1 ?3
my it  1? 

Approved:  

JASON A. R. 
Assistant United States Attorneys

Before: THE HONORABLE MICHAEL H. DOLINGER
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of New York

 
   

yarns

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 



SEALED 

 

Violations of

. 18 U.S.C. 666, 1343,
DEAN SKELOS, and 1346, 1349, 1951, and 2
ADAM SKELOS, -
COUNTY OF OFFENSE:

Defendants. NEW YORK

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 35..

PAUL M. TAKLA, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is
a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
and charges as follows:

COUNT ONE
(Conspiracy to Commit Extortion Under Color of Official Right)

1. From at least in or about 2010, up to and including in or
about April 2015, in.the.Southern District ofIN York and elsewhere,
DEAN SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS, the defendants, and others known and
unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate,
and agree together and with each other to violate Title 18, Dnited
States Code, Section 1951.

2. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that DEAN
SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS, the defendants, and others known and unknown,
willfully and knowingly, would and did obstruct, delay, and affect
commerce and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce
by extortion.as that terniis defined.in'ritle 18, United.States Code,
Section 1951, to wit, DEAN SKELOS, ADAM SKELOS, and.others known.and
unknown, would and did arrange for DEAN SKELOS to cause entities with
business before New York State to direct payments to ADAM SKELOS with

the expectation that DEAN SKELOS would.use his official position on
their behalf.

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951.)
COUNT TWO
(Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Fraud)

3. From at least in or about 2010, up to and including in or
about.April 2015, in.the Southern District.of New York.and.elsewhere,
DEAN SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS, the defendants, and others known and
conspire, confederate,
and agree together and with each other to violate Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346.

4. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that DEAN
SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS, the defendants and others known and unknown,
willfully and knowingly, having devised and intending to devise a
scheme and artifice to defraud, and to deprive the public of its
intangible right to DEAN honest services as an elected
legislator, would and did transmit and cause to be transmitted by
means of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce,
writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds for the purpose of
executing such scheme and.artifice, in violation.of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1343, to wit, DEAN SKELOS, while serving as
Majority Leader and (Jo?Maj ority Coalition Leader of the New York State
Senate, would and did take official action in return for payments
to his son, ADAM SKELOS.

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349.)

COUNT THREE
(Extortion Under Color of Official Right Real Estate Developer)

5. From at least in or about 2010, up to and including in or
about April 2015, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere,
DEANSKELOS and ADAM SKELOS, the defendants, willfully and knowingly,
would and did obstruct, delay, and affect commerce and the movement
of articles and commodities in commerce by extortion as that term
is defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951, to wit,
DEAN SKELOS, aided and abetted by ADAM SKELOS, used his official

position to cause a real estate developer with business before New
York State to make and direct payments to ADAM SKELOS.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 195i and 2.)
COUNT FOUR

(Extortion Under Color of Official Right The Environmental
Technology Company)

6. From at least in or about 2010, up to and including in or
about?April 201.5, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere,
DEAN SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS, the defendants, willfully and knowingly,
would and did.obstruct, delay, and affect commerce and the movement
of articles and commodities in commerce by extortion as that term
is defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951, to wit,
DEAN SKELOS, aided and abetted by ADAM SKELOS, used his official
position.to cause an environmental technology company'with.business
before New York State to make payments to ADAM SKELOS.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections l951 and 2.)
COUNT FIVE
(Solicitation of Bribes and Gratuities Real Estate Developer)

7. From at least in or about 2010, up to and including in or
about April 2015, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere,
DEAN SKELOS, the defendant, being an agent of a State and local
government, to wit, a Member of the New York State Senate, and
defendant ADAM SKELOS, as an aider and abetter of DEAN SKELOS,
corruptly solicited and demanded for the benefit of a person, and
accepted and agreed to accept, a thing of value from a person,
intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with a business 
transaction, and series of transactions of such government and agency
involving a thing of value of $5,000 and.more, while such.government
and agency was in receipt of, in any one year period, benefits in
excess of $10 000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract,
subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, and other form of federal
assistance, to wit, DEAN SKELOS, in his capacity as a Member of the
New York State Senate, and ADAM SKELOS, as an aider and abetter,
solicited and accepted cash and things of value from a real estate

developer with business before New York State intending for DEAN
SKELOS to be influenced and rewarded.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 666(a)(1)(B) and 2.)
COUNT SIX


Company)

8. From at least in or about 2010, up to and including in or
about April 2015 in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere,
DEAN SKELOS, the defendant, being an agent of a State and local
government, to wit, a Member of the New York State Senate, and
defendant ADAM SKELOS, as an aider and abetter of DEAN SKELOS,
corruptly solicited and demanded for the benefit of a person, and
accepted and agreed to accept, a thing of value from a person,
intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with a business 
transaction, and series of transactions of such government and agency
involving a thing of value of $5,000 and.more, while such.government
and agency was in receipt of, in any one year period, benefits in
excess of $10 000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract,
subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, and other form of federal
assistance, to wit, DEAN SKELOS, in his capacity as a Member of the
New York State Senate, and ADAM SKELOS, as an aider and abetter,
solicited and accepted cash and things of value from an environmental
technology company with business before New York State intending for
DEAN SKELOS to be influenced and rewarded.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 666(a)(1)(B) and 2.)

The bases for deponent? knowledge and for the foregoing charges
are, in part, as follows:

9 . I am a Special Agent with the FBI, and I have been personally
involved in the investigation.of this matter, which.has been.handled
jointly by Special Agents of the FBI and Criminal InVestigators in
Office for the Southern District.of New
York I have been.employed.by the FBI for approximately 10
years and both I and other members of the investigative team have
experience in fraud and political corruption investigations and
techniques associated with such investigations, including wire
interceptions, financial analysis, and working with informants.

10. This affidavit is based in.part upon.my own observations,
my conversations with other law enforcement agents and others, my
examination of documents and reports by others, my review of
recordings of meetings and calls, my interviews of witnesses, and
my training and experience. Because this affidavit is being
submitted for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause,
it does not include all the facts that I have learned during the course
of the investigation. Where the contents of documents and the
actions, statements and conversations of(3thers are reported herein,
they are reported in substance and in part, except where specifically
indicated otherwise. 

OVERVIEW

11. This case involves a scheme by defendant DEAN SKELOS, the
New York State Senate Majority Leader, and his son, defendant ADAM
SKELOS to monetize DEAN SKELOS official position by extorting money
from.others for ADAMISKELOS, with.the expectation.that such payments
would influence the official actions of DEAN SKELOS. As part of this
scheme, DEAN SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS pressured an individual
cooperating with the Government identified.herein as who is
a senior executive of a major real estate development firm
to arrange for ADAM SKELOS to be paid hundreds of
thousands of dollars in order to influence official actions by DEAN
SKELOS. Developer?l arranged these payments to ADAM SKELOS in
response to a series of demands made to Developer?1 by DEAN SKELOS,
including during time periods when Developer~1 was lobbying DEAN

and during specific meetings when.DEAN SKELOS discussed.his efforts
to secure legislation favorable to Developer?1.

12. Beginning in or about late 2010, Developer?l arranged for
defendant ADAM SKELOS to receive a one?time $20,000 payment
disguised as a commission for title work that ADAM SKELOS did not
perform, and continuing payments of $4,000 per month from an
environmental technOlogy company (the ?Environmental Technology
Company") seeking to win government~funded contracts in New York
State. In 2013, when Nassau County was considering awarding the
Environmental Technology Company a multiwmillion?dollar contract,
the defendants threatened to block the contract unless payments to
ADAM SKELOS were substantially increased. In response to the threat,
the Environmental Technology Company agreed to increase ADAM SKELOS 
payments to $10,000 per month.and.received.the assurance that if the
Environmental Technology Company ?took care? of ADAM SKELOS, DEAN
SKELOS would ?take care? of the Environmental Technology Company.

5

The Environmental Technology Company has paid a total of at least
$198,000 to ADAM SKELOS through February 2015.

13. In obtaining these and other financial benefits, DEAN
SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS, the defendants, made explicit and implicit
representations that DEAN SKELOS would use his official position.on
behalf of the entities paying his son. At times, in.order to ensure
that the payments to ADAM SKELOS would continue, DEAN SKELOS took
official actions to benefit Developer?1 and the Environmental
Technology Company, including but not limited to:

a . DEAN SKELOS promoted and voted for various real estate
legislation sought by and favorable to Developer~l, including
legislation concerning rent regulation.and.property tax abatements,

to DevelOper~l.

b. DEAN SKELOS used.his official position.to facilitate
the approval by Nassau County of a $12 million contract with the
Environmental Technology Company, causing the Company to more than
double its payment to ADAM SKELOS.

c. pressured Nassau.County'officials to
obtain additional funding so that work on the contract could progress 
and (ii) to make payments to the Environmental Technology Company
so that the Company would continue making payments to ADAM
SKELOS.

d. DEAN SKELOS assisted the Environmental Technology
Company in its (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to secure the
issuance of hydrofracking regulations by the New York State Department
of Health sought by the Environmental Technology Company.

e. DEAN SKELOS attempted.to secure changes to New York
State? 3 2015?2016 budget to include additional funding for stormwater
infrastructure projects and.changes to New York State LaW'that would
have permitted ?design~build? contracts, both of which would have
benefitted the Environmental Technology Company.

14. The defendants DEAN SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS used various
methods to conceal their illegal scheme, including but not limited
to the following:

a. After DEAN SKELOS made an urgent request that.
Developer?l give ADAM SKELOS a title insurance commission, and

6

ADAM SKELOS disguised a $20 000 payment to ADAM SKELOS both to falsely
make it appear that the payment was in.return.for work by ADAM SKELOS
and so that it could not be traced back to Developer?1.

b. ADAM SKELOS did not register as a lobbyist as required
under New York State law even though he lobbied New York State and
county officials, including his father, on behalf of the Environmental
Technology Company.

c. When discussing the scheme, DEAN SKELOS and ADAM
SKELOS used coded language and, in the case of ADAM used a
self?described ?burner? phone, in an attempt to limit possible
electronic surveillance by law enforcement.

d. DEAN SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS increased their acts of
concealment, including by changing their behavior and.the manner in
which they communicated, following the federal criminal charges
brought against the Speaker of the New York.Assembly on January 22,
2015 and the subsequent public focus on corruption investigations.

RELEVANT INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES

 

DEAN SKELOS

15. Since his election in 1984, DEAN SKELOS, the defendant,
has represented a portion of Nassau County as a Member of the New
York State Senate (the ?Senate?), which, along with the Assembly,
constitutes the New York State Legislature (the ?Legislature").
Additionally, DEAN SKELOS has been Majority Leader and/or Co?Maj ority
Coalition Leader of the Senate since at least in or about January
2011. On January 7, 2015, DEAN SKELOS was elected Majority Leader
of the Senate for the 2015-2016 session. I know from publicly,
available federal and New York State government documents, public
reports, and my training and experience that, in each year relevant
to this Complaint, the governments of New York State and Nassau County
received funds from the federal government in excess of $10,000 per
year.

