Moses Indictment

Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 1 of 20
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

For the Western District of New York
OCTOBER 2018 GRAND JURY

(Impaneled 10/24/2018)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

SUPERSEDING
-vs- INDICTMENT
19-CR-6074-EAW
GEORGE MOSES Violations:

Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 1001(a)(2), 1028A(a)(1),
1343,1349 and 2
(28 Counts)
INTRODUCTION
The Grand Jury Charges That:
At all times relevant to this Indictment:
A. The Defendant and Entities Involved in the Schemes to Defraud:
North East Area Development Association
1. The defendant, GEORGE MOSES, resided in Rochester, New York and was
the Executive Director of the North East Area Development Association (“NEAD”) in
Rochester, New York. NEAD was a not-for-profit neighborhood organization governed by a
volunteer board of directors. The volunteers and staff worked with city officials and agencies
to revitalize and stabilize the Sector 8 neighborhood in the northeast quadrant of Rochester.
Quad A for Kids
2. Adam McFadden (McFadden) resided in New York and was the Executive
Director of Quad A for Kids from approximately 2004 until 2014. In 2014, McFadden left as
Executive Director and, until September 2016, worked as an independent contractor for Quad
A for Kids. From September 2016 until 2019, McFadden was again the Executive Director
of Quad A for Kids.
3. Quad A for Kids provided after-school and extended-day learning programs at
some elementary schools in the Rochester City School District. Quad A for Kids operated as
an entity separate from the Rochester City School District and received funding from the
Rochester Area Community Foundation Initiatives Inc. (“RACF”). Quad A for Kids shared
some of the RACF’s administrative staff but employed its own executive director, executive
assistant, and program staff.
4. Quad A for Kids submitted an annual budget to the RACF that is set by the
Executive Director. The RACF handled the finances for Quad A for Kids and paid any
vendor invoices submitted by Quad A for Kids for services or goods. McFadden submitted
invoices and receipts for reimbursement generally through e-mail utilizing a Google Gmail
account. The invoices and receipts traveled interstate through servers owned by Google in
other states.
Rochester Housing Authority and Rochester Housing Charity
5. The defendant MOSES was the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of
the Rochester Housing Authority (“RHA”) until sometime in 2018. The defendant MOSES
2
was also a member of the board of directors of the Rochester Housing Charities (“RHC”)
from in or about March 2015 to sometime in 2017.
6. McFadden was an elected City Councilmember representing the south district
of the City of Rochester. From on or about October 14, 2014, to on or about December 20,
2014, McFadden was the Interim Executive Director of the RHA.
7. The RHA was located in Rochester, New York and provided housing
opportunities and services for the Rochester community. The RHA oversaw approximately
2,500 public-housing units, millions of dollars, and subsidies for tens of thousands of people.
The RHA had an annual contract with the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development from which it received millions of dollars.
8. The RHC was located in Rochester, New York. On or about March 26, 2012,
the RHA formed the RHC to assist in advancing the purposes of the RHA. Prior to on or
about March 25, 2015, the RHC had effectively been a dormant company with no funds or
assets since its inception.
Caesar Development LLC
9. McFadden owned Caesar Development LLC, a limited liability company
located in Rochester, New York.
Capital Connection Partners LLC
10. In 2013, four individuals who resided in Washington, D.C. formed Capital
Connection Partners LLC (“CCP”) in Washington, D.C. Its purported mission was to
3
provide premier business and consulting services to government entities and organizations
wishing to conduct business involving Washington, D.C. and the Federal government. CCP’s
only client was the RHC and other than the four founding members, CCP had no other
employees.
B. Contracts between RHC, CCP and Caesar Development
11. On or about October 14, 2014, the RHA Board of Commissioners, including
the defendant MOSES, voted to appoint McFadden the Interim Executive Director of the
RHA.
12. On or about December 20, 2014, McFadden resigned as the Interim Executive
Director of the RHA due to a conflict of interest regarding his position as a Rochester City
Councilmember.
13. On or about January 23, 2015, McFadden incorporated Caesar Development
LLC as a limited liability company.
14. On or about March 25, 2015, the defendant MOSES, as chairperson of the
RHA Board of Commissioners, caused the RHA Board of Commissioners: (a) to appoint him
and J.P., an individual known to the Grand Jury, as two of the three new board members of
the RHC; and (b) to fund the RHC by having the RHA loan the RHC $300,000.
15. On or about March 25, 2015, the defendant MOSES had two telephone calls
with McFadden, one of which lasted approximately 40 minutes.
4
16. On or about May 11, 2015, the defendant MOSES had telephone calls with
McFadden.
17. On or about May 12, 2015, the defendant MOSES and the other two RHC
board members conducted a board meeting during which they approved the RHC’s hiring of
CCP to provide various services on behalf of the RHC, despite the fact that the RHC had not
received any bids from any companies, including from CCP. The defendant MOSES falsely
represented to the other two board members that the RHC had, in fact, received three bids
and that CCP had provided the lowest bid. No member of the board recorded minutes of the
