# **Encyclopedia of Ethical Failure**

Department of Defense

##### Office of General Counsel

##### Standards of Conduct Office

###### June 2006

#### **Contents**

Introduction [3](#__RefHeading___Toc138655124)

Disclaimer [3](#section)

Abuse of Position [4](#abuse-of-position)

Bribery (18 U.S.C. § 201-Type Violations
[6](#__RefHeading___Toc138655127)

Compensation for Representational Services from Non-Federal Sources (18
U.S.C. § 203-Type Violations) [22](#__RefHeading___Toc138655128)

Conflicts of Interest (18 U.S.C. § 208-Type Violations)
[29](#__RefHeading___Toc138655129)

Credit Card Abuse [44](#credit-card-abuse)

Financial Disclosure Violations [48](#__RefHeading___Toc138655131)

Fraud (Violations Not Covered Elsewhere)
[51](#__RefHeading___Toc138655132)

Gambling and Other Contest Violations [54](#__RefHeading___Toc138655133)

Gift Violations [56](#gift-violations)

Involvement in Claims Against the Government or in Matters Affecting the
Government (18 U.S.C. § 205-Type Violations)
[60](#__RefHeading___Toc138655135)

Misuse of Government Resources [64](#__RefHeading___Toc138655136)

Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Issues
[76](#__RefHeading___Toc138655137)

Political Activity Violations [77](#political-activity-violations)

Post-Employment Violations (18 U.S.C. § 207-Type Violations)
[84](#__RefHeading___Toc138655139)

Salary for Government Work from Non-Government Source (18 U.S.C. §
209-Type Violations) [95](#__RefHeading___Toc138655140)

Time and Attendance Violations [103](#__RefHeading___Toc138655141)

Travel Violations [107](#travel-violations)

**Introduction**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc138655124 .anchor}

The Standards of Conduct Office of the Department of Defense General
Counsel's Office has assembled the following selection of cases of
ethical failure for use as a training tool. Our goal is to provide DoD
personnel with real examples of Federal employees who have intentionally
or unwittingly violated the standards of conduct. Some cases are
humorous, some sad, and all are real. Some will anger you as a Federal
employee and some will anger you as an American taxpayer.

Please pay particular attention to the multiple jail and probation
sentences, fines, employment terminations and other sanctions that were
taken as a result of these ethical failures. Violations of many ethical
standards involve *criminal* statutes. Protect yourself and your
employees by learning what you need to know and accessing your Agency
ethics counselor if you become unsure of the proper course of conduct.
Be sure to access them *before* you take action regarding the issue in
question. Many of the cases displayed in this collection could have been
avoided completely if the offender had taken this simple precaution.

The cases have been arranged according to offense for ease of access.
Feel free to reproduce and use them as you like in your ethics training
program. For example - you may be conducting a training session
regarding political activities. Feel free to copy and paste a case or
two into your slideshow or handout. Or use them as examples or
discussion problems. If you have a case you would like to make available
for inclusion in a future update of this collection please email it to
<soco@dodgc.osd.mil>. Fax it to (703) 697-1640.

####### Disclaimer

####### 

This *Encyclopedia of Ethical Failure* is intended to sensitize Federal
employees to the reach and impact of Federal ethics statutes and
regulations. It is best used to supplement personal verification of
those statutes and regulations. It should not be interpreted as a
binding or authoritative presentation of the law.

## Abuse of Position

**DEA Agent - Misuse of Position**

A DEA agent whose responsibilities included fleet management and
authorization of repairs of Government vehicles had attempted to obtain
free repair services for his personal vehicles from two vendors. The
agent also insinuated to the vendors that the cost of repairing his
personal vehicles could be recouped as part of the charges for repairs
to Government vehicles. After these allegations were substantiated, and
the agent was dismissed from DEA.

### Improper Use of Position

The Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)
investigated allegations that a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney
prepared another person\'s application for a visa with a cover
memorandum on DOJ stationery. The DOJ attorney also included one of his
DOJ business cards in the submission. The foreign individual was seeking
a visa in order to enter the country to perform certain functions for a
non‑profit organization. The DOJ attorney told OPR that he did not
intend to gain preferential treatment for the visa applicant by
identifying himself as a DOJ attorney, but believed his actions were
consistent with what DOJ employees are permitted to do on behalf of
non‑profit organizations.

OPR concluded that the actions of the DOJ attorney were improper, but
not intentionally so. Section 2635.703 of the Standards of Ethical
Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch prohibits employees from
using their position or title for purposes of endorsement.

"You obviously don\'t know who I am."

The son of a bureau director was denied a rental car because he was too
young. Outraged, his father wrote a scathing letter (on Agency
letterhead) to the president of the rental car company, and sent it off
in a U.S. postage-paid envelope. The president of the company was not
amused and returned his scathing response to the head of the Agency. As
a result of his action, the Bureau Director was treated to a four-hour
ethics session and a fine for personal use of official postage.

### \"But, Judge, I didn\'t get anything!\" 

An offshore safety inspector found much of the Government's equipment to
be in need of repairs to meet safety standards. He then referred the
business to his brother-in-law\'s repair shop. The rig operators smelled
a rat and called the FBI. They discovered that, in return for each
referral, the brother-in-law was treating the inspector to an evening
with a lady of dubious morals.

The case was brought to trial. In his defense, the inspector claimed
that he had not received a \"thing of value\" in return for the
referral. The judge didn\'t buy it - and neither did his wife.

## Use of Contractor Time

## Allegations were made against a Department of Defense (DoD) official regarding his use of contractor employees. The official directed two US Government contractors to entertain an acquaintance he met at a conference in Europe on his behalf. They were directed to take the person out to lunch as well as out on the town the following evening. The contractors rightly believed that the request was improper and as a result told the DoD official that they "had other plans." The DoD official told them to "cancel them." The contractors eventually took the acquaintance out that evening for several hours.

## After an investigation, it was determined that the DoD official had acted in violation of 5 CFR 2635.704 by utilizing contractors' time improperly. His supervisor counseled him and the proper reimbursements were made.

## Veterans Affairs Supervisors Push for Friends to be Hired

## A review found in two instances that Department of Veterans Affairs medical center supervisors recommended the hiring of close personal friends without divulging the relationship to human resources staff members. The review team recommended that disciplinary action be taken.

Bribery (18 U.S.C. § 201-Type Violations[]{#__RefHeading___Toc138655127
.anchor})

## Exchanging Contract for Computer Earns Prison Time

**The Facts:** The director of Respiratory Care at a Veterans Affairs
(VA) hospital in Shreveport, Louisiana, agreed to push through a VA
contract for a vendor, if the vendor supplied her with a laptop
computer. The VA Police and Security Service, as they are wont to do,
investigated and discovered this *quid pro quo*. The director was caught
and pleaded guilty to soliciting and receiving illegal gifts. She was
sentenced to 5 months in prison, to be followed by 7 months of home
confinement, and ordered to pay restitution of \$904. (Source: *Federal
Ethics Report*, Feb. 2001.)

**The Law:** 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B) (2003) forbids any public official
from accepting anything of value in exchange for an official act to be
performed, or because of any official act already performed. Violations
of this law can merit fines, imprisonment for up to 2 years, or both.

**Asking for a Bribe---Have You Lost Your Mind?**

**The Facts:** An employee at the Defense Megacenter at Kelly Air Force
Base, Texas, was working as a member of a source evaluation committee
reviewing contract proposals for a \$5 million contract when he struck
on this ingenious idea: Ask one of the potential contractors for a bribe
in exchange for his approval of the contractor's proposal! The
contractor apparently didn't think that this was such a good idea,
however. It contacted the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, which
investigated the case along with the Air Force. The investigation
included using an undercover agent, parading as the contractor's
representative, paying the employee the bribe. Having been caught with
his hand in the cookie jar, the employee pleaded guilty to accepting a
bribe and was sentenced to one year of probation and ordered to
participate in a mental health program---perhaps an appropriate remedy
for what proved to be a lame-brained scheme. (Source: *Federal Ethics
Report*, Feb. 2001.)

**The Law:** 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)(A) (2003) bars public officials and
any persons selected to be public officials from seeking anything of
value in return for "being influenced . . . in the performance of any
official act." The penalty for violating this law can include fines,
imprisonment for up to 15 years, or both, along with possible
disqualification from holding "any office of honor, trust, or profit"
with the United States Government.

## 

**Don't Be Too Gracious a Gift-Getter!**

**The Facts:** An employee of the Maritime Administration (MARAD), a
division of the Department of Transportation, oversaw contracts for ship
repairs. He also saw a contractor providing him with nice gifts to
reward his work---including a large-screen TV and a VCR. What could be
wrong with that? Plenty, according to the U.S. Attorney, who delivered
to this gracious gift-getter a four-month prison sentence, to be
followed by one year of probation, and an order for restitution in the
amount of \$7,460. The other gifts the employee could have refused;
these he was compelled to take. (Source: *Federal Ethics Report*, Feb.
2001.)

**The Law:** 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B) (2003) forbids any public official
from accepting anything of value in exchange for an official act, or
given for an official act already taken. A violation of this law can
result in fines, imprisonment for up to 2 years, or both.

**Not So Much of a Bright Bulb!**

**The Facts:** A former supervisor in the Bureau of Indian Affairs used
a Government-issue credit card to purchase excessive quantities of
overpriced light bulbs from a North Dakota company. In exchange for his
act as a poor shopper, he accepted \$21,000 in bribes. For his savvy
purchasing, he was sentenced to one year and nine months in prison and
ordered to pay \$72,000 in restitution.

**The Law:** 18 U.S.C. § 201(b) (2003) forbids Federal employees from
(among other things) seeking or receiving anything of value in return
for being influenced in the performance of an official act or to commit
or to assist the commission of any fraud against the United States. It
mandates fines, imprisonment for up to 15 years, or both, along with
disqualification from holding "any office of honor, trust, or profit
under the United States."

## FAA Employee Sentenced for Bribery

A former employee of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was
convicted of bribery. In carrying out his primary responsibility of
reviewing and processing applications for FAA-issued pilot certificates,
the employee accepted bribes of \$2,000 and an all-expense paid trip to
Korea in exchange for preferential treatment of applications for Korean
pilots from the flight school, Wings Over America.

The employee was sentenced to pay a \$2,000 fine and serve four months
in prison, followed by three years probation for violating 18 U.S.C.
201(b)(2). Bribery occurs when a public official seeks or accepts
anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of
an official act.

**Social Security Administration Employee\'s Bribery Conspiracy Ends in
Prison**

A Social Security Administration employee and her husband were convicted
for soliciting bribes from individuals seeking Social Security benefits
for themselves or family members. The couple approached citizens who
were having difficulty qualifying for Supplemental Social Security
benefits. They would offer to arrange to have benefits reinstated or to
complete paperwork for the individual. Afterwards, they demanded payment
for their services.

At their 1997 trial in Louisiana, a judge ordered the employee to 46
months imprisonment followed by three years probation. The employee\'s
husband received 30 months imprisonment followed by three years
probation. They each paid back \$23,809.33.

The offense of bribery occurs when a public official seeks or accepts
anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of
an official act.

**Navy Employee Sentenced for Gratuity Offense**

A Navy electrical foreman was sentenced for accepting \$9,300 in illegal
gratuities from a Government contractor. The foreman was convicted of
violating 18 U.S.C. 201 and was sentenced to 36 months probation and a
\$10,000 fine. The electrical foreman assisted a Government contractor
in obtaining a contract with the Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC). The
foreman had authority over certain Navy contracts relating to NAWC base
maintenance.

**Congressional Aide Sentenced for Corrupt Activities**

A former staff assistant to a U.S. Congressman was convicted of two
counts of accepting gratuities (18 U.S.C. 201) and one count of devising
and carrying out a scheme to defraud the Government (18 U.S.C. 1341).
The aide was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment on each count followed
by two years probation. The staff assistant accepted \$3,700 for
assisting individuals in obtaining permanent residency status by sending
endorsements on the Congressman\'s letterhead to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS). The aide was also involved in a scheme to
defraud aliens seeking permanent residency. The aide told the aliens
that if they were members in the Seventh Day Adventist Church, they
would be eligible for permanent resident status even though the INS
Special Religious Immigrant Work Program covers only church workers and
their immediate families who are employed by a religious organization.
The aliens were informed that for a fee, the aide would assist them in
applying with the INS. The aide received approximately \$400,000 from
1,000 aliens.

**HUD Official and Realtor Imprisoned for Bribery Scheme**

A former official at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) was sentenced for his role in a bribery scheme
involving HUD properties. The former official was paid bribes by a
realtor who in exchange was sold HUD properties at lower than their
appraised values. The bribes totaled over \$80,000, including a BMW
automobile. In return the HUD official sold the realtor 20 HUD
properties at one-third of their appraised value. The realtor then
resold the properties at their full market value. In addition to other
charges, both the HUD official and the realtor plead guilty to one count
of 18 U.S.C. 201 each.

The HUD official was sentenced to a 24-month prison term followed by 3
years probation and was ordered to pay \$1.4 million in restitution. The
realtor was sentenced to a 27-month prison term followed by 3 years
probation and was also ordered to pay \$1.4 million in restitution.

**United States Customs Service Special Agent Takes Informant Payoff
Funds**

Beginning in June 1987, the agent worked with an informant who provided
assistance to the Customs Service in criminal investigations. One of the
agent's duties was to monitor and assess the work of the informant.
During a period of several years, the informant received a number of
payments from the Customs Service as compensation for his services as
informant. On one or more occasions, the informant expressed gratitude
for the agent's assistance by observing that both he and the agent had
engaged in hard work for which the informant would receive substantial
compensation, but for which the agent only would receive his salary. The
informant offered to share with the agent a portion of his earnings from
the Customs Service. In April 1992, the agent nominated the informant
for a large payment, which represented a portion of the value of certain
assets forfeited as a result of information provided by the informant.
The agent then initiated a telephone conversation with the informant in
which he asked the informant for money. During August 1992, the
informant went to San Francisco to receive the payment. The agent
personally gave the informant a United States Treasury check in the
amount of \$110,875. While riding in a Government‑owned vehicle, the
informant attempted to hand the agent an envelope with \$4,000 in cash.
The agent responded that the informant should drop the envelope in the
car because he could not accept the cash directly. The informant left
the money in the car and the agent recovered it.

The agent pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to a charge of a
criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. 209, illegal supplementation of salary.
Under the plea agreement, the agent agreed to the imposition of a fine
of \$4,000 by the Court, to not seek employment with any Federal, state,
or local law enforcement Agency, and to pay a special assessment of
\$25. In exchange for these agreements, the United States agreed to move
to dismiss the Indictment charging the agent with a violation of 18
U.S.C. 201(c)(1)(B) and not to prosecute him for any other criminal
offense relating to his receipt of \$4,000 from the informant.

**Gratuity Accepted In Exchange for Immigration Services**

A pastor submitted an application for permanent residence to the United
States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS). The Southeastern Conference of Seventh‑Day Adventists
(Southeastern Conference) wanted the pastor to minister to two of its
congregations in Miami. On August 17, 1990, a Congressman sent a letter
to INS on behalf of the pastor. On May 31, 1991, a second letter from
the Congressman, this time signed by the pastor as well, was sent to
INS. Both letters were written on Congressional stationery. On August
21, 1991, the pastor's application for permanent residence was approved.
On July 8, 1993, the Congressional staffer who organized the scheme
received a \$500 gratuity from the Southeastern Conference for her
efforts on behalf of the pastor. The staffer used the same scheme to
assist another pastor in obtaining permanent residence so that he could
serve as minister for two of the Southeastern Conference\'s
congregations. The Congressman wrote to INS on July 26, 1993, on behalf
of the second pastor and the Southeastern Conference. The staffer
assisted the second pastor in his dealings with INS. On August 3, 1993,
INS approved the pastor's petition for residence and, on February 3,
1994, the staffer received a \$500 gratuity from the Southeastern
Conference for her efforts on behalf of the pastor. On April 26, 1994,
another foreign national paid the staffer \$2,700 for assisting her in
applying for permanent residence. The staffer submitted a petition to
INS on the person's behalf and signed the application as the preparer.
Although the application contained a signature, which purported to be
that of the staffer, she claimed that it was not her signature and that
she did not see the application prior to its submission. The staffer
knew that the foreign national was not eligible to become a permanent
resident of the U.S. but fraudulently misrepresented to her that she was
eligible in order to induce her to utilize the staffer's services.

The staffer was charged with two counts of accepting gratuities for
official acts performed, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 201(c)(1)(B) and
knowingly making a material false writing and presenting it to INS, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. She was also charged with accepting
compensation for services provided in relation to matters in which the
United States has a direct and substantial interest, in violation of 18
U.S.C. 203(a)(1), and mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341. The
staffer pled guilty to the five‑count indictment on September 30, 1996,
and was sentenced to 18 months of incarceration on April 18, 1997.

Multiple Charges Brought Against Air Force Officer and Accomplice for
Software Scheme

An Air Force officer was disgruntled after receiving notification that
he would not be promoted and was soon to be discharged without a
retirement annuity. He conspired with a base warehouse supervisor (while
also seeking employment with him) to unlawfully transfer superseded
software from the MacDill AFB warehouse he supervised to a private
company for subsequent sale. He arranged with the supervisor to remove
software called Oracle Tools and Database (Oracle). The Air Force
officer obtained possession of over 96 boxes of Oracle software by
making false statements in writing in an effort to gain authorization
from his superiors to have the software destroyed in place. Destruction
of superseded software was the responsibility of the Government
according to its agreements with software contractors. The Air Force
officer worked under the pretense that the Oracle software was being
turned over to a company for destruction. Instead, the officer provided
the Oracle software to a moving company that transported the boxes from
MacDill to a commercial storage facility rented by the warehouse
supervisor. Once in possession of the software, he searched for buyers
of the software. Originally, the U.S. Central Command had paid the
Government bulk rate of \$79,000 for the Oracle software in 1991. On the
gray market, this software was valued between \$35,000 and \$100,000.

The officer was convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. 208 (working on a
project that affected a company in which he had a financial interest),
while his co‑defendant, the warehouse supervisor, was convicted of
violations of 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(1), 18 U.S.C. 641 (theft of Government
property) and 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy). The officer was sentenced to 1
year probation and 150 hours community service. The warehouse supervisor
was imprisoned for 27 months with supervised release for 3 years.

**State Department Regional Security Officer (RSO) at the American
Embassy in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic Drives Automobile Scheme**

The RSO's primary duties included overseeing a small force of U.S.
Marines and a larger force of security guards. While the RSO had no
authority to enter into procurement transactions on the Government\'s
behalf, he did, in two separate transactions, engineer the purchase of
eight vehicles for the security company and some private citizens. The
security company's contract with the Government required that it use
three vehicles for patrols. These vehicles were purchased in the United
States and were free from substantial import duties when delivered to
the Dominican Republic by virtue of applications by the United States
Embassy for \"exonerations\" from the duties. Exonerations are given for
property to be used by foreign missions. With respect to the purchase of
the first four vehicles, the RSO was given \$50,000 by the security
company. The RSO carried at least \$39,000 in cash to Miami, which he
illegally failed to disclose to customs officials, and purchased 4
vehicles for \$39,000. The RSO kept the remaining \$11,000. Later, when
the RSO purchased four vehicles for individuals, he was given \$55,000
in cash. He returned to Miami with at least \$35,000 in cash, which
again he failed to report to Customs, and paid \$35,000 for four
vehicles which were sent to Santo Domingo and \"exonerated\" from import
duty after the RSO encouraged the exoneration process and initiated some
of the paperwork through an embassy employee. The RSO retained the
unspent \$20,000 difference between the purchase amount and the amount
he had been given to purchase the cars. The security company also was
required to provide weapons for its security force. The RSO arranged to
purchase the weapons for the security company by first attempting to
have certain firearm companies or retailers ship the weapons to the
Dominican Republic, notwithstanding the fact that the RSO did not have a
license to export the weapons. These companies refused to sell the
weapons to the RSO. Subsequently, he purchased the weapons from a
Baltimore gun shop after using Embassy letterhead and representing that
he was authorized to purchase weapons for the State Department. The gun
shop refused to ship the weapons to the RSO. The RSO then went to
Baltimore and personally purchased the weapons and sent them in a
lead‑lined diplomatic box to the Dominican Republic. The RSO gave most
of the weapons to the security company, but sold some extras that he
purchased to citizens of the Dominican Republic at considerable profit.
He also kept for himself the difference of \$2000 between the amount
that the security company had given him to purchase the guns and the
amount that the gun purchase had cost him.

The RSO was charged with making false statements to a firearms dealer,
receiving something of value for performance of an official act in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 201, participating as a Government employee in a
transaction in which he had a financial interest in violation of 18
U.S.C. 208, stealing ammunition with a value in excess of \$100 from the
United States, exporting firearms without a license, transporting
monetary instruments into the United States for the purpose of carrying
on a violation of the Arms Control Export Act, and failing to make a
true report to the Customs Service when carrying \$10,000 or more into
the United States. The jury convicted the RSO on the 201 count and the
count of the indictment pertaining to exporting firearms without a
license.

**Postal Employee Demanded Payoffs to Deliver Benefit Checks**

Having been tipped off that a letter carrier was demanding money from
people on his route in exchange for delivery of general assistance
checks, the Postal Service established surveillance and taped a
conversation in which the letter carrier suggested that the customer
make a \"one‑time\" payment of \$15 to ensure delivery of her checks.
The letter carrier accepted the payment, which had been marked in
advance of its transfer.