16. I know from witness interviews and my review of publicly
available sources that, pursuant.to the Rules of the Senate and<other
provisions of State law and praCtice, the Majority Leader holds
significant power. For example, the Majority Leader appoints the
chairpersons of all Senate committees, determines who is listed as
the sponsors of legislation, and controls if and when legislation
is brought to the floor for vote. The Majority Leader, along with

7

the Speaker of the Assembly and the Governor, play the principal roles
in negotiating the State budget and related legislation.

17. In a call intercepted pursuant to a Court?authorized
wiretap defendant DEAN SKELOS described his substantial
power as Majority Leader during the 2015?2016 session to defEndant
ADAM SKELOS as follows: ?I?m going to be President of the Senate,
I?m going to be Majority Leader, I?m going to control everything,
I?m going to control who gets on what committees, what legislation
goes to the floor, what legislation comes through committees, the
budget, everything."l

ADAM SKELOS AND HIS BUSINESS INTERESTS

18. I know from witness interviews, emails and financial
records that defendant ADAM SKELOSDEAN SKELOS,
and has been dependent on his father for financial support during
periods relevant to this Complaint. In particular, from in.or about
2010 through in or about 203.4, DEAN SKELOS has given ADAM SKELOS more
than $100,000. SKELOS sought a mortgage loan to purchase
a.property for $675,000 in.early'2013, DEAAISKELOS gifted ADAAISKELOS
$50,000 and $125,000 foradownpayment.2

19. Aside from direct financial support from.his father, ADAM
SKELOS has generated income as a commissioned salesman for various
services marketed principally to businesses that made political
contributions to DEAN SKELOS and/or bad substantial interests before
New York State and local governmental entities. ADAM SKELOS, with
the awareness and support of DEAN SKELOS, has relied heavily on.his

 

1 Certain evidence referred to in the Complaint was obtained
through Court~authorized wiretaps on cellular phones belonging to
and ADAAISKELOS. Each.intercepted.call described.herein
is referred to by its ?session number" when intercepted and the
initials of the phone?s user (AS or 08). The descriptions.and
quotations of intercepted calls herein are based on my preliminary
review*of those conversations and/or draft transcripts of the calls.

2 Ultimately, it was not necessary for DEAN SKELOS to pay the

additional $125,000 directly'because.ADAM SKELOS was able to collect
the down payment through other sources, including through a title
insurance commission of more than $100, 000 he obtained through a Long
Island-based real estate developer following a lunch meeting between
the developer and ADAM SKELOS and DEAN SKELOS, as well the separate
$20,000 payment arranged by Developer?l described in detail below.

8

father and his father?s official position.to generate sales income,
including by making implicit and explicit references to DEAN 
position and powers. For example, I know the following from emails
and intercepted communications:

a. On January 28, 2011, ADAM SKELOS emailed a supervisor
at the title insurance company then employing ADAM SKELOS stating
that the president of a1najor commercial real estate developer based
in New York, New York (?Developer?2?) and ADAM SKELOS were ?having
lunch on [February] lD??and.he wants to start giving me his work."
DEAN Senate calendar reflects a lunch meeting with ADAM
SKELOS and the president of Developerm2 at Developer?2's office on
February 10, 2011. One month later, a managing director of
Developer?2 emailed ADAM SKELOS asking'hinlto produce a title report
for a $250 million mortgage of the Building complex in
Manhattan, owned by Developer?2.

b. ln.or about August 2011, DEAN SKELOS SKELOS
attempted to secure title insurance work for the refinancing of
hundreds of millions of dollars of bonds related to a large hospital
system in Long Island, which required approval through the Nassau
County Industrial Development Agency a public benefit
corporation.regulated.by the State Legislature. On or about August
9, 2011, ADAM SKELOS emailed one of his colleagues the following:
?with my dad right now calling head of Nassau We?re going
to try to get half the deal." I know from.documents 
subsequently became employed by a title company that performed the
title insurance work for the transaction and received commissions
for the deal.

0. DEAN SKELOS agreed to have official meetings with
customers who purchased.products through.ADAM SKELOS. For example,
on or about October 26, 2011, the owner of a grocery store emailed
ADAM SKELOS about purchasing energy services through ADAM SKELOS.
DEAN Senate calendar reflects that, less than a month later,
on November 16, 2011, DEAN SKELOS went to the grocery store chain
and met with its owner . That same day, the grocery store owner emailed
DEAN SKELOS to thank DEAN SKELOS for the meeting and copied ADAM
SKELOS. The next day, the grocery store owner emailed ADAM SKELOS
a signed contract for purchasing gas and electricity through ADAM
SKELOS.

d. ADAM SKELOS sought and obtained from his father's
Senate Office records of top donors to DEAN SKELOS, so that ADAM SKELOS
could attempt to sell products to these donors. For example, on
December 19, 2011, DEAN Director of District Operations

9

 a document containing a list of individuals who
had contributed to DEAN campaign. .ADAM SKELOS then
forwarded the document to individuals at companies whose services
ADAM SKELOS marketed on a commission basis.

e. DEAN SKELOS worked at a Long Island law firm (the ?Law
Firm?) that steered title insurance work to ADAM SKELOS at the request
of DEAN SKELOS, including at least one real estate transaction for
more than $32.6 million.3

DEVELOPER 1 1 

20. i have learned from emails, financial records, publicly
available information? and witness interviews, including interviews
with that:

a. Developer?l is a large real estate development firm

residential rental properties across the New'York City metrOpolitan
area? Developer?1?s business model depends in substantial part on
favorable tax abatements and rent regulations that must be I
periodically renewed by the New York State Legislature . Accordingly,
Developer?l is one of the largest contributors to candidates for State
office and.political action committees controlled.by leaders of the
Legislature, including DEAN SKELOS.

b. has been employed by Developernl as a senior
executive since in or about 2001 . Among other responsibilities, 

Developer?l political relationship with DEAN SKELOS . In this role,
as reflected in emails, DEAN SKELOS has directed to make hundreds
of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions through various
limited liability companies, or controlled by Developer?l.
has been.cooperating with the Government?s investigation since
in or about April 2015. 

 

3 DEAN SKELOS has worked for the Law Firm since in.or about 1994,
and has been paid more than $2.6 million over that time. Based on
evidence gathered during the ongoing investigationq it appears that
DEAN SKELOS did not perform any actual legal work for the Law Firm,
but instead was paid largely for referring clients to the firm
(including companies with business before the State) and meeting with
Law Firm clients, including about legislative matters.

10

The Environmental Taohnology Company 

21. The Environmental Technology Company is based in Arizona
and owned by a holding company (the ?Holding Company?), which has
been publicly traded since at least in or about January 2013. The

. has been a water filter that it sells in various states including
New York.that purports to remove various microbial pollutants from
water, which can be affixed to storm drains and pipes and can be used
to treat polluted stormwater run?off, as well as water contaminated
by hydrofracking.

22. A second individual who has been cooperating with the
Government?s investigation.since:hicnrabout February 2015, referred
to herein as worked as a senior executive at the Environmental
Technology Company and one of its affiliates between in or about 2010
andzhior about April 2015.4 The 
Company and the Holding Company instructed that 
duties and responsibilities included the management of the
Environmental Technology Company?s relationship with ADAM SKELOS,
the defendant.

THE SCHEME

DEAN Plan and Efforts to Provide ADAM SKELOS Income Through
His Official Position

23. The scheme involving Developer?i and the Environmental
Technology Company grew out of longstanding efforts by DEAN SKELOS
and ADAM SKELOS, the defendants, to obtain income for ADAM SKELOS
from businesses that made political contributions to DEAN SKELOS
and/or had substantial legislative interests before the State . Based
on interviews with and other witnesses, as well as my review
of emails and phone records, among other things, I have learned.that
over the course of two years, from late 2010 through.2012, defendant
DEAN SKELOS persistently pressured and others associated with

 

4 and have entered into non?prosecution agreements with

the Government, which, among other things, require their continued
cooperation, including by providing truthful information and
testimony. Information attributed to and reflected in the
Complaint has proven reliable and has been corroborated by other
investigations including'documents,
emails, consensual recordings, and intercepted communications
pursuant to Court?authorized wiretaps.

11

Developerml to direct commissions to ADAM SKELOS and that, as a result 
Developer?1 arranged for ADAM SKELOS to receive almost $200,000 from
the Environmental Technology Company in which the Developer?l
founding family was a significant shareholder, as well as another
$20,000 disguised.as51payment fromeatitle insurance companyu Cle
has stated that felt pressured to comply with DEAN 
requests in large part due to DEAN SKELOS position as Senate Majority
Leader and the fact that Developerwl had critical legislative
interests continually pending before the New York State Senate.
Among other things, knew from his conversations with DEAN SKELOS
that DEAN SKELOS, using explicit language, stated that he would punish
members of the real estate industry who DEAN SKELOS felt had not
adequately supported him.

and ADAM SKELOS Solicit Developer?l for Payments 
SKELOS

24. In November 2010, the New York State Republicans were
elected to a majority in the State Senate, and DEAN SKELOS was elected
- Majority Leader for the session beginning in January 2011 . Beginning
in or around late 2010, Developer?l was actively lobbying and
obtaining support from DEAN SKELOS for real estate legislation
critical to Developerwl?s business, including rent regulation.laws,
which.was set to be reviewed.by the Legislature in.June 2011. know
from interviews of individuals, including and a lobbyist for
Developers}. (the ?Developerml Lobbyist?) and from reviewing emails,
DEAN Senate calendar, and other documents, that DEAN SKELOS,
throughout this period, repeatedly met with.and.asked.CW?l and.other
representatives of Developer?l to direct commissions to ADAM SKELOS,
the defendant, including during meetings when Developerwl was
lobbying DEAN SKELOS with respect to real estate legislation. For
example:

a. On or about December 20, 2010, DEAN SKELOS met with
the founder of Developerwl (the ?Developerwl Founder?), and
the Developer?l Lobbyist to thank Developer+l for supporting the
Senate Republicans during the November 2010 election. During the
meeting, DEAN SKELOS discussed the fact that he would be working with
Developer?l to negotiate the legislation renewals during the upcoming
session? Both during this meeting and while walking out of the
meeting, DEAAISKELOS directly asked.the Developer?l Founder'and.Cle
to send Developer?1?s title insurance commissions to ADAM SKELOS.

b. Following DEAN request, on or about February
17, 2011, and the Developer~l Lobbyist met with.ADAM SKELOS at
CW?l?s apartment building in New York, New York, to discuss
12

Developer?l sending ADAM SKELOS title insurance commissions and other
business, as DEAN SKELOS had requested.

