better, I don’t care.” 13 30. On or about September 11, 2007, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During the meeting, defendant Altman accepted for laundering a $25,000 cashier’s check from the CW, which the CW described to defendant Altman as coming “from one of my bank schnookie deals.” Consistent with defendant Altman’s previous instructions, the check was made payable to the Gmach Shefa Chaim, one of the charitable organizations that defendant Altman used to launder funds. Defendant Altman indicated that he would return the cash to the CW to complete the money laundering transaction the next week. A review of bank records reflects that on or about September 12, 2007, the $25,000 cashier’s check was posted to an account maintained by Valley National Bank in the name of Gmach Shefa Chaim. 31. On or about September 25, 2007, defendant Altman and Friedlander met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During the meeting, defendant Altman and Friedlander supplied the CW with approximately $21,250 in cash to complete the money laundering transaction commenced on or about September 11, 2007. 32. On or about October 9, 2007, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. At this meeting, defendant Altman accepted a $30,000 cashier’s check from the CW as part of a money-laundering transaction. The check was made payable to the Gmach Shefa Chaim, and defendant Altman agreed to return cash to the CW in exchange for the 15% laundering fee. Bank records show that on or about October 18, 2007, the $30,000 cashier’s check was posted to an account maintained by Valley National Bank in the name of the Gmach Shefa Chaim. 33. On or about October 15, 2007, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. At this meeting, defendant Altman returned to the CW approximately $25,800 in cash to complete the laundering transaction of October 9, 2007. Since defendant Altman should have returned only $25,500 pursuant to the money-laundering fee arrangement that he struck with the CW, defendant Altman mistakenly overpaid the CW $300 on this occasion. 34. On or about December 18, 2007, defendant Altman and Friedlander met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During this meeting, defendant Altman accepted another $25,000 cashier’s check from the CW to launder consistent with their preexisting arrangement. Again making clear the monies were bank-fraud proceeds, the CW told defendant Altman, 14 “This is $25,000. The thing is this guy owes me a hundredthousand. It’s a cousin of mine and we took a loan on a property with Amboy Bank. Remember?” Defendant Altman replied, “Yeah.” Noting that the loan was obtained on a non-existent property and that the CW previously engaged in other such bank frauds, the CW quipped to defendant Altman, “The property wasn’t exactly there. Those were the good ‘ole days’ three years ago.” Upon learning from the CW that the $25,000 check was purportedly obtained in such an illegal manner, defendant Altman laughed and responded, “I should have met you four years ago.” At the conclusion of this money-laundering conversation, defendant Altman indicated to the CW that he would accept another $75,000 from the CW for laundering the next week and that “two weeks [was] enough” time to launder the $25,000 check and return the cash to the CW. As before, the check was made payable to the Gemach Shefa Chaim, defendant Altman’s charitable organization front. A review of bank records indicates that on or about December 21, 2007, the $25,000 cashier’s check was posted to an account maintained by Valley National Bank in the name of the Gmach Shefa Chaim. 35. On or about January 7, 2008, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During this meeting, defendant Altman returned to the CW approximately $21,250 in cash to complete the laundering transaction of December 19, 2007. 36. On or about February 14, 2008, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During this meeting, defendant Altman and the CW touched upon their next money–laundering transaction. Defendant Altman advised the CW that defendant Altman would be able to convert checks to cash that the CW expected to have in the coming weeks. 