board meeting.
18. On or about May 15, 2015, McFadden sent drafts of the RHC/CCP Contract
and a Pass Through Funding and Services Agreement (the “McFadden Pass-Through
Agreement”), which provided that CCP would pass through 75% of the funds it received from
the RHC to Caesar Development LLC, to CCP by e-mail.
19. On or about May 28, 2015, McFadden sent drafts of the RHC/CCP Contract
and the McFadden Pass-Through Agreement to the defendant MOSES by e-mail.
20. Later on May 28, 2015, after receiving the drafts of the contracts from
McFadden earlier in the day, the defendant MOSES called McFadden.
21. On May 29, 2015, a representative of CCP had a phone conference with the
defendant MOSES and McFadden during which they discussed the two contracts.
22. On or before June 19, 2015, McFadden created fraudulent minutes of the RHC
board meeting held on May 12, 2015. The minutes falsely stated, among other things, that:
5
(a) the RHC had contacted three vendors by telephone; (b) a Request for Qualifications was
sent to the three vendors; (c) the three vendors provided bid proposals containing amounts;
and (d) the RHC selected CCP as the winning bidder.
23. On or about June 19, 2015, McFadden emailed the fraudulent RHC board
minutes to the defendant MOSES and J.P.
24. On or about July 7, 2015, the RHC entered into a one year $87,500 contract
with CCP (“the RHC/CCP Contract”), which provided that CCP would perform various
services for the RHC, including: (a) advocating at the local, state, and federal levels of
government for policy and legislation, reviewing best practices, and issuing presentations to
elected officials; and (b) finding self sufficient resources to include creating entrepreneurial
opportunities and workforce development, developing revenue streams for residents, and
applying for federal home loan bank grants. J.P., on behalf of the RHC, executed the
RHC/CCP Contract.
25. On or about July 8, 2015, McFadden, on behalf of his company, Caesar
Development LLC, executed the McFadden Pass-Through Agreement.
26. On or about July 22, 2015, the fraudulent RHC board minutes from the May
12, 2015, board meeting, were provided to the RHA Board of Commissioners. The defendant
MOSES failed to advise the other Commissioners of the existence of the McFadden Pass-
Through Agreement and that CCP would be paying most of the funds it would be receiving
from the RHC to McFadden.
6
27. On or about August 3, 2015, the RHA, on behalf of the RHC, wire transferred
$43,750 to CCP, which represented the first installment payment under the terms of the
RHC/CCP Contract.
28. On or about August 8, 2015, CCP paid $32,812.50 to Caesar Development
LLC in Rochester, which represented seventy-five percent (75%) of the funds CCP received
under the terms of the RHC/CCP Contract ($43,750), in accordance with the McFadden
Pass-Through Agreement.
29. On or about December 10, 2015, two members of CCP traveled to Rochester
for the purpose of attending a meeting the next day and met with the defendant MOSES and
McFadden at a restaurant in Rochester, New York.
30. On or about December 11, 2015, the two members of CCP attended a meeting
with the defendant MOSES, McFadden, and others at a local hotel in Rochester, New York.
31. On or about December 16, 2015, the defendant MOSES voted to authorize the
second payment of $43,750 by the RHC to CCP, knowing that the McFadden Pass-Through
Agreement required CCP to pay 75% of the money to McFadden.
32. On or about December 23, 2015, at approximately 8:07 a.m., McFadden sent
by e-mail to the defendant MOSES and the other RHC board members amended monthly
activity reports for CCP that identified McFadden’s company as purportedly doing work for
CCP.
33. On or about December 23, 2015, beginning at approximately 9:28 a.m., the
defendant MOSES and McFadden had a telephone call for approximately fifty-five minutes.
7
34. On or about December 23, 2015, at approximately 10:35 a.m., despite knowing
that McFadden would be receiving most of the funds from the payment from the RHA to
CCP, the defendant MOSES sent an e-mail to other RHC board members, the attorney for
the RHA, and employees of the RHA, in which he stated that “after … receiving counsel from
(the RHA’s attorney) on potential risk I believe the payment should be wired today.”
35. On or about December 24, 2015, the RHC wire transferred $43,750 to CCP,
which represented the final installment payment under the terms of the RHC/CCP Contract.
36. On or about December 26, 2015, CCP wire transferred $32,812.50 to Caesar
Development LLC, which represented seventy-five percent (75%) of the funds CCP received
under the terms of the RHC/CCP Contract, in accordance with the McFadden Pass-Through
Agreement.
8
COUNT 1
(Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud)
The Grand Jury Further Charges That:
1. The allegations in the Introduction are incorporated herein by reference.
THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY
2. Between in or about July 2017, and in or about March 2018, in the Western
District of New York, and elsewhere, the defendant, GEORGE MOSES, did knowingly, willfully,
and unlawfully combine, conspire, and agree with Adam McFadden and others, known and
unknown to the Grand Jury, to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud Quad A for Kids and the
RACF, and to obtain money from Quad A for Kids and the RACF by means of false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations, and promises, and for the purposes of executing such scheme and
artifice, to transmit, and cause to be transmitted, by means of wire communication in interstate
commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, Section 1343.
MEANS BY WHICH THE OBJECT OF THE