c. On.or about March 18, 2011, and the Developer-1
Founder attended a real estate industry group meeting with DEAN SKELOS
in New York, New York. During the meeting, members of the real estate
industry group and discussed.the upcoming review of rent
regulation and real estate tax benefits important to Developer?l and
the industry. .After that meeting, DEAN SKELOS thanked for
meeting with ADAM SKELOS and renewed his request that Developer?l
direct business to ADAM SKELOS.

d. On or about May 5, 2011, DEAN SKELOS met with 
and the Developer?l Lobbyist at CWml?s apartment building. During
this meeting, the Developer?l Lobbyist explained to DEAN SKELOS
Developer?1' views about the real estate laws that were up for renewal
in the Legislature. At this meeting set up for the purpose of
discussing legislation affecting Developer?l, DEAN SKELOS again
thanked.CW?l for meeting with ADAM SKELOS and.reiterated.his request
that Developerel give ADAM SKELOS business because ADAM SKELOS was
purportedly suffering financially.5 

. e. in or around this time, decided to arrange for
ADAM SKELOS to be hired.by the Environmental Technology Company, in
which Developer?1's founding family and had financial
investments and, as a result, substantial influence; Cle believed
that having the Environmental Technology Company hire ADAM SKELOS
would be a way to comply with DEAN repeated requests that
Developerml give commissions to ADAM SKELOS without having the
payments come directly from.Developer?l. Cle spoke to ADAM SKELOS
about the plan.to have the Environmental Technology Company hire him
and ADAM SKELOS stated that he would speak to DEAN SKELOS to make
sure that DEAN SKELOS approved. ADAM SKELOS later told that DEAN 
SKELOS approved of CW~l's proposal to have the Environmental
Technology Company hire ADAM SKELOS. 

25. In response to defendant sustained.requests
described above, Developerwl sought opportunities to provide money
to defendant ADAM SKELOS in order influence the official actions of
Basedcminnrdebriefings with.CW?l, I know that neither

 

5 Notwithstanding DEAN statements to financial
records reflect that in 2010 ADAM SKELOS earned more than $133,000
from two employers, and in 2011 ADAM SKELOS earned more than $193 000
from three employers.

l3

 nor the Developer?l Founder wanted.the payments to ADAM SKELOS
to come from Developer~l directly. Accordingly, as described below,
acting on.behalf ofIDeveloperwl, and.in.coordination.with.DEAN
SKELOS, successfully arranged for payments to ADAM SKELOS from at
least two sources: (1) approximately $200,000 (plus the potential
for millions of dollars in performancewbased commissions) as a
government relations consultant for the Environmental Technology
Company, and (2) $20,000 disguised by Developerwl as a purpOrted
commission payment from a title insurance company (?Title
Companyul"). As further described below, the purpose of these
payments was to reward DEAN SKELOS and to obtain official actions
from him for the benefit of both Developerwl and the Environmental
Technology Company, in which Developerwl?s founding family had an
ownership interest.

Puts ADAM SKELOS in Contact with the Environmental Technology
Company

26 . I know from witness interviews and testimony, from emails,
and from my participation in this investigation, that agreed
to arrange for payments to defendant ADAM SKELOS from the
Environmental Technology Company in response to the requests by
defendant DEAN SKELOS set forth above as well as later requests that
DEAN SKELOS repeated to Specifically, I have learned the
following: I

a. In or about July 2012, ADAM SKELOS had lunch with 
and requested that continue to seek compensation for ADAM SKELOS
through the Environmental Technology Company.

b. .Following that lunch.meeting, in.or about July 2012,
told the CEO that the Environmental Technology Company should
hire ADAM SKELOS to obtain business in New York State. believed
that ADAM SKELOS would be able to use the influence of DEAN SKELOS
to obtain business from New York municipalities for the Environmental
Technology'Company. ImipromotingZE?u?SKELOS's services tot?naCEO,
emailed.the CEClthat there ?is great potential for 
to exploit his father?s contacts statewide," and later added
?[j]ust to remind.you, contacts are very, very high
level. His dad is Dean Skelos, NYS Senate majority leader.?

c. Following these entreaties, the CEO asked who
was then.serving as 
Vice President for Business Development, to meet with ADAM SKELOS,
and the two met in August 2012 at a hotel in New York, New York. During
the meeting, CWHZ and ADAM SKELOS discussed ADAM SKELOS's ability

14

a to promote the Environmental Technology Company in New York State.

ADAM SKELOS later told (during a conversation.CW?2 recorded at
the direction.of the FBI in February 2015 at a meeting in New York,
New York) that it was who had gotten ADAM SKELOS ?involved? with 
the Environmental Technology Company, even though, as ADAM SKELOS
described it, he ?literally knew nothing about water or, yOu know,
any of that stuff.? ADAM SKsLos also told cw?2 that had gone
through his father, DEAN SKELOS, before introducing ADAM SKELOS to
the Environmental Technology Company.

27. Following defendant.ADAM 
began negotiating the terms of a consulting agreement for ADAM SKELOS
with the Environmental Technology Company. did so because of
the pressure from DEAN SKELOS, the defendant, to obtain a significant
amount money for ADAM SKELOS. DEAN SKELOS remained informed and
engaged.throughout.ADAM negotiation.with.the Environmental
Technology Company over the terms of the consulting agreement it
ultimately entered into with ADAM SKELOS in November 2012 (the
?Consulting Agreement?). ADAM SKELOS and DEAN SKELOS made clear
during this period that ADAM SKELOS would be able to access his father
if hired by the company. For example, I know the following from, among
other things, emails and interviews of and 

a. In or about August and September 2012, ADAM SKELOS
sent several drafts of the Consulting Agreement to DEAN SKELOS. Once
it was signed, ADAM SKELOS also sent DEAN SKELOS the terms of the
finalized Consulting Agreement.

b. DEAN SKELOS emailed.articles about the Environmental
Technology Company?s business to ADAM SKELOS, which ADAM SKELOS in
turn.passed on (with the email chains making clear it had come from
DEAN SKELOS) to the CEO, and others. For example, on September
2 2012 DEAN SKELOS forwarded ADAM SKELOS a news story about a sewage
leak near.Albany, which.ADAM SKELOS forwarded (including the header
information indicating that his father had sent him the email) to
the CEO, and stating, ?Read below . . . looking forward
to getting started.? replied.to all, ?Let?s get him to work!?

 

6 was approached.on.February'5, 2015 and.agreed to cooperate

with the investigation shortly thereafter. Since on or about
February 9, 2031.5, CW-2 has been acting at the direction of Government
agents and recording telephone calls and in?person meetings at the
request-of the Government.

15

c. Early on in his discussions with the Environmental
Technology Company, ADAM SKELOS informed that he had the ability
to shape New York State legislationd The Environmental Technology
Company was focused on bidding for ?design~build? stormwater
projects,7 and in or about late August 2012, ADAM SKELOS offered to
to obtain his father?s assistance in procuring the extension
of temporary State legislation authorizing design?build contracts.
ADAM SKELOS asked.DEAN SKELOS about the legislationq 
informed ADAM SKELOS by email that he would instruct his Chief of
Staff (the ?Chief of Staff?) to look into the issue. LikeWise on
another occasion, and ADAM SKELOS exchanged emails about the
potential for DEAN SKELOS to assist in helping the Environmental
Technology Company in New Jersey through DEAN SKELOS's strong
relationship ?with some of the higher ups in the [New Jersey Governor]
administration.?

d. While contract negotiations with ADAM SKELOS were
ongoing, DEAN SKELOS spoke directly to to advise the
Environmental Technology Company on its strategy for obtaining New
York government?funded contracts. Specifically, in early November
2012, shortly after Superstorm Sandy devastated the Long Island
region, CW-2 emailed.ADAM SKELOS about the Environmental Technology
Company potentially contracting with Nassau and Suffolk Counties
relating to flood mitigation projects. ADAM SKELOS forwarded the
email chain to DEAN SKELOS, asking ?What should I do?" Minutes'later,
ADAM SKELOS call.between.DEAN?SKELOS, and
ADAM SKELOS (reflected.in telephone records that I have reviewed),
during which DEAN SKELOS demonstrated a familiarity with the business
plans of the Environmental Technology Company. DEAN SKELOS advised
that the Environmental Technology Company?s focus should.be on
obtaining contracts with counties, which were expected to distribute
flood recovery and mitigation funding. This demonstrated to 
that ADAM SKELOS would use his access to DEAN SKELOS on behalf of
the Environmental Technology Company if hired.

28. While contract negotiations continued, acting with
the intent to influence defendant DEAN SKELOS and based on CW?l?s
fear that DEAN SKELOS would take officials actions against 
Developerml?s interests unless DEAN SKELOS was satisfied that 

 

7 En sum and substance, a design?build project is one in which

the design and construction services are bid out to and contracted
with a single entity, which has sole responsibility for designing
and building the project.

16

secured sufficient compensation for defendant ADAM SKELOS, pushed
aggressively for greater compensation.to.ADAM SKELOS. For example,
on September 6, 2012, emailed the CEO to reject the Company?s
offer, writing; in part, ?If this agreement isn?t changed.to reflect
ya straight 2 year sales contract paying Adam a hefty percentage
commission payable in stock and cash then I will be forced to tell
him this arrangement is not for him. I will not put [Developerwl]'s
relationship with him in jeopardy over this."8

DEAN SKELOS SKELOS Solicit a Separate $20,000 Payment from

While the Consulting Agreement Is Still Being Negotiated

29. At the same time that was negotiating the Consulting
Agreement on behalf of defendant ADAM SKELOS, and defendant DEAN
SKELOS arranged for Developer?l to pay ADAM SKELOS $20,000. The
payment from Developer~l was disguised as a ?referral? commission
from Title Company? 1 which was dependent on Developerml for business 
even.though.ADAM SKELOS did.not refer or provide any title insurance
work to Developer?l or Title Company?l in return for the $20,000.

and witness interviews:

a. 
at a real estate industry meeting in New York, New'York.on September
19, 2012, which was attended by the Developer?1 Founder, CWml, and
others . .According to at this meeting, DEAN SKELOS repeated his
request to that Developerwl direct commissiOns to ADAM SKELOS.
DEAN SKELOS stated that he was concerned that ADAM SKELOS needed to
make more money. In a particularly urgent manner, DEAN SKELOS
requested that Developerml direct title insurance commissions to ADAM
SKELOS because the ?other thing? would take too long, which 
understood telnean.that.DEAN'SKELOS wanted.a1nore immediate business

 

8 At the same time that was negotiating on behalf of ADAM
SKELOS for greater compensation, DEAN SKELOS was soliciting
substantial campaign contributions from.Developer~l to DEAN SKELOS
and officials and political entities selected by DEAN SKELOS. For
example, on the same day Cle sent the email above, and the
Developer~l Lobbyist exchanged.emails about a call from DEAN SKELOS
to send overnight checks to the Erie County Republican Committee,
over which the Developer?i Lobbyist believed that DEAN SKELOS had
significant control. Public:records show'thatIDeveloper?l sent five
checks, totaling $100,000, dated September 7, 2012, using five
different LLCs contributing $20,000 each.