The letter carrier was indicted under 18 U.S.C. 201(c)(1)(B) for
accepting money in exchange for performing an official duty. After plea
negotiations, he pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 209, for
accepting compensation for official duties from a source other than the
Government. He was sentenced to three years\' probation, with 60 days at
a community treatment center.

**Employee Convicted for Steering Contracts to Supplier**

A Government technician and a co-worker went to a manufacturer and
offered to ensure that the manufacturer received Agency contracts in
return for a hefty \"finders fee.\" The manufacturer, unfortunately for
these enterprising employees, went to the FBI, which set up a sting
operation and arrested the technician. At trial, the technician, ever so
clever, argued that he could not be found guilty of bribery because he
was not a contracting officer, and therefore did not have the authority
to award contracts to the manufacturer. The court rejected this argument
after listening to testimony on the role of technicians as far as
providing expert information that contracting officers rely upon, and
upheld the conviction of the technician.

The offense of bribery occurs when a public official seeks or accepts
anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of
an official act. Such acts include giving advice, making
recommendations, and conducting investigations as well as making
decisions.

**Please Call Me "Doctor" Inmate**

One enterprising Federal employee cut a deal with a local university -
they gave him an honorary Ph.D. in public administration in return for
his signing a mega-buck grant for the university. (Obviously, he had
great expertise in Public Administration.)

The offense of bribery occurs when a public official seeks or accepts
anything of value (such as an honorary degree) in return for being
influenced in the performance of an official act.

## Agriculture Employee Sought for Approving Fraudulent Loans

A former employee of the Department of Agriculture is wanted for
recruiting his friends to fraudulently apply for farm loans and then
giving him money in exchange for approving the loans. The former
employee helped his non-farmer co-conspirators to fill out the required
forms with the information required for approval. Under this scheme, the
former employee approved loans totaling \$1.8 million. He collected
\$340,000 for himself.

The former employee has been charged with 98 counts including 56 for
bribery.

## Seven Agriculture Inspectors Sentenced for Bribery Scheme 

Seven U.S. Dept. of Agriculture fruit and vegetable inspectors were
convicted of operating a scheme in which they received cash payments
from fruit and vegetable wholesalers in return for the inspectors
assigning lower grades to their produce. The lower grade meant that the
wholesaler could pay the grower a lower price for the produce and then
re-sell it at the higher grade.

All pled guilty to one count of bribery each. Bribery occurs when a
public official seeks or accepts anything of value (such as cash) in
return for being influenced in the performance of an official act (such
as assigning produce grades).

## INS Inspector Accepts Bribes

A former Immigration and Naturalization Service inspector was sentenced
for accepting bribes in return for allowing smugglers to import cocaine
into the United States across the border with Mexico. He accepted
\$75,000 in bribes in return for allowing over 1,000 pounds of cocaine
to enter the country.

The former INS inspector was convicted of bribery and was sentenced to
30 months imprisonment followed by three years probation.

Former Federal Highway Administration Official and Wife Engage in
Corrupt Scheme

A former FHWA employee and his wife were sentenced for engaging in a
bribery and kickback scheme involving traffic engineering contracts. The
former employee improperly told a contractor that they would probably
win a contract. In return, the contractor granted a sub-contract to the
FHWA employee's wife's "consulting firm." The employee's wife had no
highway engineering education or experience. She received over \$100,000
in Government contracts.

In addition to other charges, the former employee pled guilty to one
count of bribery.

## VA Employee Convicted of Accepting Illegal Gratuities

A former employee of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs was
sentenced for soliciting and accepting gratuities from a VA vendor. He
received three computers, airline tickets, and hotel accommodations from
several VA vendors. He was also charged with demanding a fourth computer
and round trip tickets to Las Vegas from another vendor. The former
employee pled guilty to one count of violation of 18 U.S.C. 201.

## IRS Official Convicted for Steering Contracts

A former IRS official was sentenced in US District Court for accepting
bribes in return for directing IRS computing contracts to certain
companies and for failing to report the bribes on his income tax
returns.

He pled guilty to one count of bribery and to one count of filing a
false tax return, and received a 37 month prison term and three years
probation as a result. Bribery occurs when a public official seeks or
accepts anything of value in return for being influenced in the
performance of an official act.

**Special Operations Command Bribery Scandal Nabs Two Retired Officers**

Two retired military officers at SOCom found themselves in federal court
after the revelation of a scheme to funnel defense contracts to
companies willing to provide lucrative kickbacks. The first official was
a retired Army lieutenant colonel, and was employed by SOCom as a
contractor charged with evaluating weapons designed for the special
operations forces. The second official was a retired Army colonel, who
was chief of special programs at SOCom. Prosecutors allege that the
retired colonel formed a private consulting company in order to
represent companies seeking to get part of SOCom's \$1.8 billion
procurement budget. The consulting company then made illegal payments to
the retired lieutenant colonel in exchange for his favorable reviews of
their clients' weapons.

The retired lieutenant colonel pled guilty to federal bribery charges.
Although he faced 15 years in prison, his exemplary service and
cooperation with investigators earned him a reduced sentence of three
years of supervised probation, six months of home detention, and \$4500
in fines. The retired colonel has maintained his innocence, and faces up
to 15 years in prison and \$250,000 in fines.

**Iraq Contractor Caught Taking \$1 Million in Bribes**

A former contracting officer for the Iraqi coalition government pled
guilty to accepting over \$1 million in bribes in return for steering
contracts to a contractor with companies in Iraq and Romania. The
officer was a convicted felon when he was hired by a U.S. company, which
subsequently won a contract with the U.S. to provide controllers to
Iraqi regions. The officer was put in charge of over \$82 million in
funding for an area south of Baghdad. He quickly began accepting bribes
in the form of cash, cars, jewelry, and sexual favors from women
provided by a contractor, in exchange for steering lucrative contracts
in the contractor's direction. Investigators recovered incriminating
email traffic, including one email from the official to the contractor
exclaiming, "I love to give you money!" Later investigations showed that
much of the contracted work was never completed. Also implicated in the
scandal was a retired Army lieutenant colonel, who also worked as a
contracting officer in the region. He was accused of funneling contracts
to the same contractor in exchange for lucrative kickbacks, including a
new car; he also was accused of simply stealing large amounts of money
from reconstruction funds which he then smuggled into the U.S.

The official pled guilty to bribery, conspiracy, and money-laundering,
as well as charges connected with his illegal possession of at least 50
firearms, including machine guns and grenade launchers. He awaits
sentencing, and faces up to 30 years for the conspiracy charge alone.
The contractor pled guilty to conspiracy, bribery, and money-laundering.
He faces up to 40 years in prison, five years of supervised release and
a fine of \$750,000. He also must repay the government \$3.6 million and
forfeit \$3.6 million in assets. The lieutenant colonel's case is still
pending.

*(Source: Washington Post, February 2, 2006; April 16, 2006)*

**Cargo Contractor Faces 5 Years for Bribery**

A Navy contractor at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center
Charleston Detachment pled guilty to accepting bribes from a freight
forwarding company. In exchange for awarding freight transportation
contracts to the company, the contractor received items valued at more
than \$10,000, including extravagant dinners, concert and NASCAR
tickets, weekends at a bed-and-breakfast, jewelry, and "spa days" at a
department store. Investigators discovered that coincidentally, the
freight company's business was virtually nonexistent before the
contractor began awarding them contracts that eventually totaled over
\$700,000.

The contractor faces up to five years in prison and a \$250,000 fine.
She is the seventh defendant connected to an investigation of payoffs
between freight forwarding companies and government contractors.

*(Source: UPI, March 20, 2006)*

**Gift-Giving Contractor Faces 5 Years for Bribery**

The owner of a cargo company in Virginia Beach faces five years in
prison after giving thousands of dollars in gifts to federal contract
officers at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in exchange for lucrative
military shipping contracts. One federal contract officer, who had
worked for the government for 25 years, received free lunches and
dinners, an open tab at a delicatessen, airline tickets, concert and
NASCAR tickets, cigars, and a \$6,000 jacuzzi. The vice president of the
owner's cargo company was also indicted for bribes to another Norfolk
federal contract officer totaling over \$75,000. In return for these
gifts, the owner's company received over \$640,000 in shipping
contracts.

The owner faces up to five years in prison and \$250,000 in fines. The
two contract officers both pled guilty; the first has been sentenced to
44 months in prison, and the other awaits sentencing.

*(Source: Hampton News, 10/25/05)*

**Employees Fail to Profit from Red Tape**

Two workers at the Veterans Affair's Consolidated Mail Outpatient
Pharmacy, which mails prescriptions to veterans, were charged with
taking kickbacks for purchasing a product from a supplier at more than
twice the normal price. The product? Red tape. The employees were
charged with purchasing 100,000 rolls of the tape, which is stamped with
the word "security" and is meant to deter tampering, at \$6.95 a roll
rather than its \$2.50 retail value. In return, they received kickbacks
of more than \$1 per roll.

The duo will have plenty of time to appreciate the irony of their
situation, as they face a sentence of 15 years in jail.

**Reselling Commissary Goods Lands Two in Court**

A scheme to resell military commissary batteries on the black market
resulted in charges filed against a veteran and a Department of Defense
employee. Investigators discovered that the veteran was bribing the
employee to sell him large quantities of batteries from a commissary,
which the veteran then resold at a profit to a distributor. During a
one-year period, the employee sold the veteran \$750,000 worth of
batteries, which netted a \$20,000 profit on the black market. The
veteran kept \$11,000 of the proceeds, and kicked back the remaining
\$9000 to the employee.

The veteran pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of supplementing the
salary of a Federal employee, and was sentenced to one year of
probation. The employee was charged with bribery and taken to court. It
is illegal for individuals to either pay or receive salary supplements
for services performed by Government employees related to their
Government duties.

**Accepting Kickbacks Earns Contractor 11 Years**

A federal investigation into bribery ended in three fraud convictions
for the Chief of Plans, Requirements, and Acquisitions for the Defense
Systems Agency at the Navy Ship Parts Control Center. The Department of
Defense employee accepted \$500,000 in cash in exchange for awarding
\$18.1 million in contracts to an information technology company. The
investigation also uncovered a scheme by the employee, his brother, and
his nephew to defraud an environmental remediation business by
submitting phony invoices for more than \$76,000. The employee was also
convicted for lying about his wife's disability status to the Social
Security Administration.

This trio of offenses earned the employee 11 years in federal prison,
where he will have a family reunion with his brother and nephew as well
as his daughter, who was convicted of making false statements to the
grand jury.

*(Source: York Daily Record, March 29, 2006)*

**\
IRS Employee Goes to Jail for Accepting Gifts**

In the course of collecting the debt from a construction company, an IRS
Revenue Agent became friends with the owner. Such good friends, that the
agent accepted free games of golf from the owner, as well as a number of
free dinners at restaurants. Indeed, the owner and the agent were such
pals that the owner presented the agent with a cashier's check for
\$14,900, which he subsequently used to purchase a car.

Unsurprisingly, the agent admitted that the gifts adversely affected his
collection of the construction company's outstanding debt. The agent
received three years in jail and six months of home confinement for an
Unlawful Act of a Revenue Officer.

**Postal Service Worker Faces Jail Time for Bribery**

A U.S. Postal Service (USPS) employee responsible for receiving and
awarding bids on USPS printing orders was arrested for trading
Government contracts for cash. The employee funneled valuable contracts
to the owner of a Washington D.C. printing business in exchange for
payments of \$11,575 to the employee's divorce lawyer. Over the course
of the investigation, authorities uncovered four other printing
companies that admitted paying bribes to the former USPS employee.

The printing business owner pled guilty to bribery, and faces up to two
years in prison and a \$250,000 fine. The USPS employee's case is
pending in court.

**Compensation for Representational Services from Non-Federal Sources
(18 U.S.C. § 203-Type Violations)**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc138655128
.anchor}

**Receipt of Income by Federal Employee Results in 18 U.S.C. 203
Violation**

A former employee of the Department of Transportation was sentenced in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for receiving
unauthorized compensation from a Government contractor for performing
Government duties. The employee, in his capacity as a Supervisory Marine
Surveyor for the Maritime Administration, accepted compensation from BGI
Enterprise, Inc. for providing representational services in preparing a
bid package for a \$1 million U.S. Coast Guard contract to remove sunken
barges from the Intracoastal Waterway in Texas.

The employee pled guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. 203, and
the Government dropped its charge of making false statements to the
Government and failure to report the receipt of the unauthorized
compensation on his annual financial disclosure form. The employee was
sentenced to a one-year probation and ordered to pay a \$2,500 fine.

Under this criminal statute, in general, Federal employees may not
accept compensation for representing someone else before a Federal
agency on particular matters in which the United States is a party.

**INS Employee Accepts Illegal Payments**

A clerical employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
took money in exchange for assisting in processing INS employment
authorization documents.

She pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. 203(a)(1), for
receiving compensation for representational services rendered in a
particular matter before a department or Agency of the United States. On
December 12, 2000, she was sentenced to two years probation and a
\$1,000 fine.

**VA Employee Makes Improper Business Referrals**

A decedent affairs clerk at a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital acted as an
agent of another employee at the VA hospital, who moonlighted at a
nearby funeral home. The clerk referred VA officials to the funeral home
where his coworker moonlighted for the handling of bodies abandoned at
the VA hospital. The moonlighting employee paid the clerk for referrals.
Payments totaled approximately \$450.

The clerk pled guilty on October 13, 1999, to a misdemeanor violation of
18 U.S.C. 203(a)(1), for receiving compensation for representational
services rendered in a particular matter before a department or Agency
of the United States. On March 10, 2000, the moonlighting employee was
sentenced to pay \$25.

**Congressional Staffer Accepts Cash in Return for Assistance with INS**

A Congressional staff assistant for a member of Congress was assisting a
constituent with filing an application to normalize the immigration
status of the constituent\'s daughter. While doing so, he solicited and
received money from the constituent in exchange for the preparation and
filing of the application with the Immigration and Naturalization
Service.

He was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 203(a)(1)(B). On August 7, 1998,
he pled guilty and on February 5, 1999, he was sentenced to three
years\' probation, 100 hours of community service, a \$2,340 fine and
\$780 in restitution. Under this criminal statute, in general, Federal
employees may not accept compensation for representing someone else
before a Federal agency on particular matters in which the United States
is a party.

## 

## IRS Employees Take Bribes To Ignore Tax Delinquency

Two employees of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the two owners
of a car rental business engaged in a scheme in which they conspired to
improperly handle the company's delinquent tax debt. The company was
experiencing serious financial problems and had substantial Federal
employment tax delinquencies. The co‑owners of the company met with an
IRS employee who introduced them to another IRS employee. IRS employee
number 2 told the co‑owners how they could get their tax case
transferred from the IRS office where it was pending to the IRS office
where he was employed. At that point, he would permit the company to
remain in business and pay a minimal amount of its tax deficiency. The
co‑owners agreed to a payment of \$1,000 per month for this service.
During this time period, the co‑owners provided both IRS employees with
free rental cars and paid vacations to Florida. IRS employee number 2
also invested money and acquired an interest in the company. In a
separate scheme, IRS employee number 2 signed a one‑year contract with a
local levee board to perform an economic study. The contract called for
the IRS employee to be paid \$85 per hour; he received approximately
\$38,000 over the following year. At the same time, the levee board had
tax disputes pending under the employee's supervision at the IRS. He did
not disclose this fact to his supervisors at the IRS.

The rental car company owners each pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C.
203, offering compensation to a Government employee for representational
services rendered in a particular matter before a department or Agency
of the United States. Owner number 1 received one year probation and a
\$250 fine. Owner number 2 was sentenced to five years probation and
\$90,191 restitution. IRS employee number 1 pled guilty to violating 18
U.S.C. 201(b)(1)(A) (bribery) and was sentenced to five years probation
and a \$3,000 fine. IRS employee number 2 pled guilty to violating 18
U.S.C. 208(a), taking official action in matters affecting a personal
financial interest, as well as 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2) (bribery); he was
sentenced to twelve months in jail, three years supervised release, and
a \$3,000 fine.

**Congressional Staff Member Takes Payment to Help "Grease the Skids"**

A Congressional staff member solicited \$650 from a citizen who was
seeking relief from the state\'s Office of Workman\'s Compensation. He
told the citizen that the \$650 would help \"grease the skids\" in
getting her claim approved. The staff member specifically requested that
the money be provided in cash and arranged for it to be delivered
outside of the Congresswoman's office where he worked. The citizen later
reported the matter to the FBI who introduced an undercover FBI agent
who purported to have a worker\'s compensation claim. In tape‑recorded
conversations with the under‑cover agent, the staffer solicited \$650
from the agent. The pay‑off was videotaped. When interviewed several
days later, he initially stated he never accepted money from a
constituent. When shown a photo of the FBI agent, he stated that he had
been offered money by her but had turned her down. When told that the
person in the photo was an FBI agent, the staffer stated: \"I guess I\'m
in a lot of trouble, aren\'t I?\"

He was charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. 201 and 203 and pled guilty
to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. 203. He received a sentence of
probation and community service, and was ordered to pay restitution.

**DOT Employee Sentenced for 18 U.S.C. 203 Violation**

A former US Department of Transportation employee was sentenced in US
District Court for receiving unauthorized compensation from a Government
contractor for representing the contractor on a contract bid to the
Government. The former official admitted that he assisted a DOT
contractor in the preparation of a bid package for a \$1 million
Government contract. The judge sentenced the former employee to a year
of probation and to pay a \$2,500 fine.

**Department of Labor Associate Deputy Under Secretary Violates 18
U.S.C. 203**

The Associate Deputy Under Secretary for International Labor Affairs at
the Department of Labor was involved in an effort to promote low‑income
housing subsidized by the Mexican Government for low‑paid Mexican
workers living along certain sections of the United States‑Mexican
border. He was assigned the duty of pursuing arrangements for a low‑cost
housing project in 1991. The project was to be financed with private
funds. He briefed the Deputy Under Secretary for International Labor
Affairs on the progress of the project. During November 1991, he met
with United States officials in Mexico City to discuss, among other
things, private sector initiatives to construct low‑cost housing along
the United States‑Mexican border. He met in Washington, D.C. and in
Mexico City and other places with several real estate developers
interested in low‑cost housing along the border. He and the real estate
developers met with Mexican banking and housing officials concerning the
low‑cost housing and the possibility that the project would be financed
through a Mexican low‑income financing authority. After several
meetings, he told the real estate developers and the Mexican housing
officials that he would not be able to participate in the joint venture
that the real estate executives were forming due to his status as a
Government employee. On July 22, 1992, the Under Secretary accepted the
offer to work for the joint venture in dealings with the United States.
He was offered 10 percent of the net profits generated by the project.
The project involved the building of 6,000 condominiums and would
generate about \$10,000,000 in net profits. The anticipated total cost
of the project was in excess of \$120,000,000. The Under Secretary had
an intermediary act on his behalf in signing a memorandum of agreement
with the real estate developers. The Under Secretary, throughout the
period in question, requested travel authorizations and submitted travel
vouchers to the Government for travel to Mexico to work on the Mexican
worker housing project.

The Government charged that he agreed to accept compensation for
representational services before the United States in relation to a
particular matter, the housing project, in which the United States
Department of Labor had a direct and substantial interest in violation
of 18 U.S.C. 203(a) and 216(a)(2). The Government also claimed that the
Under Secretary was acting as part of a conspiracy against the United
States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. The Under Secretary pled guilty to
the charges and was sentenced to probation for 5 years.

## Immigration Consultant Offered Payment to INS Employee 

An \"immigration consultant\" who assisted resident aliens with the
process of obtaining INS travel papers offered compensation to an INS
officer to speed up the application process.

He pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. 203(a)(2) on
January 27, 1993, and was sentenced to one year probation, 6 months\'
home detention, and a \$25 special assessment. The defendant was also
prohibited from working in the immigration consulting business.

**Sergeant‑at-Arms of the United States Senate Takes Free Flight to
Hawaii After Recommending Contractor**

The Sergeant-at-Arms is the chief purchasing agent for the Senate and in
that capacity he recommended that the Senate purchase and install a
\$219,000 AT&T telephone system for the U.S. Capitol Police. Three weeks
later, he accepted a round‑trip Washington‑Honolulu airline ticket,
valued at \$2,700, from an AT&T employee.

He pled guilty on November 18, 1992, to one misdemeanor count of
violating 18 U.S.C. 203 and was sentenced to one year of supervised
probation, to pay full restitution of \$2,700, and a \$5,000 civil fine.

## Citizen Gives Illegal Payoffs to IRS Employee 

The defendant was audited by the Internal Revenue Service for excess
deposits of income. He offered the IRS agent conducting the audit
furniture, equipment, and cash if the agent would help him with his tax
problems. The agent reported his offer to IRS internal security.
Subsequent discussions between the citizen and the IRS agent,
accompanied by payments of \$240 and \$200 in cash to the IRS agent,
were monitored by IRS internal security.

The citizen pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 203, for
compensating a Government employee for representational services with
respect to a particular matter in which the United States had a
substantial interest. The defendant was given a sentence of probation.

## Congressional Staff Member Pleads Guilty to 18 U.S.C. 203 Violation 

The defendant was a staff assistant to a U.S. Congressman in a district
office in Georgia whose responsibilities included handling constituent
requests. The staffer demanded and received a payment of \$300 from a
businessman who was seeking a Federal grant to help him start up a
business. The staffer also demanded a percentage of any grant money
awarded to the businessman. He told the constituent that he would have
to work nights and weekends on his own time to help the constituent and
that the money was to compensate him for the work.

