Francisco Acosta FBI plea

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. : : FRANCISCO ACOSTA CRIMINAL NO. 15-266 : GOVERNMENT'S GUILTY PLEA MEMORANDUM I. INTRODUCTION The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count One of an information, waiving prosecution by indictment, charging him with conspiracy to commit bribery offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 371, all arising from his misusing his public office by accepting a campaign contribution in exchange for taking official action in his capacity as President of Reading’s City Council, misconduct that violates 18 U.S.C. '' 1952, 1343, and 1346. The defendant further acknowledges his waiver of rights, as set forth in the attachment to this agreement. An unsigned copy of the Waiver of Indictment is attached as Exhibit A. The defendant has entered into a written plea agreement, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B. II. STATUTORY MAXIMUM PENALTY The maximum penalty for a violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 371(conspiracy) is five years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, three years supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. III. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE In order to prove the defendant guilty of committing conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the government would have to prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. That the defendant knowingly entered into an agreement to commit an offense against the United States; and 2. That one or more persons did an overt act to effect or further the object of the conspiracy The object offenses of the conspiracy charged in the information were honest services wire fraud and Travel Act bribery. The elements of these offenses are defined below. A. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1346 (honest services wire fraud) In order to establish a violation of the laws against honest services wire fraud, the government would have to prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: B. 1. The defendant devised or participated in a scheme to defraud the public of its right to the honest services of a public official through bribery or kickbacks; 2. The defendant did so knowingly and with an intent to defraud; 3. The scheme or artifice to defraud involved a material misrepresentation, false statement, false pretense, or concealment of fact; and 4. In advancing, or furthering, or carrying out the scheme to defraud, the defendant transmitted, or caused to be transmitted, any writing, signal, or sound by means of a wire communication in interstate or foreign commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (Travel Act bribery) In order to establish a violation of the Travel Act, the government would have to prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: -2- 1. That defendant used a facility in interstate commerce, or caused someone else to use such a facility; 2. That this use of an interstate facility was done with the intent to promote, manage, establish or carry on an unlawful activity, including extortion or bribery in violation of the laws of the State in which committed or of the United States; and 3. That after this use of an interstate facility, the defendant performed or attempted to perform, or aided, abetted or caused, an act in furtherance of this same unlawful activity. In this case, the bribery was committed in Pennsylvania. Title 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. ' 4701 (Bribery in official and political matters) provides as follows: (a) Offenses defined.--A person is guilty of bribery, a felony of the third degree, if he offers, confers or agrees to confer upon another, or solicits, accepts or agrees to accept from another: (1) any pecuniary benefit as consideration for the decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, party official or voter by the recipient; (2) any benefit as consideration for the decision, vote, recommendation or other exercise of official discretion by the recipient in a judicial, administrative or legislative proceeding; or (3) any benefit as consideration for a violation of a known legal duty as public servant or party official. IV. FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE PLEA A. The Relevant Duties of Honest Services The defendant and the individuals identified in the Information as “Public Official #1” and “Public Official #2” were all public officials in Reading. As such, each had fiduciary duties to the City of Reading and its citizens. These duties of honest services, defined in part by Reading’s Code of Ethics (“the Code of Ethics”) and the Pennsylvania Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, prohibited public officials in Reading from seeking improper influence, -3- accepting improper influence, and engaging in bribery, kickbacks, or other conduct constituting a conflict of interest. To limit the influence of money on candidates seeking public office, Section 1012 of Reading’s Code of Ethics established limits on campaign contributions to, and certain reporting requirements for, certain political candidates. Section 1012 established the following annual limits on campaign contributions to any particular candidate: a $2,600 limit on contributions from an individual; a $10,000 limit on contributions from an organization; and an aggregate limit of $250,000 for any candidate for Mayor. To limit the influence of money on public officials in Reading, Section 1006(H) of the Code of Ethics prohibited Reading from awarding of a “no-bid contract” – that is, one which was “not awarded or entered into pursuant to an open and public process” – to any recipient who had made a recent campaign contribution to a Reading public official in excess of the contribution limitations set forth in Section 1012. B. Public Official #1’s Scheme Public Official #1 was a candidate in the Democratic Party’s primary election, scheduled for May 19, 