17

opportunity for ADAM SKELOS because DEAN SKELOS believed that the
negotiations with the Environmental Technology Company were taking
too long. .After this meeting, was also contacted by the
Developer?l Lobbyist, who reiterated DEAN request.

b. In response to DEAN requests, on September
25, 2012, emailed.ADAM SKELOS asking, ?[W]ho do you sell title
insurance for?" Later that day, ADAM SKELOS emailed CWml, stating,
?If you have a title for me'. . . I could really use the work if you
have anything for me, it?s been.a:real SlOijear in the title world.?
ADAM SKELOS then forwarded DEAN SKELOS his email to stating,
. . . This is_what I sent to and I still haven?t heard
anything back from him. Telephone records indicate that DEAN SKELOS
was in contact with the-cellphone of the Developer?l Lobbyist, and
three minutes after speaking with the Developer?l Lobbyist, DEAN
SKELOS replied to ADAM SKELOS's email, ?Following up, be patient.?
According to telephone records, later that same day the Developer?1
Lobbyist spoke to who then called Title Company?1. The
Developer-ml Lobbyist then called DEAN SKELOS, and shortly after their
call, DEAN SKELOS spoke to ADAM SKELOS. .Around this period, 
recalls receiving multiple phone calls related to DEAN SKELOS's
request for Developer?l to give title commissions to ADAM SKELOS.

c. I know from interviews of two executives of Title
Company?l (?Title Executive?1? and ?Title Executive~2?) that around
this same time called Title Executive~l and stated, in substance,
that needed to findamoney?formADAMLSKELOS. also told'Title
Executive?l that the payment to ADAM SKELOS could not be traceable
to Developer~1, which Title Executive?l understood was due to the
fact that ADAM father was the Senate Majority Leader.

d. Title Executive?l understood that the payment to ADAM
SKELOS needed to appear to be connected to an actual transaction,
not involving Developer?l, in order to make the payment appear to
be legitimate. Accordingly, Title Executive?1 and Title
Executive?2 identified a real estate transaction for which Title
Company?l was already receiving a commission, and decided that they
could arrange for ADAM SKELOS to receive $20,000, which was
approximately 10% of Title Company?1?s anticipated commission.
Title Executive?l and Title Executivew2 understood from Cle that
ADAM SKELOS would not refer any business nor perform any work for
Title Company?1 or Developer?IL in exchange for the $20 000 . C1le told
executives from Title Companywl that would reimburse Title
Company?1 for agreeing to divert the $20,000 to ADAM SKELOS.

18

 . On October 9 2012 emailed ADAM SKELOS, stating,
can do a 20,000 referral on the title. That okay?" ADAM SKELOS
replied, ?Absolutely, that?s great. Going through [Title
Executive?1]?" responded, ?Yes.?

E. On October 20, 2012, another individual associated
with Developer?1 emailed Title Executive?1, and Title
Executive?2 to inquire about the $20 000 payment to ADAM SKELOS . (2le
_replied, ?Not for emails.? According to this statement
expressed concern about documenting Developer?~1' involvement
in arranging the $20,000 payment to ADAM SKELOS at DEAN SKELOS's
request.

g. The real estate transaction that and Title

Company?l used to disguise the $20,000 payment to ADAM SKELOS was
completed in or about February 2013. On February 18, 2013, Title
Executive?l met in person.with.ADAM SKELOS and.handed him a $20,000
check from Title Company?1. ADAM SKELOS did not refer any business
or perform.any work for'Title Company?1 or'Developerml in connection
with this $20,000 payment, which was arranged by as a result
of the repeated requests by DEAN SKELOS.

ADAM SKELOS Obtains More Money by Threatening to Have DEAN SKELOS
and ADAAISKELOS Block.the Environmental Technology Company?s Bid.for
a Nassau County Project

 

30 . I know from emails that in late November 2012, ADAM SKELOS,
the defendant, and the Environmental Technology Company executed the
Consulting.Agreement. I know from reviewing the.Agreement that, in
part, it provides that the Environmental Technology Company would
begin paying ADAM SKELOS a base fee of $4,000 upon its
execution, which would increase to $5,000 per month after the
Environmental Technology Company received a payment on its first
contract obtained.by ADAM SKELOS and $l0,000 per month after payment
on its sixth contract obtained by ADAM SKELOS. The Consulting
Agreement also provided for an incentive payment to ADAM SKELOS of
one percent of gross revenue received on the contracts, as well as
stock option awards and a one?time $10 000 bonus if the first contract
exceeded $1 million. On November 27, 2012, ADAM SKELOS forwarded the
final Consulting Agreement to DEAN SKELOS the defendant, who replied,
?Mazel Tov.?

31. Later, notwithstanding the payment levels set by the
Consulting Agreement, acting on behalf of defendants DEAN SKELOS
and ADAM SKELOS, successfully pressured the Environmental Technology
Company to increase its payment to ADAM SKELOS by 150% by threatening

19

to have DEAN SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS block the Environmental Technology
Company?s ability to obtain.a'valuable contract with.Nassau County.
Specifically, I have learned from emails, witnesses and other sources
the following:

a. In April 2013, after the Environmental Technology

Company had submitted a bid for a multi?millionmdollar stormwater
project toiNassau.Countyy but.before Nassau.County officials awarded
the bid to the Environmental Technology Company, ADAM SKELOS called
and told in sum and substance, that DEAN SKELOS believed
that ADAM compensation from the Environmental Technology
Company should.be increased.and that, if it was not, DEAN SKELOS and
ADAM SKELOS would.make efforts to ensure that Nassau County did.not
approve the Environmental Technology Company?s bid.

b. Following these conversations with ADANISKELOS, 
sent an email with.the subject ?Adam? to the CEO with the following
message:

I?m.told.he?s about 45 days away from producing
the legislation and the RFP to do up to ten 
million project with you. He?s hesitant (and 
his dad called) to do it with the engineer? [sic]
making more money than him. If he doesn?t get
like a 4% commission I think they don?t_think
it's worth pushing through.

also orally reiterated to the CEO the substance of ADAM 
statements about the efforts that ADAM SKELOS and DEAN SKELOS would
take to subvert the Environmental Technology Company' bid with Nassau
County unless ADAM compensation was increased to a level
approved by ADAM SKELOS and DEAN SKELOS.

c. The CEO email to who replied,
in part, can?t believe he?s going to try to hold us hostage to
renegotiate the contract. The engineers are getting paid for labor
hours to do real work (I think around ~5500 man.hours). Unreal.? I
know from speaking to that understood the communication
from Cle to be a threat that DEAN SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS would block
the contract with Nassau County unless the Environmental Technology
Company increased ADAM compensation.

d. Following the emai1.frtm1CW?l, the CEO told.CW-2 that
the CEO believed, based.on.his communications with that if the
Environmental Technology Company ?took care of? ADAM SKELOS, then
DEAN SKELOS would ?take care of? the Environmental Technology Company.

20

thereafter, the CEO and.the Environmental Technology Company agreed
to increase the Company? payments to ADAM SKELOS to $11.0, 000 per month
once the Nassau County contract was approved by the Nassau County
Legislature, even.though.under the terms Consulting
Agreement he was not entitled.to an increase of his payment
to this amount until he obtained six contracts for the Company, an
event that still has not occurred as of the date of this Complaint.

Actions Taken by DEAN SKELOS in Return for Payments to ADAM SKELOS
And To Ensure The Payments Continued

32. in return for payments to defendant ADAM SKELOS described
above, defendant DEAN SKELOS used his official position to benefit
Developer?l and the Environmental Technology Company} and to ensure
that payments SKELOS would.not be discontinued. Among other
things, used.his official.position.to: introduce and
vote on real estate legislation sought by Developer?l and critical
to its success; (ii) assist the Environmental Technology Company in
obtaining a $12 million.contract with Nassau County; pressure
Nassau County officials to find sources of funding for the contract
and to make payments to the Company for work performed under the
contract; (iv) assist the Environmental Technology Company in
attempting to obtain favorable Department of Health regulations
concerning hydrofracking wastewater in the event hydrofracking was
permitted in New York; pursue budget legislation to increase State
funding available for stormwater mitigation projects of the type
pursued by the Environmental Technology Company; and (vi) advocate
for legislation sought by the Environmental Technology Company
permitting municipalities to enter into and fund ?design?build?
contracts for stormwater and other projects.

Actions by DEAN SKELOS to Benefit Developerwl

33. Based on my review of public information and statements
from witnesses, including lobbyists for Developer~i, I know that
during the same time frame when Developer?: arranged for payments
thetdefendant, Developerwl.had.significant interests
before the New'York State Legislature. I also know that during this
period the defendant, took<3fficial.positions that.were
favorable to Developer?l, including with respect to legislation on
which Developer~1 was lobbying the Legislature. For example:

a. TheIDeveloper~l Lobbyist and.CW-1.personally lobbied
in.connection.with Senate Bill 85856~201l, the ?Rent.Act
of 2011,? which was introduced by DEAN SKELOS and which, in part,
addressed rent regulation in New York City and sought to extend until

21

June 23, 2015 the ?e2l?a Program, under Which substantial real estate
tax abatements are provided for certain.new residential real estate
developments. This tax abatement extension and rent regulation
legislation was crucial to the financial'success of Developer?1.
Records reflect that and Developer~1 met with DEAN SKELOS on
June 3, 2011 to lobby on this bill, less than one month after 
had emailed that ADAM SKELOS was meeting DEAN SKELOS to ?talk about
the opportunity and get the blessing? with respect to a position with
(h10raboutihnna24,2011,DEAN
SKELOS voted.in favor of the bill. The:Governor signed the bill into
law the same day.

b. Developer~l lobbied the Senate in connection with
Senate Bill 86472w2011, which, in part, sought to expand the
circumstances in which landlords like Developer~l could increase
rents on.rent?controlled.apartments. On.or about June 5, 2012, DEAN
SKELOS voted in favor of the bill.

c. Developer~l lobbied the Senate in connection with
Senate Bill S2320v~2013 which, in part, sought to exempt from taxation
alterations and improvements to existing multiple dwellings and to
provide incentives for the construction.of neW'developments through
extension of the 421?a Program. On or about January 23, 2013, DEAN
SKELOS voted.in.favor of the bill. The Governor signed.the bill into
_law on or about January 30, 2013. 

d. Developer?l lobbied the Senate in connection with
Senate Bill 85247?2013, which, in.part, sought to continue and.make
retroactive changes to the 42l-a Program. On or about June 23., 2011.3,
DEAN SKELOS voted in favor of the Bill.