The staffer was indicted for personally seeking payment for official
acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. 201(c) and for demanding compensation for
representational services before the United States in violation of 18
U.S.C. 203. He pled guilty to the § 203 violation and received a
sentence of probation.

**And the Award Goes to...Our Sponsor!**

The Director of the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes
of Health accepted a cash award from a grant recipient hospital. The
doctor recused himself for a period of four weeks around the date of the
award presentation from any dealings with the awarding hospital and
noted the receipt of the award on his financial disclosure paperwork. Of
course, this still leaves the question of whether the doctor was
permitted by statute to accept gifts from the donor organization --
which fell under the prohibited sources classification for purposes of
the gift ban because of the doctor's potential influence over the
selection of grant recipients. Congress has requested documentation on
all NIH award recipients so stay tuned.

**Conflicts of Interest (18 U.S.C. § 208-Type
Violations)**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc138655129 .anchor}

**And the Band Played On...While the Ship Sank Around Them**

An Assistant Secretary of Telecommunications and Information within the
Department of Commerce spoke with ethics officers about a small dinner
party she was having at her home but neglected to mention: a) the party
was for between 60 and 80 people and b) it was paid for by companies she
was responsible for regulating. Although the ethics officers found her
to be in violation of the department's regulations, the Justice
Department elected not to press criminal charges.

**Watch Promoting Your Business on Government Time!**

**The Facts:** A Senior Advisor to the State Department had an interest
in a business that planned to develop a theme park in the Middle East.
No problem there. But the Advisor, in his official position, recommended
to other State Department officials that the State Department support
the enterprise. That violated the law. After a guilty plea, he was
sentenced to a year of probation and ordered to perform 25 hours
community service and to pay a \$20,000 fine. (Source: *Federal Ethics
Report*, Dec. 2000.)

**The Law:** 18 U.S.C. § 208 (2003) forbids any employee of the
executive branch of the Federal Government from recommending in his or
her official position any matter in which he or she has a financial
interest. The penalty for violating this law could be a fine, a prison
sentence for up to one year, or both---unless the violation is found to
be "willful," in which case the maximum prison sentence increases to 5
years (*see* 18 U.S.C. § 216 (2003)).

**Helping to Contract with a Potential Employer---A Bad Idea**

**The Facts:** A U.S. State Department official was negotiating an
employment contract with a private employer when he recommended in his
official capacity that the Department of Defense (DoD) enter into a
contract with the same company. The aim of the contract: to provide
equipment and transportation to help recover the remains of U.S.
servicemen who were missing in action during the Korean War. Relying
upon the official's recommendation, DoD contracted with that company for
\$717,000. Unfortunately, the official's recommendation to contract with
a company with whom he was negotiating employment violated the law. On
January 10, 2002, the State Department official was sentenced to three
years probation and ordered to pay a \$5,000 fine. (Source: *Federal
Ethics Report*, Feb. 2002.)

**The Law:** With some exceptions, 18 U.S.C. § 208 (2003) forbids any
officer or employee of the executive branch from participating
"personally and substantially" in his or her official capacity in a
contract, controversy, "or other particular matter" in which he or she,
or any person or organization with whom he is she is negotiating
employment, has a financial interest. Anyone violating this law "shall
be imprisoned for not more than one year," fined, or both (*see* 18
U.S.C. § 216). By making a recommendation on a contract involving a
company with which he was negotiating employment, the official in this
case violated the law.

**Judge Imposes Steep Prison Sentence in Conflict of Interest Case**

A former employee of the District of Columbia Government was sentenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for overseeing
contracts involving an individual with whom he was financially involved.
The former employee served as chief of the day programs branch of the
D.C. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Administration.
This Administration placed mentally retarded adults in non-residential
day programs. The former employee supervised the assignment of mentally
retarded adults to day programs and administered the rules governing
these programs. During this time, the former employee assisted a woman
in starting up a day treatment program for mentally retarded adults. The
former employee made loans to the woman and referred clients to her.
Thus, the former employee had a financial relationship with the woman.
The former employee was no longer impartial since he had a financial
interest in seeing her succeed so his loan could be paid back. In
addition, as part of his D.C. Government duties, he oversaw the
supervision of her company. When she would pay back a portion of the
loan, she would also pay him additional monies.

The jury found the former employee guilty of conspiracy and of violation
of the conflict-of-interest law. Particularly because of the involvement
of a vulnerable victim (the mentally retarded individuals in the day
program), the judge sentenced the former employee to 46 months in
prison, followed by 3 years of supervised release to include 100 hours
of community service. The judge also ordered the former employee to pay
a \$25,000 fine.

Federal conflict of interest statutes prohibit employees from taking
official action in particular matters in which they have a financial
interest.

**Federal Employee Convicted of Conflict of Interest Violation While
Searching for New Job**

Job-hunting efforts by a former Commerce Department Inspector General
(IG) turned up a Federal conviction for a conflict of interest instead
of a job. As part of the former IG\'s official duties, he reviewed the
performance of a certain company, which had contracted with the Commerce
Department to update automated weather forecasting systems. At the same
time that he was performing these oversight duties, the former official
began negotiating employment with the same company.

A Federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. 208, prohibits Federal employees
from officially working on particular matters that have a direct and
predictable effect on an organization with which they are negotiating
prospective employment. The former IG\'s review of the company\'s
performance on the Commerce Department contract violated this statute.
This is the same statute that bars Federal employees from taking
official action on matters that affect their own financial interests or
those of their spouses or children.

**CIA Conflict of Interest**

A CIA employee paid \$48,000 to settle a complaint brought by the
Department of Justice that the employee had participated in official
matters in which his spouse had a financial interest. The employee had
served as the Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR) on
certain contracts between his agency and a private corporation, where
his wife worked. The contracts involved millions of dollars awarded to
the corporation. Although the employee\'s wife did not work on the same
contracts as the employee, she received stock options for the purchase
of the corporation's stock that were affected by the corporation\'s
profits from the contracts her husband had worked on.

A criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. 208, prohibits employees from
participating personally and substantially in matters that have a direct
and predictable effect on their own financial interests or those of
their spouses, minor children, or organizations in which they are
employed. In this case, the employee\'s involvement in the corporation's
contracts affected the profitability of the corporation, which was
passed on to the employee\'s wife through her stock options.

Former Postmaster General Pays Settlement to End Conflict of Interest
Investigation

A former Postmaster General of the United States agreed to pay a
\$27,550 settlement to end a complaint brought by the Department of
Justice pertaining to a conflict of interest involving the official's
holdings in a soft drink company. The complaint arose while the Postal
Service was exploring a potential strategic alliance between the Postal
Service and the soft drink company. The Postal Service Board of
Governors had the authority to approve the strategic alliance, and the
Postmaster General\'s role was to advise the Board of Governors with
regard to their consideration of strategic alliances. The Postmaster
General rendered advice to the Board even though he owned shares of
stock in the soft drink company and therefore had a personal financial
interest in the decision.

The Postmaster General was charged specifically with violating 18 U.S.C.
208, a criminal statute that prohibits an employee from participating
personally and substantially, as a Government official, in a particular
matter in which he or she has a financial interest.

**High-Ranking Government Official Agrees to Conflict of Interest
Settlement**

A high-ranking Government official was charged with violating 18 U.S.C.
208, which governs official acts affecting a personal financial
interest. The Federal employee, an Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs, was investigated for holding stock in certain
petroleum companies while serving as the Deputy Assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs. The employee was advised by the
National Security Council Legal Adviser to divest his shares of his
family\'s petroleum and other energy-producing stocks to avoid any
conflict of interest. During the time the employee was told to divest
his stocks, he was involved in his official capacity in matters that may
have had a direct and predictable effect on the petroleum company.

The official agreed to pay the Department of the Treasury \$23,043,
which represented the increased value of the stocks, to settle the
matter.

**D.C. Public Library Director Sentenced for Travel Reimbursement
Scheme**

The former director of the District of Columbia Public Library was
convicted for fraudulent activities involving Government cash advances
and reimbursement payments. At the time, the director was serving as
both the head of the D.C. Public Library and the president of a trade
organization, the American Library Association. The director took cash
advances from D.C. Public Library funds to pay for expenses incurred in
his role as president of the American Library Association. He then asked
the trade organization to reimburse him by sending checks directly to
his home address. In this manner, the library director deposited over
\$24,000 into his personal bank account. Subsequently, the director
failed to reimburse the D.C. Public Library account for the cash
advances.

In September 1998, a judge ordered the former director to pay back the
\$24,000 owed to the D.C. Library, plus an additional \$16,860 owed for
back Federal income taxes. He was sentenced to five months of home
detention, to be followed by two years probation for violation of 18
U.S.C. 208, a conflicts of interest criminal statute.

**Former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Agent Violates Conflict
of Interest Statute**

A former FBI agent pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 208, which
prohibits Federal employees from participating in official acts in which
they have a personal financial interest. The agent's job
responsibilities included researching and testing the use of pepper
spray for the FBI, which resulted in contact with the manufacturers of
one particular type of pepper spray. The agent subsequently recommended
this pepper spray, and in return, received \$57,500 in payments from the
manufacturer. Following the agent's recommendation, the FBI approved the
use of the pepper spray for its agents, resulting in a large purchase
from the manufacturer. Additionally, as a result of the FBI agent\'s
research and recommendation, other law enforcement agencies nationwide
began to use the pepper spray produced by the manufacturer.

The former agent was sentenced to two months imprisonment followed by
three years of supervised release for his violation of 18 U.S.C. 208.
This statute bars Federal employees from officially participating (in
this case, even making a recommendation) in particular matters (in this
case, a contract to buy pepper spray) that have a direct and predictable
effect on the employee's financial interests or those of the employee's
spouse or minor children.

**Army Employee Sentenced for Conflicts of Interest**

A civilian employee of the U.S. Army pleaded guilty to violation of the
conflicts of interest statute (18 U.S.C. 208) in Federal Court and was
sentenced to one year probation and a \$1,000 fine. The employee had
participated in the awarding and administration of contracts involving a
company in which the employee owned stock, thereby participating
personally and substantially as a Government employee in matters that
affected his financial interests. The employee, who filed financial
disclosure statements (OGE Form 450), had also failed to disclose his
financial interest in the company.

**Chief Financial Officer and Chief Information Officer of the United
States Department of Education Violates 18 U.S.C. 208**

While the official held the above titles at the Department of Education,
his wife owned 600 shares of Compaq computer stock that she had
inherited from her mother. During this period, the official was involved
in his official capacity in issues concerning Compaq computers. The
Government contended that the official violated 18 U.S.C. 208, for
participating personally and substantially as a Government officer in a
particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he and/or his spouse has a
financial interest.

Pursuant to a civil settlement, the official paid the Government
\$20,000, and the Government released him from its claims.

**Chief of Staff at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in
Kansas City, Engages in Conflict of Interest**

During the same time the Chief of Staff was employed by the Department
of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, he was also employed as a physician
by the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, Kansas.
Subsequently, the Chief of Staff in his official capacity approved a
contract for cardiocath services to the Department of Veterans Affairs
Medical Center by the University of Kansas Medical Center.

On March 8, 2000, the Chief of Staff pled guilty to a misdemeanor
violation of 18 U.S.C. 208, which bars employees from taking official
action in matters affecting their personal financial interests. On
August 7, 2000, he was sentenced to pay a \$250 fine and a special
assessment of \$25.

**Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Revenue/Settlement Officer Prosecuted
Under 18 U.S.C. 208**

An IRS employee was assigned to a certain IRS collection matter, which
gave him inside information concerning a proposed stock exchange. After
his role in the case was substantially over, the employee purchased
approximately \$2,000 in the stock subject to the proposed exchange
based in part on information he had learned during the course of his
duties as a Revenue Officer. After the stock purchase, the IRS employee
had on several occasions minor contact with the parties before the IRS.
He eventually went to his supervisor, disclosed his interest in the
stock, and was removed from further participation in the case. The IRS
employee lost money on the stock transaction.

The IRS employee was prosecuted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 208 for
participating personally and substantially as a Government officer or
employee in a particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he had a
financial interest, and 18 U.S.C. 216(a)(1). The employee was placed on
pretrial diversion for six months on the condition that he resign from
the IRS and perform 120 hours of community service.

**District Conservationist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
National Resources Conservation Service Sentenced for Conflict of
Interest**

The NRCS employee was the Government\'s technical representative on a
USDA soil and water conservation program that was implemented through a
State of North Carolina program called NCACSP (North Carolina
Agricultural Cost Share Program). Under the NCACSP program, local
landowners can receive funding to reduce agricultural pollution. The
NRCS employee, in his position as a district conservationist, approved a
contract whereby a business venture owned by his spouse sold filter
fabric to landowners through the NCACSP program.

The NRCS employee was charged with a felony count of violating 18 U.S.C.
2, aiding and abetting, and 18 U.S.C. 208, for participating personally
and substantially as a Government employee in a particular matter, in
which, to his knowledge, his spouse has a financial interest. Further,
in his position as a district conservationist, he approved a contract
between the NCACSP and a cattle operation in which he and his spouse
were partners. Additionally, he approved a contract for fence
construction between the NCACSP and a third party. This contract
resulted in payments that were transferred to a partnership consisting
of the NRCS employee, his spouse, and the third party. The NRCS employee
was charged with two additional felony counts of violating 18 U.S.C.
208, for participating personally and substantially as a Government
employee in a particular matter, in which, to his knowledge, he, his
spouse, and general partner have a financial interest. A jury convicted
the NRCS employee on all counts. He was sentenced by the court to one
year of probation.

**A Contracting Officer for the Department of the Army at Fort Jackson,
South Carolina Settles Conflict of Interest Allegation**

Sometime prior to November 1995, the contracting officer began a
relationship with a foreman for a Government contractor. The foreman
subsequently started his own company and began bidding on Government
contracts at Fort Jackson. In November 1995, the former Government
contracting officer assumed the title of project manager at the new
company and performed various duties for the former foreman without
monetary compensation. On April 9, 1996, the contracting officer
approved and certified for payment an invoice submitted by the company.
She continued her employment relationship with the company until June
1996. However, she submitted a written statement to the Director of
Contracting at Fort Jackson attesting that her association with the
company ended in March 1996.

The former contracting officer was indicted on December 3, 1997 for
violating 18 U.S.C. 208, taking official action in matters affecting an
employee's personal financial interest. She signed a Pretrial Diversion
Agreement which requires that she complete 50 hours of community
service.

**Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Convicted on Conflict of
Interest and Fraud**

The AUSA for the Central District of California was indicted after it
was discovered that on numerous occasions he had made favorable
recommendations to the court, the probation office, and other
prosecuting offices on behalf of cooperating witnesses and defendants in
exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars. The AUSA had, for
example, accepted \$98,000 from one cooperating witness who had
previously been convicted in the Northern District of Texas and on whose
behalf the AUSA had argued for leniency at the sentencing hearing. In
addition, he had used his official position to secure entry into the
United States of several foreign nationals whom he believed would make
substantial investments in a company in which he and his wife had a
controlling financial interest. Once the foreign nationals entered the
United States, two Iranian companies with which they were affiliated
loaned a total of \$860,000 to the AUSA's company.

The AUSA pled guilty to one felony conflict of interest count, 18 U.S.C.
208, and two counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 and
1346. He was fined \$7,500 and sentenced to two years in prison plus
three years of supervised release.

**Patrick Air Force Base Engineer Violates Conflict of Interest
Statute**

An engineer in the Contracts Department at Patrick Air Force Base
started a business, along with former military personnel and former
Government employees, which submitted a bid to the base. The engineer,
in his official capacity, provided the technical evaluations on the bid.
Through the bidding process, the company was awarded the contract.

The engineer was charged with participating personally and substantially
in a particular matter in which he had a financial interest, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 208. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 216(a)(1), he pled
guilty to a misdemeanor violation of section 208 and was sentenced to
nine months probation and fined \$2,500.

**Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Employee Guilty of Violating 18
U.S.C. 208**

The FAA employee reviewed the applications of aircraft component
manufacturers. He was the FAA representative on a flight test of a
Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) manufactured by a certain
corporation. In the course of his duties for the FAA, the employee
obtained access to proprietary information submitted to the FAA by the
GPWS manufacturer. At the same time, the FAA employee was developing and
marketing his own GPWS for sale to the public.

The FAA employee was charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. 208 due to
the fact that he participated personally and substantially in the FAA\'s
test flight of a GPWS while developing his own GPWS; he pled guilty and
was sentenced to three years probation.

**CIA Employee Violates Conflict of Interest Statute**

A Central Intelligence Agency Contracting Officer's Technical
Representative (COTR) pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 208 after
investigators discovered that he had used his Government position to
secure employment for a friend who owed him money. The employee's duties
as a COTR included the technical supervision of two Government contracts
with a particular company through which the Government funded a
classified program. The employee used his position as a COTR to cause
the company to hire one of his friends as a consultant to the program.
The friend owed a substantial sum of money to the employee and his wife
and did not have the financial means to repay them. At no time did the
employee disclose to the Government or the company that the friend owed
him or his wife money. The Government charged that, under these
circumstances, the COTR had a financial interest in the company\'s
decision to enter into a consulting agreement with the friend and that
he violated 18 U.S.C. 208 by participating in that decision.

The COTR pled guilty to a felony violation of section 208. He also pled
guilty to a charge of possession of child pornography obtained through
unauthorized personal use of a Government‑furnished computer. He
received three years supervised release and was ordered to pay a \$4,000
fine.

**Computer-Aided Navigation Leaves Retired Captain Lost at Sea**

A Coast Guard Captain working on the integration of legacy navigation
systems with GPS spoke with a government contractor assigned to the
project about post-retirement work. Once retired, the captain made
recommendations concerning purchases to his former colleagues still
wearing Coast Guard uniforms -- purchases that directly benefited the
captain in his new role as consultant. The government maintained that
the captain violated 18 U.S.C. § 208(a), by negotiating for future
employment with a contractor he dealt with in his active duty capacity,
and 18 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1), by attempting to influence government
personnel on a project over which he had exercised considerable
responsibility . The Government settled with the captain for \$25,000.

**Conflict of Interest Results in \$10,000 Fine**

A Navy Construction Representative overseeing a company's two
construction contracts with the Navy secured employment to subcontract
the same projects he was supposedly inspecting, splitting the proceeds
with an equally unscrupulous employee of the company. He pled guilty to
one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 208 (barring an employee from taking
official action in matters affecting certain personal or organizational
financial interests) and one count of violating 41 U.S.C. § 53, the
Anti-Kickback Act of 1986. His get-rich-quick scheme cost him six years
probation, six months home detention, 100 hours of community service,
and a \$10,000 fine.

**Agricultural Economist and Wife Violate 18 U.S.C. 208 in Visa Scam**

A Department of Agriculture agricultural economist found himself facing
jail time for his decision to attempt to exploit his Government
position. The economist was put in charge of a Department program to
bring together U.S. and Chinese agriculture experts. Instead, the
economist forged documents, with the assistance of his wife, to extort
\$82,000 from nearly 100 Chinese nationals seeking entry to the United
States. While the economist's case is still pending, his wife pled
guilty to one count of aiding and abetting an unlawful conflict of
interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 208 and 2. She received two years
probation and 100 hours of community service.

**Consultant's Attempted Bribery Garners \$1000 Fine**

A consultant in the office of the District of Columbia Chief Technology
Officer ended up in court after soliciting kickbacks from a private
company. The consultant was tasked with awarding contracts to
information technology companies, and decided to go back to a company he
had recently approved and demand a cut of their profits. Unhappily for
him, the company went to the authorities instead. The consultant pled
guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 208 (a), taking official
action in matters affecting an employee's personal financial interest,
and was sentenced to a year of probation and a \$1000 fine.

**Attempted Bribery of Immigration Official Nets a Year of Probation**

An applicant for U.S. citizenship slid \$200 in an unmarked envelope
across to an Adjudication Officer during his interview, hoping for a
favorable outcome. He got a year's probation instead.

**Contractors and Army Officer Face Five Years for Conflict of
Interest**

A raid of an Army Colonel's residence revealed evidence that led to
charges for the officer as well as two employees of a Maryland military
contractor. The officer supervised solicitation, award, and oversight of
more than 17,000 military contracts in Korea. Upon learning that the
officer was considering retirement, two military contractors contacted
him regarding his potential employment at the contractors' company. Over
the course of the next six months, the officer and the contractors had
lengthy discussions regarding the possible job offer. The negotiations
involved a trip to company headquarters as well as at least seven
dinners at expensive restaurants, all paid for by the company.

During this time period, the officer did not recuse himself from matters
involving the company. In fact, the officer on one occasion overruled
the decision of technical experts who recommended awarding a contract to
a different company, and instead recommended the contractors' company.
On another occasion, the officer told another contractor that if he
wished to participate in the program in the future, he should bid as a
subcontractor to the first contractors' company. The contractors'
internal emails advocating the officer's hiring noted that "\[h\]is
expectations are high but his value has been proved."

Tips from a member of the officer's command led to an interagency
investigation that uncovered egregious bribe-taking to the tune of more
than \$700,000 (much of which was hidden in bundles of cash under the
officer's mattress) in addition to the illegal negotiations with the
contractors. These bribes had resulted in nearly \$25 million in
contracts being illegally rewarded to companies for building facilities
and providing security guards at military installations in Korea.

