U.S. v. Percoco

OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Joseph Percoco was convicted at trial of bribery and related corruption offenses. The Government seeks an order requiring Defendant to forfeit $320,000, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. §2461(c). See Gov.’s First Ltr. (Sept. 14, 2018), Dkt. 851; Gov.’s Second Ltr. (Oct. 18, 2018), Dkt. 891. Defendant argues that he should be ordered to forfeit no more than $225,000. See Def.’s First Ltr. (Sept. 17, 2018), Dkt. 854; Def.’s Second Ltr. (Oct. 4, 2018), Dkt. 875; Def.’s Third Ltr. (Oct. 25, 2018), Dkt. 895. For the following reasons, the Government’s motion for $320,000 in forfeiture is GRANTED.BACKGROUNDThe Court assumes familiarity with the facts of this case, which have been set forth in two prior opinions. See Opinion and Order (the “Feb. 8, 2019 Opinion”), Dkt. 978, available at 2019 WL 493962 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2019); Mem. Opinion and Order (the “May 10, 2018 Opinion”), Dkt. 648, available at 317 F. Supp. 3d 822 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2018); see also Second Superseding Indictment (“S2 Indictment”), Dkt. 321; Compl., Dkt. 1. As is relevant here, Defendant participated in two corrupt schemes, one involving Competitive Power Ventures, Inc. (the “CPV Scheme”), and one involving COR Development Company, LLC (the “COR Development Scheme”). See Feb. 8, 2019 Opinion, 2019 WL 493962, at *1-2 (slip op. at 4-7). In each scheme, Defendant agreed with executives of the company to accept bribes in exchange for the promise of official action as the opportunity arose. See id. Todd Howe, a corrupt lobbyist who pleaded guilty and testified as a cooperating witness, was a co-conspirator in each scheme. See id.Defendant received $35,000 in bribe payments in connection with the COR Development Scheme. See id. at *2 (slip op. at 6-7); GX-1606A, GX-1606B.¹ In exchange for the bribe, Defendant pressured state officials: to reverse a regulatory requirement for one of COR’s development projects; to authorize the release of state funds for another of COR’s projects; and to approve a pay raise for a co-conspirator’s son, who was a state employee. See Feb. 8, 2019 Opinion, 2019 WL 493962, at *2 (slip op. at 6-7).As to the CPV Scheme, Defendant received $285,000 in bribe payments, funneled through a “low-show” job for his wife, Lisa Percoco.² See id. at *2, *23-24 (slip op. at 6, 46-47); GX-1603N, GX-1604D. Lisa Percoco was paid $7,500 per month by CPV for working, at most, 20 hours per month in connection with a public relations initiative that involved teaching elementary school students about electricity generation.³ See Feb. 8, 2019 Opinion, 2019 WL 493962, at *2, *23-24 (slip op. at 6, 46-47). In exchange for CPV’s payments, Defendant agreed to exercise official power to assist CPV as needed, including on two important state contracts. See id. at *2, *21-25 (slip op. at 6, 42-43, 45-50).In connection with the COR Development Scheme, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1343, 1346, and 1349 (Count Ten); in connection with the CPV Scheme, he was convicted of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud (Count Nine) and federal-program bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §666(a)(1)(B) (Count Eleven).⁴ See Percoco Judgment (Sept. 25, 2018), Dkt. 867. The Court sentenced Defendant principally to a term of imprisonment of 72 months. See id.; Percoco Sentencing Tr. (Sept. 20, 2018), Dkt. 876, at 37-38, 75-78.The indictment included a forfeiture allegation against Defendant, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. §2461(c). See S2 Indictment