34. has stated that arranged for payments to ADAM
SKELOS, the defendant, at the request of the defendant,
because was aware that DEAN SKELOS had.substantial control over
real estate legislation.critical to Developer?l and because CW?1.was
concerned that DEAN SKELOS could take action.adverse to Developer?l
if Developer?l failed to secure compensation for ADAM SKELOS.

Actions by DEAN SKELOS to Assist the Environmental Technology Company
in Obtaining a $12 Million Contract with Nassau County

35 . from interviews of multiple Nassau County officials
and other sources that defendant DEAN SKELOS has power and substantial
influence over County governance. For example, Nassau County is
dependent in large part on the New York State Legislature with respect
to the fundirmyof County operations and.services. iS'the

22

highest?ranking New York State elected official in Nassau County,
and the County is dependent on DEAN SKELOS to advocate for and obtain
sufficient State funding for the County's operations and services.
Nassau County officials have stated that they address requests from
DEAN SKELOS with urgency in light of DEAN substantial
official influence over County affairs.

36. I know from my review of documents and interviews of 
and other witnesses that ADAM SKELOS and. DEAN SKELOS, the defendants,
arranged for DEAN SKELOS to take various actions in his official
capacity tozassist 
a $12 million contract with Nassau County, for example:

a. In.or about early November 2012, DEAN SKELOS advised
the Environmental Technology Company to submit contract proposals
to the two counties on Long Island. The day after this call, DEAN
Director of District Operations emailed ADAM SKELOS and told
him to call the Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Public

Works ADAM SKELOS replied, ?Any word on Suffolk?" The
Director responded, ?One step at a time. Haha. Your dad.prob:needs
to make a call.? ADAM SKELOS replied, ?Gottya . . . Thanks.?

b. Following DEAN suggestion, the

Environmental Technology Company submitted an ?Unsolicited
Conceptual Proposal" to Nassau County for a contract to design, build,
and operate endwof~pipe and antimicrobial water filtration solutions
with.respect to stormwater in Nassau County. About five days later,
ADAM SKELOS informed and that Nassau County was going to
issue a Request for Proposal related to the stormwater project (the
. 

c. In.or about late 2012 and early 2013, the CEO became
impatient with.how long it was taking for Nassau County to issue the
promised.RFP, and asked.CWw2 to contact ADAM SKELOS to request that
DEAN SKELOS expedite Nassau County's issuance of the RFP.
Accordingly, asked.ADAM SKELOS whether DEAN SKELOS could speak
to the Nassau County Executive about having the County act more
quickly. Nassau County then issued the RFP in or about February 2013 .

d. On or about April 3, 2013, ADAM SKELOS personally
delivered.the Environmental Technology Company proposal in.response
to theiNassau.County*RFP. After asked could
try to find out which other companies had asked for the RFP ?so we
can guess at competition," ADAM SKELOS responded will but no
competition,? which.CW?2 understood.tolnean.that ADAM SKELOS already
knew that the Environmental Technology Company would win the contract.

23

e. On variousraccasions(iuring'the spring of 2013, while
awaiting Nassau County?s approval of the Environmental Technology
Company?s bid, ADAM SKELOS and DEAN SKELOS planned to make and did
make calls to various Nassau County officials to push.the County to
enter into a contract with the Environmental Technology Company. For
example, when ADAM SKELOS did not hear back from the Nassau County
Commissioner of the SKELOS emailed.CWw2 that he would.have
DEAN SKELOS call the Nassau COunty EXecutive unless he heard soon.

E. On or about May 28, 2013, two days before the DPW
selected the Environmental Technology Company' bid, emails and phone
records show that ADAM SKELOS was in contact with.the Nassau County
Attorney (the ?Nassau County Attorney?) to obtain.documentation for

County had already chosen it for the project, and minutes earlier
himself was also in phone contact with.the Nassau County
Attorney for approximately four minutes.

I g. On.May 30, 2013, two days after DEAN SKELOS 
contacts with the Nassau County.Attorney, the Commissioner
of the DPW issued an approval to award the Nassau County contract
to the Environmental Technology Company, but the contract could.not
be executed.by the Nassau County Executive until it received.several
layers of additional approvals.

h. On July 1, 2013, the Rules Committee of the Nassau
County Legislature passed a resolution approving the Nassau County
contract with.the Environmental Technology Company, an action.which
previously had.emailed.the CEO that DEAN SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS
would not ?push through? unless the 
increased payments to ADAM SKELOS. ,After the Nassau County
Legislature Rules Committee approved the contract, the Environmental
Technology Company increased ADAM payments to
$10,000. On July 2, 2013, the Environmental Technology Company
issued a press release announcing that it had been awarded the
contract.

i. Before the Nassau County Executive could.execute the
Nassau County contract, approval was required from the Nassau Interim
Finance.Authority, or which.is a.public benefit corporation
of New?York State (one of whose members is appointed.by DEAN SKELOS)
with the power to monitor and oversee Nassau County's finances.
Delays in obtaining approval for the contract were a source of concern
for the CEO, who wished to make a positive announcement to investors
about the likelihood of executing a contract with Nassau County.

24

 

Based on my interviews with Nassau County officials, I know that,
during this time period, DEAN SKELOS SKELOS made inquiries
with Nassau County officials as to the status of approval of
the contract. In response to such inquiries, Nassau County officials
obtained an advisory opinion from IFA concerning whether the contract
would be approved.

j. On or about August 12, 2013, asked ADAM SKELOS
to obtain a letter from Nassau County giving notice of the status
of the Contract for use in connection with_the following day?s

request to DEAN wife, who replied, ?What do want
me to do with this!" ADAM SKELOS replied ?Show you know who."

k. ADAM SKELOS then forwarded email to DEAN
Director of District Operations. Approximately four hours
later, the general counsel of NIFA emailed the Chief Deputy Executive
of Nassau County, stating, ?As requested, I have taken my Board?s
temperature regarding this contract." The general counsel went on
to state that, although there were no ?major concerns? with the
contract, ?[p]lease note that this accommodation was made because
of your representation.that time was of the essence. In the future,
we will continue our analysis of contracts in the normal course
pursuant to our prescribed.procedures.? The NIFA.general counsel?s
?email was then forwarded to and the CEO.

37. In.0ctober 2013, NIFA.approved the Nassau.County contract
and the Nassau County Executive signed it on October 8, 2013.

38. From my review of public information, I know that the
Environmental Technology Company publicly touted its contract with
Nassau County and the expected.revenues under the contract with its
investors. For example, in the Environmental Technology Company?s
2013 annual report filed with the U.S. Securities a Exchange
Commission, the Company highlighted the Nassau County contract
prominently'in.the ?Revenue? section.and.statedq among other things,
that ?the Nassau County project is viewed internally by [the Company]
as a highly significant initial project under contract in the
municipal stormwater programs/infrastructure market sector.? The
CEO has also repeatedly highlighted the Nassau County contract and

as recently as an investor call on April 1, 2015.

25

Actions Taken by DEAN SKELOS to Help Obtain Additional Funding for
the Contract and Payments from Nassau County for the Environmental
Technology Company

 

39. Following'theeaxecutitniof the Nassau.County contract, the
Environmental Technology Company began.encountering difficulties in
obtaining'payments to perfornlwork?under the Nassau.County contract.
The difficulties included: Nassau County declined to proceed

was no State approval for counties or municipalities to enter into
design?build contracts for public works projects;9 (ii) the County
was slow to release funds for payment related to the preliminary tasks
that could be completed even.prior to State approval of design?build
projects; and there were insufficient County funds to make
payments under the Contract, and the County therefore needed
additional County, State and/or federal funds to fully implement the
Contract. As described below, ADAM SKELOS and DEAN SKELOS, the
defendants, used the official position of DEAN SKELOS in an effort
to address these issues in a sufficient manner so that payments to
ADAM SKELOS would continue.

40. I know from interviews with Nassau County officials and
my review of Nassau County records that, on numerous occasions
following the execution of the Contract, defendant DEAN SKELOS
contacted senior Nassan.County'executives about the limited progress
under the Contract. In response to DEAN questions about how
the Nassau County Executive intended to find more funding for the
Contract, the Nassau County Executive directed other Nassau County
officials to look into DEAN requests. Nassau County
officials also explained to DEAN SKELQS that, for the Contract to
proceed beyond the initially earmarked amount of approximately
$331,000 to fund the project, the State needed to pass legislation
approving municipal design-build contracts.

41. I also know from interviews with.Nassau County officials
and my review of Nassau County records that, on multiple occasions,
DEAN SKELOS, the defendant, contacted the County and expressed
impatience regarding the speed with which the County was issuing
payments to the Environmental Technology Company. During these

 

9 Paragraph 2(a) of the contract provides that ?The County is

seeking approval to award this contract as a design.build contract.
When such approval is received the County will proceed with the
Construction.?

26

conversations, stated.that the delays were hurting ADAM
sasLos financially and could result in the loss of ADAM job
with.the Environmental Technology Company. Nassau County officials
were concerned that might take action.asiMajority Leader
adverse to the interests of Nassau County if they did not satisfy
his demands with respect to the Environmental Technology Company.

funding and to issue payments to the Environmental Technology Company
more quickly.

42. Intercepted telephone cOmmunications, together with
statements made by and Nassau County officials, confirm that
ADAM SKELOS and DEAN SKELOS, the defendants, arranged for DEAN SKELOS
to use his influence to press Nassau County officials with respect
to funding and payments on the Nassau.County contract. For example:

a. On December 17, 2014, ADAM SKELOS spoke to CW-2 on
the phone about the s1 pace of work:and.payment under the
Nassau County contract, telling in substance and part, 
father sat with] [the Nassau County Executive] two weeks ago . [Nassau
County Executive] promised that it?d be done and that they?d find
the funding for it." DEAN Senate calendar reflects a
meeting between DEAN SKELOS and the Nassau COunty Executive
approximately two weeks earlier on December 2, 2014.

b. On December 31, 2014, ADAM SKELOS spoke to CW-2

enough to pay the Environmental Technology Company and
assured that his father, DEAN SKELOS, could and would punish
Nassau County through his official position if the funds were not
released:

ADAM SKELOS: Nassau County, man? Burning bridges
left and right . I tell you this, the State is not going
to do a fucking thing for the County. Any favor that
[Nassau County Executive] calls and asks for, it?s
not happening.

What?s not happening?

ADAM SKELOS: Like [Nassau County Executive] will
call and ask for favors to help with to help
with the labor unions and negotiating contracts or
this and that, and it? just not going to happen after
they haven?t helped us with what we needed.

