DOJ busts insulation service companies

Lawyer Blogs

[##_1L|1067534057.jpg|width="180" height="128" alt=""|_##]Two Long Island, N.Y. insulation service companies and an owner of the companies pleaded guilty today to conspiring to rig bids on the supply of maintenance and insulation services to New York Presbyterian Hospital (NYPH) and Mount Sinai Medical Center (Mount Sinai), the Department of Justice announced.

Michael Theodorobeakos of Upper Saddle River, N.J., and two maintenance and insulation companies he co-owned – Monosis Inc. (Monosis) and STU Associates Inc. (STU) – pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Manhattan for rigging bids to NYPH and Mount Sinai. Between approximately 2000 and September 2005, NYPH and Mount Sinai purchased substantial quantities of maintenance and insulation services from Theodorobeakos, Monosis, STU and co-conspirators. Theodorobeakos and the co-conspirators attempted to create the appearance that NYPH and Mount Sinai were awarding contracts based on competitive bids, when, in fact, they frequently were not.

"The Antitrust Division is committed to protecting the competitive market for Americans," said Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department's Antitrust Division. "We will continue to apprehend and bring to justice those who rig bids and thereby deprive the public of the benefits afforded by a truly competitive bidding process." As part of the conspiracy, the indictment charges that Theodorobeakos, Monosis, STU and the co-conspirators carried out the conspiracy by:

Designating which company would submit the low bid and which company would submit a higher, complementary bid;

Creating the illusion of a competitive bidding process by using each other's letterhead to submit high, non-competitive bids; and

Providing and being aware of kickbacks to co-conspirators in order to frustrate and subvert the competitive bidding policies of NYPH and Mount Sinai.

The bid rigging crime with which Theodorobeakos is charged carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $1 million fine for an individual. Monosis and STU face a maximum fine of $100 million. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victim of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.

This charge arose from an ongoing federal antitrust investigation of fraud, bribery, tax-related offenses and bidding irregularities in the award of maintenance and service contracts to the engineering departments of Mount Sinai and NYPH. The investigation is being conducted by the Antitrust Division's New York Field Office with the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation.

Related listings

  • Alleged faux beau pleads not guilty in check fraud

    Alleged faux beau pleads not guilty in check fraud

    Lawyer Blogs 04/05/2007

    A disbarred lawyer who police say scammed women in Illinois and eight other states out of more than $1 million pleaded not guilty today for allegedly cashing bogus checks here.Hillard Jay Quint, 42, entered his plea when he appeared before Cook Count...

  • Jackson-Hewitt accused of tax fraud schemes

    Jackson-Hewitt accused of tax fraud schemes

    Lawyer Blogs 04/05/2007

    [##_1L|1023934440.jpg|width="190" height="80" alt=""|_##]The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Justice have filed suit against five Jackson Hewitt franchises, seeking an injunction to bar the companies from preparing tax returns an...

  • Hartford Man Pleads Guilty To Sex-Trafficking Ring

    Hartford Man Pleads Guilty To Sex-Trafficking Ring

    Lawyer Blogs 04/05/2007

    [##_1L|1216039684.jpg|width="120" height="88" alt=""|_##]Brian Forbes of Hartford, Conn., pleaded guilty to six counts related to his role in a sex-trafficking ring. Forbes is the ninth of ten defendants to plead guilty to federal charges in this cas...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

New York & New Jersey Family Law Matters We represent our clients in all types of proceedings that include termination of parental rights. >> read