Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 1 of 35. Page|D 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN I I I Plaintiff, CASE A V. BENJAMIN SUAREZ, JUDGE MICHAEL GIORGIO, - Title 18, United States Code 371, l512(b)(l), Defendants. 1512(0), 1519, and 2; Title 2, United States Code 441b, 4-41f, and 437g(d)(1) The Grand Jury charges: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS At all times material and relevant to this Indictment: The -Defendants 1. The defendant BENJAMIN SUAREZ was a resident of Canton, Ohio, which is located in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. SUAREZ was the founder, owner and President of a company located in North Canton, Ohio, which is not charged in this Indictment, but the identity of which is known to the Grand Jury, hereinafter referred to as "Company Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 2 of 35. Page|D 2 2. The defendant MICHAEL GIORGIO was a resident of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. GIORGIO was Company A's Chief Financial Officer. 3. The Federal Election Laws The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, Title 2, United States Code, Section 431, et seq. (the "Election Act"), limited financial influence in funding election campaigns for federal office, including the offices of United States Senator and United States Representative, and provided for public disclosure of the financing of federal election campaigns. In particular: The Election Act limited the amount and source of money that could be contributed to a federal candidate or that candidate's authorized campaign committee. The Election Act prohibited any person from making contributions in the name of another. The Election Act prohibited corporations from making contributions to candidates in connection with any federal election and in connection with any federal primary election, and prohibited officers and directors of any corporation from consenting to any such prohibited contribution by the corporation. In 2011, the Election Act limited contributions from any one individual to any one candidate for primary and general election campaigns to $2,500 each, for a total of $5,000. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 3 of 35. Page|D 3 3 e. The Election Act defined contributions to include "any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office," Title 2, United States Code, Section 43l(8)(A). I f. The Election Act defined contributions of corporate money to also include: "any direct or indirect payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money, or any services, or anything of Value . .. to any candidate in connection with any election to any of the offices referred to in this section," Title 2, United States Code, 'Section 4Alb(b)(2). 4. The Federal Election Commission was an agency and department of the United States with jurisdiction to administer the limits and prohibitions of the Election Act, and to compile, publicly report and make available accurate information about the source and amounts of contributions to candidates for office. 5. The Federal Bureau of investigation was an agency and department of the United States with jurisdiction to investigate and enforce federal criminal laws, including the criminal provisions and prohibitions of the Election Act as well as laws related to public corruption. The Grand Jury further chargesii COUNT 1 (Conspiracy to Violate Campaign Finance Laws, 2 U.S.C. 437 4-41b and 4411', in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371) 6. Paragraphs 1 through 5 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 4 of 35. Page|D 4 4 7. From in or around March 2011, through in or around September 2011, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, BENJAMIN SUAREZ, MICHAEL GIORGIO, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowingly and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit offenses against the United States of America, that is: a. to knowingly and willfully make contributions to a candidate for federal office in the names of other persons, aggregating $25,000 and more during a calendar year, in Violation of Title 2, United States Code, Sections 43 7g(d)(l) and 44lf', and b. to knowingly and willfully make a contribution from a corporation, in connection with any election at which a Senator or Representative was to be Voted for, and in connection with any primary election for any of the foregoing . offices, and to consent to any contribution by a corporation prohibited by this . section, aggregating $25,000 and more during a calendar year, in violation of Title 2, United States Code, Sections 437g(d)(l) and 44lb. Obiects of the Conspiracy 8. . The objects of the conspiracy were (A) to disguise and conceal from the public and from federal agencies with jurisdiction to administer federal campaign finance laws and investigate Violations of those laws (1) the true sources and amounts of contributions to an Ohio candidate for the United States Senate and an Ohio candidate for the United States House of Representatives, and (2) the identity of Company A as a contributor to those campaigns; (B) to contribute Company A's funds to those campaigns, when such corporate contributions were Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 5 of 35. Page|D 5 5 prohibited, by using conduit contributors and reimbursing the conduit contributors with Company A's funds; and (C) to gain influence for Company A and BENJAMIN SUAREZ through such disguised contributions. Manner and Means 9. It was part of the conspiracy that BENJAMIN SUAREZ agreed to raise approximately $100,000 for the 2012 authorized campaign committee of an Ohio candidate for the United States House of Representatives ("2012 House Campaign"). 10. it was part of the conspiracy that BENJAMIN SUAREZ agreed to raise approximately $100,000 for the 2012 authorized-campaign committee of an Ohio candidate for the United States Senate ("2012 Senate Campaign"). 11. It was further part of the conspiracy that BENJAMIN SUAREZ and MICHAEL GIORGIO recruited individuals who Worked for and were otherwise associated with Company A to act as conduits; that is to make contributions in their own names and those of their spouses ("conduit contributors") to the 2012 House Campaign and the 2012. Senate Campaign. 12. It was further part of the conspiracy that, in soliciting contributions to the 2012 House Campaign and the 2012 Senate Campaign, and at BENJAMIN SUAREZ's direction, MICHAEL GIORGIO informed potential conduit contributors that the amount of their and their spouse's contributions would be fully reimbursed by Company A. 13. I It was further part of the conspiracy that MICHAEL GIORGIO collected checks and contribution forms from the conduit contributors, sometimes completed forms for the conduit contributors, and sent the checks and forms and caused them to be sent to the 2012 House Campaign and the 2012 Senate Campaign. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 6 of 35. Page|D 6 6 14. It was further part of the conspiracy that BENJAMIN SUAREZ and MICHAEL I GIORGIO, working together and with others, directly and indirectly caused Company A to use its funds to reimburse the conduit contributors, including GIORGIO, for the campaign contributions that they made. 15. It was further part of the conspiracy that BENJAMIN SUAREZ, MICHAEL GIORGIO, and Company A disguised the reimbursements for the campaign contributions as compensation from Company A, first as additional salary and later as profit sharing. 16. It was further part of the conspiracy that Company A, BENJAMIN SUAREZ, MICHAEL GIORGIO, and others "grossed up" the reimbursement amount for payroll and other taxes to ensure that the conduit contributors received reimbursement for the full amount of their and their spouse's contributions. 17. It was further part of the conspiracy that, after _the conduit contributions were publicly exposed, BENJAMIN SUAREZ, MICHAEL GIORGIO, Company A, and others sought to conceal their conduct by recharacterizing the reimbursements as advances on profit sharing and requiring the conduits to repay the reimbursements to Company A in their entirety, including the amounts that had been "grossed up" to cover payroll and other taxes. 18. It was further part of the conspiracy that BENJAMIN SUAREZ, MICHAEL GIORGIO, and Company A disguised and concealed the amount and source of campaign contributions and the identity of Company A as a contributor so that the public would be less likely to know the nature and extent of the support that Company A and SUAREZ were providing to the 2012 House Campaign and the 2012 Senate Campaign. l9. It was further part of the conspiracy that BENJAMIN SUAREZ, MICHAEL Case: Doc '1 Filed: 09/24/13 7 of 35. Page|D 7 7 GIORGIO, and Company A disguised and concealed the amount and source of campaign contributions and the identity of Company A as the true contributor to the 2012 House Campaign and the 2012 Senate Campaign in order to enhance Company .A's and SUAREZ's ability to seek and obtain favorable treatment, including official acts that could benefit their business interests, while decreasing the risk of potentially unfavorable public scrutiny. Overt Acts 20. To further the objects of the conspiracy, the members of the conspiracy committed the following overt acts, among others, in the Northern I)istrict of Ohio and elsewhere: 21. In or around March 2011 through in or around April 2011, BENJAMIN SUAREZ, MICHAEL GIORGIO, and Company caused approximately $90,000 in contributions to be made to the 2012 House Campaign using the following conduits (identified by initialsonly), in the following amounts, and by the following payment means, and caused the reimbursement of those contributions, using Company A's money, in the following amounts, by the following payment means, with each such act set forth as A or below constituting a separate overt act: Overt Act Initials of Approximate Campaign Approximate No. Conduitl Contribution and Reimbursement and Relation to Payment Means Payment Means Other Conduits (Overt Act (Overt Act 1' M.B. $5,000 $15,661.71 Check dated 3/30/2011 Check dated 4/1/2011 described as regular salary, which included reimbursements for Overt Acts 1A and 2A 2 D.B., I $5,000 spouse of M.B. Check dated 3/30/2011 Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 8 of 35. Page|D 8 8 3 S.S. $5,000 $17,448.96 Discover charge 3/29/2011 Check dated 4/1/2_01l described as regular salary, which included reimbursements for Overt Acts 3A and 4A 4 E.C., then-fiance $5,000 of S.S. Visa charge 3/29/2011 5 TD. $5,000 $17,448.96 Check dated 3/3 0/2011 Check dated 4/1/2011 described as regular salary, which included reimbursements for Overt Acts 5A and 6A 6 M.D., $5,000 spouse of Mastercard charge 3/30/2011 7 MICHAEL $5,000 $18,083.18 GIORGIO Check dated 3/30/2011 Check dated 4/1/2011 described as regular salary, which included reimbursements for Overt Acts 7A and 8A 8 B.G., spouse $5,000 Check dated 3/30/2011 9 D.H. $5,000 $14,695.08 Check dated 3/31/2011 Check dated 4/1/2011 described as regular salary, which included reimbursements for Overt - . Acts 9A and 10A 10 S.H., $5,000 - spouse of D.H. Check dated 3/ 3 1/201 1 11 B.H. $5,000 $7,830.85 Check dated 3/30/2011 Check dated 4/1/2011 described as regular salary 12 A.F. $5,000 $7,830.85 Check dated 3/30/2011 Check dated 4/ 1/2011 described as regular salary Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 9 of 35. Page|D 9 9 13 P.K. $5,000 $15,661.71 Check dated 3/31/2011 Check dated 4/1/2011 described as regular salary, which included reimbursements for Overt Acts 13A and 14A 14 T.K., $5,000 spouse of P.K. Check dated 3/31/2011 15 J.W. $5,000 $16,168.00 Check dated 3/30/2011 "Check dated 4/1/2011 described as regular salary, which included reimbursements for Overt Acts 15A and 16A 16 S.W., $5,000. spouse of J.W. Check dated 3/30/2011 17 M.C. $5,000 $15,987.00 Check dated 3/31/2011 Check dated 4/1/2011 described as regular salary, which included reimbursements for Overt Acts 17A and 18A 18 .C., $5 ,000 spouse of M.C. Check dated 3/31/2011 22. In or around May 2011 through in or around June 2011, BENJAMIN SUAREZ, MICHAEL GIORGIO, and Company A caused approximately $100,000 in contributions to be made to the 2012 Senate Campaign using the -following conduits (identified by initials only), in the following amounts, and by the following "payment means, and caused the reimbursement of those contributions, using Company A's money, in the following amounts, by the following payment means, with each such act set forth as A or below constituting a separate overt act: Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 10 of 35. Page|D 10 10 Overt Act No. Initials of Approximate Campaign Approximate Conduitl Relation Contribution and Reimbursement and to Other Conduits Payment Means Payment Means (Overt Act (Overt Act 1 MB. $5,000 $15,661.71 Check dated 5/26/2011 Check dated 5/27/2011 described as profit sharing, which included reimbursements for Overt Acts 1A and 2A 2 D.B., $5,000 spouse of M.B. Check dated 5/26/2011 3 S.S. $5,000 $8,726 Check dated 5/27/2011 Check dated 5/27/2011 described as profit sharing 4 E.C., $5,000 $7,770.01 fiance of S.S. Debit card transaction Check dated 5/27/2011 authorized on or before described as profit-sharing 6/13/2011 and posted on - or about 6/13/2011 5 T.D. $5,000 $17,376.19 Check dated 5/26/2011 