27

On.a call that same day urged.ADAM SKELOS
to ?stay focused on the, you know, [the Environmental Technology
Company]."

c. On or about January 2, 2015, NEwsday reported that
Nassau County had entered into a public?private partnership 
agreement with another company to run sewage facilities, for which
Nassau County'would.pay approximately $57.4 million.per'year for 20
years. ADAM SKELOS was displeased that.Nassau.County had.taken.this
step at a time when Nassau County still owed money to the Environmental
Technology Company. 1" ADAM snares told one that he had
become irate upon seeing the article and had immediately contacted
DEAN SKELOS.

d. On or about January 3, 2015, DEAN SKELOS called the
cellphone of the Nassau County Executive to make arrangements
the following day for DEAN SKELOS to ride with the Nassau County
Executive to the wake of a NYPD Police Officer slain in the line of
duty. During the call, using coded language to refer
to the Environmental Technology Company as ?the situation? and to
refer to ADAM SKELOS as ?somebody? pressured the Nassau County
Executive to make payments to the Environmental Technology Company
and expressed frustration at past delays:

DEAN SKELOS: That thing in Newsday today. Where does that
leave the other situation?

COUNTY EXECUTIVE: The privatization of the sewer?
DEAN SKELOS: Yeah. Yeah.
COUNTY EXECUTIVE: Independent. Independent.

DEAN SKELOS: Yeah, but where does it leave that other
situation that?s been out there for a couple years?

COUNTY EXECUTIVE: It just leaves the funding, which
doesn?t come from them. It doesn?t come from that. The
funding's supposed to come from either FEMA or

 

1? A PB, or public?private partnership, goes beyond awarding a

single contract to_a private entity for designing and building the

in.the project in return for an.ownership interest, managing ongoing
project operations, and earning revenue from such operations.

28

DEAN SKELOS: I understand that . I don? understand this.
Where does this leave that other 

COUNTY EXECUTIVE: I?ll see you tomorrow, I?ll see you
tomorrow. ll look back into it, but I think everything? 
fine.

DEAN SKELOS: .Alright, I just, you know, somebody feels
like they' re just getting jerked around the last two years.
So we'll talk tomorrow.

e. DEAN SKELOS then called ADAM SKELOS 
reporting the substance of his call with.the Nassau County Executive
and confirming that the sewer privatization issue would not stand
in the way of payments to the Environmental Technology Company.
During the call, ADAM SKELOS remained skeptical, and DEAN SKELOS
assured him that he would ?iron everything down? with the Nassau County
Executive the next day: ADAM SKELOS told DEAN SKELOS that ?before

you see him, I need to talk to you . . . In person,? to which DEAN
SKELOS replied ?And explain Okay.?
. The following morning, January 4: 2015, while walking

together outside the wake, DEAN SKELOS asked the Nassau County
Executive and the Chief Deputy Nassau County Executive about the
status of payments to the EnvirOnmental Technology Company. .After
consulting by telephone with another Nassau County official the Chief
Deputy Nassau County Executive informed DEAN SKELOS that the payments
would be made and took steps to expedite the payments due to DEAN
official position.

g. At around the same time, ADAM SKELOS called DEAN SKELOS
While DEAN SKELOS was still at the wake. In the middle of
a conversation about dinner, DEAN SKELOS interjected.to.ADAM SKELOS
in coded language, ?All claims that are in will be taken care of.?
ADAM SKELOS responded, ?What?s that?" DEAN SKELOS repeated, ?All
claims that are innwill.be taken.care of.? ADAM SKELOS replied, ?Oh,
okay. Gotcha.? DEAN SKELOS responded, ?Alright?? ADAM SKELOS
replied, ?Alright, great.? then said, ?I?ll discuss the
rest with you later.?

h. The next day, on January 5, 2015, ADAM SKELOS called
CWWZ and told him, in substance and in part, that he had
discussed.the.Newsday'article and.that ADAM SKELOS
had attended ?a wake? with his father, at which he learned from the
Nassau County Executive that the funds allocated to the project
described in the NEwsday'article were ?not going to affect anything

29

that is, you know, we are doing with stormwater? and that money sought
by the Environmental Technology Company would soon be paid.n

43. I know from documents provided by Nassau County that, on
December 11, 2014, the Environmental Technology Company had sent an
invoice to the county for $11,445.34. On January 5, 2015, the day
after defendant DEAN SKELOS personally asked the County Executive
and the Deputy Executive about the payments to the Environmental
Technology Company, Nassau County Officials completed a voucher for
this payment and then made the payment on.or about January 12, 2015.

DEAN SKELOS Uses Official Position to Assist the Company in its
Attempts to Obtain HydrofrackingwRelated Business

44. I know from emails, and intercepted calls that the
Environmental Technology Company was prepared to pay ADAM SKELOS,
the defendant, on a commission basis for any contracts in New York
State related.to the Company?s treatment of contaminated wastewater
byproducts of hydraulic fracturing (?hydrofracking?). To that end,
defendants ADAM SKELOS and DEAN SKELOS also worked with lobbyists
and Senate Staff to try to persuade the Department of Health to
implement regulations concerning hydrofracking wastewater that would
favor the use of the Environmental Technology Company?s products in
the event hydrofracking was approved by the Governor, which DEAN
SKELOS believed to be imminent. In particular:

a. DEAN SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS met with in late 2013
at DEAN SKELOS's District Office. During that meeting, DEAN SKELOS
instructed one of his District staff members to leave the room, after
which DEAN SKELOS inquired about the Environmental Technology
Company? plans to financially exploit the State' 8 potential approval
of hydrofracking.

. In or about late 2013 ADAM SKELOS called DEAN SKELOS 8
Chief of Staff and asked him to set up a meeting between
representatives of the New York State Department of Health, which
was considering regulations concerning hydrofracking, and
representatives of the Environmental Technology Company. On
November 25, 2013, ADAM SKELOS emailed.DEAN Chief of Staff
about the Environmental Technology Company?s capabilities with

 

Based on interceptions and other evidence it does not appear

that.ADAM SKELOS attended.the wake and.was instead relaying what his
father had told him about the conversation with the Nassau County
Executive.

30

respect to hydrofracking. ADAM SKELOS then.forwarded.his own email
to DEAN SKELOS, stating, ?Sent this link to [the Chief of Staff],
explains everything. DEAN SKELOS followed up with his Chief of: Staff
and inquired whether he had set up the Department of Health.meeting
requested by ADAM SKELOS.

c. On December 12, 2014, ADAM SKELOS participated in a
Duringt?nacall,
after ADAM SKELOS obtained Lobbyist-2?s assurance that it was a 
?private call," ADAM SKELOS asked.DEAN SKELOS, who was present with
ADAM SKELOS at the time, questions concerning whether hydrofracking
was about to be approved.in.New'York State, and said that Lobbyist?2
had to act quickly to ensure that the Department of Health enacted
regulations that would financially benefit the Environmental
Technology Company: .ADAM SKELOS then spoke to another
lobbyist working with Lobbyist-2 (?Lobbyist?3") about the potential
regulations and Lobbyist?3 told ADAM SKELOS that he would check with
DEAN Chief of Staff to find out what the Department of Health
was planning to do.

45. I know fronlpublic reports that, on December 17, 2014, the
Governor publicly announced that hydrofracking would.not in fact be
permitted in the State. ADAM SKELOS and DEAN SKELOS, the defendants,
spoke on the phone immediately following the announcement 
During the call, DEAN SKELOS assured ADAM SKELOS, using coded
language, that although the Governor's announcement meant that.ADAM
SKELOS would not be able to receive commissions from the Environmental
Technology'Company'related.to hydrofracking, DEAN SKELOS would.work
with ADAM SKELOS so that he would.continue to profit from.stormwater
projects:

ADAM SKELOS: Ahth This day sucks!

DEAN SKELOS: It does. Well, we?re going to
totally focus on that other thing now. 0k?

ADAM SKELOS: Yeah? Oh my god.

DEAN SKELOS: 0k, [Lobbyistw3]_is going to call
you. We? re going to refocus on that other stuff 
0k?

ADAM SKELOS: Alright, alright. That?s good.

31

DEAN SKELOS Uses Official Position to Promote the Company?s
Legislative Goals

 

46. The New'York State Legislature commenced.a new session in
early January 2015 . The principal item on the agenda was the New York
State Budget, which the Governor of New York proposes each January
and which is required to be enacted following negotiation with the
Assembly and Senate by March 31 of the same year.

47. During the 2015 budget process, defendant ADAM SKELOS
emphasized to defendant DEAN SKELOS that his livelihood.depended in
substantial part on legislative support for positions promoted by
the Environmental Technology Company. For example, on January 15,
2015, ADAM SKELOS spoke to DEAN SKELOS and told him that
CWM2 was ?my best chance for being successful" and that if the

the ability to pay for things.?

48. I know from public reports, among other things, that in
connection with the budget negotiations, DEAN SKELOS, the defendant,

of a $5.4 billion.sum.that the State had recovered in.litigation.with
'financial services companies (the 
would benefit water projects and contracts that were being pursued
by the Environmental Technology Company. For example:

a . On or about December 11 2014c DEAN SKELOS was reported
in NEwsday to have stated that he, along with the thenmSpeaker of
the Assembly and the Governor, were in ongoing talks for a special
session of the State Legislature to, among other things, divvy up
a financial windfall for infrastructure. The next day, a
spokesperson.for the Senate Republicans, led.by DEAN SKELOS, stated
that the Senate Majority wanted the Settlement Funds allocated towards
key'environmental initiatives that ensure ?cleaerater," among43ther
things.

b. On or about January 7, 2015, CITY STATE, a news
publication, interviewed DEAN SKELOS in his capacity as Majority
Leader and reported that DEAN SKELOS stated that the Settlement Funds

 

3? The Settlement Funds represent New'York State?s share of fines

and.penalties paid.by major financial institutions that resulted in
part from enforcement actions brought by the U.S. Attorney?s Office
for the Southern District of New York, together with other law
enforcement and regulatory partners.