CONSPIRACY WAS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED
The object of the conspiracy was accomplished through the following means and
methods:
First $4,000 Payment
3. In or about August 2017, McFadden created a false invoice which stated that
Quad A for Kids owed NEAD $4,000 for purported training and other services NEAD
9
provided on behalf of Quad A for Kids at various Rochester City schools. On or about August
8, 2017, McFadden emailed in the interstate commerce the fraudulent invoice to the RACF
so that the RACF would pay NEAD $4,000.
4. Although knowing that NEAD never performed the training and other services,
on or about August 11, 2017, the defendant MOSES and McFadden fraudulently caused the
RACF, on behalf of Quad A for Kids, to pay NEAD $4,000.
5. In or about August 2017, McFadden then created two invoices which falsely
stated that NEAD owed his company Caesar Development LLC a total of $3,000 for
purported consultation services Caesar Development LLC provided to NEAD. In fact, Caesar
Development LLC had not provided such consultation services to NEAD.
6. In or about August 2017, McFadden submitted the two fraudulent invoices to
NEAD so that NEAD would pay Caesar Development LLC $3,000 from the $4,000 which
the defendant MOSES and McFadden had fraudulently induced RACF to send to NEAD.
7. On or about August 25, 2017, the defendant MOSES, knowing that Caesar
Development LLC had not provided consultation services to NEAD, fraudulently caused
NEAD to pay Caesar Development LLC $3,000 from the $4,000 the defendant and
McFadden had fraudulently induced RACF to send to NEAD.
10
Second $4,000 Payment
8. In or about February 2018, McFadden created another false invoice which
stated that Quad A for Kids owed NEAD $4,000 for purported training and other services
NEAD provided on behalf of Quad A for Kids at various Rochester City schools. On or
about February 14, 2018, McFadden emailed in interstate commerce the fraudulent invoice
to the RACF so that the RACF would pay NEAD $4,000.
9. Although knowing that NEAD never performed the training and other services,
on or about February 16, 2018, the defendant MOSES and McFadden fraudulently caused
the RACF, on behalf of Quad A for Kids, to pay NEAD $4,000.
10. In or about February 2018, McFadden then created an invoice which falsely
stated that NEAD owed his company Caesar Development LLC $4,000 for purported
consultation services Caesar Development LLC provided to NEAD. In fact, Caesar
Development LLC had not provided such consultation services to NEAD.
11. In or about February 2018, McFadden submitted the fraudulent invoice to
NEAD so that NEAD would pay Caesar Development LLC $4,000 from the $4,000 which
the defendant MOSES and McFadden had fraudulently induced RACF to send to NEAD.
12. On or about March 22, 2018, the defendant MOSES, knowing that Caesar
Development LLC had not provided consultation services to NEAD, fraudulently caused
11
NEAD to pay Caesar Development LLC $4,000 from the $4,000 the defendant and
McFadden had fraudulently induced RACF to send to NEAD.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349.
COUNTS 2 and 3
(Wire Fraud Scheme to Defraud
Quad A For Kids and RACF)
1. The allegations in the Introduction and in Count 1 are incorporated herein by
reference.
2. Between in or about July 2017, and in or about March 2018, in the Western
District of New York, and elsewhere, the defendant, GEORGE MOSES, did devise, and
intend to devise, a scheme and artifice to defraud Quad A for Kids and the RACF, and to
obtain money and property from Quad A for Kids and the RACF by means of false and
fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises.
3. On or about the dates set forth below, in the Western District of New York,
and elsewhere, the defendant MOSES, for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice,
did transmit, and cause to be transmitted, by means of wire communication in interstate
commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, that is, the false invoices set forth
below:
12
COUNT DATE COMMUNICATION
2 08/08/2017 The fraudulent invoice in the name