Check dated 5/27/2011 described as profit sharing, which included reimbursements for Overt Acts SA and 6A 6 MD., $5,000 spouse of TD. Check dated 5/26/2011 7 MICHAEL $5,000 0 5 $13,033.13 GIORGIO Check dated 5/27/2011 Check dated 5/27/2011 described as profit sharing, which included reimbursements for Overt Acts 7A and 8A 8 spouse $5,000 Check dated 5/27/2011 9 D.H. $5,000 $14,695.08 . Check dated 5/31/2011 Check dated 5/27/2011 described as profit sharing, which included reimbursements for Overt Acts 9A and 10A Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 11 of 35. Page|D 11 1 1 10 S.H., $5,000 spouse of D.H. Check dated 5/31/2011 11 B.H. $5,000 $8,613.26 Check dated 5/27/2011 Check dated 5/27/2011 described as profit sharing 12 A.F. $5,000 $7,830.85 Check dated 5/27/2011 Check dated 5/27/2011 described as profit sharing 13 P.K. $5,000 $15,661.71 Half of $10,000 check Check dated 5/27/2011 dated 5/27/2011 described as profit sharing, which included reimbursements for Overt Acts 13A and 14A 14 T.K., $5,000 spouse of P.K. Half of $10,000 check" dated 5/27/2011 15 - J.W. $5,000 $16,299.92 Check dated 5/26/2011 Check dated 5/27/2011 described as profit sharing, which included reimbursements for Overt Acts 15A and 16A 16 S.W., $5,000 spouse of .W. Check" dated 5/26/2011 17 M.L. $5,000 $8,688.10 Check dated 5/31/2011 Check dated 5/27/2011 described as profit sharing 18 S.P.L. $5,000 $8,426.60 - Check dated '5/26/2011 Check dated 5/27/2011 described as profit sharing 19 M.S. $5,000 $8,149.96 Check dated 5/27/2011 Check dated 5/27/2011 described as profit sharing 20 J.T. $5,000 $7,575.00 Check dated 5/31/2011 Check dated 5/27/2011 Receipt describes purpose with name of candidate for U.S. Senate All in violation of Title 18, United State Code, Section 371. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 12 of 35. Page|D 12 12 The Grand Jury further charges: (Violation of Campaign Finance Laws -- Contributions in the Name of Another, 2 U.S.C. 441f and 437g(d)(1), and 23. Paragraphs 1 through 5 and the factual allegations of paragraphs 21 and 22 and their subparts of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 24. From in or around March 2011 through in or around June 2011, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, the defendants, BENJAMIN SUAREZ and MICHAEL GIORGIO, aided and abetted by each other and others known an unknown to the Grand Jury, knowingly and willfully made and caused to be made contributions of money by Company A, aggregating $25,000 and more during the 2011 calendar year, in the names of other persons, to the campaign of a candidate for the United States House of Representatives and to the campaign of a candidate for the United States Senate. in violation of Title 2, United States Code, Sections ;441f and 437g(d)(1) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2. The Grand Jury further charges: COUNT 3 (Violation of Campaign Finance Laws -- Corporate Contributions, 2 U.S.C. 441b and 18 U.S.C. 2) 25. Paragraphs 1 through 5 and the factual allegations of paragraphs 21 and 22 and their subparts of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth I herein. Case: Doc 1 Filed:_ 09/24/13 13 of 35. Page|D 13 26. From in or around March 2011 through in or around June 2011, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, the defendants, BENJAMIN SUAREZ and MICHAEL GIORGIO, aided and abetted by each other and others known and unknown to the 'Grand Jury, knowingly and willfully caused Company A to make contributions and expenditures in connection with any election at which a United States Representative and United States Senator were to be voted for, and in connection with any primary election held to select candidates for United States Representative and United States Senator, and consented to any prohibited contribution by Company A, aggregating $25,000 and more during the 2011 calendar year. All in violation of Title 2, United States Code, I Sections 441b(a), 44lb(b)(2) and and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2. The Grand Jury further charges: COUNT 4 (Causing False Statements, 18 U.S.C. l001(a)(2) and 2) 27. Paragraphs 1 through Sand the factual allegations of paragraph 21 and its subparts of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 28. On or about April 15, 2011, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, the defendants, BENJAMIN SUAREZ and MICHAEL GIORGIO, aided and abetted by each other and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully caused the making of materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations, that is the submission by the authorized campaign committee of a candidate for the United States House of Representatives to the Federal Election Commission of a report that was materially false in reporting the source and amount of contributions to the campaign. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 14 of 35. Page|D 14 14 All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 100l(a)(2) and 2. The Grand Jury further charges: COUNT 5 (Causing False Statements, 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2) and 2) 29. Paragraphs 1 through 5 and the factual allegations of paragraph 22 and its subparts of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 30. On or about October 4, 2011, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, the defendants, BENJAMIN SUAREZ and MICHAEL GIORGIO, aided and abetted by each other and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully caused the making of materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations, that is the submission by the authorized campaign committee of a candidate for the United States Senate to the Federal Election Commission of a report that was materially false in reporting the source and amount of contributions to the campaign. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections l001(a)(2) and 2. . The Grand Jury further charges: COUNT 6 (Causing False Statements, 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2) and 2) 31. Paragraphs 1 through 5 and the factual allegations of paragraph 22 and its subparts of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. I 32. On or about November 15, 201 1, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, the defendants, BENJAMIN SUAREZ and MICHAEL GIORGIO, aided and abetted by each other and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, in a matter within the Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 15 of 35. Page|D 15 15 - jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfiilly caused the making of materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations, that is the submission by the authorized campaign committee of a candidate for the United States Senate to the Federal Election Commission of a report that was materially false in reporting the source and amount of contributions to the campaign. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 100l(a)(2) and 2. The Grand Jury further charges: I COUNT 7 (Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, 18 U.S.C. 1512(b), 1512(c), and 1519, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371) Introduction 33. Paragraphs 1 through 5 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 34. On or about August 18, 19, and 20, 2011, respectively, articles appeared in the Toledo Blade and Canton Repository newspapers questioning the significant number of maximum contributions made by employees of Company A to the 2012 House Campaign and the 2012 Senate Campaign. These articles became known to BENJAMIN SUAREZ, MICHAEL GIORGIO, and others at Company A. 35 . Beginning in or around August 2011, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began conducting an investigation of Company A, its officers, employees, and those associated with their campaign contributions and related activities. The scope of the FBl's investigation included potential campaign finance violations, corruption, and other related criminal violations. 36. Beginning in or around January 2012, a federal Grand Jury in the Northem District of Ohio began conducting an investigation of Company A, its officers, employees, and those Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 16 of 35. Page|D 16 1 6 associated with their campaign contributions and related activities. The scope of the Grand Jury' investigation included potential campaign fmance violations, corruption, and other related criminal violations. As part of the Grand Jury's investigation, subpoenas were issued, documents and evidence were gathered and witnesses testified. 37. On or about January 19, 2012, a federal Grand Jury subpoena was served on Company A, with a return date of February 28, 2012 ("Grand Jury Subpoena 'Grand Jury Subpoena #1 commanded production of the following documents, among others: Any and all records reflecting payments of any kind, including, but not limited to salaries, commissions, bonuses, royalties, prof1t~sharing, and expense or other reimbursements, for the time period of January 1, 2011, to the present, made to or received from (including credits or offsets) any of the following individuals. [List of certain Company A employees Whose names were used as conduits to make contributions to the 2012 House Campaign and the 2012 Senate Campaign]. Company A produced certain documents in response to Grand Jury Subpoena #1 on February 24, 2012, and on August 8, 2012. 38. On or about July 17, 2012, a federal Grand Jury subpoena was served on Company A, with a return date of August 8, 2012 ("Grand Jury Subpoena Grand Jury Subpoena #2 commanded production of the following documents, among others: Any and all records . . . regarding the computation and/or payment of profit sharing provided to any employee from January 1, 2006 - the present; any and all records regarding any advancement on profit sharing provided to any employee from January 1, 2001 --'present. . . . Company A produced certain documents in response to Grand Jury Subpoena #2 on August 8, 2012, and on August 21, 2012. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 17 of 35. Page|D 17 17 _39. On or about August 27, 2012, a federal Grand Jury subpoena was served on Company A, with a return date of September 11, 2012 ("Grand Jury Subpoena Grand Jury Subpoena #3 commanded production of the following documents, among others: Any and all records including, but not limited to email messages, correspondence, memoranda, notes, calendar entries, checks, logs, receipts, contracts, photographs, invitations, flyers or other documents: >16 2. Reflecting any and all _contacts between Ben Suarez, Mike Giorgio, or [a person whose initials are and [the 2012 House Campaign candidate, 2012 House Campaign employees _whose initials are L.E. or or any other member of [the 2012 House Campaign candidate's] campaign or office staff, [the 2012 Senate Campaign candidate, a 2012 Senate Campaign employee whose initials are or any other member of [the 2012 Senate Campaign candi__date's] campaign or office staff. 3. Reflecting, discussing, addressing or relating to litigation or threatened litigation against the Suarez Corporation, its principals, employees and representatives by one or more district attorneys in the State of California and provided to or received from [the 2012 House Campaign candidate, 2012 House Campaign employees whose initials are L.E. or or any other member of [the 2012 House Campaign candidate's] campaign or office staff, [the 2012 Senate Campaign candidate, a 2012 Senate Campaign employee whose initials are or any other member of [the 2012 Senate Campaign candidate's] campaign or office staff. 4. Sent or provided to or received from [a person whose initials are between January 2, 2011 and the present relating to, reflecting, discussing or addressing political contributions by the Suarez Corporation, principals, employees or representatives to any candidate for elected office. Company A produced certain documents in response to Grand Jury Subpoena #3 on September 24, 2012, and on October 5, 2012. Case: Doc'#: 1 Filed: 09/24/13 18 of 35. Page|Dabout February 4, 2013, a federal Grand my subpoena was served on Company A, with a return date of February 26, 2013 ("Grand Jury Subpoena Grand Jury Subpoena #4 commanded production of the following documents, among others: Any and all records including, but not limited to email messages, correspondence, memoranda, notes, calendar entries, checks, payment records, logs, receipts, contracts, photographs, invitations, flyers, letters, copies of newspaper articles, pleadings or other documents, and all drafts or versions thereof, for the time period January 1, 2011, to the present: 5. Reflecting, referring to, discussing, addressing, or relating to, in any fashion, political contributions to any candidate for elected office or PAC. Company A produced certain documents in response to Grand Jury Subpoena #4 and on May 21, 2013, July 1, 2013, and July 16, 2013. A 41. During the course of their investigations, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Grand Jury obtained evidence, documents and records from various sources indicating that Company A, BENJAMIN SUAREZ and MICHAEL GIORGIO possessed documents and records that were responsive to the _Grand Jury subpoenas, but that Company A had not produced to the Grand Jury. 42. On or about January 22, 2013, during the course of the investigation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation executed a federal search warrant at Company A's offices and recovered items responsive to Grand Jury subpoenas and #3 described above. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 19 of 35. Page|D 19 1 9 The Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice 43 .- From in or around March 2011, through in or around September 2013, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, the defendants, BENJAMIN SUAREZ, MICHAEL GIORGIO, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowingly and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit offenses against the United States of America, that is: a. to knowingly conceal, cover up, and falsify, and make a false entry in records, documents, and tangible objects with the intent to impede, obstruct, and influence the investigation and proper administration of a matter within the jurisdiction of a department and agency of the United States, and in relation to and in contemplation of such matter and case, in Violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1519; b. to corruptly obstruct, influence and impede any official proceeding, and attempt to do so, in Violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2); and c. to knowingly attempt to intimidate, threaten, and corruptly persuade a witness and engage in misleading conduct toward a witness with the intent to influence, delay, and prevent the testimony of a witness in an official proceeding, to wit: testimony before a federal grand jury sitting in the Northern District of Ohio and any subsequent related trial, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 15 Obiects of the Conspiracy 44. The objects of the conspiracy were to impede, obstruct, delay and influence a federal investigation of illegal campaign contributions and other related criminal conduct (A) by Case: Doc 1 Filled: 09/24/13 20 of 35. Page|D 20 -- 20 covering up and concealing the true source and amount of contributions, and the identity of the true contributor to the 2012 House Campaign and the 2012 Senate Campaign; (B) by covering up and concealing the nature and extent of the relationship between Company A and BENJAMIN SUAREZ on the one hand, and the 2012 Senate Campaign candidate and the 2012 House Campaign candidate on the other, from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the federal Grand Jury, and agencies and departments with jurisdiction to administer and investigate those matters; and (C) by falsifying certain records, concealing and withholding others, and seeking to influence, delay and prevent the testimony and potential testimony of witnesses. Manner and Means 45. It was part of the conspiracy that BENJAMIN SUAREZ, MICHAEL GIORGIO, and others disguised the reimbursement payments from Company A to the conduit contributors so that they falsely appeared to be compensation for work performed for Company A by the conduit contributors, who were Company A employees and contractors. 46. It was further part of the conspiracy that Company A issued checks to reimburse the conduit contributors in the form of salary and profit sharing checks made payable to those conduits who were Company A employees and contractors. The amount of each check fully reimbursed the campaign contributions made by the Company A employee or contractor including, Where applicable, his or her spouse. The earnings statements for each check reflected withholding of an additional amount calculated to account for employment-related taxes and withholdings normally associated with salary and profit sharing payments so that each conduit contributor received the full amount of their and their spouses' contributions. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 21 of 35. Page|D 21 21 47. It was further part of the conspiracy that in or around October 2011, after learning that articles were published in the Toledo Blade and Canton Repository newspapers, and after learning that FBI Special Agents were investigating the true source of certain funds contributed by the conduit contributors to the 2012 House Campaign and the 2012 Senate Campaign, BENJAMIN SUAREZ and MICHAEL GIORGIO caused Company A's Controller to create and - distribute documents entitled "Advance on Profit Sharing Report" for each Company A employee and contractor, (with the exception of A.F.), who had been reimbursed for making contributions to the 2012 House Campaign, the 2012 Senate Campaign, or both. Those reports were intended to create the impression that the reimbursement payments that Company A had made previously to the conduit contributors were actually "advances" that all along were meant to be repaid to Company A by the employees and contractors, when in fact they were not. Those reports further included a calculation that subtracted the gross reimbursement amounts paid to the Company A employees and contractors (including amounts purportedly withheld as employment taxes) from profit sharing and commission amounts to be paid to the Company A employees and contractors in the future. I 48. It was further part of the conspiracy that in or around October 2011, after learning that articles were published in the Toledo Blade and Canton Repository newspapers, and after learning that FBI Special Agents were investigating the true source of certain funds contributed by the conduit contributors to the 2012 House Campaign and 2012 Senate Campaign, and without the prior agreement or consent of the conduit contributors, BENJAMIN SUAREZ, MICHAEL GIORGIO, and others, directly and indirectly caused Company A to offset the reimbursement payments Company A previously made to the conduit contributors against profit sharing and other Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 22 of 35. Page|D 22 22 compensation that the Company A employees and contractors earned in October 2011 and thereafter. 49. It was further part of the conspiracy that Company A, BENJAMIN SUAREZ, and MICHAEL GIORGIO withheld documents, delayed the production of documents, and produced other documents only after learning that the Grand Jury had obtained them from other sources, which were responsive to a series of federal Grand Jury subpoenas relating to the federal investigation of improper campaign contributions and related criminal conduct. 