```

[House Report 112-709]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

112th Congress                                                   Report

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     112-709
_______________________________________________________________________

                                                 House Calendar No. 171

 IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE GREGORY MEEKS

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

 December 20, 2012.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                              ----------

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

 29-006                  WASHINGTON : 2012

                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

JO BONNER, Alabama                   LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
  Chairman                             Ranking Member
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas            DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania        PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut

                              REPORT STAFF

            Daniel A. Schwager, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
             Deborah Sue Mayer, Director of Investigations
              Kelle A. Strickland, Counsel to the Chairman
            Daniel J. Taylor, Counsel to the Ranking Member

                     Miguel Toruno, Senior Counsel
                        Tom Rust, Senior Counsel
                       Patrick McMullen, Counsel
                Brittany M. Bohren, Investigative Clerk
                          LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                       Committee on Ethics,
                                 Washington, DC, December 20, 2012.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b) of Rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, we herewith 
transmit the attached Report, ``In the Matter of Allegations 
Relating to Representative Gregory Meeks.''
            Sincerely,
                                   Jo Bonner,
                                           Chairman.

                                   Linda T. Sanchez,
                                           Ranking Member.

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
 I. INTRODUCTION......................................................1
II. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT....2
III.ANALYSIS..........................................................2

IV. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION...........................................5
 V. STATEMENT UNDER RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(c) OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF 
    REPRESENTATIVES...................................................7
                                                 House Calendar No. 171
112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     112-709

======================================================================

 
 IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE GREGORY MEEKS

                                _______
                                

 December 20, 2012.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

               Mr. Bonner, from the Committee on Ethics, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                            I. INTRODUCTION

    On May 18, 2011, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) 
submitted a Report and Findings to the Committee on Ethics 
(Committee) regarding a $40,000 loan that Representative Meeks 
received from Edul Ahmad (Ahmad loan) and a separate $59,650 
loan that Representative Meeks obtained from a private 
investment firm (investment firm loan), which Representative 
Meeks used to repay the Ahmad loan with interest.\1\ In its 
Report and Findings, OCE recommended that the Committee dismiss 
the allegations regarding the investment firm loan because it 
had all the ``normal indicia of a legitimate loan,'' and was 
thus not an improper gift that would violate the House gift 
rule. However, OCE recommended further review of the 
allegations that the Ahmad loan was and should have been 
disclosed as a gift on Representative Meeks' Financial 
Disclosure Statements for 2007, 2008, and 2009. OCE's Report 
and Findings did not address whether Representative Meeks 
violated the House gift rule by accepting the alleged ``gift'' 
from Mr. Ahmad.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See Office of Congressional Ethics, Report and Findings 
regarding Representative Gregory Meeks, Review No. 11-1048 (Report and 
Findings).
    \2\See id. at n. 58 (``The Board reiterates that, due to its lack 
of jurisdiction, it does not find a substantial reason to believe that 
Representative Meeks violated House gift rules in 2007 by accepting the 
$40,000, which is a separate and distinct violation from financial 
disclosure requirements.'') (emphasis in original.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On August 1, 2011, the Committee voted to dismiss the 
allegation regarding the investment firm loan. At that time, 
the Committee indicated that it had ``accepted the OCE's 
recommendation for further review of an allegation that 
Representative Meeks failed to disclose a payment he received 
in 2007 in a timely manner'' and was ``continuing to review 
that allegation pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a).''\3\ This 
Report summarizes the Committee's resolution of the allegations 
regarding the Ahmad loan that OCE referred to the Committee for 
further review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Statement of the Chairman and Ranking Member Regarding 
Representative Gregory Meeks, Aug. 5, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   II. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

    House Rule XXVI, clause 2 provides that Title I of the 
Ethics in Government Act (EIGA) of 1978 ``shall be considered 
Rules of the House as they pertain to Members, Delegates, the 
Resident Commissioner, officers, and employees of the House.'' 
The EIGA, codified at 5 U.S.C. app. 4 Sec. 101 et. seq., 
provides that Members, officers, and certain staff of the House 
are required to file an annual Financial Disclosure Statement 
and to make a ``full and complete'' statement with respect to 
several categories relating to their financial status, 
including certain liabilities over $10,000 and all gifts from a 
single source in a calendar year that are valued at more than 
$335. House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(3)(R)(v), states that Members 
may not accept gifts, except that they may accept benefits ``in 
the form of loans from banks and other financial institutions 
on terms generally available to the public.'' Finally, House 
Rule XXIII, clause 1, requires that Members and staff ``behave 
at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the 
House.''

                             III. ANALYSIS

 A. Allegation that Representative Meeks Failed to Disclose the Ahmad 
         Loan as a Gift on His Financial Disclosure Statements

    Representative Meeks' original 2007, 2008, and 2009 
Financial Disclosure Statements did not disclose the Ahmad loan 
as a gift to Representative Meeks. Representative Meeks did 
disclose the Ahmad loan as a liability, for the first time, on 
his 2009 Financial Disclosure Statement. On June 18, 2010, 
Representative Meeks filed amendments to his 2007 and 2008 
Financial Disclosure Statements, disclosing the Ahmad loan as a 
liability on those statements as well.