of NEAD emailed to the RACF
3 02/14/2018 The fraudulent invoice in the name

of NEAD emailed to RACF
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.
COUNTS 4 through 25
(Wire Fraud Scheme to Defraud RHC)
2. Between in or about December 2017, and in or about September 2019, in the
Western District of New York, and elsewhere, the defendant, GEORGE MOSES, did devise,
and intend to devise, a scheme and artifice to defraud the RHC and the RHC’s Executive
Director, whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, and to obtain money and property from
the RHC and the RHC’s Executive Director by means of false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, and promises, and for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice, did
transmit, and cause to be transmitted, by means of wire communication in interstate
commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds.
3. It was a part of the scheme and artifice that the defendant MOSES, caused the
RHC to overpay the RHC’s Executive Director’s salary and to make other payments to the
Executive Director to which the Executive Director was not entitled. The defendant then
13
received a portion of the funds which were overpaid to the Executive Director, either in the form
of a cash payment to the defendant from the Executive Director, or a wire transfer from the
payroll company which processed RHC’s payroll to a bank account controlled by the defendant.
4. It was a part of the scheme and artifice that, on or about December 15, 2017,
and on or about December 29, 2017, the defendant MOSES caused the RHC to pay to the
RHC’s Executive Director $500 in salary and a $380 miscellaneous non-taxable payment to
which the Executive Director was not entitled. After such payments, a representative of RHC,
whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, advised the RHC’s Executive Director that the
Executive Director had been overpaid and that the Executive Director should pay $380 in
cash for each “overpayment” to the defendant.
5. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice that thereafter, every two weeks,
between in or about January 2018, and in or about September 2019, the defendant MOSES
caused the RHC to pay to the RHC’s Executive Director $500 in salary to which the Executive
Director was not entitled. Each $500 payment was made from RHC’s bank account at ESL
Credit Union ending in 1751, to a JP Morgan Chase account of the payroll company which
processed RHC’s payroll (hereinafter “Company A”), and was part of a larger transfer of
funds from RHC to Company A which included RHC’s entire payroll.
6. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice, that the defendant MOSES then
caused $380 from each fraudulent payment described in the preceding paragraph to be
transferred from Company A’s bank account at Bank of America to the defendant’s bank
account, ending in 6200, at Visions Federal Credit Union in Rochester, New York. This
14
fraudulently directed transfer from the payroll company’s account to the defendant’s account
occurred at the same time the payroll company disbursed payroll to RHC’s employees.
7. Between on or about the dates set forth below, the defendant MOSES did
transmit, and cause to be transmitted, in interstate commerce the wire transfers of funds set
forth below: (1) from the RHC’s bank account at ESL Credit Union ending 1751 in Rochester,
New York, to Company A’s bank account at JP Morgan Chase in the State of New York,
which wire transfers of funds included the fraudulent $500 in additional salary paid to the
RHC’s Executive Director; and (2) from Company A’s bank account at Bank of America in
the State of California, to the defendant MOSES’s bank account ending in 6200 at Visions
Federal Credit Union in the State of New York, in the amount of $380:
COUNT DATE OF TRANSFER OF DATE OF TRANSFER OF FUNDS

