CLERICAL CORRUPTION USA: Was Rosenbaum Thinking, "I'm Still Better than Mengele?"

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Was Rosenbaum Thinking, "I'm Still Better than Mengele?"

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment

THE COMPLAINT AGAINST ARYE WESS

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.

CLERICAL CORRUPTION USA

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Was Rosenbaum Thinking, "I'm Still Better than Mengele?"

No comments:

Post a Comment

THE COMPLAINT AGAINST ARYE WESS

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SHIMON HABER

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST MOSHE ALTMAN

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

CLERICAL CORRUPTION USA

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Was Rosenbaum Thinking, "I'm Still Better than Mengele?"

No comments:

Post a Comment

THE COMPLAINT AGAINST ARYE WESS

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SHIMON HABER

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST MOSHE ALTMAN

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

Subscribe To CLERICAL CORRUPTION USA