50. It was further part of the conspiracy that BENJAMIN SUAREZ and MICHAEL GIORGIO sought to develop a coordinated and inaccurate story to present to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the federal Grand Jury, and agencies and departments with jurisdiction to investigate the contributions to the 2012 House Campaign and the 2012 Senate Campaign and the other matters set out herein being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Grand Jury. 5.1. It was further part of the conspiracy that BENJAMIN SUAREZ sought to influence, delay and prevent the testimony of an employee of Company A, whose initials are B.H., concerning the contributions to the 2012 House Campaign, the 2012 Senate Campaign and related matters by writing and having delivered a letter to B.H. relating to B.H.'s upcoming testimony before a federal Grand Jury, telling her not to communicate with her own lawyer, and containing an inaccurate version of events that SUAREZ wished to present; writing and circulating an inaccurate letter to the employees of Company A opining that B.H.'s mental abilities had been compromised, referencing medical issues experienced by BH., alleging that B.H. was under federal investigation, and opining that B.H. had suffered a personal tragedy as a result of the Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 23 of 35. Page|D 23 23 investigation; and making statements to B.H. opining that B.H.'s mental abilities had been compromised. 52. It was further part of the conspiracy that BENJAMIN SUAREZ sought to influence, delay and prevent the testimony of an employee of Company A, whose initials are M.P., by writing and having delivered a two page typewritten document to M.P. with the heading WILL TESTIFY TO THE and containing an inaccurate version of events that SUAREZ wished to present. Overt Acts 53. To further the objects of the conspiracy, the members of the conspiracy committed the following overt acts, among others, in the Northern District of Ohio and elsewhere: Disguising the Nature of the Reimbursements to the Conduit Contributors 54. In or around March 2011 through in or around April 2011, BENJAMIN SUAREZ, MICHAEL GIORGIO, and Company A caused reimbursements for approximately $90,000 in contributions to the 2012 House Campaign to be disguised as compensation from Company A using the following means, with each reimbursement constituting a separate overt act: Overt" Initials of Approximate Act No. Conduit Reimbursement Reimbursed All Described as Regular Salary 1 M.B. $15,661.71 Check dated 4/ 1/2011 2 S.S. $17,448.96 Check dated 4/1/2011 3 T.D. $17,448.96 Check dated 4/ 1/2011 4 MICHAEL $18,083.18 GIORGIO Check dated 4/ 1/2011 5 D.H. $14,695.08 Check dated 4/1/2011 Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 24 of 35. Page|D 24 24 6 B.H. $7,830.85 Check dated 4/ 1/2011 7 A.F. $7,830.85 Check dated 4/1/2011 8 P.K. $15,661.71 . Check dated 4/1/2011 9 J.W. $16,168.00 Check dated 4/1/2011 10 M.C. $15,987.00 Check dated 4/1/2011 55. In or around May 2011 through in or around June 2011, BENJAMIN SUAREZ, MICHAEL GIORGIO, and Company A caused approximately $100,000 in contributions to the 2012 Senate Campaign to be disguised as compensation from Company A using the following means, with each reimbursement constituting a separate overt act: Overt Initials of Approximate Act No. Conduit Reimbursement Reimbursed All Described as Profit Sharing 1 M.B. $15,661.71 Cheek dated 5/27/2011 2 S.S. $8,726 Check dated 5/27/2011 3 E.C. $7,770.01 Check dated 5/27/2011 4 T.D. $17,376.19 Check dated 5/27/2011 5 MICHAEL $18,083.18 GIORGIO Check dated 5/27/2011 6 D.H. $14,695.08 - Check dated 5/27/2011 7 B.H. $8,613 .26 Check dated 5/27/2011 8 A.F. $7,830.85 Check dated 5/27/2011 9 P.K. $15,661.71 Check dated 5/27/2011 Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 25 of 35. Page|D 25 25 10 J.W. $16,299.92 Cheek dated 5/27/ 201 1 11 M.L. $8,688.10 Check dated 5/27/2011 12 S.P.L. $8,426.60 Check dated 5/27/2011 13 M.S. $8,149.96 Check dated 5/27/2011 14 J.T. $7,575.00 Check dated 5/27/2011 Receipt describes purpose -with name of candidate for U.S. Senate Recharacterizing the Reimbursements as Advances on Profit Sharing 56. In or around October 2011, BENJAMIN SUAREZ and MICHAEL GIORGIO caused Company A's Controller to create "Advance on Profit Sharing Reports" as described below and distribute them to the following conduit contributors to the 2012 House Campaign, the 2012 I Senate Campaign, or both, with each recharacterization constituting a separate overt act: Overt Act No. Initials' of Recipient/Conduit Approximate Amount Recharacterized as an "Advance on Profit Sharing" M.B. $31,323.42 s.s. $26,174.96 3 E.C. $7,770.01 4 $34,325.15 MICHAEL GIORGIO $36,166.36 D.H. $29,390.16 7 B.H. $32,105.31 Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 26 of 35. Page|D 26 26 3 $31,322.42 9 J.W. $32,467.92 10 M..C. 0 $15,937.00 11 M.L. $3,633.10 12 S.P.L. $3,426.00 13 M.S. $3,149.96 57. On or about November 13, 2012, MICHAEL GIORGIO provided an "Advance on Profit Sharing Report" to a persorfs whose initials are .T., a contractor of Company A who was used as a conduit for a contribution to the 2012 Senate Campaign. 5 8. On or about November 25, 2011, BENJAMIN SUAREZ and MICHAEL GIORGIO caused Company A to withhold payment of money from Company A employees and contractors and to offset such monies against the campaign contribution reimbursement payments that Company A had previously made on or about April 1, 2011, and May 27, 2011. 59. On or about December 9, 2011, and December 22, 2011, BENJAMIN SUAREZ and MICHAEL GIORGIO caused Company A to withhold payment of money from Company A employees and contractors and to offset such monies against the campaign' contribution reimbursement payments that Company A previously had made on or about April 1, 2011, and May 27, 2011. 60. In or around January 2012, BENJAMIN SUAREZ and MICHAEL GIORGIO caused Company A to withhold payment of money from Company A employees and contractors Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 27 of 35. Page|D 27 -27 and to offset such monies against the campaign contribution reimbursement payments that Company A previously had made on or about April 1, 2011, and May 27, 2011. 61. In or around February 2012, BENJAMIN SUAREZ and MICHAEL GIORGIO caused Company A to withhold payment of money from Company A employees and contractors and to offset such monies against the campaign contribution reimbursement payments that Company A previously had made on or about April 1, 2011, and May 27, 2011. 62. In or around March 2012, BENJAMIN SUAREZ. and MICHAEL GIORGIO caused Company A to withhold payment of money from Company A employees and contractors and to offset such monies against the campaign contribution reimbursement payments that Company A previously had made on or about April 1, 2011, and May 27, 2011. 