FUNDS FROM RHC’S FROM COMPANY A’S BANK OF
ACCOUNT TO COMPANY A’S AMERICA ACCOUNT TO
JP MORGAN CHASE ACCOUNT DEFENDANT’S ACCOUNT
4 12/14/2017
12/26/2017
12/28/2017
5 01/11/2018 01/12/2018
01/25/2018 01/26/2018
6 02/08/2018 02/09/2018
02/22/2018 02/23/2018
7 03/08/2018 03/09/2018
03/22/2018 03/23/2018
8 04/05/2018 04/06/2018
04/19/2018 04/20/2018
15
9 05/03/2018 05/04/2018
05/17/2018 05/18/2018
05/31/2018 06/01/2018
10 06/14/2018 06/15/2018
06/28/2018 06/29/2018
11 07/12/2018 07/13/2018
07/26/2018 07/27/2018
12 08/09/2018 08/10/2018
08/23/2018 08/24/2018
13 09/06/2018 09/07/2018
09/20/2018 09/21/2018
14 10/04/2018 10/05/2018
10/18/2018 10/19/2018
15 11/01/2018 11/02/2018
11/15/2018 11/16/2018
11/29/2018 11/30/2018
16 12/13/2018 12/14/2018
12/27/2018 12/28/2018
17 01/10/2019 01/11/2019
01/24/2019 01/25/2019
18 02/07/2019 02/08/2019
02/21/2019 02/22/2019
19 03/07/2019 03/08/2019
03/21/2019 03/22/2019
20 04/04/2019 04/05/2019
04/18/2019 04/19/2019
21 05/02/2019 05/03/2019
05/16/2019 05/17/2019
05/30/2019 05/31/2019
22 06/13/2019 06/14/2019
06/27/2019 06/28/2019
16
23 07/11/2019 07/12/2019
07/25/2019 07/26/2019
24 08/08/2019 08/09/2019
08/22/2019 08/23/2019
25 09/05/2019 09/06/2019
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.
COUNT 26
(Aggravated Identity Theft)
1. The allegations in the Introduction and in Counts 4 through 25 are
incorporated herein by reference.
2. Between in or about December 2017, and in or about September 2019, in the
Western District of New York, the defendant, GEORGE MOSES, did knowingly possess
and use, without lawful authority, means of identification of another person, that is, the name
and social security number of the RHC’s Executive Director, during and relation to felony
violations enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(c), that is, violations
of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, committed in the matter set forth in Counts 4
through 25 of this Superseding Indictment, knowing that the means of identification belonged
to another actual person.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(a)(1).
17
COUNT 27
(False Statements)
2. On or about July 25, 2018, in the Western District of New York, the defendant,
GEORGE MOSES, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the
Government of the United States, that is, an official criminal investigation conducted by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, did knowingly and willfully make materially false, fictitious,
and fraudulent statements and representations, that is, in an interview with Special Agents of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation the defendant MOSES stated that:
(a) he could not recall specifically how CCP was brought to the attention of the
RHC;
(b) he was unaware of any sub-contractors that CCP utilized to execute the
RHC/CCP Contract; and
(c) he did not know payments from the RHC/CCP Contract went to Caesar
Development and was surprised when FBI agents so advised him.
3. The above statements and representations by the defendant MOSES were
materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent because, as the defendant then and there well knew:
(a) McFadden brought CCP to the attention of the RHC;
(b) CCP used McFadden and his company Caesar Development as a sub-
contractor to execute the RHC/CCP Contract; and
(c) payments from the RHC/CCP Contract would be paid to Caesar