The officer pled guilty to charges of conspiracy and bribery, and was
sentenced to 54 months in prison followed by three years of supervised
release. He was also assessed a \$10,000 fine, was stripped of rank, and
will receive no retirement pay. The two contractors face five years in
prison and a \$250,000 fine.

**Employee Fined \$13,000 for Conflict of Interest**

A Supervisory Acquisition Management Specialist at Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base was indicted for participating in employment negotiations
with a company while he simultaneously worked on contracts involving
that company. As part of the employee's job responsibilities, he
provided a bidder on a Government contract with advice and
recommendations related to the bidding process. However, at the same
time, the employee was in employment negotiations with one of the
bidder's subcontractors, and was well aware of the subcontractor's
interest in the bidder's success.

The employee pled guilty to violating the conflict of interest statute
that prohibits an individual from engaging in employment negotiations
with a company while simultaneously participating in an official
capacity on a Government contract with the company. The employee was
sentenced to one year of probation and ordered to pay \$12,000 in
restitution and a \$1,000 fine.

**Conflict of Interest Nets Employee \$900 Fine**

When determining which company should receive a contract to produce a
video on Y2K issues for the Department of Commerce, a producer/director
in the Office of Public Affairs settled on a small production company
that specialized in voiceover work. There was only one small
problem---the company was owned by the employee and his wife. The
Department of Commerce eventually paid the company over \$10,000 for
their work, earning the employee and his wife a profit of over \$1000.

Unfortunately for the employee, his fifteen minutes of fame were cut
short by a District Court Judge, who sentenced him to one year of
probation, 100 hours of community service, and a \$900 fine. The
employee was found guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. 208(a), which bars
employees from participating personally and substantially in a matter in
which they have a financial interest.

**Employee Fined \$1000 for Conflict of Interest**

Funneling contracts to friends certainly did not pay off for the Senior
Development Officer of the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB). The
officer was responsible for developing and securing funding for
revenue-producing projects for the IBB, an independent agency affiliated
with the State Department. When determining which company should receive
an \$85,000 grant to train affiliate radio stations in Uganda, the
officer selected a business owned by his friend. In return for this
generosity, his friend obligingly selected a subcontractor near and dear
to the officer's heart -- a company owned and managed by the officer and
his wife. In order to fulfill the \$15,000 contract, the officer managed
to convince IBB to fly him to Uganda with government funds as part of
his "official duties." However, IBB soon discovered the officer's
relationship with the subcontracting company.

For his violation of 18 U.S.C. 208, which forbids employees from
participating personally and substantially in a matter in which they
have a financial interest, the officer earned three years probation, 50
hours community service, a \$1000 fine, and was required to pay over
\$15,000 in restitution.

**Conflict of Interest Results in Jail Time for Acquisitions Executive**

A former senior Air Force official found herself in Federal prison after
her violation of conflicts-of-interest statutes. The official engaged in
job negotiations with a private company while still employed by the Air
Force as the chief negotiator for a \$23 billion leasing plan with that
company. While the official did eventually recuse herself from
participation in decisions involving the company, her recusal came three
months after the beginning of her negotiations.

The official began negotiations with the company through encrypted
e-mails sent by her daughter, who was an employee of the company; her
daughter set up a secret meeting between the official and company
executives. At the start of the meeting, the official informed the
executives that she was still participating personally and substantially
on matters involving the company; however, both parties elected to
continue the meeting and to simply keep it a secret. The negotiations
continued for several more months, all while the official was still
participating personally and substantially in decisions, approvals, and
advice in matters in which the company had a financial interest. After
the official finally submitted her letter disqualifying herself from
working on matters involving the company, investigators began
scrutinizing the timeline of her story. The official lied repeatedly to
investigators as to the start date of her employment negotiations,
collaborating with the company executives to match stories.

The former official pled guilty in Federal court, and was sentenced to
nine months in prison and seven months either in a halfway house or
under home detention. The company executive faces a jail term of no more
than six months under Federal sentencing guidelines.

Federal Procurement law specifically forbids a company or its executives
from making any offer or promise of future employment to a Federal
procurement officer. Likewise, procurement officers are prohibited from
discussing employment so long as they oversee matters involving that
company.

## Credit Card Abuse

**Running Up the Government "IMPAC" Card**

**The Facts:** A (former) civilian director of the Pentagon's Graphics
and Presentation Division used her Government-issued, Merchant Purchase
Authorization Card ("IMPAC") to make 522 fake purchases from a Seattle
company created by a fellow schemer solely to carry out the fraud.
Payments by the Government for the "purchases" were made to the Seattle
firm, but the co-schemer would simply cash the checks and split the
"take" with the director. The director was caught and sentenced to three
years and one month in prison and was ordered to pay \$1.7 million in
restitution.

**The Law:** Don't steal. Theft violates various state and Federal laws.

**Senior NCO Abuses Government Credit Card**

An investigation concluded that a senior U.S. Marine improperly used his
Government credit card by purchasing gas for his personal vehicle,
dinners, and concert tickets as well as obtaining cash advances---all
unrelated to official travel.

The Marine was counseled by his supervisor and required to reimburse the
Government for all unauthorized purchases. He retired soon after the
investigation.

## 

## DoD Employee Charges Caribbean Vacation to Government Credit Card 

A GS-13 Department of Defense employee used her Government credit card
to pay for her personal vacation to the Caribbean. The case was referred
to the U.S. Attorney, who declined prosecution. The employee was
counseled by her supervisor and warned that if any other inappropriate
charges were made on her account she would be disciplined. (Yes, she
reimbursed the Government.)

## Department of Defense Employee Makes \$6,000 in Personal Charges

An investigation revealed that a Department of Defense civilian employee
had made inappropriate, personal charges in the amount of over \$6,000
using his government travel card. The employee was suspended without pay
for failing to follow the terms of the credit card use policy.

**Public Official Misuses Credit Card**

A Department of Energy employee recently pled guilty to a theft of
Government property charge. The employee made over \$7,000 in personal
charges on her Government credit card by hiding the charges among
legitimate Government purchases. The employee also falsified invoices
and credit card records to further conceal the purchases. The employee
was sentenced to two years probation and ordered to pay restitution for
the amount of the charges.

**Department of Veterans Affairs Employee Misuses Credit Card**

A former Department of Veterans Affairs employee recently pled guilty to
one count of theft of Government property. The former employee used her
Government credit card to purchase expensive items (TVs were a
favorite), which she then re-sold or kept for herself. The judge
sentenced her to five years probation and ordered her to pay \$170,000
in restitution.

**Department of Defense Civilian Employee Misuses Credit Card**

A Department of Defense civilian employee recently pled guilty to one
count of theft of Government property. The employee entered into an
arrangement with two vendors in which they would charge the Government
credit card for non-existent goods and services. The vendors would then
give cash to the DoD employee. The vendors charged over \$12,000 and
kicked back \$3,000 to the employee. The employee was sentenced to two
years probation with four months home confinement, and ordered to pay
\$12,473 in restitution and a \$1,000 fine.

**U.S. Government IMPAC Credit Card Abuse by Air Force Employees**

Three former civilian employees from Barksdale Air Force Base,
Louisiana, were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the Government (18
U.S.C. 371) and conversion of U.S. property for personal use (18 U.S.C.
641). The employees used the U.S. Government IMPAC credit cards to
purchase personal items, which included extensive home improvement
products and car-related materials. One of the employees certified on
official documents that purchases on the IMPAC credit card were properly
used by members of the reserve unit.

One of the employees was sentenced to a one year and one day prison
term, and the other employees were sentenced to six months in a Federal
halfway house and were required to make full restitution.

**Cardholder Supervisor Convicted for Credit Card Abuse**

The supervisor of four IMPAC cardholders was convicted for misusing
Government credit cards. The supervisor used the credit card numbers of
his four subordinates, none of whom were suspected of any wrongdoing, to
make multiple purchases from a local auto parts store and a military
surplus store. The supervisor then proceeded to re‑sell most of the
products at his bar. Some of the items purchased included gas grills,
truck parts, and automobile tires. The supervisor convinced the managers
of the auto parts store and the military surplus store to alter the
credit card invoices to list what would appear to be official military
supplies, instead of listing the actual goods purchased. The evidence
indicates that the DoD supervisor defrauded the Government to the tune
of \$200,000.

The employee pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 287, for submitting
false and fraudulent claims, and 18 U.S.C. 208, for approving the
fraudulent purchases. He was sentenced to ten months in prison.

**Accountant Goes to Jail for Misuse of Travel Card**

A supervisory accountant at the National Science Foundation (NSF) found
herself at the receiving end of criminal charges for government travel
card abuse---a situation that should have come as no surprise, given
that her responsibilities included managing the NSF's travel card
program. Investigators found that on forty-seven separate occasions, the
accountant used her travel card to make personal purchases and
unauthorized cash withdrawals. When the Investigator General began an
audit of the travel card program, the accountant purged her own
transactions from the records in an (unsuccessful) attempt to hide her
misuse.

The formerly footloose accountant was saddled with a \$1,000 fine and
sentenced to 20 weekends in jail as a condition of a two-year probation.
Her misuse of the travel card not only ended her career at NSF, but
barred her from all future federal employment. Government travel cards
should only be used for expenses related to official travel.

**Employee Faces 10 Years for Theft of Credit Cards**

Following up on two stolen Government credit cards, investigators cut
short the entrepreneurial career of a utility worker for the Norfolk
Naval Station Public Works Center. After stealing the two cards, which
were used to gas fleet vehicles, the worker began to offer to fill the
tanks of other gas station patrons in exchange for cash valuing half the
pump price. The worker's popularity was short-lived, however, as
investigators quickly noticed the sudden boom at the pumps. An internal
audit conducted by the Navy revealed that the loss to the Government
from the two purloined cards totaled \$44,866.

The employee faces a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment and a
fine of \$250,000.

**Friend's Credit Card Use Costs Employee \$13,000**

An Army recruiter in Christiansburg, Virginia paid the price for gifting
a Government credit card to a friend -- literally. When the recruiter's
office issued the recruiter a Government Fleet credit card, he
magnanimously decided to give the card to his friend. His friend
subsequently used the now-stolen card for personal expenditures totaling
over \$13,000, including gasoline, automotive parts, and food. The
recruiter's "generosity" was amply rewarded by the District Court judge,
who sentenced him to two years of probation and held him liable for the
total \$13,000 spent by his friend.

The Government Fleet credit card program provides for the maintenance of
Government owned and leased vehicles and is only to be used by
authorized employees for official purposes.

**Financial Disclosure Violations**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc138655131
.anchor}

**\$11,000 Fine for Failure to File**

**The Facts:** A former Census Bureau official was assessed the maximum
fine when he failed to file his financial disclosure report as required
by law upon ending his Government employment. Before his retirement, the
official had received multiple memos reminding him of his obligation;
after he missed the filing deadline, the official received a number of
additional certified letters informing him of the availability of
extensions and the consequences of failing to file.

The Department of Commerce eventually referred the matter to the
Department of Justice, which filed a complaint alleging that the
official knowingly and willingly failed to file a financial disclosure
report. Finding the official a totally unresponsive party with flagrant
violations, a Federal court entered the default judgment and ordered an
\$11,000 fine, the top civil penalty permitted under the statute. The
court emphasized the flagrancy of the violation, citing the employee's
choice to ignore the multiple notices and warnings provided to him.

*(Source: United States v. Gant, No. 02-2312, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
10620 (D.D.C. June 17, 2003).)*

**The Law:** The Ethics in Government Act (EIGA), 5 U.S.C. app. § 101 et
seq. (2003), requires senior officials, who file SF 278s, to file a
final financial disclosure report "on or before the thirtieth day" after
termination of their senior positions (in addition to annual filing
requirements). Anyone who knowingly and willfully fails to provide such
a disclosure faces prosecution and fines of up to \$10,000 (*see* 5
U.S.C. app. § 101(e)-(f), app. § 104).

**D.C. Mayor Financial Disclosure**

The failure to report \$40,000 he had earned in consulting contracts
cost the Mayor of Washington, D.C., \$1000 several years ago. The Mayor
violated the city\'s campaign finance code by neglecting to report these
earnings on his financial disclosure report.

Under 5 C.F.R. 2634.701, willful failure to file a public financial
disclosure report (SF 278) or willful falsification of any information
required to be reported may result in administrative actions or \$10,000
in civil penalties. In addition, criminal actions may be brought against
Federal officials who provide false information on their financial
disclosure reports.

**Former Government Official Convicted for Filing False Financial
Disclosure Report**

Under the Ethics in Government Act, a former Chief of Staff (CoS) for
the Secretary of Agriculture was required to file the Public Financial
Disclosure Report (SF 278). While in office, the CoS and his wife
received payments totaling approximately \$22,025 from two businessmen
who were longtime friends and business associates of the CoS, and who
coincidentally received subsidies from the Department of Agriculture
(USDA) totaling \$63,000 and \$284,000, respectively. The CoS was
required to, but did not, report these payments on his SF 278. While the
USDA Inspector General was conducting an investigation of the CoS with
respect to conflict of interest allegations, the CoS made a sworn
declaration that he had not received such payments. He also stated that
his only income from the time he became Chief of Staff, aside from the
sale of a former residence, was his USDA salary.

The former CoS was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 1001, for failing to
disclose the payments received from the two businessmen during on his SF
278 and for making a false sworn statement to the USDA Inspector
General. He was sentenced to 27 months in jail.

**Former EEOC Chairman Failed to File Financial Disclosure Report**

The former chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
settled a lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice for \$4,000. The
lawsuit alleged that the chairman did not file a required financial
disclosure report for two years that he was in Government service. In
the previous year, the chairman filed the yearly financial disclosure
report required of all senior executive branch employees (SF 278). For
the subsequent two years, however, he submitted a photocopy of the first
year's report. The Chairman acknowledged that the photocopied report did
not reflect changes in his income. He further maintained that the
inaccuracy was inadvertent and the result of a mistake made in good
faith. The Director of the Office of Government Ethics noted that the
chairman did not respond to four requests to file the required report
over the course of two years.

Fraud (Violations Not Covered Elsewhere)[]{#__RefHeading___Toc138655132
.anchor}

**To Defraud or Not To Defraud? That's an Easy Question!**

**The Facts:** An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officer conspired with
two private tax preparers to develop a scheme to defraud the United
States Government. The tax preparers told persons owing money to the
Government that they could negotiate a lesser debt if they would go
ahead and pay off what was owed. The IRS officer would then enter false
information into the relevant files showing that the individuals in
question had insufficient assets to cover their debts. This convinced
the IRS to halt collection efforts. Strangely (or not), the money paid
to the tax preparers never made it to the IRS. The tax preparers were
sentenced along with the IRS officer, who, for tinkering with the debts
of others, ended up with quite a "debt" of her own: She was sentenced to
3 years and one month in prison, to be followed by 3 years of probation,
and ordered to pay in restitution \$322,135.

**The Law:** 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2003) authorizes fines and imprisonment
for up to 5 years for anyone conspiring with one or more other persons
to defraud the United States, if any one of the conspirators takes any
action to carry out the fraud. In this case, all three persons appear to
have taken such an act. The IRS officer in this case was also charged
under 26 U.S.C. § 7214 (2003) of the Internal Revenue Code, which
requires that any IRS officer who conspires to defraud the Government be
discharged from their office and, if convicted, pay up to \$10,000 in
fines, serve up to 5 years in prison, or both.

**Conflicts of Interest and Lies Garner Alderwoman and Daughters Federal
Convictions**

A Milkwaukee alderwoman and her two daughters found themselves as
defendants in federal court for funneling city funds to a non-profit
organization they had created.

The alderwoman, before her election, founded a non-profit organization
eligible to carry out neighborhood social grants; it was largely funded
by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants awarded to the City of
Milwaukee. These grants were given to the city upon the condition that
each grant recipient comply with HUD regulations. Among these
regulations was a conflict-of-interest provision preventing any elected
official that participated in the apportionment of the HUD grants from
obtaining a financial benefit "either for themselves or those with whom
they have business or immediate family ties."

Upon the alderwoman's election, she turned the executive directorship of
the non-profit organization over to her two daughters, who both drew a
salary from the organization. Both daughters had different last names
from each other as well as the alderwoman, and the relationship between
the three was unknown by the City and HUD. After taking office, the
alderwoman secured membership on the Community Development Policy
Committee, the committee that apportioned HUD grants. She was informed
by the City Attorney of the HUD conflict-of-interest rules, and wrote a
memo assuring the City that her husband and (singular) daughter only
worked for the non-profit on a volunteer basis. This deception persisted
the following year, when the City began to suspect a scam; the
alderwoman wrote another letter to the city attorney admitting that her
(singular) daughter had been an employee of the non-profit, but assuring
that she had since left her position (which was untrue). However, by
this point, the City was aware of the alderwoman's deception, and she
was charged with various violations of federal law.

During the time period the alderwoman was in office, the non-profit
accepted a number of lucrative HUD grants from the city. Each contract
included a recitation of the HUD conflict-of-interest provisions, and
was signed by both daughters in their capacity as executive officers.
When queried by the City regarding the familial relation of the two
daughters to the alderwoman, the daughters chose not to respond. This
duplicity earned both daughters charges in federal court alongside their
mother.

The alderwoman and one of her daughters pled guilty to various
violations of federal law. The second daughter chose to go to trial, and
was convicted and sentenced to two years' probation and a \$1000 fine
for violating her contractual duty to disclose her familial relationship
with the alderwoman.

*(Source: 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 10878)*

**Employee Gets Ten Years for Authorizing Fraudulent Retirement
Benefits**

A retirement benefits specialist at the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) developed an embezzlement scheme that eventually
involved 15 cohorts and resulted in the theft of \$3.7 million from the
Civil Services Retirement Trust Fund. The specialist's duties included
authorizing monthly benefits payments as well as one-time payments
intended to retroactively adjust Federal benefits. Instead of
authorizing payments for the proper recipients, the employee began to
authorize payments to fellow employees. The scheme allowed at least 25
people to obtain illegal one-time payments from the Retirement Trust
Fund, after which they paid kickbacks to the OPM employees.

The specialist was sentenced to 10 years in prison for her role as the
ringleader of the operation. Her coconspirators received lesser terms.

**Gambling and Other Contest Violations**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc138655133
.anchor}

## 

## Federal Employee Rides into Trouble 

## A local motorcycle dealer sponsored a \"motorcycle poker\" event across public lands. The off-road bikes followed a pre-set route, stopping along the way to pick up playing cards. The one with the best poker hand at the end won a new motorcycle. The winner? The on-duty Government employee who was to follow the contestants, making sure that nobody had fallen off his bike or gotten lost. He didn't get to keep the bike because he won the prize while carrying out his official duty. While section 2635.203(b)(5) of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch Employees allows Federal employees to keep prizes in contests that are open to the public and not related to the employee's official duties, in this case, the employee won while performing official duties.

**Fantasy Football *IS* Gambling**

Gambling allegations were made against a Department of Defense employee
who was operating a "fantasy football league" in his workplace. The
participants each paid \$20 to participate. The funds were used for a
luncheon at the end of the season and trophies were purchased for the
winners.

Although upon the surface the "fantasy football league" does not appear
to be gambling per se, the General Counsel ruled that the activities
constituted gambling in the workplace in violation of paragraph 2-302 of
DoD 5500.7-R, Joint Ethics Regulation.

**Fantasy Football *IS* Gambling II**

Allegations were made regarding Air National Guard members running a
"fantasy football" league on Government computers. Each member of the
league contributed \$10 to play, with the winner buying all of the other
participants pizza at the end of the season. It was determined that the
winner actually expended more on the pizza than the amount of the
winnings. It was also determined that activities associated with the
game were conducted on break and lunch times.

Section 2-302 of DoD 5500.7-R, Joint Ethics Regulation, prohibits
gambling by DoD personnel while on duty or while on Federal property. In
addition, it was a misuse of Government resources to carry out such an
activity on Government computers. The guardsmen involved were counseled
by their commanding officer.

**Gambling Ring Garners Federal Charges**

Tipped off by a coworker, investigators discovered that a painter at the
Department of the Interior was running a full-fledged gambling operation
on Government premises. While on official duty, the painter received
betting slips from other employees and made payoffs. The painter's
subsequent threatening phone call to the tipster earned him a further
charge of conduct unbecoming a Federal employee.

41 C.F.R. § 102-74.395 forbids all persons entering in or on Federal
property from participating in games for money or other personal
property, operating gambling devices, conducting a lottery or pool, or
selling or purchasing numbers tickets.

## Gift Violations

**Like a Private Helicopter Ride to Work? How About a Model Ship?**

**The Facts:** According to sworn testimony and documentation acquired
by the office of a military service Inspector General, a senior military
officer accepted gifts from the owner of a corporation that serviced and
provided landing facilities for military aircraft. The gifts to the
officer included a helicopter ride to work, a shirt with the
corporation's logo, a miniature model airplane, meals at a Christmas
party, and a leather jacket. The officer allegedly returned the jacket
but did nothing to compensate for receipt of the other gifts, the value
of which exceeded (and probably well exceeded) \$100. This conduct
occurred as one of a series of alleged offenses that resulted in the
officer being relieved of command, issued a punitive letter of
reprimand, and ordered to forfeit \$1000.