63. In or around April 2012, BENJAMIN SUAREZ and MICHAEL. GIORGIO caused Company A to withhold payment of money from Company A employees and contractors and to offset such monies against the campaign contribution reimbursement payments that Company A previously had made on or about April 1, 2011, and May 27, 2011. I Documents Withheld in Response to Grand Jury Subpoenas 64. From on or about September 11, 2012, through on or about January 22, 2013, in response to Grand Jury Subpoena Company A, BENJAMIN SUAREZ, and MICHAEL GIORGIO Withheld a one-page note in SUAREZ's handwriting and an attached five-page typewritten document seeking to coordinate their stories and containing GIORGIO's handwriting recounting his version of the conduit contributions, the conduit contributors' profit sharing, and contact with the 2012 House Campaign and the 2012 Senate Campaign. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 28 of 35. Page|D 28 28 65. From on or about January 14, 2013, through on or about January 22, 2013, in response to Grand Jury Subpoena Company A and MICHAEL GIORGIO withheld a printed email from a conduit contributor, whose initials are .T., to GIORGIO regarding the conduitis reimbursement for money deducted without his knowledge from his commissions "for the political issue" and stating that when he "wrote the original check" it was "with the knowledge I was being reimbursed NOT to be deducted again in the future." The document contained handwriting of both GIORGIO and BENJAMIN SUAREZ regarding .T.'s request. 66. 'From on or about February 28, 2012, through on or about January 22, 2013, Company A and MICHAEL GIORGIO withheld a document summarizing the "Advance Profit Sharing Payments Paid April 1, 2011 and May 27, 2011" purportedly made to each conduit contributor to the 2012 Senate Campaign, the 2012 House Campaign, or both, that was responsive to Grand Jury Subpoenas #1 and 67. . From on or about February 28, 2012, through on or about January 22, 2013, in - response to Grand Jury Subpoena Company A and MICHAEL GIORGIO withheld documents I that contain GIORGIO's handwritten notes, regarding the wages from January 1, 2007, through September 15, 2011, of employees and other persons associated with Company A who were conduit contributors to the 2012 Senate Campaign. 68. From on or about February 28, 2012, through on or about January 22, 2013, Company A and MICHAEL GIORGIO withheld a series of documents summarizing profit sharing amounts due in November and December 2011 to employees and contractors of Company whose names were used to make conduit contributions to the 2012 Senate Campaign, the 2012 House Campaign, or both, subtracting the amounts previously reimbursed to them by Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 29 of 35. Page|D 29 29 Company A for such contributions, and including handwritten notes, that were responsive to Grand Jury Subpoenas #1 and 69. From on or about February. 28, 2012, through on or about January 22, 2013, Company A and MICHAEL GIORGIO withheld part of a document evidencing direct contact between Company A and the 2012 Senate Campaign, which was responsive to Grand Jury Subpoenas #1 and 70. From on or about September 11, 2012, through on or about January 22, 2013, in response to Grand Jury Subpoena Company A withheld a string of printed emails dated March 7, 2011, and March 8, 2011, between an Company A employee whose initials are LP. and a consultant to BENJAMIN SUAREZ, Whose initials are C.B., regarding delivery of a package to the 2012 Senate Campaign, which contained handwritten notes. 71. From on or about September 1 1, 2012, through on or about September 22, 2013, in - response to Grand Jury Subpoena Company A withheld an email dated March 21, 2011, at 11:55 AM, from 2012 Senate Campaign employee S.G. to an Company A employee whose initials are M.P. in which S.G. asked M.P. to "give me a quick buzz" regarding a letter am working on . today." 72. From on or about September 11, 2012, through on or about September 22, 2013, in response to Grand Jury Subpoena Company A withheld an email dated March 22, 2011, from 2012 Senate Campaign employee S.G. to M.P. referencing an attached letter regarding Company A's business interests. I 73. From on or about September 11, 2012, through on or about January 22, 2013, in response to Grand Jury Subpoena Company A, BENJAMIN SUAREZ, and MICHAEL Case: DOC #2 1 Filed: 09/24/13 30 of 35. Page|D 30 30 GIORGIO Withheld a fax cover sheet sent on March 25, 2011, from C.B. to SUAREZ stating that the 2012 House Campaign candidate "Would appreciate a $5,000 [sic] from you and Nancy" that also contained SUAREZ's handwriting directing "Mike" to arrange such contributions.' 74. From on or about September 11, 2012, through on or about January 22, 2013, in response to Grand Jury Subpoena Company A withheld a letter dated March 29, 2011, regarding Company A's business interests. 75. - From on or about September 11, 2012, through on or about January 22, 2013, in response to Grand Jury Subpoena Company A, BENJAMIN SUAREZ, and MICHAEL GIORGIO withheld a fax cover sheet sent on April 8, 2011, from 2012 Senate Campaign employee to SUAREZ. The fax contained SUAREZ's handwritten note "Mike Give $30 [thousand] 76. From on or about September 11, 2012, through on or about January 22, 2013, in response to Grand Jury Subpoena BENJAMIN SUAREZ and Company A withheld a memor_andum to SUAREZ. from 2012 Senate Campaign employee S.G. dated April 8, 2011, referencing the Ohio Senate Fund, a joint fundraising committee. At the bottom of the memorandum was a handwritten note 4-13-11 CK #2674". 77. I From on or about September 11, 2012, through on or about January 22, 2013, in response to Grand Jury Subpoena Company A, BENJAMIN SUAREZ, and MICHAEL GIORGIO withheld a memorandum to SUAREZ from the 2012 Senate Campaign candidate dated May 13, 2011, U.S. Senate Campaign Fundraising Deadline," that discussed the candidate's request that SUAREZ raise $100,000 for his campaign, and included a handwritten - Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 31 of 35. 31 31 note from the candidate to SUAREZ, as well as a blank contribution form explicitly stating that corporate contributions were prohibited by law. I 78. From on or about September 11, 2012, through on or about January 22, 2013, in response to Grand Jury Subpoena Company A withheld a string of printed emails among L.P., M.P., C.B., and others, beginning on or about May 17, 2011 and continuing through on or about May 24, 2011, as Well as the attached letters, discussing drafts of correspondence concerning Company business interests. 79. From on or about September 11, 2012, through on or about January 22, 2013, in response to Grand Jury Subpoena Company A Withheld a printed email dated May 20, 2011, from M.P. to L.P. and others regarding a letter to be sent to public officials regarding Company A's business interests. 80. From on or about August 8, 2012, through or about March 1, 2013, in response to Grand Jury Subpoena Company A and MICHAEL GIORGIO withheld an "Advance on Profit Sharing Report" for a person whose initials are .T., a contractor of Company A, who was a conduit contributor to the 2012 Senate Campaign. 81. From on or about February 28, 2012, through on or about September 22, 2013, Company A and MICHAEL GIORGIO withheld a string of emails dated May 23, 2011, between I GIORGIO and conduit contributor M.L. regarding contributions to the 2012 Senate Campaign wherein GIORGIO stated that the contribution an individual could give was limited to $5,000, not $10,000, and M.L. responded that he needed to run for something to obtain contributions, which emails were responsive to Grand Jury Subpoenas #1 and Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 32 of 35. Page|D 32 32 82. From on or about February 26, 2013, through on or about September 22, 2013, in response to Grand Jury Subpoena Company A and MICHAEL GIORGIO withheld an email dated August 18, 2011, from GIORGIO to conduit contributor D.H. forwarding a link to a news article regarding contributions by Company A employees to the 2012 Senate Campaign. 83. From on or about February 26, 2013, through on or about September 22, 2013, in response to Grand Jury Subpoena Company A and MICHAEL GIORGIO withheldlan email dated August 18, 2011, from GIORGIO to conduit contributor P.K. forwarding a link to a news article regarding contributions by Company A employees to the 2012 Senate Campaign. 84. From on or about February 26, 2013, through on or about September 22, 2013, in response to Grand Jury Subpoena Company A withheld an email dated December 15, 2011, from conduit contributor M.B. to conduit contributor S.P.L. in which M.B. stated that he Wanted his $10,000 contribution to the 2012 Senate Campaign candidate back. 85. From on or about February 28, 2012, through on o.r about January 22, 2013, in response to Grand Jury Subpoena Company -A and MICHAEL GIORGIO withheld a string of emails dated September 23, 2011, among M.P., a Company A employee Whose initials are N.W., conduit contributor B.H., and an outside accountant. The email and its attachment reflected the accountant's review of financial records for the Company A employees who contributed to the 2012 House Campaign and the 2012 Senate Campaign and indicated they each made an average of - more than $1.2 million in income in 2008 and-more than $580,000 in 2010. - Witness Tampering 86. Sometime between on or about July 23, 2012, and on or about August 8, 2012, BENJAMIN SUAREZ caused a one-page note in SUAREZ's handwriting and an attached Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 33 of 35. Page|D 33 33 five-page typewritten' document to be hand-delivered to the home of B.H. relating to B.H's upcoming testimony before a federal Grand Jury and containing an inaccurate Version of events that SUAREZ wanted B.H. to adopt and attest to and otherwise understand to be what SUAREZ wished to present. 87. On or about February 25, 2013, BENJAMIN SUAREZ caused an inaccurate letter to be hand--delivered to Company A's employees opining that B.H.'s mental abilities had been compromised, referencing medical issues experienced by B.H., alleging that B.H. was under federal investigation, and opining that B.H. had suffered a tragic "loss as a result. I 88. On or_about February 25, 2013, BENJAMIN SUAREZ told B.H. that he believed her mental abilities had been compromised. 89. On or about January 22, 2013, MICHAEL GIORGIO possessed a one-page handwritten note SUAREZ and an attached five-page typewritten document containing GIORGIO's handwriting that contained an inaccurate version of events that SUAREZ and GIORGIO planned to coordinate and present. 90. Sometime prior to in or around July 2013, BENJAMIN. SUAREZ caused M.P. to possess a two-page typewritten document from SUAREZ entitled WILL TESTIFY TO THE and containing an inaccurate version of events that SUAREZ wanted M.P. to adopt and attest to and otherwise understand to be what SUAREZ wished to present. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 34 of 35. Page|D 34 34 The Grand Jury further charges: COUNT 8 (Witness Tampering, 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(1)) 91. Paragraphs 1 through 5 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. I 92. Beginning in or around July or August 2012 and continuing through in or around February 2013, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, the defendant, BENJAMIN I SUAREZ, did knowingly attempt to use intimidation, threaten, and corruptly persuade another person and engage in misleading conduct toward another person who worked for Company A, whose initials are B.H., by writing and having delivered to B.H. at B.H.'s home a one-page note in SUAREZ's handwriting with an attached five-page typewritten document-relating to and providing direction regarding B.H.'s upcoming testimony before a federal grand jury, telling her. not to communicate with her own lawyer, and containing an inaccurate version of events that SUAREZ wished to present; writing and circulating an inaccurate letter to the employees of Company A opining that B.H.'s mental abilities had been compromised, referencing medical issues experienced by B.H., alleging that B.H. was under federal investigation, and opining that B.H. had suffered a tragic loss as a result of the investigation; and making statements to B.H. opining that B.H.'s mental abilities had been compromised, all with the intent to influence, delay, and prevent the testimony of B.H. in an official proceeding, to wit: testimony before a federal grand jury sitting in the Northern District of Ohio and any subsequent related trial, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section Case: Doc 1 Filed: 09/24/13 35 of 35. Page|D 35 35 - The Grand Jury further charges: COUNT 9 (Obstruction of Justice, 18 U.S.C. 1512(c) and 2) 93. Paragraphs 1 through 5 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 94. From in or around July 2012, through on or about January 22, 2013, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, the defendants BENJAMIN SUAREZ and MICHAEL GIORGIO, aided and abetted by each other, did corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede any official proceeding, and attempt to do so, by creating and then concealing the existence of a one--page note in SUAREZ's handwriting and a five-page typewritten document containing handwriting, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 15l2(c)(2) and 2. A TRUE BILL. Original documen -- Signatures on file with the Clerk of Courts, pursuant to the E--Government Act of 2002.