Development.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
18
COUNT 28
(False Statements)
1. The allegations in the Introduction and in Count 48 are incorporated herein by
reference.
2. On or about July 31, 2018, in the Western District of New York, the defendant,
GEORGE MOSES, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the
Government of the United States, that is, an official criminal investigation conducted by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, did knowingly and willfully make materially false, fictitious,
and fraudulent statements and representations, that is, in an interview with Special Agents of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation the defendant MOSES stated that:
(a) he did not know who typed the minutes of the RHC board meeting held on
May 12, 2015;
(b) the first time he had seen the minutes of the RHC board meeting held on May
12, 2015, was at a RHA board meeting;
(c) he was surprised that McFadden was at the December 2015 meeting with CCP;
and
(d) he was surprised that CCP paid 75% of the RHC/CCP Contract amount to
McFadden’s firm Caesar Development.
3. The above statements and representations by the defendant MOSES were
materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent because, as the defendant then and there well knew:
(a) he was aware that McFadden typed and prepared the minutes of the RHC
board meeting held on May 12, 2015, which minutes McFadden e-mailed to
the defendant on or about June 19, 2015;
19
(b) he had seen the minutes of the RHC board meeting held on May 12, 2015, prior
to a RHA board meeting;
(c) he was aware prior to the December 2015 meeting with CCP that McFadden
would be there; and
(d) he was aware before he was interviewed by agents on July 31, 2018, that CCP
paid 75% of the RHC/CCP Contract amount to McFadden’s firm Caesar
Development.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
DATED: Rochester, New York, October 24, 2019.
JAMES P. KENNEDY, JR.

United States Attorney
By: s/RICHARD A. RESNICK

Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney=s Office
Western District of New York
100 State Street, Suite 500
Rochester, New York 14614
(585) 399-3941
Richard.Resnick@usdoj.gov
A TRUE BILL:
s/FOREPERSON
20

Moses Indictment

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Moses Indictment

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 6:19-cr-06074-EAW-MWP Document 36 Filed 10/24/19 Page 1 of 20

THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 2018 GRAND JURY

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

GEORGE MOSES Violations:

The Grand Jury Charges That:

At all times relevant to this Indictment:

A. The Defendant and Entities Involved in the Schemes to Defraud:

North East Area Development Association

Rochester, New York. NEAD was a not-for-profit neighborhood organization governed by a

Quad A for Kids

of Quad A for Kids.

3. Quad A for Kids provided after-school and extended-day learning programs at

assistant, and program staff.

Rochester Housing Authority and Rochester Housing Charity

5. The defendant MOSES was the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of

from in or about March 2015 to sometime in 2017.

6. McFadden was an elected City Councilmember representing the south district

2014, McFadden was the Interim Executive Director of the RHA.

Development from which it received millions of dollars.

assets since its inception.

Caesar Development LLC

9. McFadden owned Caesar Development LLC, a limited liability company

located in Rochester, New York.

Capital Connection Partners LLC

B. Contracts between RHC, CCP and Caesar Development

13. On or about January 23, 2015, McFadden incorporated Caesar Development

LLC as a limited liability company.

with McFadden, one of which lasted approximately 40 minutes.

the RHC to Caesar Development LLC, to CCP by e-mail.

and the McFadden Pass-Through Agreement to the defendant MOSES by e-mail.

McFadden earlier in the day, the defendant MOSES called McFadden.

and (d) the RHC selected CCP as the winning bidder.

minutes to the defendant MOSES and J.P.

25. On or about July 8, 2015, McFadden, on behalf of his company, Caesar

Development LLC, executed the McFadden Pass-Through Agreement.

from the RHC to McFadden.

28. On or about August 8, 2015, CCP paid $32,812.50 to Caesar Development

McFadden at a restaurant in Rochester, New York.

Agreement required CCP to pay 75% of the money to McFadden.

The Grand Jury Further Charges That:

1. The allegations in the Introduction are incorporated herein by reference.

THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY

artifice, to transmit, and cause to be transmitted, by means of wire communication in interstate

Code, Section 1343.

MEANS BY WHICH THE OBJECT OF THE

First $4,000 Payment

so that the RACF would pay NEAD $4,000.

RACF, on behalf of Quad A for Kids, to pay NEAD $4,000.

Development LLC had not provided such consultation services to NEAD.

6. In or about August 2017, McFadden submitted the two fraudulent invoices to

McFadden had fraudulently induced RACF to send to NEAD.

Second $4,000 Payment

8. In or about February 2018, McFadden created another false invoice which

to the RACF so that the RACF would pay NEAD $4,000.

the RACF, on behalf of Quad A for Kids, to pay NEAD $4,000.

consultation services Caesar Development LLC provided to NEAD. In fact, Caesar

Development LLC had not provided such consultation services to NEAD.

11. In or about February 2018, McFadden submitted the fraudulent invoice to

McFadden had fraudulently induced RACF to send to NEAD.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349.

The Grand Jury Further Charges That:

1. The allegations in the Introduction and in Count 1 are incorporated herein by

fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises.