Skip to main content

Daniel Hughes Admits to Stealing Nearly $300,000 in Union Funds

Daniel Hughes, the former president of the Port Authority Field Supervisors Association, Inc., Local 111-S (“Local 111-S”), pleaded guilty today to a felony information charging him with embezzling union funds. The proceedings were held before United States District Judge Eric N. Vitaliano at the U.S. Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York.

The guilty plea was announced by Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and Robert E. Van Etten, Inspector General for The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Local 111-S’s membership is comprised of approximately 250 Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Operations/Field Supervisors who worked at Port Authority facilities including various, tunnels, and airports. As president of Local 111-S, Hughes had the authority to write and cash checks from the union’s bank account, withdraw money from the union’s bank account, and charge items and services necessary and proper to conduct Local 111-S business. Hughes also had a duty to hold the union’s money solely for the benefit of the organization and its members. Instead, from approximately January 2005 to December 2009, Hughes stole approximately $294,000 in union funds for his personal use.

“The defendant took advantage of his position as a trusted agent of the union to embezzle proceeds for his personal gain,” stated United States Attorney Lynch. “A union relies on its leaders to act with honesty and integrity. When union members are defrauded by one whose job it is to act on their behalf, we will bring the wrongdoer to justice.”

Inspector General Van Etten stated: “This Port Authority employee took advantage of his position as the President of a Union and abused it in a calculated and egregious manner. He embezzled the hard earned moneys of union members and spent it on personal items that were in no way related to his duties and responsibilities as the Union’s president.”

When sentenced, Hughes faces a maximum of five years’ imprisonment.

The government’s case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Todd Kaminsky, Marisa Megur Seifan, and Duncan Levin.

The Defendant:



DANIEL HUGHES
Age: 49

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 ...