2015. Having received campaign contributions which he believed to be prohibited by the Code of Ethics, Public Official #1 sought to keep these contributions and raise additional funds which would otherwise be prohibited by the Code of Ethics. To facilitate this end, Public Official #1 sought to repeal or nullify Sections 1006(H) and 1012 of the Code of Ethics. Public Official #1 and others knowingly devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and deprive the City of Reading and its citizens of the honest services of several public officials through a bribery and kickback scheme, wherein Public Official #1, via intermediaries, offered to provide campaign contributions to certain members of City Council in -4- exchange for their passage of an ordinance repealing or nullifying Sections 1006(H) and 1012 of the Code of Ethics. Public Official #1 had the power to sign such an ordinance into law. Public Official #2, an ally of the defendant’s, was also a candidate in the May 2015 primary election. Public Official #1 and others agreed that Public Official #1 would offer the defendant a “loan” of $1,800 to the campaign committee of Public Official #2 which would be “forgiven” upon the defendant successfully orchestrating the passage of the repeal bill. Public Official #1 and others agreed that Public Official #1 would offer the defendant additional funding for the campaign committee of Public Official #2 as a reward for the defendant successfully orchestrating the passage of the repeal bill. To conceal his participation in the scheme, Public Official #1 sought to finance the campaign contributions to Public Official #2 with funding from third parties. C. The Defendant’s Participation in the Conspiracy Between March 30, 2015 and April 22, 2015, Public Official #1, the defendant, and others agreed that, in exchange for campaign funding for Public Official #2, defendant would use his official position as City Council President to introduce and obtain passage of legislation, to be approved by Public Official #1, repealing portions of the Code of Ethics in accord with Public Official #1’s preferences (“the repeal bill”), all prior to the Democratic Party’s primary election on May 19, 2015. Public Official #1, the defendant and others agreed that the repeal bill would repeal Section 1012 in its entirety, thereby eliminating the restrictions on campaign contributions and nullifying Section 1006(H)’s prohibition on awarding “no-bid contracts” to certain donors. On or about April 10, 2015, Public Official #1 and others caused a check for $1,800, payable to the campaign of Public Official #2 (“the bribe check”) to be delivered to the defendant. The defendant then took possession of the bribe check and agreed that, in order to -5- avoid scrutiny of his agreement with Public Official #1, neither the defendant nor Public Official #2 would deposit the bribe check until a later date. On or about April 13, 2015, the defendant, acting in his capacity as City Council President, introduced the repeal bill, a proposed ordinance which would immediately repeal “Chapter 5 Administrative Code, Part 10, Code of Ethics, Section 1012, Campaign Contributions and Reporting Requirements. . . [and] [a]ll ordinances or parts of ordinances which are inconsistent herewith.” The defendant attempted to persuade other members of City Council to pass the repeal bill before the primary election by asserting that he was motivated solely by the best financial interests of Reading and by concealing that he had received the bribe check when, in fact, as the defendant well knew, he had made a corrupt bargain with Public Official #1. On or about April 21, 2015, in order to conceal and continue the conspiracy, the defendant made materially false statements to FBI agents who were investigating the bribery scheme. The defendant falsely denied that he had accepted a bribery offer from Public Official #1 (or Public Official #1’s surrogates) and that he had ever possessed or received the bribe check. In fact, as the defendant well knew, he had previously agreed to Public Official #1’s bribery offer and still had possession of the bribe check at the time of his false statements to the agents. The members of the conspiracy used facilities of interstate of commerce, that is, telephones and the Internet, in order to discuss, promote, manage, establish, carry on, and otherwise facilitate the conspiracy. For example, on or about April 10, 2015, Public Official #1 used a cellular telephone, a facility of interstate commerce, to send the defendant a text message inquiring whether the defendant had received certain information that would impact the passage of the repeal bill. That same day, the defendant used an Internet e-mail account, in interstate -6- commerce, to cause to be sent to members of Public Official #1’s government and campaign staffs a draft of the repeal bill that the defendant intended to introduce in his official capacity as City Council President. D. The Defendant’s Withdrawal from the Conspiracy Within 24 hours of his interview with FBI agents on April 21, 2015, the defendant took affirmative steps to withdraw from the conspiracy, all without alerting other members of the conspiracy of the FBI’s inquiry into this matter. The defendant then met with the government at his earliest opportunity in order to accept responsibility for his wrongdoing. The defendant subsequently absented himself from the vote on the repeal bill, which was defeated unanimously by the remaining members of City Council. Respectfully submitted, ZANE DAVID MEMEGER United States Attorney __/s/ Joseph J. Khan_________________________ JOSEPH J. KHAN NANCY BEAM WINTER Assistant United States Attorneys -7- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Government's Guilty Plea Memorandum to be served by e-mail upon counsel for defendant: Robert Goldman, Esq. [email protected] __/s/ Joseph J. Khan_________________________ JOSEPH J. KHAN Assistant United States Attorney Date: 8/3/15