Skip to main content

Purchasing Official at a New York City Hospital Pleads Guilty to Bid Rigging

WASHINGTON — A New York Presbyterian Hospital (NYPH) purchasing official pleaded guilty today to conspiring to rig bids on re-insulation services contracts, the Department of Justice announced today.

Freddy Deoliveira, who held various supervisory positions at the NYPH, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. According to the charge, between approximately October 2000 and March 2005, Deoliveira conspired with others to create the appearance that contracts at NYPH were awarded in accordance with NYPH’s competitive bid policy, when, in fact, they were not. Deoliveira admitted that he designated which company would submit the low bid on a contract, and which company or companies would submit higher, complementary bids, to ensure that his designated company would be awarded the contract. To create the illusion of a competitive bidding process, Deoliveira’s co-conspirators would use each other’s letterhead to submit the high, noncompetitive bids. In exchange for awarding the contracts to the designated bidder, Deoliveira received cash kickbacks from his co-conspirators.

The bid rigging violation with which Deoliveira is charged carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victim of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.

This charge arose from an ongoing federal antitrust investigation of fraud, bribery, tax-related offenses and bidding irregularities relating to contracts administered by the Facilities Operations Department and the Engineering Department at NYPH and the Engineering Department at Mount Sinai Medical Center. To date, seven individuals and three companies have pleaded guilty to charges arising out of the same investigation. The investigation is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s New York Field Office, the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation’s New York Field Office.

Anyone with information concerning bid rigging, bribery, tax offenses or fraud related to contracts administered by the Facilities Operations Department at NYPH or the Engineering Departments at Mount Sinai or NYPH should contact the Antitrust Division’s New York Field Office at 212-264-9308 or the FBI’s New York Division at 212-384-4467.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...