**The Law:** 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(14) (2003) requires all Federal
employees to avoid any actions that a reasonable person, who knew the
relevant facts, could take to be a violation of the law---including the
prohibition on providing "preferential treatment to any private
organization or individual," mentioned at § 2635.101(b)(8). In this
case, the value of the gifts the officer accepted could make it appear
that he might influence Government contracting in favor of the
corporation. To be sure, he enjoyed some neat gifts---for a time.
However: "Public service is a public trust," and it requires that
Federal employees place loyalty to "the laws and ethical principles
above private gain" (§ 2635.101(b)(1)).

Even more directly on point, 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.202(a) and 2635.203(d)
apply the general principles mentioned above by prohibiting Federal
employees from (among other things) soliciting gifts or accepting
gifts---whether solicited or not---from any person who "\[d\]oes
business or seeks to do business with the employee's agency."

There are some exceptions to these rules. 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204, for
example, allows the acceptance of "unsolicited gifts having an aggregate
market value of \$20 or less per source per occasion," provided that the
value of gifts accepted under the "\$20 rule" from a single source do
not amount to more than \$50 in a given *calendar year*. In the case
above, the officer's gifts exceeded (and probably well exceeded) this
limit.

If you have received a gift or gifts and anticipate that it has put you
in jeopardy of violating these, or any other, regulations, 5 C.F.R. §
2635.205 tells you what you must do---and that does not include covering
it over (which might make things worse). First, if the gift is an item
and not an activity like a helicopter ride, you may return it to the
giver or pay the giver the fair market value (see subsection (a)(1)). If
that is not practical, you may---"at the discretion of the employee's
supervisor or an agency ethics official"---donate the item to an
appropriate charity, share the item with your office, or destroy the
item (see sub-section (a)(2)). For an activity or event, you obviously
can't return the gift, but you can and must pay back the giver the
market value of the gift; simply giving back something similar will
*not* suffice (see sub-section (a)(3)). If an employee "on his own
initiative, promptly complies with the requirements of this section"
(that is, § 2635.205), and the gift was not solicited by the employee,
then he or she will not be considered to have improperly received that
gift.

**\"Great dinner, thanks for the tip\"**

Just prior to a major contract award, a Bureau Director went out to
dinner with one of the potential competitors at a swanky Washington
restaurant. The wine alone cost over \$100 per bottle. Too bad the
Director didn\'t realize that a *Washington Post* reporter was at the
next table. The story received front-page coverage in the next day's
*Post*. By that afternoon, the Director announced that he had accepted a
job in private industry---a job he couldn\'t refuse (with his
father-in-law).

The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch
(5 C.F.R. Part 2635) generally prohibit Federal personnel from accepting
gifts (including meals) from persons who do business or seek to do
business with the employee's agency.

**One Party Too Many**

The Big Boss was retiring and his second-in-command called the secretary
to ask her to set up a retirement party. He directed her to send a memo
to the staff advising them of what they were expected to contribute. She
was assigned paper plates, napkins, plastic utensils, and a paper
tablecloth. Everyone, including the secretary, was expected to
contribute \$25 for food and gifts. To the surprise of no one, the
second-in-command was selected as the new Big Boss. *His* new branch
chief called the secretary to have her set up a \"promotion\" party. The
branch chief's memo to the staff advised them of what they were expected
to contribute. For the secretary, it was once again paper plates,
napkins, plastic utensils and paper tablecloth. Everyone, including the
secretary, was again expected to contribute \$25 for food and gifts. To
no one's surprise, the branch chief was selected as the new
second-in-command. *Her* senior analyst called the secretary and asked
her to set up a \"promotion\" party. . . The secretary contacted the
Ethics Office instead, where disciplinary action was initiated.

Subpart C of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the
Executive Branch (5 C.F.R. 2635) establishes the rules for gifts between
employees. In general an employee may not give a gift or make a donation
to a gift to a superior. Furthermore, employees may not generally accept
gifts from other employees who receive less pay. There are certain
exceptions, of course.

## Gift from a Prohibited Source

As a gesture of thanks, a retailer gave an Army soldier a briefcase
after the soldier, using his Government credit card, had purchased
office supplies from the retailer. The soldier accepted the briefcase in
violation of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the
Executive Branch (5 C.F.R. Part 2635), which generally ban acceptance of
gifts by Federal personnel from persons who do business or seek to do
business with the employee's agency. After an investigation, the soldier
returned the briefcase and was counseled.

**Gift from Subordinate Results in Removal**

A Supervisory Contract Specialist at Andrews Air Force Base was
terminated after it was discovered that she had accepted a total of
\$2820 from a subordinate (a subordinate that the specialist had, in
fact, personally hired) on two occasions.

Despite the specialist's claims that she did not know that accepting the
gifts was wrong, an Administrative Judge affirmed the termination of a
20-year federal career.

5 C.F.R. Part 2635, the "Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of
the Executive Branch," forbids employees from accepting gifts from
lesser-paid employees unless (1) the employees are not in a
subordinate-superior relationship, *and* (2) there is a personal
relationship between the two employees that would justify the gift.

**Employee Cited for Improperly Accepting Pharmaceutical Samples**

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) conducted an investigation after
it found that an employee at the VA Medical Center at Chillicothe, Ohio,
had misused his position and improperly solicited and accepted
pharmaceutical drug samples. Upon questioning, the employee acknowledged
accepting five different medications from representatives of four
pharmaceutical companies, gifts totaling approximately \$600. The
pharmaceutical representative required a physician to sign for the
samples. While a physician did indeed sign off, he testified that he
only did so due to pressure from the employee. The investigation
uncovered agency-wide confusion regarding the acceptance of drug
samples.

Federal gift rules prohibit an employee from accepting or soliciting a
gift from a person doing business with the employee's agency. An
employee may accept unsolicited gifts having a market value of \$20 or
less per occasion, provided that the aggregate market value of
individual gifts from any one person does not exceed \$50 in a calendar
year. There is no exception, however, that allows for the acceptance of
solicited gifts. In response to the agency-wide problem identified in
the investigation, VA officials issued a statement explaining the
application of the Federal gift rules to the acceptance of
pharmaceutical samples, and developed a fact sheet for agency employees
with specific guidance.

## 

Involvement in Claims Against the Government or in Matters

Affecting the Government (18 U.S.C. § 205-Type
Violations)[]{#__RefHeading___Toc138655135 .anchor}

**Don't Play Attorney Against Your Federal Employer!**

**The Facts:** In the "off-time" from her work with the Social Security
Administration, a senior attorney opened her own legal practice and
represented clients with claims against that very same Administration.
For her double-duty, she was sued by a U.S. Attorney and ended up
agreeing to a settlement that required her to pay the United States
\$113,000 for this and other violations---not a typical attorney's fee!
(Source: Office of Government Ethics memorandum, Oct. 2002.)

**The Law:** 18 U.S.C. § 205 (2003) forbids any current Federal employee
from acting as an attorney in prosecuting a claim against the United
States---where this is not performed as part of his or her official
duties for the Federal Government. For any such violation, the law
authorizes fines and possible imprisonment---of not more than one year,
unless the conduct is "willful," in which case it can be for up to 5
years (*see* 18 U.S.C. § 216(a)).

**Department of Justice Attorney Sentenced for Two Felony Counts**

A high-ranking attorney for the Department of Justice was convicted of
representing a private party before a Federal Agency in a matter in
which the U.S. was a party in interest, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 205.
He was also convicted of theft of Government property, in violation of
18 U.S.C. 64l. The attorney represented Native Americans before the
Department of the Interior in private litigation, and submitted false
travel vouchers for Government reimbursement while he served as an
employee of the Department of Justice.

The attorney pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four months of home
detention and one year of probation. The plea agreement also stipulated
that the attorney pay restitution to Department of Justice in the amount
of \$5,000, pay a \$5,000 fine, and pay approximately \$2,500 in
probation costs. Section 205 prohibits Federal personnel from
representing anyone before a Federal Agency or court in connection with
a particular matter in which the United States has a direct and
substantial interest.

**Air Force Civilian Employee Improperly Represents Fellow Employees
Before U.S. Government**

A civilian employee of the Oklahoma City, Air Logistics Center (OC‑ALC),
who was also the former OC‑ALC shop steward, was charged with violating
18 U.S.C. 205. The employee, who was not an attorney, owned a private
company called Associated Labor Consultants. This company provided legal
services to other OC‑ALC civilian employees by filing legal briefs on
behalf of the civilian employees and by representing them before various
board hearings against the United States. The employee collected
approximately \$1,050 in fees from OC‑ALC civilian employees for his
services, and had billed out but had not collected an additional
\$1,853.

The Air Force employee was charged with a civil violation of 18 U.S.C.
205. The case was dismissed without prejudice. On February 2, 1998, the
parties entered into a stipulated agreement in which the accused agreed
to pay the United States \$3,000 and to refrain from advising,
counseling, or representing persons with claims against the United
States.

**FAA Employee Improperly Represents Co-worker Before Department of
Justice**

An engineer employed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at the
Mike Moroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City was charged with
violating 18 U.S.C. 205 (among other charges). While employed by the
FAA, the engineer attended and graduated from night law school. The new
attorney continued his employment as an engineer but prepared wills,
powers of attorney, and other legal documents on his own time. Without
permission from the FAA, he agreed to represent a fellow FAA employee
who was the target of a criminal investigation by the U.S. Attorney\'s
Office, and subsequently contacted the U.S. Attorney\'s Office on behalf
of his client.

The United States brought a civil action against the FAA employee
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 205(a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. 216. The parties entered
into a consent judgment in which the FAA employee agreed to pay a
\$1,200 penalty.

**Deputy Secretary of Commerce Improperly Contacts Official at
Department of Veteran's Affairs**

The Deputy Secretary of Commerce received from his father‑in‑law, the
owner of a company doing business with the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA), a letter complaining of delays experienced by the company
in modifying its contract with the VA. The Deputy Secretary of Commerce
referred the letter to his counterpart at the VA on behalf of his
father‑in‑law, and also contacted the VA by telephone. As a result of
the intervention, the company received the modification it sought more
quickly than it would have, absent the action by the Deputy Secretary.

A complaint for civil penalties was filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 216(b)
for a violation of 18 U.S.C. 205. The Deputy Secretary agreed to a civil
settlement, including a \$5,000 fine, which would have been the maximum
fine available under the sentencing guidelines had the case been
prosecuted criminally. Section 205 prohibits Federal personnel, other
than in the proper discharge of their official duties, from acting as an
agent or attorney for another before any Federal agency or court, in
connection with a particular matter in which the United States is a
party or has a direct and substantial interest.

VA Employee Represents Company Before U.S.A.I.D.

An architect employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was
charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 205. While employed by VA, the
architect represented a Beltsville, Maryland, company in connection with
an application for a contract with the United States Agency for
International Development in Dacca, Bangladesh. The architect made two
trips to Bangladesh to represent the company while employed by the VA,
including a trip for which the company paid him \$2,090. Prior to the
effective date of his resignation from the VA, the architect was paid an
additional \$5,603 by the company. During this same period of dual
employment, he earned \$5,540 from the VA.

The architect was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 205(a)(2). He was
sentenced to two years probation, 100 hours of community service, and
was required to pay a fine of \$1,000. Section 205 prohibits Federal
personnel, other than in the proper discharge of their official duties,
from acting as an agent or attorney for another before any Federal
agency or court, in connection with a particular matter in which the
United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest.

**Misuse of Government Resources**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc138655136
.anchor}

**Don't Let Internet Surfing Carry You Away!**

**The Facts:** The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a policy that
allowed the use of the Internet by employees for personal reasons so
long as that use did not distract employees from their duties. It also
provided a list of Internet sites that were off-limits. Six months
later, the Treasury Inspector General (IG) for Tax Administration found
widespread abuse of Internet privileges. Abuses included viewing
pornographic sites, downloading music and games, and "chatting" online
with friends. The IG recommended that the IRS require employees to sign
a document declaring that they understood IRS Internet policy and, as
GovExec.com put it, "humiliate Internet abusers by publishing their
names." The IRS has determined that it will take stronger measures.
(Source: *GovExec.com*, June 23, 2003.)

**The Law:** Different agencies may have different policies as to what
use employees can make of the Internet while at work. As an employee,
you must follow the policies of your employer or face disciplinary
action. Moral: Check the tide in your office before you surf.

## Using Government Vehicle to "Chill" Earns Down Time By Suspension

**The Facts:** A resident of California was puzzled to find a Dodge Ram
truck owned by a branch of the United States military often turning up
in a residential neighborhood during business hours. Concerned at this
use of a Government-owned vehicle (GOV), the citizen decided to give a
Defense Department Hotline a call. An investigation ensued, which
involved surveillance of the neighborhood in question, review of
timekeeping records, and interviews. Ultimately, the driver of the
vehicle---a mechanic at a military facility---admitted to having
problems with substance abuse and depression and to using the truck at
times to return home allegedly to retrieve tools (which could have been
obtained by other means) and to "chill out," sometimes for two hours. He
admitted that he knew that what he was doing with the GOV was wrong, but
he asked for a second chance since he had never been in trouble before.
The mechanic was given the mandatory minimum penalty: a 30-day
suspension.

**The Law:** 31 U.S.C. § 1349(b) requires that an officer or employee
who "willfully" uses a vehicle owned or leased by the United States
Government for other than official purposes be suspended for at least
one month or, "when circumstances warrant, for a longer period or
summarily removed from office." In this case, the misuse of the vehicle
was deemed to be willful, since the Federal employee knew that his
personal use of the GOV was wrong.

**Holiday Greetings! Military Officer Sent Best Wishes on the
Cheap---You Paid!**

**The Facts:** According to sworn testimony and documents uncovered by a
military service Inspector General inquiry, a senior military officer
and his wife had a subordinate service member print out on a Government
office computer official cards containing their holiday greetings, which
they then signed, enclosed in official envelopes with printed labels,
and sent to about 100 addresses. Some of their greetings were sent
overseas to foreign officials using Government postage and marked
"Official Business." This conduct occurred as one of a series of alleged
offenses that resulted in the officer being relieved of command, issued
a punitive letter of reprimand, and ordered to forfeit \$1,000.

**The Law:** 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101 (2003), which lays out basic
obligations for and restrictions upon public service, forbids the use of
Federal property "for other than authorized activities" (§
2635.101(b)(9)). It thus barred the use of all of the Federal property
employed to produce and to send the greeting cards. Moreover, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1719 (2003) mandates fines for anyone using an official envelope or
label to avoid having to pay their own postage for private mail. In this
case, the official envelopes addressed to individuals overseas were
improperly used to gain Government postage. Admittedly, section C1.4.9
of the Department of Defense (DoD) Official Mail Manual (DoD 4525.8-M,
Dec. 26, 2001) authorizes the use of "appropriated fund postage" by DoD
"activities . . . when international diplomacy dictates." In this case,
however, the officer's greetings were not required for international
diplomacy and were not sent on behalf of an "activity" but were from two
individuals---the officer and his wife. They thus did not fall within
the DoD exception.

**Number range CHAPTER\"What do you mean, I can\'t sell real estate at
work?!\"**

A Federal employee, who had a second career as a realtor**,** printed
her Federal Agency phone number on her realtor business card. When she
answered her phone at her Government workplace, she announced her office
as \"J&B Real Estate.\" When advised that she could not use her
Government office for her commercial business, she left Federal service.
The record is silent regarding how much of her duty day was actually
spent on Government work.

Sections 5 C.F.R. 2635.704 and 705 of the Standards of Ethical Conduct
for Employees of the Executive Branch bar the use of Government property
and resources, as well as official time, for unauthorized activities
(such as conducting a private business venture).

### \"What do you mean, this isn\'t my property?!\" 

One entrepreneurial Federal employee backed his panel van up to the
office door one night and stole all the computer equipment. He wasn\'t
too hard to catch: he tried to sell everything at a yard sale the next
day---with barcodes and \"Property of US Gov't\" stickers still
prominently displayed.

### Misuse of Government Resources

Allegations were made that the principal of a Department of Defense
school was using the school to hold personal, for-profit craft parties
after hours. After an investigation, it was determined that the
principal did improperly use Government property. It was discovered that
the parties' original location, which had been on private property, was
no longer available, so the principal moved the parties to the school.

Section 2635.704 of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of
the Executive Branch restricts the use of Government property, including
DoD school buildings, for authorized purposes only.

### 

### Improper Use of Government Resources

Allegations were raised that a Navy civilian official was using his Navy
office as a headquarters for his private company. It was alleged that he
used and published his Navy office phone number as the business's number
and used Navy employees to answer the phone and take messages regarding
the business for him. It was also alleged that he used Government
copiers, fax machines, and other equipment for the business. After an
investigation, all of the allegations were substantiated. The official
was reduced in grade and removed from his supervisory post.

Section 2635.704 of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of
the Executive Branch restricts the use of Government property, including
office equipment and supplies, for authorized purposes only.

### Misuse of Email

A Department of Defense (DoD) employee inadvertently received an email
message from another employee, whom she didn't know. The message went
into great detail regarding a private business venture that the employee
was conducting with a third employee. The recipient promptly forwarded
the email to Inspector General, who investigated and determined that the
writer of the message was using the Government email system for his own
private business use. The employee was warned, but continued his
activities even after counseling, and was subsequently removed from his
position.

Paragraph 2-301 of DoD 5500.7-R, Joint Ethics Regulation, restricts use
of Department of Defense communications systems to official and
authorized purposes only. Supervisors may allow limited personal use of
DoD email systems under certain circumstances and when such use does not
overburden the communications system, create significant additional
costs, and is of reasonable duration and frequency.

### Misuse of Government Telephone

A Department of Defense civilian employee earned the ire of her
co-workers by using her office telephone for personal calls. An
investigation determined that the employee had indeed been abusing her
telephone privileges---for nearly 90 hours in one calendar year alone.
She was ordered to pay for the improper calls but was not prosecuted for
the over two workweeks worth of time she spent on the phone during work
hours. She was issued a letter of caution by her supervisor.

**Number range CHAPTER\"And they even pay me for doing this.\"**

The Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed the decision by the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) to remove a criminal investigator for willful
misuse of a Government vehicle. The former official was engaged in a
social and sexual relationship with a confidential source of
information, who was also the wife of a convicted drug trafficker. The
former official received daily gifts from the confidential source. He
used his official Government vehicle to travel to the residence of the
confidential source, and to transport her from her residence to the
Miami airport and to the Café Iguana for purely social reasons. He even
gave her some DEA-owned ammunition for use in her own gun.

**\"Sorry, Skipper, but those really aren\'t perks.\"**

Immediately upon arriving at his new duty station in Italy, the new
commanding officer of the Navy facility, in an effort to save money,
used an official vehicle rather than obtaining a rental car, which he
was authorized to do while awaiting delivery of his personal vehicle.
His use of the official vehicle was discovered when the car was stolen
when he was at a restaurant. The subsequent investigation also revealed
that he had used an official boat (called a barge) to ferry himself and
his social group to the island of Ischia for a social evening (a
commercial ferry would have cost the total party less than \$20). The
investigation also revealed that he had tried to persuade the commanding
officer of a subordinate organization to create a GS-14 position for his
spouse. The officer was relieved of his command and returned stateside.

**Improper Phone Calls and Attempted Cover-up**

A General Services Administration (GSA) employee was removed from his
position for making 153 non-business calls on a Government telephone to
the Texas Lottery Commission. The calls cost the GSA \$800. The employee
also asked the recipient of the calls to provide false information about
the calls by stating that they concerned official Government business.
The employee was removed from Federal Service.

**Misuse of Government Vehicle**

A Department of Transportation canine enforcement team leader was
removed from his position for misuse of a Government vehicle as well as
for a serious lack of judgment regarding the safeguarding of over \$2
million worth of cocaine. The cocaine was used in training sessions for
canine enforcement teams. The former employee improperly took his
Government vehicle to lunch and left the cocaine unattended---all in a
border town where narcotics trafficking was a problem. The charges and
the removal decision were all appealed to the Merit Systems Protection
Board. The removal was upheld.

**How *NOT* to Get Rich Stealing Office Supplies**

A Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) review found that a VA employee
was unlawfully removing Government office supplies and equipment from
the VA warehouse and providing them to his brother-in-law, who worked
for a local retail establishment. Management took administrative action
against the employee.

**Misuse of Government Letterhead and Postage-paid Envelope**

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determined that a VA medical
center employee used official VA letterhead as well as a postage-paid
envelope to send personal correspondence to a county judge requesting
issuance of a protective order against a then-fellow VA employee. The
employee was issued a written letter of counseling and advised that
future incidents may result in disciplinary action.

**Don't Misuse Government Vehicles---Even to Help Your Family!**

**The Facts:** The son and nephew of a high-level Federal employee were
having car problems and needed lunch. With what may have been good
intentions, this high-level employee decided to use a Government vehicle
to help. He damaged the vehicle, and his act was discovered. His reward
for helping his family with a Government vehicle: suspension without pay
for 45 days and reassignment to a new position. (Source: *Donald Bucknor
v. U.S. Postal Service*, NY-0752-01-0027-I-2, Jan. 24, 2003.)

**The Law:** 31 U.S.C. § 1349 (2003) requires that any Federal officer
or employee who "willfully uses or authorizes the use of a passenger
motor vehicle or aircraft owned or leased by the United States
Government," except for official purposes, be suspended without pay for
a *minimum* of one month and, "when circumstances warrant, for a longer
period" or be "summarily removed from office." Moreover, in *Brown v.
United States Postal Service*, 64 M.S.P.R. 425, 433 (1994), the Merit
Systems Protection Board affirmed that supervisors could be held to
higher standards of conduct than non-supervisors, because supervisors
occupy positions of greater trust and responsibility.