32

?should be used for one shots, not put it into something that becomes
recurring. Infrastructure, sewers, bridges. . . . Some of the biggest
costs that developers have are the infrastructure, the sewers, storm
water, that type of thing. So to encourage development I think that 
where the money should be directed.?

c. On January 8 2015 DEAN SKELOS spoke to another State
Senator from Long Island who wanted to know if DEAN SKELOS
would.be interested in announcing a ?commitment from, you know, the
Senate delegation to Long Island to improve water quality.? .After
confirming that the other Senator was not simply referring to drinking
water, DEAN SKELOS responded ?I've been talking about that, and the
answer is yes. I've been.talking about the infrastructure should be
sewers, stormwater.? further assured.the other Senator
that the funding would be used.for ?what we want to do? rather than
projects favored by the Nassau and Suffolk County Executives. I know
from interviews of Nassau County officials that during the time DEAN
SKELOS was advocating for the use of the Settlement Funds on stormwater
infrastructure projects Nassau County officials did not place a high
priority on such projects. 

d. DEAN SKELOS also inserted.language favorable to the

Republicans' response to the Governor?s State of the State address
that was delivered by another Senator in DEAN caucus
(?Senator?1?). On January 16, 2015, DEAN press secretary
subject line, ?Changes to [Senator?1's]
[State of the State] response you requested in bold for your review, 
that added in bold.the following language to the Senate Republicans?
response to the Governor? State of the State address: ?When it comes
to billions in one-time settlement money for New York, Senate
Republicans think we should invest it in modernizing the state?s
infrastructure roads and.bridges, sewer and water systems. . . 

e. On or about January 21, 2015, the Governor presented
the annual State of the State address and unveiled the Executive Budget
Proposal. The Budget Proposal did not include any Settlement Funds
earmarked for Long Island or for water?related infrastructure
projects as sought by DEAN SKELOS and defendant ADAM SKELOS. On the
same day, ADAM SKELOS spoke to DEAN SKELOS and stated that
he wanted ?to talk about work stuff? when he arrived in Albany and
that this is ?why I am coming up,? which DEAN SKELOS agreed to do.
Referring to the Settlement Funds, ADAM SKELOS complained ?You know,
the Governor, he?s really, like, pushing to spend all that money on
his own" to which DEAN SKELOS replied ?Yup, don? worry. That? part
of our, what [Senatorwl] talks about.?

33

f. On January 21, 2015, during his speech in response
to the GoVernor?s State of the State address, Senator?l advocated
for using the Settlement Funds for water systems, reading the lines
DEAN SKELOS had inserted into the speech.

49 . During the same time period when DEAN SKELOS, the defendant,
was proposing use of the Settlement Funds for stormwater projects,
ADAM SKELOS, the defendant, with the awareness of DEAN SKELOS, was
seeking to use the expectation of future funding to obtain new
contracts for the For example, on
the morning of December 10, 2014, ADAM SKELOS called DEAN SKELOS
and told him that he was going to ?have a conference call?
that day with an association of village officials in Nassau County
about ?how to apply for certain things, all that stuff, funding and
all that.?n When the conference call occurred later that day
one of the local officials asked ?How can you be so
comfortable that this is what Albany is going to dictate? That money
will be allocated to stormwater management?? ADAM SKELOS replied
that the Senators from.Long Island.were already meeting on the issue
and ?[WJhat we?re doing is setting aside some money in the surplus
that carxbe requested.through.any municipality and their'needs.? On
the same day, had.expressed.concern.during an intercepted phone
call that the Legislature might ?suddenly start putting
together a bill on how that 5 billion [the Settlement Funds] is Spent,
if we?re not part of the mix at that point it could be too late."
ADAM SKELOS responded: kind of got that covered.?.

50. In addition to attempting to secure funding, DEAN SKELOS
and ADAM SKELOS, the defendants, tried to obtain design~build
legislation that would enable Nassau County to fully implement its
design?build contract with.the Environmental Technology Company and
that would incentivize local municipalities to enter into contracts
with the Environmental Technology Company:

a. In or about the fall of 2014, ADAM SKELOS arranged
for to hire lobbyists close to DEAN SKELOS to lobby other State

 

During the same call, DEAN SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS discussed a
recent storm that had caused flooding thrOughout Long Island in a
manner that reflected the awareness of DEAN SKELOS that his son stood
to profit from stormwater concerns. ADAM SKELOS commented ?we got
some major water problems here with all the flooding going on

I love it! Keep it coming Mother Naturei Keep it comingi" ADAM
SKELOS and DEAN SKELOS laughed and then DEAN SKELOS replied, ?It will . 

34

officials the involvement
of DEAN SKELOS in obtaining benefits for his son. To this end, 
hired Lobbyist?2 and Lobbyist?3 . I know from witness interviews that
Lobbyist-2 personally obtained DEAN permission to work with
ADAM SKELOS before hired Lobbyist?2 and Lobbyist?3- ?According
to Lobbyist?2 told.CWw2 and ADAM SKELOS that DEAN SKELOS could
not be the Senator to publicly sponsor the design?build legislation
for ?obvious reasons,? which understood to mean DEAN SKELOS
should not be tied publicly to legislation that would benefit the
Environmental Technology Company in light of the Company?s
relationship to ADAM 

b. On January 15, 2015, DEAN SKELOS called.ADAM srsnos
(38414399) and ADAM SKELOS explained how he would promote design?build
legislation favored by the Environmental Technology Company while
he was in Albany for the Governor's State of the State address; At
the end of the call, in.response to DEAN inquiry concerning
which Senators ADAM SKELOS was meeting with in Albany, ADAM SKELOS
told DEAN SKELOS that he ?was hesitant? to talk about the specifics
of his planned meetings over ?this cellphone,? but that he would
provide the information when they met in person.

DEAN SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS Become More Cautious After Charges Are
Filed Against the New York State Assembly Speaker and Press
Speculation About the-5.8. Attorney?s Investigation of DEAN SKELOS

51. I know from public reports and my involvement.in the
investigation that, on January 22, 2015, the FBI and U.S. Attorney?s
Office charged the theanpeaker of the New York State Assembly (the
?Speaker") with federal public corruption offenses. On or about
January 29 and 30, 2015, a local NBC news affiliate and the New?York
Post reported that the U.S. Attorney?s Office was investigating
defendant DEAN outside income from his position as ?Of
Counsel? with the Law Firm as it related to certain real estate deals.
Finally, on or about February 2, 2015, the Governor announced in a

 

14 I know from emails that ADAM SKELOS, with the assistance of DEAN
SKELOS, had previously attempted to retain a different lobbying firm

Company, but the firntdeclined.citing conflict of interest concerns.
A managing director of Lobbying Firm?4 emailed an employee of Lobbying
Firm?4 indicating they were ?in agreement that there is absolutely
no way that going to join [Lobbying Firm~41 and.that
we are not going to be a front for clients that he could otherwise
not take for various reasons. 

35

public address that he would demand that the Legislature enact various
ethics reforms including with respect to the disclosure of outside
income earned by lawyers like DEAN SKELOS who were paid salaries from
private law firms. Based on the intercepted communications,
interviews with CWWZ, and other evidence, I understand that this
caused the defendants to be more cautious in their communications
and change their behavior in connection with the scheme . For example:

- a. On January 30, 2015, defendant ADAM SKELOS called
Lobbyist?2 and reported that believed that they should
not be pushing State legislation to benefit the Environmental
Technology Company ?because of everything that came out . Lobbyist?2
said he agreed, telling ADAM SKELOS that, ?we?ve got to rethink this

whole thing out. I think too much is going down. . . . And we?ve got
to be careful you know with the Senate side. You know, we've got real
problems here, . . . . there? 5 too much going on, too many reporters

involved, too many fucking Feds so we gotta be careful."

b. On February 9, 2013, ADAM SKELOS called Lobbyist?2
and Lobbyist-2 told ADAM SKELOS that Lobbyist?2 and
Lobbyist?3 could no longer represent During the call,
Lobbyist?2 told.ADAM SKELOS that they had to ?protect? themselves,
?havetdeniabilityy" because ?there?szalrn:of scrutiny
going on.?

c. DEAN SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS also began using modes
of communication that ADAM SKELOS believed could not be electronically
intercepted. For example, on a phone call on February 10, 2015
ADAM SKELOS told DEAN SKELOS that ADAM SKELOS was going
to ?FaceTime? DEAN SKELOS . ADAM SKELOS told DEAN SKELOS that he would
explain during their FaceTime call why he wanted to use FaceTime.
In an earlier call on February 4, 2015 ADAM SKELOS told
that ADAM SKELOS had used FaceTime to communicate with a certain
individual ?because of what going on with my dad because that doesn? 
show up on the phone bill, just the data plan.?

d. On February 26, 2015, ADAM SKELOS began using a new
cellphone that ADAM SKELOS variously described as his ?safe phone?
and ?burner phone. ADAM SKELOS instructed CW-2 to send a coded text
to his regular cellphone when it was necessary to speak freely by
phone, and that ADAM SKELOS would then call CW-2 on the burner phone.

e. Chlor'about February 27, 2015, during a recorded.call
on the ?burner phone ADAM SKELOS warned not to email ADAM SKELOS
bullet points on the design-build legislation that the Environmental
Technology Company wanted enacted, but rather to deliver the document

36

to him in person at their next meeting because, ?it's just, it's
safer.?

. On or about March 25 2015 during an intercepted call
with a Senate staff member during which ADAM SKELOS was
seeking to reach DEAN SKELOS to get an update on budget negotiations,
ADAM SKELOS complained that it was ?fucking frustrating? that he could
not speak openly to DEAN SKELOS on the phone and that he could not
?just send smoke signals or a little pigeon with fucking note
[tied] to its foot."

g. On March 28, 2015, ADAM SKELOS placed an intercepted
call to DEAN SKELOS who relayed.he was in Albany seeking
to finalize the State budget. ADAM SKELOS complained that his father
could not give him ?real advice? concerning issues with the
Environmental Technology Company because ?you can?t talk normally
because it's like fucking Preet fucking
phone call. It's just fucking frustrating.? DEAN SKELOS replied,
?It is."

DEAN SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS Continue 
to DEAN SKELOS

 

52. Notwithstanding their concerns set forth.above concerning
the arrest of the Assembly Speaker, the focus on ethics reform, and
reports that defendant DEAN SKELOS was under federal investigation,
the defendants did not completely abandon efforts to obtain benefits
for the Environmental Technology Company through.State legislation.
Instead, as described below, defendants ADAM SKELOS SKELOS

benefiting the Environmental Technology"Companyy provided.that such
legislation was first promoted by other political figures which would
provide DEAN SKELOS with deniability. SKELOS_then.touted, and
at times exaggerated, the continuing official action.by DEAN SKELOS
in order to continue receiving $10,000 payments premised.on
his father?s ability to assist the Company.

53 . With respect to design-build legislation, ADAM SKELOS, the
defendant, arranged for to meet with two New York State Senators
(?Senator?2? and who are members of the group of nine
Long Island Senators led by DEAN SKELOS, the defendant, to discuss
their potential sponsorship of the designwbuild legislation as a
,further way to mask DEAN involVement in the legislation.
ADAM SKELOS repeatedly told in substance, and during recorded
conversations and phone calls, that after had the ?official?

37

meetings ADAM SKELOS would have unofficial meetings with the Senators
to promote the legislation. For example:

a. met.with.Senator?2 on February?23, 2015, through
a meeting arranged.by ADAM SKELOS. Before the meeting, ADAM SKELOS
told that he would meet with Senator?2 that night at a fundraiser
with ?checks in hand? and that he would ?tell [Senatorw2] where we
are" with respect to the position of DEAN SKELOS on designwbuild
legislation. confirmed, ?So you?re going to tell him at least
where your dad is on it?? to which.ADAM SKELOS replied ?Yeah, yeah.
I?ll fill him in and I'll also kind of direct him on what he needs,
what we want him to do."

b. On February 23, 2015, ADAM SKELOS also personally
arranged for an ?official? meeting between and Senator-3 telling
Senator~3's legislative director (?LegislativeIDirectorwl") that he
was ?going to stay'Out of? the meeting ?because of obvious reasons?
but noting that ?we can talk" at a fundraising event. In
a subsequent call with ADAM SKELOS relayed that he
would be seeing Senator?3 and Legislative Director?1 at a fundraiser,
which he would be attending with DEAN SKELOS, and that, ?I'm going
to be able to talk to them that night about everything as far as a
timeline, you.knowy pushing it along, when.we need.things done, what
we need them to do, who they should go for to someponsor, you know?
So I?m going to direct them in that, in that, um, that meeting and
it will all happen this Wednesday. ADAM SKELOS added: t? better
that 3: distance myself from being in like official meetings, you know,
that have to do with the State because, one, I?m not a registered
lobbyist and, two, it's a conflict.?

c. I know from.CW?2 and intercepted.communications that
the specific plan to use Senator~2 and Senator?3 to introduce
legislation promoting design~build failed because DEAN SKELOS
too risky in light.of the ongoing investigation.
In particular, intercepted calls and witness interviews reflect that
DEAN SKELOS caused the Office of Senatorw3 to cancel the meeting.
SKELOS learned of this cancellation on February 25, 2015,
he contacted his father (asking DEAN SKELOS to call him
back wife?s phone, which DEAN SKELOS
did) and, telling his father that he would be ?very, very
vague" on the phone, urged DEAN SKELOS to permit the meeting. DEAN
SKELOS promised to discuss the issue later with ADAM SKELOS but he
warned: ?Right now we are in dangerous times Adam.?

54. I know from interviews, including with and Nassau
County officials and New York State officials, and documents from

38

those officials, as well as intercepted calls, that, after DEAN
SKELOS, the defendant, canceled meeting with Senator-3 to
discuss Senator?3 sponsoring design~build legislation, DEAN SKELOS
and defendant ADAM SKELOS discussed.a plan through.which the Nassau
County Executive would lobby the Governor for design?build
legislation and DEAN SKELOS could then support the proposal with less
risk. In particular:

a. On February 26, 2015, on a recorded call using his
?burner phone,? ADAM SKELOS assured that the State would enact
the design?build/PB legislation that would benefit the Environmental
Technology'Company: ?They?re going to pass it. And.they?re going to
make sure that it?s, you know, the stormwater stuff, P3 approval.?
ADAM SKELOS told that his father had told him in a private
conversation that ?he? going to be sure that gets done . So, we should
be good.to go." ADAM SKELOS then.explained.to the strategy that
DEAN SKELOS had relayed to him for pushing through the legislation:

ADAM SKELOS: Well, that? one thing I was told. That
he's definitely, my dad said he?s definitely going
to do it. They?re going to do it. And they?re just
going about it I guess in the way of you know, having
the [Nassau County Executive] pushing for it through
the Governor, where it's the Governor asking us if
this is okay, which.we?ll ultimately say absolutely.

b. On.March 6, 2015, spoke to ADAM SKELOS over.ADAM
?burner phone, and, in a recorded call, ADAM SKELOS relayed
to that the Governor would propose general design?build
legislation which would need modifications to include larger
stormwater projects and.?what we need.to do is not disagree with
Governor? and instead ?[klind of make [the Governor] think it?s his
idea and.you?re supporting his agenda.? ADAM SKELOS also told 
to send him the bullet points on the proposed design~build legislation
by regular mail (having previously told him to avoid e?mail to be
?safe?) because ?i?m just going to hand it to my dad and he's going
to [be] the one ultimately that makes the decision."

c. On or about March 6 2015 the Nassau County Executive
and Chief Deputy Nassau County Executive, among others, met with DEAN
SKELOS at DEAN District Office. During the meeting, the
Nassau County officials presented a legislative proposal that
included a proposed amendment to New York State law allowing


39

d. On.or about March.7, 2015, sent the design?build
bullet points to ADAM SKELOS via a Federal Express package. On March
10, 2015, spoke to ADAM SKELOS on his ?burner? phone, 
SKELOS informed in substance and in part, that he was going
to give the bullet points ?over to my dad on Thursday.?

e. On or about March 12 203.5 the New York State Senate,
led by DEAN SKELOS, enacted its ?one?house? budget resolution in
response to the Governor?s proposed budget. Among other things, the
Senate? budget proposed allocating the Settlement Funds in a manner
that could provide greater funding for water projects and stated
opposition to the Governor?s design~build proposal, which applied
only to State agencies, not counties, and therefore would not have
benefited the Environmental Technology Company.

. On or about March 23 2015 the Nassau County Executive
and Chief Deputy Nassau County Executive, among others, met with DEAN
SKELOS at DEAN 3 Albany Office . During the meeting, the Nassau
County officials again presented a legislative proposal that included
a proposed amendment to New York State law allowing design?build
contracts for ?stormwater? projects among other things . During this
March 23, 2015 meeting, DEAN SKELOS stated.that he supported.design
build and.that the Senate would.approveiNassau.County?s design~build
legislative proposal if the proposal was also agreed to by the
Governor.

55. I know from wiretap interceptions,-witness interviews and
documents that as the March 31 deadline for_an on-time budget

DEAN SKELOS on the budget negotiations and.provided'dpdates to 
and the CEO. Through these updates, ADAM SKELOS explained that the
Governor?s focus on ethics reform legislation was interfering with
the ability to achieve the Company?s legislative goals by March 31,
2015. For example:

a. On or about March 19, 2015, the date on which ADAM
SKELOS had previously told he would get the ?scoop? from DEAN
SKELOS ADAM SKELOS and DEAN SKELOS spoke by phone and agreed
to meet in person. The next day, March.20, 2015, ADAM SKELOS called
the CEO and told him that the issue of ethics reform ?is
kind of getting in the way and taking the Spotlight off everything
right:now.? Nevertheless, ADAM SKELOS assured.the CEO that 
get to the Promised Land eventually.?

b. On March 23, 2015, ADAM SKELOS spoke to the CEO
and told him that the budget agreement was expected to

40

 include a ?water purification" fund that could be used to fund the
Nassau County contract as well as other municipal contracts pursued

was legislation permitting counties to pursue design-build contracts .

c. On.March 25, 2015, ADAM SKELOS called.a staff member
of the Senate and.expressed frustration at not being able to have
a substantive Conversation with DEAN SKELOS When ADAM
SKEAOS learned from the staff member that the budget was proceeding
quickly, he told the staffer, ?you know what, I have an emergency.
I gotta call you, can I call from another place right now and talk
to you.. . . cause I:need.to relay"a.message.? I know from telephone
records that ADAM SKELOS then spoke to the staff member on ADAM
SKELOS's wife's cellphone.

d. On March 25 2015 following the call described above,
ADAM SKELOS placed a recorded call to and told that although
negotiations continued? designmbuild.legislation ?most likely would
not get done? by the March 31, 2015 deadline for the State budget,
but would be acted upon sometime before the end of the Senate? session
on or about June 23, 2015.

e. On March 26, 2015, ADAM SKELOS told the CEO during
an intercepted call that the Senate proposal to use
Settlement Funds for water infrastructure projects on Long Island'
was still a part of the negotiations over the budget, and that the
design?build legislation sought by the Environmental Technology
Company was not ?off the table for this legislative session, which
would end . . . [on] June 23rd,? but that it would not be included
in the 2015*2016 budget.

56. On.March 31, 2015, NEwsday'reported.that the final budget
included a $400 million allocation for economic development projects
on.Long Island. That night, ADAM SKELOS, the defendant, called.DEAN
SKELOS, the defendant .During the call, ADAM SKELOS told
DEAN SKELOS that he had just read the Newsday article, and DEAN SKELOS
stated that Long Island was receiving $550 million from the Settlement
Funds for infrastructure projects . DEAN SKELOS informed ADAM SKELOS
that the Governor had wanted to give Long Island $150 million, but
that DEAN SKELOS ?got him up to $550.? DEAN SKELOS confirmed that
municipalities would-be able to apply for the funds . ADAM SKELOS then
asked if ?[a]ny of the other stuff [is] moving forward yet or no??
to which DEAN SKELOS replied, haven?t heard yet. But I will.?

57. In the early morning hours of April I, 2015, the New York
State Senate passed the 2015?2016 budget. Included in the budget was

41

a investment fund" that would.cover the
?capital costs of regionally significant economic development
initiatives? that, among other things, ?enhance the environment and
quality of life? for State residents. In addition, the budget also
included $150 million designated for ?transformative economic
development projects? that demonstrate, among other things, ?an
enhancement of the environment and quality of life for residents of
Nassau or Suffolk County.?

DEAN SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS Prepare for Future Opportunities to
Collect Payments from the Environmental Technology Company

58 . At the direction of the Government, informed defendant

ADAM SKELOS on March 25, 2015 that the CEO was considering suspending
ADAM pending the successful passage
of the design?build legislation sought by the Environmental
Technology Company, which would not occur in connection with the
budget negotiations as the CEO had hoped. Immediately following this

his father that he ?lost something that I had . the water

the water thing." In response, DEAN SKELOS told ADAM SKELOS that
?we?ll try to get it back at some point.? DEAN SKELOS advised ADAM
SKELOS not to ?burn bridges but rather to just tell the Environmental
Technology Company that ?hopefully we can get it all going again.?
DEAN SKELOS also urged.ADAM SKELOS to press the Company to pay ADAM
SKELOS his fee ($20 000) for his work over the prior two months, which
had consisted.of ADAM SKELOS working with DEAN SKELOS to attempt to
pass legislation.favorable to the Environmental Technology Company.

59. On March 26, 2015, ADAM SKELOS, the defendant, spoke to
the CEO and confirmed that his payment from the
Environmental Technology Company would be suspended until State
design?build legislation.was passed that would allow the Company to
further monetize the Nassau County contract. ADAM SKELOS then
informed the CEO that he was going to draft a ?formal letter? for
?my records" stating that he and the Environmental Technology Company
had purportedly ended their professional relationship. ADAM SKELOS
explained that ?one thing we have to work on is the State and once
that?s approved it?ll be easier for us anyway.? In response to the
inquiry about whether the letter related to an ?ethics problem, 
ADAM SKELOS stated that the letter was a form of protection for him
?just in case I ever get questioned by anyone of our continuing

42

relationship. ADAM SKELOS noted that the letter was just a formality
because ?really nothing is going to change.?

WHEREFORE, deponent respectfully requests that warrants be
issued for the arrests of DEAN SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS, the defendants,
and that they be imprisoned or bailed, as the case may be.



PAUL M. TARLA
Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation

Sworn to before me this
1st day.of May, 2015

  AIM/frag ?sh maria

MICHAELUH. 
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SOUTHERN OF NEW YORK

 

43