37. On or about July 10, 2008, defendant Altman and Friedlander met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. Before defendant Altman arrived at the meeting, Friedlander and the CW discussed the illicit sources of the CW’s money and the turnaround time necessary for defendant Altman and Friedlander to launder the money. During this meeting, the CW explained to Friedlander that he had profits from a counterfeit, “knock-off” pocketbook business and bank-fraud profits, “just like all the checks” that defendant Altman and Friedlander previously accepted from the CW for laundering. Inquiring as to the amount of illicit monies to be washed, Friedlander asked the CW, “so how much do you have to turn over?” Friedlander indicated that he would check on the turnaround time and instructed the CW to “write him [a reference to an unspecified 15 money-laundering contact] a few checks and let him start working on them.” 38. At this same meeting, upon defendant Altman’s arrival, defendant Altman and the CW also discussed the illegal origins of the CW’s funds for laundering. The CW explained that “between the profits from [the CW’s false label business] and the profits from the PNC money [i.e., bank-fraud proceeds], we got some money.” Defendant Altman asked the CW “how much do you need” and “what period of time”? After confirming that approximately $200,000 to $300,000 in illicit monies needed to be laundered, defendant Altman indicated that he would be “going to the mountains,” where he would learn from his money-laundering coschemers how much time would be involved.” Indicating that no cash was readily available at the time, defendant Altman advised the CW that “the guy didn’t want to leave the bag here when he left for the mountains.” At the meeting, defendant Altman accepted a $25,000 check from the CW to launder consistent with the pre-existing arrangement. 39. On or about July 24, 2008, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During the meeting, defendant Altman removed a large stack of cash from his pants pocket and handed the CW approximately $15,250 in cash in furtherance of the laundering transaction of July 10, 2008. Referring to defendant Altman’s money-laundering connection, defendant Altman explained that “he’s short six,” meaning that an additional $6,000 in cash would be needed to complete the moneylaundering transaction of July 10, 2008. The CW explained to defendant Altman that “between my PNC profits and my profits from my bag money, you know, my label thing. All the money that I gave you until now and all my future money is from the profits from these two deals.” Defendant Altman indicated that he understood and, gesturing with his hand in a breaking motion, further advised the CW that his money-laundering connection could wash $100,000 for the CW so “. . . long as you break it down into . . . smaller checks.” Defendant Altman further advised the CW that he spoke with his money-laundering contact and that “he says he can do up to 300 [meaning $300,000] no problem” but that he would not do it, as the CW, inquired “in one shot.” Again gesturing with his hands to explain the laundering process, defendant Altman stated that “he breaks it up . . . it doesn’t go into one account.” 40. On or about August 5, 2008, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During the meeting, defendant Altman returned to the CW approximately $6,000 in cash to complete the laundering transaction of July 10, 2008. 16 Defendant Altman indicated to the CW that his money-laundering contact could wash up to $100,000 of the CW’s bank-fraud and counterfeit-bag proceeds “quickly in a week . . . maybe less.” Defendant Altman further instructed the CW to let defendant Altman know soon about the next money-laundering transaction because “I told the guy to hold 100 back,” meaning that $100,000 in cash was then available for laundering purposes. 41. On or about September 4, 2008, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During the meeting, defendant Altman accepted for laundering two checks from the CW. Pursuant to defendant Altman’s instructions, one check in the amount of $25,000 was made payable to Boyen Gemilas Chesed, one of the organizations that defendant Altman used to launder funds. The other check, which was in the amount of $75,000, was made payable to VS Development. 42. On or about October 29, 2008, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. At this recorded meeting, defendant Altman retrieved a black plastic bag containing bundles of cash from a room in the office and then returned to the CW approximately $42,500 in U.S. currency to complete the laundering transaction of September 4, 2008. At this same meeting, defendant Altman accepted another $50,000 check from the CW for laundering. Taking the check, which was made payable to Boyen Gemilas Chesed, defendant Altman asked the CW, “same as usual” to which the CW responded, “Yeah, 50 [meaning $50,000].” Defendant Altman was reminded by the CW that the $50,000 were “profits” from the CW’s “knock-off” bag business. At the conclusion of the meeting, defendant Altman indicated to the CW that there was no shortage of cash for laundering purposes and that in a week or two defendant Altman would be able to wash more checks. 