**Misuse of Property Causes Admiral to Lose Promotion**

A links-loving Vice Admiral let his love of the game go too far.
According to the Inspector General, the Vice Admiral misused Government
property, subordinates, and official time to sponsor a private golf
tournament---a golf tournament that he advertised as an official event.
Tournament participants were rewarded with gifts improperly solicited
and accepted by the Vice Admiral from contractors. This led the
Secretary of the Navy to withdraw the Vice Admiral's nomination for a
fourth star and issue him a letter of instruction and caution.

The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch
limit the use of Government property to authorized purposes only, and
official time is limited to the performance of official duties. These
regulations also prohibit the solicitation or acceptance of gifts from
prohibited sources. The lesson: don't let your activities as a "fore"
star keep you from becoming a four-star.

**Misuse of Official Mail Leads to Removal**

A GS-11 administrative services specialist was removed for falsifying
documents and misusing Government property and official mail. The
specialist's supervisor had prepared a letter in his personal capacity
expressing his disagreement with judicial actions to free the individual
charged with shooting and killing his son; this letter was mailed to
individuals in the law enforcement community in nongovernment envelopes
with privately-paid postage. The specialist took the letter prepared by
her supervisor, placed it on Department of Justice stationary, copied
the supervisor's signature onto the letter, and sent it out in franked
agency envelopes directed to members of the judicial community, the
Federal Public Defender's Office, and a law school dean, all without the
supervisor's knowledge or consent. The removed employee initially denied
having taken such actions under oath, but later admitted that the
allegations were true.

As a consequence of the specialist's falsification of documents, misuse
of Government property, and abuse of official mail, she was removed from
her position and recommended for possible criminal charges.

**Use of Government Property for Private Business Leads to Removal**

After repeated warnings, a Department of the Treasury computer
specialist was removed from his position for unauthorized use of
Government property in support of his private business. The employee had
used his Government computer to copy his commercial business computer
files from one floppy disk to another floppy disk, and computer records
showed extensive activity related to the employee's comic book business.
A subsequent investigation showed that the employee had falsified his
timesheet so that it did not reflect time he had spent running his
private business during work hours, leading to an extra \$63,000 in
payment for work the employee did not actually perform.

Many agencies allow limited personal use of Government property when the
use involves minimal additional expense to the Government and does not
overburden any of the agency's information resources. Nevertheless,
employees are specifically prohibited from the pursuit of private
commercial business activities or profit-making ventures using the
Government's office equipment.

**Misuse of Government Property Results in Removal**

A GS-5 employee of the Department of the Interior was removed for misuse
of Government property, failure to follow a supervisor's instructions,
and misrepresentation of facts on official documents. Investigations
revealed that the employee made 1,609 unofficial calls on his
Government-issued cell phone at a cost of \$752.08, and used his
assigned laptop computer to access unauthorized sites. The employee
further failed to follow a supervisor's instructions when he charged
meals on his Government credit card and used a Government vehicle after
receiving instruction to the contrary. Lastly, the employee
misrepresented facts on official documents when he submitted a travel
document requesting reimbursement for a day when he had not actually
been on official travel, and falsely claiming to have held the
designation of Agency Representative on three occasions.

The Administrative Judge concluded that the employee's conduct was
intentional and that he showed minimal, if any, potential for
rehabilitation. Consequently, the employee was removed and banned from
seeking Federal employment in the future.

**Misuse of Official Vehicle Earns Employee 30-Day Suspension**

A U.S. Postal Service employee who used a Government-owned law
enforcement vehicle to shop for a personal computer found himself
defending his actions before an appellate court judge. The employee
argued that the use was "official use" because he sometimes used his
personal computer for business purposes; however, the employee admitted
to owning a backup computer in addition to the broken one he was
shopping to replace, and failed to explain why he could not shop for a
computer while off-duty. The judge was likewise unconvinced by the
employee's claim that the use was "official" because he could respond to
emergencies while shopping.

The judge affirmed the Postal Service's suspension of the employee for
thirty days without pay.

**Misuse of Official Vehicle, Again**

A High Voltage Electrician at the Naval Base in Point Magu was penalized
for willful misuse of a government vehicle when he reported to work,
checked out a vehicle, and drove to the galley for breakfast. The
employee argued that he had never received notification of the
restriction against driving government vehicles to meals, a claim
somewhat undercut by the fact that he had signed a document the previous
month indicating his receipt of the rules regarding misuse of government
vehicles. The employee also argued that he was on call for emergencies
while eating breakfast, and thus his use was "official." An appellate
court judge rejected this claim, finding no evidence that his position
as a High Voltage Electrician required him to be "on call constantly" as
described.

The judge affirmed the electrician's thirty-day suspension without pay.

**Misuse of a Government Vehicle and Weapon Leads to Removal**

A series of egregious judgment calls by a criminal investigator for the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) made for
eight hours that ended his federal career. The investigator's bad day
began when he decided to leave while on duty in order to show a rental
house he owned to a prospective tenant, a bad idea made even worse by
his decision to drive his official vehicle. Upon arriving at the house,
the investigator found an intruder, at which point he decided to draw
his service weapon and chase the intruder out, firing a shot in the
process. The investigator called the police to report the break-in, and
upon searching the premises, the police turned up a second intruder
hiding in a closet (presumably petrified in terror). However, somehow
absent in the investigator's recitation of the original incident was the
shot fired at the fleeing intruder, and the police quickly departed to
take the second intruder to jail. Apparently nonplussed at the
afternoon's events, the investigator next decided to drive across town
(still in his official vehicle) to meet yet another prospective tenant.
At this point the police officers learned about the gunshot from the
second intruder, and requested the investigator's presence at the police
station.

The investigator was charged with (1) mishandling of a service weapon,
(2) failure to report discharge of a service weapon, (3) misuse of a
government vehicle, and (4) lack of candor. Needless to say, that
fateful day was the investigator's last in federal service.

**Misuse of Government Credentials Results in Demotion**

A Supervisory Special Agent, GS-14, found herself demoted to Special
Agent, GS-13, after misusing her government credentials in a traffic
stop. The agent was riding as a passenger with a friend when the car was
pulled over by the police. Although the police officer did not request
that the agent identify herself, she immediately displayed her federal
credentials when the officer approached. Although the agent never
requested special treatment from the officer, the Administrative Judge
noted that "mere self-identification by a law officer can result in
favorable treatment by another law enforcement officer," and for this
reason agents are trained to be careful not to use their credentials for
personal gain. The agent was also separately cited for improperly
securing her government-issued weapon, which she stored at home "behind
the coffee mugs on the refrigerator" because she had "forgot\[ten\] the
combination" to her gun safe.

In addition to her demotion, the agent was also suspended for 14 days.

*(Source: 2005 MSPB LEXIS 1812)*

**Employee Removed for Misuse of Government Computer**

The Installation Strategic Planning Officer at Fort Steward was relieved
of his duties after it was discovered that he had been using his
government laptop to both view sexually-explicit materials and type up
notes for his church. The officer will have plenty of time to ponder his
actions, as the Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed his removal from
federal service.

**Lavish Agency Party Earns Federal Probe**

On the eve of its two-year anniversary, the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) spent nearly a half-million dollars on an awards
ceremony at a luxurious Washington, D.C. hotel. The lavish celebration
had over a thousand attendees and was held at the Grand Hyatt, which
bills itself as "one of the most magnificent" hotels in Washington, D.C.
The ceremony included finger food averaging \$33 per person, seven cakes
totaling \$1,850, and three cheese displays worth \$1,500. TSA planners
paid an event planning company \$81,767 for plaques, which they
presented to 543 employees and 30 organizations. Planners also spent
\$1,486 on three balloon arches, \$1,509 for signs, and \$5,196 for
official photographs.

In honor of this over-the-top celebration, TSA was awarded an
investigation by the Homeland Security Department's Inspector General.

*(Source: Associated Press, 10/14/2004)*

**Certifying Officer Personally Liable for Unauthorized Staff "Sunset
Cruise"**

When reviewing the expense report for a week-long staff retreat, the
Veterans Administration (VA) Inspector General noted an interesting
charge. Included in the \$21,000 bill for the 20-person Florida retreat
was an \$823 charge for a "sunset dinner cruise." Determining that this
item was an "entertainment expense," and noting that the VA's
appropriation does not authorize funds for entertainment expenses, the
Inspector General recommended that the office director be held
personally liable for the improper payment. Upon review, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) found that the "certifying officer" is
indeed personally financially liable for improperly certified payments;
however, the GAO ruled that the office director was merely an approving
official. The GAO ruled that the funds should be collected either from
the payee, if possible, or from the certifying officer who actually
certified the payment.

**Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR)
Issues**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc138655137 .anchor}

### Re-sale of MWR Products

Allegations were brought against a Naval base's Morale, Welfare, and
Recreation (MWR) Department regarding the printing and selling of
T-shirts. The MWR printed T-shirts and then sold them to military
members, who then resold them at public events off-base. A civilian
businessman who owned a T-shirt business nearby complained that MWR
should not be making and selling the T-shirts that were going to be
re-sold off-base. After an investigation, it was determined that MWR was
not informing the military members about the prohibition regarding the
re-sale of MWR goods and was also not informing the military members
that they could not re-sell the T-shirts, both parts of MWR written
policy. MWR began enforcing the policies and conducted training for all
of their staff.

## Political Activity Violations

### Agriculture Department Manager Suspended for Hatch Act Violation

A Department of Agriculture manager received a four-month suspension
after soliciting political contributions from subordinates. The Hatch
Act prohibits Federal employees from certain activities in partisan
political campaigns. The employee asked subordinates at work to
contribute to the 1992 Democratic presidential campaign. Although the
Hatch Act was amended in 1994 to allow Federal employees to participate
more in partisan political activities, it still prohibits employees from
engaging in political activities while on duty or in any Government
office.

### Government Employees Sentenced for Political Fundraising in a USDA Building

Four employees of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) were convicted
for political fundraising on Federal property. The USDA employees
organized a Political Action Committee to raise money for the 1992
campaign. They collected a total of \$3,250 in checks from various
individuals in a USDA building. To encourage donations, the four
employees suggested that contributions to the fund might result in
special consideration from the USDA officials affiliated with the
Administration. Following the election, the four created a list of USDA
employees who should not, in their opinion, receive special
consideration from the Administration. The four defendants each received
four years probation. Two of the defendants were fined \$1,000 and
ordered to perform community service. The other two defendants were
fined \$2,500 and ordered to serve 30 days detention in a halfway house.

### Political Activities/Misuse of Government Email System

Allegations were made against a Department of Defense civilian employee
regarding the distribution of political material over the Government
email system. The allegation was made after the employee sent a
political attack message regarding a certain presidential candidate to
everyone in the unit---including the commanding officer, who promptly
notified the Inspector General.

An investigation determined that the material was inappropriate for
distribution through the Government email system. A written memo of
counseling was placed in the employee's personnel file. Although the
Hatch Act was amended in 1994 to allow Federal employees to participate
more in partisan political activities, it still prohibits employees from
engaging in political activities while on duty or in any Government
office.

**Political Activities: Two Humorous But True Stories**

An election was coming up and one enterprising young Federal employee
called his ethics officer to inquire whether it was permitted, under the
Hatch Act Amendments, to stuff ballot boxes!

An employee who was told not to wear a Bush campaign button responded,
"But I'm not. This is a button from his dad's campaign!"

**Postal Employee Hatch Act Violation**

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announced that the Merit
Systems Protection Board (MSPB) had concurred with OSC's petition that a
mail processor for the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS) Mid-Missouri
Processing and Distribution Facility violated the Hatch Act's
prohibition on being a candidate for elective office in a partisan
election.

OSC's petition charged the postal employee with willfully violating the
Hatch Act. The employee did not respond to OSC's petition and instead
resigned from the Postal Service on March 5, 2001. The MSPB decision
stated that "\[name withheld's\] resignation does not moot the Special
Counsel's complaint. Rather, his total failure to answer the complaint
warrants the \[his\] removal from USPS." In view of the postal
employee's resignation, MSPB required the Postal Service to place a copy
of its decision in the employee's official personnel file.

When the postal employee began his job as a mail processor in Columbia,
Missouri in 1997, he was given training material that explained that
Postal Service employees were covered by the Hatch Act and could not be
candidates in partisan elections. The Hatch Act prohibits most Federal
and postal employees from running for partisan office. Hatch Act
penalties for Federal and postal employees range from a minimum of a
30-day suspension without pay to removal.

**Federal Employee Removed from Position for Hatch Act Violation**

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announced that the Merit
Systems Protection Board (MSPB) had granted its petitions to remove two
U.S. Postal Service employees from their positions as Letter Carriers:
the first in Jeff Davis County, Georgia, and the second in Nevada
County, Arkansas. OSC's petitions, filed with the MSPB in October 2000,
charged both men with violating the Hatch Act's prohibition on being a
candidate for elective office in a partisan election. Both men had filed
papers to run as independent candidates in partisan local sheriff races.
Both were warned by the OSC and by their Postal Service supervisors that
their candidacies violated the Hatch Act. Nevertheless, when OSC filed
its petitions in October, both men remained active candidates and both
continued their candidacies until the November 7th general election.
Both were eventually removed from their positions in the Postal Service.

The Hatch Act strictly prohibits most Federal and Postal Service
employees from running for partisan elective office. It also strictly
prohibits state and local employees who have job duties in connection
with federally funded programs from running for partisan office.  \
   

## EPA Official Disciplined for Hatch Act Violation

A Regional Administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in
Denver, Colorado, agreed to a 100-day suspension to settle a petition by
the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) alleging that he had violated
the Hatch Act. The administrator had resigned from EPA in order to run
for a Montana Congressional seat, but lost his bid for election. He was
accordingly appointed back to his former position as Regional
Administrator. OSC's petition for disciplinary action alleged that the
administrator subsequently met with one of the remaining Congressional
candidates as well as several of the candidate's campaign officials.
During that meeting, the participants discussed the administrator's
endorsement of the candidate and the solicitation of campaign
contributions. Shortly after the meeting, an endorsement/fundraising
letter was drafted for the administrator's review and approval. Among
other things, the letter stated: "Contributing now to \[the remaining
candidate's\] campaign is absolutely critical." It urged recipients to "
. . . make a contribution today."

OSC's petition alleged that the administrator reviewed the draft letter
and authorized the candidate's campaign staff to sign his name to it, in
violation of the Hatch Act. That Act prohibits Federal employees from
soliciting political contributions. Subsequently, the candidate's
campaign distributed the signed letter to numerous potential supporters.

The Special Counsel also emphasized that while OSC stands ready to
prosecute violations of the Hatch Act, it prefers to help Federal
employees avoid such violations. "When in doubt about what is
permissible or impermissible under Hatch Act," the Special Counsel
advised, "I would encourage employees to consult our office. There's a
wealth of information at our website, [www.osc.gov]{.underline}, and
employees can actually e-mail questions to us."

**Five Hatch Act Violations Made by Agriculture Employee**

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announced a consent judgment
had been entered in its Petition for Disciplinary Action filed against
an attorney for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in NLRB's
Little Rock, Arkansas office. OSC's petition, filed with the Merit
Systems Protection Board (MSPB), had charged the attorney with five
Hatch Act violations: (1) participating in partisan political activity
while on duty; (2) participating in political activity or in Federal
office space; (3) using his official authority for the purpose of
interfering with the result of an election; (4) knowingly soliciting the
political participation of individuals with business interests pending
before the NLRB; and (5) knowingly soliciting, accepting, or receiving
political contributions.

Pursuant to a stipulation, the attorney admitted that he had violated
the Hatch Act and agreed to be removed from Federal employment. The
Hatch Act prohibits most Federal employees from engaging in partisan
political activities in Federal office space or while on duty. The Hatch
Act also prohibits Federal employees from using their official authority
for the purpose of affecting the results of an election; this would
include using an official Government title and soliciting "volunteer"
services from a subordinate employee. The Hatch Act also prohibits
knowingly soliciting the political participation of certain individuals,
including those with business pending before an employee's Federal
Agency.

**Employee's Mayoral Run Violates Hatch Act**

When a Federal Aviation Administration employee decided to run for mayor
of Albuquerque, he wisely consulted his Ethics Counselor. He was advised
that the Hatch Act did not prohibit him from entering the mayoral race.
A problem soon emerged, however, when advertisements, press releases,
and newspaper editorials started to identify the employee as a
Republican, and the employee began to accept financial assistance from
the Republican Party. The employee was swiftly contacted by the Office
of Special Counsel, which advised him that he was in violation of the
Hatch Act and needed to quit his campaign or leave his federal position.
The employee, however, took the position that he was not in fact in
violation of any laws, and continued his campaign.

Unhappily for the employee, the voters did not afford him much interest,
and his campaign never truly got off the ground. He did manage, however,
to catch the attention of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The
employee's violation of the Hatch Act earned him a 120-day suspension.

*(Source: www.fedsmith.com, April 18, 2005)*

**DC Mayor's Chief of Staff Removed for Hatch Act Violations**

The former Chief of Staff to the Mayor of the District of Columbia was
forced to voluntarily resign after the U.S. Office of Special Counsel
(OSC) charged him with two instances of violations of the Hatch Act.
Specifically, the OSC charged that the Chief of Staff---a D.C.
employee---improperly asked other D.C. employees to volunteer to work on
the Mayor's reelection campaign; the Chief of Staff was also charged
with soliciting employees to purchase tickets to a Democratic
fundraiser. In return for the Chief of Staff's voluntary resignation and
his agreement not to seek or accept employment with the District of
Columbia for a period of two years, the OSC agreed to drop its charges.

The Hatch Act prohibits most District of Columbia and federal employees
from seeking nomination or election to a partisan political office;
soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions; and engaging
in political activity while on duty, among other things.

*(Source: OSC, 3/21/05)*

**Co-Hosting a Political Fundraiser Earns Suspension**

An attorney in the Civil Division of the Department of Justice
experienced the other side of the judicial process after being charged
by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) with a violation of the
Hatch Act. The attorney had self-reported that he had co-hosted a
political fundraiser for seven invitees, presumably unaware that this
was a violation of the Hatch Act. The attorney reached a voluntary
settlement with the OSC in which he served a 30-day suspension.

The attorney violated 5 U.S.C. 7323(a)(2), which prohibits federal
employees from knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving political
contributions. The Hatch Act prohibits most District of Columbia and
federal employees from seeking nomination or election to a partisan
political office; soliciting, accepting or receiving political
contributions; using their official authority to interfere with the
results of an election; and engaging in political activity while on
duty, among other things.

**Political Emails at Work Lead to Employee Removal**

An attorney for the Small Business Administration was removed from his
position after it was discovered that over a period of three years, he
had received, read, drafted or sent over 100 emails from his government
computer related to partisan activity. The attorney, an elected official
of the California Green Party, used the computer for emails involving
issues such as drafts of party platforms, the planning of party
conventions, party fundraising, and party recruitment. Although the
attorney had previously assured his supervisor---who was aware of his
political activities---that he would not violate the Hatch Act, this
assurance proved to be deceptive.

The Hatch Act prohibits most District of Columbia and federal employees
from seeking nomination or election to a partisan political office,
soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions, using their
official authority to interfere with the results of an election, and
engaging in political activity while on duty, among other things.

*(Source: OSC, 11/28/05)*

**Humorous Partisan Emails Found to Violate the Hatch Act**

During the 2004 election, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) filed two
complaints alleging that Federal employees had violated the Hatch Act by
sending politically partisan e-mail messages to coworkers. In the first
complaint, the OSC alleged that an employee at the Environmental
Protection Agency sent an e-mail to fifteen coworkers that contained a
widely-circulated photograph and several negative statements about one
candidate. In the second complaint, the OSC alleged that an Air Force
civilian employee sent an e-mail while on official duty to 70 recipients
that contained a mock resume of one of the candidates.

The Hatch Act prohibits Federal employees from engaging in political
activity while on duty, while in any room or building occupied in the
discharge of official duties by an individual employed by the
Government, while wearing a uniform, or while in a Government vehicle.
The Hatch Act does not prohibit "water cooler"-type discussions among
co-workers about current events, and consequently does not prohibit
"water cooler" discussion over e-mail. E-mail can be used as an
alternative mode for casual conversation, but a line is crossed when
Federal employees disseminate their message to a mass audience, enabling
them to engage in an electronic form of leafleting at the worksite.

OSC has advised that in order to determine whether an e-mail violates
the Hatch Act prohibition against engaging in political activity, it
will consider the following: the audience that received the e-mail, the
number of people to whom the e-mail was sent, the sender's relationship
to the recipient, whether the purpose of the message is to encourage the
recipient to support a particular political party or candidate, whether
the message was sent in a Federal building, and whether the Federal
employee was on duty.

**Post-Employment Violations (18 U.S.C. § 207-Type
Violations)**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc138655139 .anchor}

**Watch Representing a Business to the Agency Where Employed the
Previous Year!**

**The Facts:** A Senior Executive Service (SES) employee of the State
Department, who had been tasked with assisting the Bosnian Government in
purchasing military equipment and training, retired and within several
days took employment with a private contractor of military hardware. Six
months later, he recommended to the United States Embassy in Sarajevo
that it support his bid for a contract between his new employer and the
Bosnian Government. His bid for the contract was successful, but he also
succeeded in securing legal action from the United States Government.
The employee agreed to a \$10,000 settlement in exchange for being
released from legal proceedings. (Source: Office of Government Ethics
memorandum, Oct. 2002.)

