Skip to main content

Suffolk County Police have arrested two men for using identifying information of eight business in Suffolk County on National Grid rebate applications, costing the utility approximately $100,000 in energy rebates.

Starting in September 2009, Ralph Bianco, 53, and John Glaser, 53, applied for energy efficiency rebates using the identifying information of eight businesses in Suffolk County. National Grid offered an Energy Efficiency Program for commercial properties to perform upgrades that would conserve energy. Bianco, a heating and air-conditioning technician, applied for rebates under the program with the assistance of Glaser, who was employed by National Grid. The efficiency upgrades were not performed and the applications were submitted without the knowledge of the business owners.

The fraud was revealed approximately two months ago when an Amityville business owner became suspicious upon learning that someone had applied for a rebate using his company’s information. A rebate was never issued because the tax identification number for the business was not included on the fraudulent application. Following the business owner’s complaint, both National Grid and the Suffolk County Police Identity Theft Unit began an investigation.

Bianco represented himself under the business name JMR Energy and applied for and received rebate checks valued between $7,200 and $10,000 from National Grid. The applications generally were submitted using existing business names, addresses, tax identification numbers and National Grid account numbers.

Bianco, of 102 Copeland Place, Farmingdale, and Glaser, of 239 Tremont Ave., Lindenhurst, were both charged with one count of Grand Larceny 2nd Degree, and 11 counts of Identity Theft 1st Degree. Glaser was arraigned today at First District Court in Central Islip. Bianco surrendered today at the First Precinct, in West Babylon, and is scheduled to be arraigned on June 8.

The Identity Theft Unit is continuing its investigation and believes there are possibly 50 to 60 other business locations that may have been affected by the scam. Detectives are asking anyone with information regarding this case to call anonymously to Crime Stoppers at 1-800-220-TIPS.

A criminal charge is an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

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 ...