43. On or about February 5, 2009, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During the meeting, defendant Altman supplied the CW with approximately $21,250 in cash to complete an earlier money-laundering transaction. Handing several bank envelopes to the CW, Altman advised the CW that four of the envelopes contained $5,000 in cash and that one of the envelopes contained $1,250 in cash. At this meeting, defendant Altman also accepted another $25,000 check from the CW, who represented the monies to be profits from the CW’s counterfeit bag business, to launder consistent with the ongoing money-laundering arrangement. 44. On or about March 31, 2009, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. At this 2 During the course of his dealings with the CW, defendant Altman used the word “contracts” as a coded-reference for the illicit proceeds Altman understood he was converting into cash for the CW in order to conceal their criminal origin. 17 meeting, defendant Altman took four checks from the CW in order to convert them into cash less the set laundering fee. Pursuant to Altman’s earlier instructions, one check in the amount of $10,000 was made payable to Boyen Gemilas Chesed, and three checks, each in the amount of $5,000, was made payable to “Holtzer.” Defendant Altman placed the four checks in the inside, upper pocket of his jacket. For his part, defendant Altman gave the CW an envelope containing approximately $21,000 in cash further to the money-laundering transaction of February 5, 2009. 45. On or about May 4, 2009, defendant Altman faxed the CW a handwritten note, in which Altman supplied the CW with the names of the laundering fronts and the particular amounts of illicit proceeds to make payable to each front in order to conduct the next money-laundering transaction. The note stated the following: Make contracts2 To SHEFA CHAIM 9500 GEMRAS CHESEO 8000 “ ” 7500 As revealed by the telephone number appearing as part of the fax header, defendant Altman faxed this document to the CW from Altman’s place of business in Union City. 46. On or about May 7, 2009, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During the meeting, Altman accepted three checks totaling $25,000 from the CW for laundering. Pursuant to Altman’s faxed instructions of May 4, 2009, one check in the amount of $9,500 was made payable to Shefa Chaim, and two checks in the respective amounts of $8,000 and $7,500 were made payable to Gemras Cheseo. At the meeting, Altman gave the CW a bank envelope containing approximately $5,000 in cash as a partial return on the $25,000 money laundering transaction of March 31, 2009. Confirming that he still owed the CW approximately $16,250 in cash, Altman stated, “Yeah, 16 and change” and showed the CW a calculator bearing the numbers “16,250" on the screen. 18 47. Toward the end of the meeting on or about May 7, 2009, Altman and the CW also discussed the CW’s counterfeit hand-bag business and an additional $25,000 in illicit “profits” Altman agreed to accept for laundering the following week. The CW stated, “We made a new bag . . . a copy of a Prada-thing . . . April was slow . . . now the profits are coming back.” Agreeing to continue to launder the CW’s represented criminal proceeds, defendant Altman impressed upon the CW the importance of getting advance notice so that Altman could make arrangements with his money-laundering contact that assisted in the washing process. Defendant Altman stated, “Just give me a heads-up before . . . I can’t tell him and not show up, he gets pissed off at me.” 48. On or about May 13, 2009, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During the meeting, defendant Altman returned to the CW approximately $14,900 in cash as part of the $16,250 in cash owed from the money laundering transaction of May 7, 2009. Removing a bundle of bills from his pocket, defendant Altman first handed the CW approximately $5,000 in cash. The CW asked defendant Altman, “You carry everything on you?” Altman affirmed, “Yeah . . . I have no choice.” While continuing their discussion, Altman next removed a bank envelope containing cash from his jacket pocket, which he gave to the CW, and then handed the CW another stack of cash. The three stacks of cash Altman handed the CW totaled approximately $14,900. Defendant Altman verified that he still owed the CW approximately $16,250 in cash to complete the most recent money-laundering transaction. Indicating that he did not then have all the washed money, Altman stated that he was “a little bit short” and affirmed that the balance still owed was approximately $1,350. 