**The Law:** 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) (2003) bars every SES employee for one
year after ending employment with the United States from knowingly
communicating with the Federal agency or office with which he or she has
worked, with the intent of influencing that agency or office on behalf
of anyone (other than the Government) who seeks an official action.

**DoD Official Pays \$12,000 to Department of Justice to Settle Ethics
Complaint**

A former DoD Deputy Inspector General (IG) paid \$12,000 to the
Government to settle allegations that he violated 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(2), a
criminal statute that prohibits former Government employees from
representing others to the Government on matters that were under the
former employee\'s official responsibility during his last year in
office. The prohibition lasts for two years after the former employee
leaves office. In this case, during the former Deputy IG\'s last year in
office, his audit staff commenced an audit of a particular DoD program.
The audit report, which was not released until after the Deputy IG had
left the Government, recommended eliminating part of the program that
was operated by a private contractor. The same contractor hired the
former Deputy IG, who had by then been gone over one year, as an
independent auditor to review the audit report. On several occasions,
while acting on behalf of the contractor, and within two years after
leaving DoD, the former Deputy IG contacted DoD employees and criticized
the report with the intent to influence the judgment of the DoD
employees.

18 U.S.C. 207(a)(2) prohibits such representations. This statute is
often overlooked by Government employees. It includes all particular
matters involving specific parties in which the United States is a party
or has a direct and substantial interest that were actually pending
under the former employee\'s official responsibility during his or her
last year of employment. This includes matters that the former employee
may not have known about, or matters in which the employee may not have
played in role in determining, but, because of the employee\'s position,
were pending under his or her official responsibility. As noted above,
the statute prohibits the former employee from representing anyone to
the Government regarding such matters for a period of two years after
the employee leaves Government service.

**SEC Attorney Sentenced for Switching Sides After Leaving Government**

A former attorney with the Denver regional office of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) was convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. 207(a),
which prohibits former Government employees from communicating with the
Government with regard to matters they worked on as Government
employees. The SEC attorney was responsible for investigating certain
stock promoters regarding their promotion of stock in a certain company
that the promoters owned. Upon departure from the SEC, the attorney was
hired by the same stock promoters to perform legal work for their
subsidiary companies, including the company the attorney had been
investigating while at SEC. The attorney, in his new capacity as
director and counsel for the company, responded to a subpoena and
communicated with SEC officials on behalf of the company in question.

The attorney was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for this
violation of a criminal post-employment statute.

**Deputy Assistant Attorney General Settles Post-Government Employment
Violation**

The Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) of the Information
Resources Management (IRM) office within the Department of Justice left
Government service in January 1999. In his former position, he had
managed the various functions of the IRM office, which is responsible
for maintaining, assessing, designing, and procuring the information
systems and telecommunications for the Department of Justice. At all
pertinent times, he was paid at the rate of level 5 of the Executive
Service payscale. After the former DAAG left Government service, he
joined Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). On April
7, 1999, now working for SAIC, the former DAAG telephoned the Acting
DAAG of IRM. He told the Acting DAAG that he knew that the Department of
Justice was considering not using SAIC on a new contract, and stated
that such action might require a payment to SAIC, which could, in turn,
trigger the Anti‑Deficiency Act because budgeted funds would have been
exceeded.

The Government maintained that the former DAAG's conduct violated 18
U.S.C. 207(c), a criminal statute that prohibits a former senior
employee from communicating to or appearing before employees of his
former department or Agency for one year after leaving the Government,
on behalf of another, with the intent to influence official action.
Pursuant to a civil settlement agreement signed by the parties in August
2000, the former DAAG paid the Government \$30,000, and the Government
released him from its claims.

**Civil Complaint Filed Against FDA Chemist for Post-Employment
Activities**

According to the Government\'s civil complaint, the accused chemist was
employed by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the
Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) for a period of approximately two years.
In that capacity, the chemist performed reviews of Abbreviated New Drug
Applications (ANDAs) submitted by pharmaceutical companies seeking to
gain approval to manufacture and market generic versions of innovator
drugs. Shortly before leaving employment with the FDA, the chemist
completed the first‑level chemistry review of a pharmaceutical company's
ANDA for Miconazole Nitrate Vaginal Creme 2%, an alleged generic
equivalent to the prescription drug Monistat‑7. His review consisted of
an extensive analysis of the chemical components, manufacturing process,
testing methods, and labeling requirements of the product. Approximately
two years later, the chemist commenced employment as Vice President of
Regulatory Affairs and United States Agent for the same pharmaceutical
company. He subsequently contacted OGD officials on numerous occasions
in an effort to obtain approval of the company's ANDA, which was still
pending before OGD. His contacts consisted of status calls in which he
urged OGD representatives to speed up the process of approval of the
application and substantive discussions concerning problems with the
application.

A subsequent investigation found that throughout the chemist's contacts
with OGD officials, he was aggressive in seeking the approval of the
ANDA. Further, the chemist used his acquaintance with supervisory‑level
OGD officials from his tenure as an OGD employee in an attempt to get
special treatment for the ANDA. The ANDA was approved several months
later.

In the complaint, the Government alleged that the former employee's
actions violated 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(1), which permanently prohibits a
former Government employee from communicating to or appearing before the
Government, on behalf of another, in connection with a particular
matter, involving specific parties, in which he participated personally
and substantially as a Government employee. Pursuant to a settlement
agreement, the former employee agreed to pay the Government \$15,000,
and the Government released him from its claims.

**Improper Post-Employment Activities by Former Contract Administrator**

As contract administrator for the United States Air Force, the employee
was responsible for assuring compliance with the terms of two separate
construction contracts between the Government and a private contractor.
After leaving the Government, the contract administrator was hired by
the same contractor, and he became the company's contract administrator
on the same two contracts in question. While representing the
contractor, he submitted contract progress reports to the Government in
order to insure that the Government would compensate the company.
Eventually, the former Federal employee submitted to the Government an
equitable adjustment claim for approximately \$574,613 on one of the
contracts. The contract had a basic value of \$1.3 million.

The former Federal employee was convicted on two counts of violating 18
U.S.C. 207(a)(1), a post‑employment restriction that prohibits former
Government employees intending to influence official action from
communicating to or appearing before the Government, on behalf of
another, in connection with particular matters involving specific
parties in which they participated personally and substantially as
Government employees. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 216(a)(2), he was sentenced
to six months of imprisonment, six months of home confinement, a fine of
\$2000, and a special assessment of \$200.

**Air Force Officer Pleads Guilty to 18 U.S.C. 207 Violation**

An Air Force Colonel at Eielson Air Force Base worked on the 801 Housing
Project, an approximately \$70 million contract to build military family
housing at the base. The housing would be owned by a civilian developer
and leased to the United States. The Colonel was assigned to oversee the
project and was the Wing Commander\'s direct representative. He was also
the chairman of the \"801 Housing Working Group,\" which met weekly to
discuss any problems arising from the 801 Housing Project. Through his
position as chairman of the 801 Housing Working Group, the Colonel
worked with representatives of the corporation which took over as
construction contractor for the project in May 1994. In October of 1995,
the corporation acquired ownership of a second corporation. In January
1996, the Colonel began to express an interest in becoming an employee
of the first corporation. He retired from active duty with the United
States Air Force during July 1996 and began to work for the company as
General Manager, Government Services Division, in August 1996. The
United States continued to engage in contractual matters with the
corporation with respect to the 801 Housing Project. In September 1996,
the United States and the second, acquired corporation entered into a
lease wherein the United States leased from the corporation the military
housing units of the 801 Housing Project. Under the lease agreement, the
United States was to pay the second corporation \$8,688,150.00 on or
about October 15, 1996, but did not make the payment until October 21,
1996. On or about the 17th and 18th of October 1996, the now-retired
Colonel, as a representative of both corporations, contacted an employee
of the Air Force to attempt to expedite the late payment on the 801
Housing Project. In addition, on or about the 19th or 20th of May 1997,
the retired Colonel, again on behalf of the corporations, contacted an
employee of the Air Force to express displeasure regarding the Air
Force\'s warranty claims on the 801 Housing Project.

The United States charged the retired Colonel with violating 18 U.S.C.
207(a)(1) by contacting Air Force employees regarding the late payment
and the warranty claims. 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(1) bars former Federal
personnel (civilians and military) from representing another to Federal
agencies with the intent to influence regarding particular matters that
involve specific parties in which the former employee participated
personally and substantially while in Federal employment.

The retired Colonel pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor violation of 18
U.S.C. 207(a)(1) and agreed to pay a fine of \$5,000.

**Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Superintendent Commits 18 U.S.C. 207
Violation**

The Indian Business Development Grant (IBDG) program was created to
provide Federal grant funds to eligible Indian persons and Indian tribal
organizations. Funds to be released through the IBDG program must be
approved by the BIA. The BIA Agency Superintendent for the Crow
Reservation was found to have misapplied \$103,750 of IBDG funds and
\$311,275 of Crow Tribe funds for the purchase of land by the Crow Tribe
from a private party. The land purchase was never completed. The
superintendent subsequently retired from the BIA in 1994 and became
employed by the Crow Tribe as manager of the tribal casino. Beginning in
1996, the former superintendent represented the Crow Tribe in
appearances before the BIA in connection with the reconciliation and
justification for the release of the \$103,750 of IBDG funds that the
superintendent had approved for the failed land purchase in 1992.

The former superintendent was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 207,
representing the Crow Tribe before the United States in connection with
the reconciliation and justification for the release of IBDG funds, a
matter in which he had participated personally and substantially as a
superintendent of the BIA. He was also charged with violating 18 U.S.C.
371 (conspiracy to convert Federal funds), 18 U.S.C. 641 (willfully
converting Federal funds), and 18 U.S.C. 1163 (misapplication of tribal
monies) and found guilty on all but the 18 U.S.C. 1163 charge. He was
sentenced to five years\' probation, six months\' detention, a \$150
Special Assessment to the Crime Victims Fund, and a \$6,000 fine.

**Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Officer Pleads Guilty to 18 U.S.C. 207
Violation**

While a collection officer for the IRS, the accused was assigned to the
collection cases of two IRS taxpayers. After the accused left the IRS,
he represented both taxpayers before the IRS in connection with the
collection cases to which he had been assigned as an IRS employee.

He was charged with two violations of 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(1), making a
communication to and an appearance before an officer and employee of the
IRS, on behalf of the two taxpayers in connection with a matter in which
the United States was a party or had an interest and in which he had
participated while an IRS employee. The accused pled guilty to the
charges and was sentenced to one year of probation and 100 hours of
community service.

**United States Army Officer and Procurement Official Fined \$50,000 for
18 U.S.C. 207 and Procurement Integrity Act Violations**

The Army Officer coordinated activities for all medical facilities
within his region, including Army, Navy, and Air Force facilities. In
1994, the officer retired from the Army and began employment with a
defense contractor. This contractor had previously been awarded a
contract to provide inpatient and outpatient psychiatric services in
support of William Beaumont Army Medical Center; while the officer was
employed by the Army, his official duties had included awarding and
supervising this contract. The Army Audit Agency subsequently began an
audit of the contractor's contract to determine whether an option to
renew the contract should be exercised. The audit was completed on
January 10, 1994, and forwarded to the officer. On July 12, 1995, a
request for proposals was issued by the Audit Agency for a follow‑on
contract to provide essentially the same services that were being
provided by the contractor. On October 13, 1995, the contractor
submitted a proposal, which was signed by the retired officer as the
company\'s Senior Vice President.

The retired officer was charged with civil violations of the Procurement
Integrity Act, 41 U.S.C. 423(f)(1), and of 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(2), and
207(c)(1). Pursuant to a settlement agreement dated July 23, 1998, the
accused agreed to pay the United States \$50,000 in exchange for the
United States\' dismissal of the complaint.

**Attorney for Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Division of
Enforcement Violates 18 U.S.C. 207**

In 1993, the SEC attorney was assigned to investigate a group of persons
for securities fraud involving the payment of bribes to manipulate the
market for the shares of certain companies. These bribes consisted of
kickbacks promoters were paying brokers to tout the stocks of their
companies. As part of this investigation, the attorney investigated two
stock promoters, who cooperated in the attorney's investigation and gave
him sworn testimony in which they admitted to engaging in the payment of
bribes intended to manipulate the share price of the company's stock.
The attorney left the SEC on February 20, 1995 under threat of
suspension for unrelated misconduct. He was immediately hired by the two
stock promoters to serve as their corporation's legal counsel. In
January 1996, the SEC\'s New York office, working in conjunction with
the U.S. Attorney\'s office in the Eastern District of New York, began
an investigation of the entire matter. In February 1996, the SEC issued
a subpoena for documents from the promoters' corporation. The attorney,
who was then the corporation's counsel and also on the corporation\'s
board of directors, participated in responding to that subpoena.

Investigators charged that the attorney's participation included
communications with SEC officials that violated 18 U.S.C. 207(a), which
prohibits former Government employees from communicating with the
Government with intent to influence in connection with particular
matters involving specific parties in which they participated personally
and substantially as Government employees. The attorney and five other
defendants (including the two stock promoters) were indicted in October
1996 for securities fraud. After the five co‑defendants pleaded guilty,
the attorney was indicted on a host of new charges, including securities
fraud, money laundering, and a violation of 18 U.S.C. 207(a). He pled
guilty to three counts, including the 207(a) charge.

**Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Manager Resigns and Then Has
Improper Contact with the Agency**

While supervising the Airway Facilities Branch of the FAA, the manager
had official involvement in the procurement of \"Airway Facilities
Training Services.\" This FAA contract was valued at \$43,607,755. On
March 27, 1992, the manager accepted a position with a bidder for the
above-described contract as \"Manager, Training Services on the Federal
Aviation Administration\'s Airway Facilities Contract.\" On August 10,
1992, the bidder included the former manager's name as \"Program
Manager\" in the bid proposal. Members of the Source Evaluation Board,
recognizing the name, became concerned as to the possible violations of
procurement integrity laws and sought advice from FAA legal counsel. The
FAA legal counsel requested an official investigation on June 8, 1993.
Evidence produced during the investigation indicated that the manager in
his former capacity had personally reviewed, amended, and corrected the
Statement of Work for the bid, and had also been responsible for the
nominations of two selection board members for the contract. After
resigning, the former manager appeared before the FAA on behalf of the
bidder, his then-employer, at meetings pertaining to the procurement.

The former manager pled guilty to a single count of violating 18 U.S.C.
207(a)(2), and was sentenced to one year of probation and was fined
\$5000. This statute bars former Federal personnel from representing a
party to Federal agencies, for a period of two years after leaving
Government, regarding particular matters involving specific parties
which were pending under the employee's official responsibility during
the employee's last year of Federal service.

**Senior Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Violates 18 U.S.C. 207**

Following her resignation, the former Board of Governors member was
elected to the boards of directors of a number of companies. One of
these companies was affected by a guideline issued by the Federal
Reserve called the highly leveraged transaction (HLT) guideline. The Fed
requested public comment on the HLT guideline. The company in question
submitted a written comment to the Fed, and company officials met with a
member of the Fed\'s Board of Governors. The former Board of Governors
member both arranged and attended the meeting. She introduced the
company officials to the member of the Fed\'s Board of Governors, but
said nothing during the substantive part of the meeting. The company
paid the former employee \$1,500 for her participation in the meeting.

The former employee agreed to pay a \$5,000 civil fine in connection
with a criminal investigation into whether she violated the one‑year bar
of 18 U.S.C. 207(c), the post‑employment activities statute. This
statute prohibits former senior Government officials for one year after
leaving their senior positions from representing or appearing before
employees of their former agencies on behalf of another with the intent
to influence them regarding official action.

**Former Official at the Department of Agriculture's Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation (FCIC) Improperly Represents New Employer to U.S.
Government**

A major crop insurance corporation began the FCIC appeal process with
respect to adverse FCIC decisions on certain claims (including the case
of a certain Maine potato farmer) by sending to the official in question
a notice of intent to appeal. Later that year, the official left the
FCIC and joined the crop insurance corporation as a consultant. After
the FCIC rejected the appeals that the company had initiated, the
official repeatedly tried to persuade Agency officials to reconsider the
denial of the appeal involving the Maine potato farmer.

The former official pled guilty to two counts of violating the two-year
restriction on post‑employment contacts codified at 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(2)
and was sentenced to probation. This statute bars former employees for a
period two years from representing others to Federal agencies regarding
particular matters involving specific parties which were pending under
the former employee's official responsibility during his or her last
year of Federal service.

**Employee Gets Two Years Probation for Improper Post-Government
Representations**

A contract specialist for the General Services Administration (GSA) pled
guilty to violating conflict-of-interest laws after her retirement from
federal service. During the specialist's five years at the GSA, she
oversaw a number of software-related contracts. She was involved
personally and substantially in one large contract in particular, the
negotiation of which encompassed the span of several years. Upon
retirement from her position at the GSA, the contract specialist sought
employment with the company that had received the large contract. Over
the next several months, the specialist contacted GSA multiple times
with the intent to influence GSA to extend the company's contract as
well as award the company new contracts.

The specialist pled guilty to violating 18 USC 207(a)(1), which
prohibits an executive branch employee from knowingly making, with the
intent to influence, any communication to any agency on behalf of any
other person in connection with a particular matter in which the person
participated personally and substantially as such officer or employee.
She was sentenced to two years supervised probation and substance abuse
treatment.

**Negotiating with Employer While Engaged in Official Matters Earns
\$5000 Fine**

The Chief of Staff for the President's Critical Infrastructure
Protection Board (PCIPB) in the Office of Homeland Security participated
in negotiations with a company for a contract to provide support
functions for the Board. However, at the same time, he was speaking with
the company regarding prospective employment. The Chief of Staff
interviewed with the company on July 18, and didn't submit a letter of
recusal until July 24. Meanwhile, he received a job offer on July 23,
which he accepted on August 1. When investigators began to look into the
timeline of the employment offer, the former Chief of Staff was forced
to step down from the company and pay a \$5,000 fine to settle the
matter.

**Salary for Government Work from Non-Government Source (18 U.S.C. §
209-Type Violations)**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc138655140 .anchor}

**Charging Customers for Federally Funded Work---Criminal!**

**The Facts:** An Acting Assistant Director for the San Francisco
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) office charged one alien
\$950 for a file review (for which the INS does not charge), asked
another alien for \$300 for an unneeded INS pardon, and charged a third
\$250 to get a citizen application waiver that had already been
approved. The Director was sentenced to serve six months in a halfway
house, to be followed by six months of home detention and four years of
probation, during which time he would be prohibited from acting in any
capacity on immigration matters without permission of his probation
officer. (Source: *Federal Ethics Report*, Feb. 2003.)

**The Law:** 18 U.S.C. § 209 (2003) makes it criminal for an employee of
the Federal executive branch or of an independent agency of the United
States from receiving any compensation for official services. For
violations of this law, 18 U.S.C. § 216 (2003) authorizes fines and
prison terms for up to one year---unless the conduct is willful, in
which case imprisonment could be for as much as 5 years.

**Navy Employee Commits Section 209 Violation**

A U.S. District Court recently sentenced a GS-14 Navy employee to one
year of probation and fined him \$5000 for receiving an illegal
contribution to his salary in violation of 18 U.S.C. 209. In addition to
criminal penalties, the employee was suspended without pay for twenty
days. The employee was the director of a unit that marketed contracts to
other activities and then issued delivery orders to the contractors.
While performing these duties, the employee asked a contractor for, and
subsequently received, a Coach leather writing portfolio and briefcase
and a laptop computer. The investigation started when a contractor
employee, who saw the fax that the employee had sent to the contractor
requesting the items, notified the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

Employees may not solicit or accept compensation, including goods or
services, from any non-Government source for performing their Government
duties. Even though the goods or services may not have affected how the
employees perform their work or make decisions, such as whether to award
a contract, it is a violation to solicit or accept such compensation.

**Senior Official Pays \$24,900 Settlement to Department of Justice**

To settle charges that he violated 18 U.S.C. 209 by accepting fees for
speeches made as part of his official duties, a senior official of the
National Science Foundation agreed to pay \$24,900 to the Department of
Justice in return for dropping criminal charges. The senior official had
delivered four speeches to universities as part of his official duties,
yet accepted honoraria amounting to \$5,500 for those speeches.

Since those speeches were part of the official's duties, acceptance of
compensation constituted supplementation of his salary from non-Federal
sources, which is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 209. Federal employees may
accept honoraria for activities conducted in their personal capacities,
but not as part of their official duties. Furthermore, although
honoraria are permitted when speaking in the employee\'s personal
capacity, employees may not accept compensation for speaking, teaching,
or writing on matters that are directly related to their official
duties.

**District of Columbia Employee Pleads Guilty to Section 209 Violation**

Several inspectors employed by the District of Columbia Department of
Consumer and Regulatory Affairs were accepting bribes and gratuities in
exchange for the issuance of construction, plumbing, and electrical
permits. In one instance, a private architect paid \"tips\" to one of
these inspectors in exchange for speedy and favorable inspections on his
renovation projects. The architect was allowed to plead guilty to a
misdemeanor count of section 209, and was sentenced to one year of
probation and a \$1,000 fine. The inspectors were convicted on charges
of violating 18 U.S.C. 201 (bribery).

18 U.S.C. 209 bars the unlawful supplementation of salary and applies to
officers and employees of the District of Columbia and non‑Government
sources who compensate any such officers and employees for their
Government services.

## District of Columbia DMV Employee Pleads Guilty to Section 209 Charge

An employee of the District of Columbia Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) was caught accepting bribes in exchange for altering DMV computer
records in order to \"clean up\" the driving records of individuals who
had outstanding traffic tickets or past violations that might prevent
them from obtaining a driver\'s license. These bribe transactions were
arranged through a middleman. The DMV employee and the middleman were
convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 209; the DMV employee was sentenced to
two years probation and a \$200 fine, and the middleman was sentenced to
one‑year probation and a \$250 fine. Two citizens who paid the parties
to get their records "cleaned up" were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C.
201 (bribery). 18 U.S.C. 209 bars the unlawful supplementation of salary
and applies to Federal officers and employees as well as those of the
District of Columbia and non‑Government sources who compensate any such
officers and employees for their Government services.

**Private Citizen Attempts to Bribe Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Employee**

The citizen tried to bribe the IRS employee by paying him \$250 for
favorable treatment regarding an IRS matter. The citizen pled guilty to
a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. 209, which prohibits the payment of
supplementation to a Government employee\'s salary.

**Air Force Civilian Employee at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia
Violates 18 U.S.C. 209**

The Air Force employee was designated by his Agency as the supervisory
construction representative for the Simplified Acquisition of Base
Engineering Requirements (SABER) contract. Under this contract, a
private company agreed to provide base engineering and construction
services at Langley Air Force Base. The prime contractor subcontracted
its electrical work to another company. A supervisor with the
subcontractor subsequently provided the Air Force employee with an air
conditioning system, a Jet Ski and trailer, a home computer system, and
a laptop computer, with a total value of approximately \$16,500.

The Air Force employee pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of 18
U.S.C. 209, for receiving a supplementation to his salary as
compensation for his services as a Government employee. He was sentenced
to three years probation and a \$2500 fine.

**Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Employee Drives Overseas Auto
Scheme**

As a U.S. Federal employee residing in Egypt, the employee discovered
that he could purchase an imported vehicle in Egypt without having to
pay the normal 150% excise tax. This fact had created a black market in
which Egyptian car brokers would pay U.S. employees to register luxury
cars in their names in order to allow the dealers to evade import taxes.
Investigators found that while in Cairo, Egypt, the employee had agreed
to accept \$25,000 in exchange for changing the status of his
personally-owned vehicle with the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
which would allow him to participate in the scheme.

The CIA employee was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 209 and was
sentenced to six months\' supervised release, six months\' home
detention, and 200 hours of community service.

(*Source: OGE 1998 Conflict of Interest Prosecution Survey)*

**Family Business Venture Ends in Violation of 18 U.S.C. 209**

A contracting officer at the Naval Surface Warfare Center started a
computer equipment business with his father-in-law to provide extra
income. The duo concocted a scheme whereby the contracting officer
steered Government contracts for the purchase of computer equipment to
the father-in-law, who would buy the equipment from a third party vendor
through a computer supply magazine. The two would then overcharge the
Government and split the profit. This netted a payment of \$29,000 for
\$11,000 worth of computer equipment. Both parties split the \$18,000
overcharge.

The father-in-law pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C.
209, which prohibits the supplementation of a Government employee\'s
salary, and the contracting officer pled guilty to wire fraud and mail
fraud. In their pre‑indictment plea agreements, the father-in-law agreed
to pay \$18,000 restitution, and the contracting officer agreed to pay
an amount of restitution to be determined at the sentencing hearing.

**Cab Company Owner and D.C. Official Conspire to Violate 18 U.S.C.
209**

Suspicious investigators discovered that for three years, a cab company
owner had conspired with the Chief of the D.C. Office of Taxicabs to
provide illegal taxicab driver's licenses to unqualified drivers. The
drivers paid money to the company owner, who took the money and the
drivers\' names to the D.C. official; the D.C. official then prepared
the illegal licenses. The company owner also paid the D.C. official
money for other illegal favors, such as registering vehicles that should
not have been registered.

The D.C. official pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 209, which
prohibits the supplementation of a Government employee's salary, and
agreed to testify against the cab company owner. The D.C. official was
also convicted of nine felony counts, including accepting bribes and
gratuities in violation of 18 U.S.C. 201.

**Air Force Contracting Officer Pays \$6000 for 18 U.S.C. 209
Violation**

In return for favorable treatment in contracting, employees of a private
company agreed to provide an Air Force contracting officer with money in
the form of condominium rental payments. That money was paid through
different intermediaries in order to disguise the purpose and the source
of the funds. In addition, an investigation disclosed that the company
purchased certain valuable goods and items for the condominium. Finally,
the investigation disclosed that the company purchased smaller value
items, such as dinners and basketball tickets, for the Air Force
contracting officer. Due to statute of limitations problems, the
investigation focused on the payment of the smaller value items.

The contracting officer pled guilty to a single misdemeanor count of 18
U.S.C. 209, unlawfully augmenting his salary while employed by the Air
Force. He was ordered to pay a fine of \$6,000, which the Court
calculated to be three times the value of those accepted items.

**Payoff for Special Access at Government Auction Ends in \$1000 Fine**

In an attempt to gain preferential treatment at a Government auction,
two brothers paid off an auction guard. Instead, they wound up
purchasing misdemeanor violations of 18 U.S.C. 209 (supplementation of a
Government employee\'s salary). Sentences of probation and a \$1,000
fine were imposed on each.

**Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in Tucson Illegally Possesses
Sheep Skull and Horns**

The Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) prosecuted an individual for
illegally killing a bighorn sheep on an Indian Reservation. As a result
of the prosecution, the hunter forfeited the bighorn sheep and trophy
(skull and horns), valued at approximately \$5,000, to the Arizona Game
and Fish Department. Pursuant to a request from the AUSA, the Arizona
Game and Fish Department entered into an agreement with the AUSA
allowing him to publicly display the skull and horns in his office, but
requiring their return upon request. However, after leaving employment
with the U.S. Attorney's office, the AUSA took the skull and horns with
him and treated them as his personal property. When the former AUSA was
questioned a year later about his possession of the skull and horns, he
claimed that an unspecified Indian had sent the skull and horns to him
in appreciation for his work on the prosecution of the hunter.
Investigation showed that such a gift would have been contrary to tribal
practices and no member of the tribe could be found who knew anything
about the alleged gift.

The Government then regained possession of the skull and horns from the
former AUSA and returned them to the tribe. The AUSA agreed to plead
guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 209 for his possession of the trophy.

**Secretary at Federal Prison Pleads Guilty to 18 U.S.C. 209 Violation**

Investigators discovered that the secretary at a Federal prison had
accepted money from an inmate in exchange for allowing him certain
privileges, including allowing him to place unauthorized calls on her
office phone. The defendant pled guilty to the charge of receiving
compensation from a non‑Government source for doing her Government job
(18 U.S.C. 209(a)) and was sentenced to two years probation.

**Postal Service Employee Convicted of 18 U.S.C. 209 Violation**

Investigators discovered that an assistance counselor with the Postal
Service was taking kickbacks from a nearby hospital. The counselor
provided assessment, referral, and follow‑up counseling services to
Postal Service employees and their families relating to chemical
dependency or behavioral problems. While performing these duties, the
counselor received cash, a telephone credit card, limousine services,
food, hotel accommodations, and travel reimbursement for himself, his
wife and his brother from a Topeka, Kansas hospital. These benefits had
an aggregate value of in excess of \$45,000. The hospital was a
psychiatric care and drug‑alcohol dependency treatment facility.

The counselor was charged with fifteen counts of violating 18 U.S.C.
209, for accepting dual compensation, and pled guilty.

## GSA Employee Convicted of Violating 18 U.S.C. 209

As the Comptroller of the General Services Administration (GSA), the
employee in question was responsible for implementing and overseeing
GSA\'s contract with Diners Club for Government charge cards. During the
life of the contract, the employee accepted numerous expensive meals
from Diners Club employees in Washington, D.C., as well as
accommodations, meals, and entertainment in Las Vegas and Phoenix.

The employee pled guilty to one count of conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 371) and
one count of receiving dual compensation (18 U.S.C. 209), both
misdemeanors. He was sentenced to one year of supervised probation and a
\$250 fine.

**Citizen Pleads Guilty to Violating 18 U.S.C. 209**

A private electrical contractor was charged with supplementing the
salary of a Public Affairs Officer who was a representative for small
and disadvantaged businesses for the Army Corps of Engineers. The
contractor was involved in the payment of money to the officer in return
for the officer's assistance in facilitating the sale and development of
land for off‑post housing around Fort Drum, New York.

The contractor pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 209, supplementing the
salary of a Federal employee, and was sentenced to one year of
probation.

**Public Works Employee "Gets the Boot" for Accepting Payments**

An employee of the Vehicle Immobilization Branch at the D.C. Department
of Public Works who decided to supplement his salary with private funds
quickly found himself with no salary at all. The employee solicited and
accepted \$400 in cash for removing a lawfully-attached boot on a D.C.
vehicle. In return, the employee received three years probation, six
months home detention, 100 hours community service, and \$300 in fines
for his violation of 18 U.S.C. 209, illegal supplementation of salary.

**Easy Come, Easy Go**

Investigators discovered that an Immigration and Naturalization Service
Adjudication Officer had taken bribes from an immigration consultant to
facilitate the consultant's cases. The officer pled guilty to three
misdemeanor counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 209(a), receiving
compensation from a private party for services rendered to the United
States.

**Accepting Bribes for Priority Service Earns \$10,000 Fine**

A Veterans Affairs rating assistant technician responsible for prepping
claims files for adjudication was found to have taken bribes from filers
to green-light false and inflated disability claims for review. He pled
guilty to one felony count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 209 (a), unlawfully
accepting supplementation of government salary, and was slapped with
four years probation, \$10,000 in fines, and 120 hours of community
service.

**Gifts from Vendor Result in Two Years Probation**

An employee of the Department of the Interior's Office of the Geological
Survey took advantage of her government charge card responsibilities and
started accepting gift cards from a certain vendor in return for
steering her purchases his way. Her \$500 in gift cards cost her two
years of probation and 100 hours of community service when she pled
guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 209, unlawfully accepting
supplementation of her government salary.

**Time and Attendance Violations**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc138655141
.anchor}

**Lying About Overtime Doesn't Pay!**

**The Facts:** A former employee of the Department of Defense entered
overtime hours he hadn't worked into a computer time-keeping system. He
was caught. He pleaded guilty and was ordered to pay the Government
\$7,500 and was sentenced to three years probation---not the sort of
overtime he was looking for. (Source: *Federal Ethics Report*, Apr.
2003.)

**The Law:** 18 U.S.C. § 287 (2003) states that anyone presenting to any
"person or officer in the civil, military, or naval service of the
United States, or to any department or agency thereof" a claim for money
from the Federal Government, knowing such claim to be false, shall be
fined and imprisoned for no more than 5 years.

**Hung By Wire Fraud**

**The Facts:** A Defense Intelligence Agency secretary in Arlington,
Virginia, improperly obtained access to her time and attendance records
on 74 occasions. She used her access to credit herself with over 4,000
hours of overtime she hadn't worked. She was caught and pleaded guilty
to wire fraud, for which she was sentenced to twelve months and one day
in prison, to be followed by three years of probation with participation
in Gamblers Anonymous. She also had to pay the Government \$91,380 in
restitution. Hopefully, she learned from this bad bet. (Source: *Federal
Ethics Report*, Apr. 2003.)

**The Law:** 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2003) mandates penalties for transmitting
"by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or
foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds" in
order to execute a plan to defraud. The penalties: Fines, imprisonment
of not more than 20 years, or both---unless the fraud affects a
financial institution, in which case the fine is to be of not more than
\$1 million and the imprisonment of not more than 30 years.

### 

## Falsifying Overtime Can Be a Costly Business

**The Facts:** A Federal employee at the Pentagon decided to participate
in a scheme that involved logging false overtime hours in an electronic
timekeeping system. The employee pled guilty at trial and was sentenced
to three years of probation along with six months of home confinement,
and ordered to pay over \$16,000 restitution. (Source: *Federal Ethics
Report*, March 2003.)

**The Law:** 18 U.S.C. § 287 (2003) mandates fines and imprisonment for
up to 5 years for anyone who presents a claim for money, which the
person knows to be fraudulent, to the "civil, military, or naval service
of the United States."

### Improper Time Sheets

Allegations were made that a Department of Defense (DoD) employee was
not working his assigned hours and was fraudulently claiming overtime
hours he did not work. After an investigation, it was determined that
the employee was attending college courses at lunch for approximately
two hours and worked late to make up the time. His time and attendance
sheets showed him working his normal hours with no indication of the
long lunch and late hours to accommodate his college courses. The sheets
were submitted without showing the modified schedule because a clerk
incorrectly told the employee's supervisor that "the system wouldn't
allow variations from a normal workday." The employee, the supervisor,
and the clerk were all instructed on proper timekeeping procedures.

## INS Grants Administrative Leave as Award for Contributions to CFC

Officials in an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) district
office rewarded employees who contributed at least \$500 to the Combined
Federal Campaign (CFC) with eight hours of administrative leave. After
an investigation, it was found that the employees who were granted and
used the leave did not have the leave properly documented on their time
sheets. As the district director did not carry out the violations in a
knowing and willful way and because the employees affected stated they
did not feel coerced, no charges were filed. The director did receive a
letter of counseling regarding her management of the CFC program,
however.

## VA Physician Time and Attendance Issue

An administrative investigation substantiated that a part-time
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) physician routinely worked at a
non-VA clinic during his VA core hours and as a result failed to meet
his VA tour of duty obligation. The investigation also revealed that the
physician's supervisor failed to check on him to ensure that he was
working the hours required. In response to the investigator's
recommendation, administrative action was taken against both the
physician and the supervisor. The physician was charged leave for the
hours not worked and was instructed to revise his hours at the non-VA
clinic.

**Employees Terminated for Abusing Religious Leave**

For a period of several years, two top executives at the Naval Undersea
Warfare Center had an astonishing work record---they took nearly no
vacation time at all. The reason, investigators soon discovered, was
that the executives had been taking "religious compensatory time"
instead. Curiously, the executives' absences seldom fell on any
traditionally-observed religious holidays. Instead, investigators found
that the pair's so-called religious observances took place on days when
they had medical appointments, sightseeing trips, and golf tournaments.
Asked whether golf tournaments could be considered religious
observances, one executive replied, "They could be for some people."

Unamused, the Inspector General found that the two had made a
"premeditated, conspiratorial effort to defraud the Government," and
forced them into retirement. Religious compensatory time is available
for government employees who need to observe religious requirements --
but even then, it needs to be made up at a later time.

*(Source: www.GovExec.com, July 1, 2004)*

**Use of Sick Leave for Military Tours Earns Employee Dismissal**

A reservist's use of sick leave to account for absences on active-duty
military tours resulted in the end of a 20-year federal career. Over a
period of several years, the reservist accounted for absences from his
civilian position at CENTCOM as "sick leave," when in fact he was on
active-duty military tours. This allowed the employee to bank annual
leave, as well as collect dual salaries from both the civil service and
the military. Given the reservist's two decades of federal employment,
the judge found the reservist's pleas of ignorance as to the proper
leave procedures unconvincing. The judge also took into consideration
the testimony of the reservist's commanding officer at CENTCOM, who
testified that his trust in the reservist had been wholly eroded.

As a consequence of the reservist's abuse of the leave system, his
career in the civil service was terminated.

*(Source: 2005 MSRP LEXIS 6041)*

## Travel Violations

**Military Officer Dances While the Public Pays**

**The Facts:** According to a military service Inspector General
inquiry, a senior military officer planned to attend two balls taking
place within roughly an hour's drive of his station. For these, he
obtained official orders and, according to his travel claims, received
payment for hotel lodging, meals, and incidental expenses (per
diem)---amounting all told to around \$500. This conduct occurred as one
of a series of offenses that resulted in the officer being relieved of
command, issued a punitive letter of reprimand, and ordered to forfeit
\$1,000.

**The Law:** The Department of Defense (DoD) Travel Regulations provide
various guidelines for travel of uniformed (in Volume 1) and civilian
(in Volume 2) DoD employees. Applicable to this case was Volume 1:
"Joint Federal Travel Regulations" (JFTR). JFTR section U2010 requires a
uniformed service member to use the same care in incurring expenses when
the Federal Government is to pay "as would a prudent person traveling at
personal expense . . . . Excess costs, circuitous routes, delays or
luxury accommodations that are unnecessary or unjustified are the
member's financial responsibility." Moreover, JFTR section U4102 forbids
a uniformed service member from obtaining per diem for any temporary
duty (TDY) performed within twelve hours. Since attendance at each ball
along with round-trip travel could have been completed within twelve
hours had the officer exercised prudence, this regulation made it even
clearer that the officer should not have obtained his per diem. Since
other agencies have travel regulations, all Federal employees are
encouraged to verify the propriety of having the Government pay for
their travel expenses.

### 

### Bumped Well 

It was the young employee\'s first official trip to Washington, DC. It
was just a one-day, round trip. Her meeting was scheduled for 1:00 PM.
Anxious to make a good impression (and to look around DC), she booked an
early-morning flight out of Atlanta. When she got to the airport she
discovered that the flight was overbooked, and the airline was offering
free, round-trip tickets to anyone who would volunteer to take the next
flight. That flight was to arrive in DC at 12:20 PM, and she figured
that she would still have time to make her meeting. As her plane reached
Richmond, the pilot announced that would be a slight delay while Air
Force One took off. Her plane circled and circled. The delay lasted for
over an hour, and by the time the plane finally landed, she had missed
the meeting.

### 

### FBI Undercover Parties 

According to an FBI report, upon the retirement of a senior FBI
official, FBI personnel from around the country journeyed to Washington
to attend the official's retirement party. Many out-of-town G-men
traveled on official orders and public expense. According to their
travel orders, the purpose of the trip was to attend an ethics
conference! According to the news report, only five people actually
attended the ethics forum.

**FBI False Travel Claim**

A former supervisory special agent of the FBI was sentenced in U.S.
District Court for falsely claiming travel expenses to which he was not
entitled. The former agent pled guilty to one count of theft of
Government property. The former agent had ended a period of travel five
days earlier than his schedule (and later travel claim) stated. He was
ordered to pay \$1,887 in restitution.

## Official Travel to Conference Turns into Florida Vacation 

A Department of Defense (DoD) official was to travel to and attend a
conference in Florida while on DoD travel orders. His wife accompanied
him. It was alleged that after checking in at the hotel where the
conference was to be held and then renting a convertible, the official
promptly left for a short vacation with his wife for all three days of
the conference. After an investigation it was determined that the
official did not attend the conference, told a subordinate to "cover for
him," and filed a fraudulent travel claim with DoD for the three days of
the conference he did not attend. A proposal was made to have the
official separated from Federal service.

## False Travel Claim Filed I

Allegations were made against a Navy enlisted man regarding filing a
false travel claim. After an investigation it was determined that the
individual had claimed his two children accompanied him during his PCS
move across the country when in fact the children were in the custody of
his ex-wife. He was reduced in rank one grade and ordered to forfeit
\$2140.00 in pay.

## False Travel Claim Filed II

It was determined after an investigation that a Department of Defense
(DoD) official filed a false claim for travel expenses. The official
claimed he was staying at a hotel, and as a result, was paid the
appropriate per diem rate by the Navy. It was determined during the
course of the investigation that the official had actually been on board
a Navy ship (a situation where a much reduced per diem is paid) during
the time he claimed he was staying at the hotel. The official reimbursed
the Navy, was issued a letter of caution, and was counseled by his
supervisor.

**False Travel Claim Filed III**

A former Department of Defense (DoD) employee was sentenced in U.S.
District Court for making false relocation claims to the Government. The
former employee made over \$15,000 in false relocation claims in
connection with a permanent change of station (PCS) move. The judge
sentenced the former employee to two years probation and ordered her to
pay more than \$15,000 in restitution.

**False Travel Claim Filed IV**

An Army employee was sentenced in U.S. District Court for falsifying
lodging expenses. She pled guilty to one count of theft of Government
property. The employee had traveled to a nearby facility and incurred no
lodging expenses. However, she had filed a claim for \$105 when she
returned back to her duty station. The employee was sentenced to one
year of probation and was ordered to pay a \$3,000 fine. Ironically, the
employee was the director of the Honesty, Ethics, Accountability,
Respect, Trust, and Support (HEARTS) Program for her duty station at the
time she committed the violation.

**False Travel Claim Filed V**

A former Department of Defense (DoD) employee was sentenced in U.S.
District Court for submitting false travel claims in relation to a
permanent change of station (PCS) move. The former employee was charged
with claiming over \$22,000 in false travel expenses. She was also
charged with altering documents to substantiate the expenses. The judge
sentenced her to five years probation and ordered her to pay \$10,456 in
restitution.

**Government Employee Liable for Accident Incurred on Personal
Business**

A NASA employee on official business arranged to have his return date
extended so that he could remain in the area for personal reasons.
During his extended stay, he retained his Government-leased rental
vehicle. While on his way to the airport to return home, the employee
was involved in a car accident when an elk ran into his vehicle. The
employee reimbursed the rental car company for more than \$2500 in
repair costs, then submitted a reimbursement request to NASA. NASA
refused payment as the employee was not on official business at the time
of the accident.

The Federal Travel Regulation mandates that an agency may pay only those
expenses essential to the transaction of official business.
Specifically, employees may be reimbursed for deductibles paid to rental
car companies only if the damage occurs while the employee is performing
official business. After the NASA employee's temporary duty ended, the
rental car became both his expense and his responsibility.