49. On or about June 18, 2009, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During the meeting, defendant Altman accepted two checks, one in the amount of $40,000, and one in the amount of $30,000, from the CW for laundering. Noting that they were made payable to Organization 3, Altman stated, “both to BGC.” Altman was reminded by the CW that the $70,000 were “profits” from the CW’s “knock-off” bag business. Regarding the money-laundering arrangement and ongoing scheme to assist the CW in obtaining approvals for development projects in exchange for corrupt payments, defendant Altman was informed by the CW that he would be paid approximately $10,000 a month for his assistance with the development work and would be supplied with approximately $25,000 to $100,000 in “contracts,” meaning illicit proceeds to be washed in exchange for a 15% laundering free. Defendant Altman agreed to the arrangement. Defendant Altman made copies of the checks and then left the CW 19 at Altman’s place of business. Altman advised the CW that he needed to meet with “a guy” in “Union City” in order to pick-up the cash. Approximately 13 minutes after leaving to retrieve the cash, Altman returned to Altman’s place of business and advised the CW that he gave his money-laundering contact the checks but that “I’m gonna have it [meaning the washed cash] Monday.” 50. Later that same day, on or about June 18, 2009, an individual (“the individual”) picked up approximately $40,000 in cash for the CW from another individual connected with Altman’s money-laundering ring in Borough Park, New York as a partial return on the last money-laundering transaction. On or about June 19, 2009, the individual met with the CW at the individual’s residence in Brooklyn, New York and supplied the CW with the $40,000 in cash. 51. On or about June 24, 2009, defendant Altman met with the CW at Altman’s place of business in Union City. During the meeting, Altman and the CW discussed future money-laundering business. Inquiring as to the cash available for laundering the proceeds the CW represented to be derived illegally from his counterfeit-handbag profits, the CW asked Altman, “How’s the money coming along? Is it tight this week or is it good?” Noting that the CW expressed discontent at the June 19th meeting that Altman furnished his money-laundering contact with $70,000 in checks without immediately returning any cash that day to the CW, Altman advised the CW that “you gave me a hard time last week.” Still, interested in laundering more monies he understood to be illegally obtained, Altman asked the CW when “the next checks [would be] coming” and clarified with the CW that “a hundred,” meaning $100,000 in illegal profits, would be ready for Altman’s washing between on or about July 13, 2009 and on or about August 1, 2009. 52. Between approximately May 2007 and June 2009, defendant Altman engaged in money laundering transactions with the CW totaling approximately $668,000 in funds represented by the CW to involve criminal activities.
JUST A BLOGGER WHO HOPES THAT VARIOUS EDUCATIONAL METHODS AND TECHNIQUES CAN BE UTILIZED TO HELP LIBERATE SOCIETY. SOME BLOGS ARE MORE THEORETICAL AND OTHERS ARE MORE FOCUSED ON WHAT I PERCEIVE TO BE CURRENT EVENTS. MANY TIMES A BLOG CONTAINS THE SEEDS OF MANY POSSIBLE LONGER ARTICLES AND ANYONE IS WELCOME TO TAKE THESE IDEAS TO TOWN!
CURRENTLY I HAVE SOME BLOGS CLUSTERING AROUND ISRAEL AND PALESTINE, ANOTHER CLUSTER IS ABOUT OBAMA AND ANOTHER IS ABOUT THE CAPITALIST MELTDOWN. ANOTHER CLUSTER IS ABOUT ECOCATASTROPHE.
ALL OF THIS IS BESIDE THE MAIN FOCUS OF THESE BLOGS WHICH IS LIBERATION FRAMEWORKS OF WHICH THERE ARE QUITE A FEW. FEMINISMS, SOCIALISMS, ANARCHISMS, COMMUNISMS,WORKING CLASS RULE AND OTHER SWELL IDEAS ARE JUST A FEW OF THE FOCI.
NOTHING IN MY BLOGS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS SUPPORT FOR ANY ILLEGAL OR MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE ACTIVITY IN ANY NATION AT ANY TIME.
FOR EXAMPLE I DO NOT ENCOURAGE THE CONTINUANCE OF IMPERIALISM AND CAPITALIST EXPLOITATION, VERY NAUGHTY THINGS INDEED!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vw4RmEGbILWKFXoWGC4AiYMQ3e9ZpvDLlY7fqFkOuwV1gzPP8b2ikuY7iv3JkuJx1KB2ZmUGiUgo2ElFAAz7OmVdJOWQPi7KS4a_OVNvmaNumup_pGIWTT10H5t3bcudOmOIu4oLwXHtj-sLKURofv=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uirkPgURVMX7TEpXgUsSSFCJxA2jqjn2bwQsG21Rnk5sdzk24FQXC0jET5t3melSK009Vm8nN8T6YHR5XDA-muAlgko43rIqRb5EdYidJUuqUNgxIk_go_R-Pap47iCB0hjEa1_3YQ8fobpe6FBHfV=s0-d)
Posts