    Representative Meeks has admitted that he failed to 
disclose the Ahmad loan, as either a liability or a gift, on 
his 2007 and 2008 Financial Disclosure Statements. 
Representative Meeks has asserted that his failure to report 
the Ahmad loan as a liability was inadvertent and ``in good 
faith,'' and stated that he promptly corrected the error when 
he discovered it.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Letter from Representative Meeks to Chairman Bonner and Ranking 
Member Sanchez, Sept. 9, 2011, at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a June 24, 2010, email to Committee staff, 
Representative Meeks' Chief of Staff (COS) stated that 
Representative Meeks' failure to disclose the Ahmad loan on his 
Financial Disclosure Statements was a ``good faith oversight[] 
that [was] not identified until very recently'' and that the 
loan was reported ``as soon as practicable upon discovery.'' 
The COS added that Representative Meeks, who has been a Member 
since 1998, had no reportable liabilities until 2007, and 
``until recently thought of [financial disclosures] as an asset 
reporting tool.'' The COS expressed that Representative Meeks 
``sincerely regret[ted] these oversights.'' The COS further 
indicated that Representative Meeks ``conducted a thorough 
review of all the financial disclosure statutes, rules and 
guidance offered in the House Ethics Manual, including 
appendices, to ensure future compliance.''
    The Committee's investigation confirmed that Representative 
Meeks failed to disclose the Ahmad loan as a liability on his 
2007 and 2008 Financial Disclosure Statements. Thus, even 
assuming that the Ahmad loan was, in fact, a loan and not a 
gift, Representative Meeks was not in compliance with EIGA and 
House Rule XXVI, clause 2, which incorporated EIGA into the 
House Rules.\5\ However, as discussed in Section IV, the 
Committee found that Representative Meeks' non-compliance with 
EIGA and House Rule XXVI, clause 2, was inadvertent and in good 
faith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Of course, if the $40,000 from Mr. Ahmad was actually a gift, 
Representative Meeks did not comply with EIGA and House Rule XXVI, 
clause 2, by failing to report the gift on his 2007, 2008, and 2009 
Financial Disclosure Statements. However, as Section III discusses, the 
Committee did not conclude that the Ahmad loan was actually a gift.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  B. Allegation That the Ahmad Loan Constituted an Impermissible Gift

    In January 2007, Representative Meeks obtained a $40,000 
loan from Mr. Ahmad, a businessman based in Representative 
Meeks' congressional district.\6\ Mr. Ahmad is the CEO of the 
Ahmad Group, a company made up of an assortment of businesses 
mostly related to the real estate industry, including a real 
estate agency, a mortgage brokerage, and an importer and 
supplier of building materials. Mr. Ahmad has been described as 
a friend of Representative Meeks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Letter from Representative Meeks to Chairman Bonner and Ranking 
Member Sanchez, Sept. 9, 2011, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 8, 2010, the New York Daily News, citing two 
anonymous sources, reported that Representative Meeks obtained 
the Ahmad loan without any ``discussion about interest rates, 
due dates or collateral requirements for the loan.''\7\ In the 
press report, Representative Meeks denied this account, and 
stated that the ``loan carried an annual interest rate of 
12.5%, and was due within 10 years.''\8\ He also said that 
there were documents for the loan, but he did not have them on 
hand.\9\ On June 19, 2010, Representative Meeks reportedly sent 
a check for $59,684 to Mr. Ahmad to ``repay the original loan 
with an annual interest rate of about 12.5%.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Greg B. Smith, FBI Looks Into Secret $40,000 Personal Loan to 
Queens Pol Gregory Meeks, N.Y. Daily News, July 8, 2010.
    \8\Id.
    \9\Id.
    \10\Report and Findings at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While Members are not prohibited from obtaining a loan from 
a friend or any other non-financial institution, to be 
permissible such loans must satisfy certain criteria as set out 
in the House Ethics Manual (Ethics Manual). Specifically, the 
Ethics Manual states that Members ``may accept a loan from a 
person other than a financial institution, provided that the 
loan is on commercially reasonable terms, including 
requirements for repayment and a reasonable rate of 
interest.''\11\ Committee precedent holds that other ``normal 
indicia of a loan'' include ``a written loan agreement or note 
[and a] maturity date.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\House Ethics Manual (2008) at 68.
    \12\In the Matter of Representative Charles H. Wilson, H. Rep. No. 
96-930, 96th Congress 2d Sess. 4 (1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Ethics Manual cautions Members that the determination 
``[w]hether a loan from a person other than a financial 
institution is on terms that are `commercially reasonable,' and 
hence acceptable under the Committee's determination, will 
depend on a number of facts and circumstances. Thus, before 
entering into a loan arrangement with a person other than a 
financial institution, Members and staff should contact the 
Committee for a review of the proposed terms.''\13\ 
Representative Meeks did not request such a determination from 
the Committee before accepting the Ahmad loan. Thus, if the 
Ahmad loan was not provided on ``commercially reasonable 
terms,'' then Representative Meeks may have violated House Rule 
XXV, clause 5(a)(3)(R)(v), which states that Members may not 
accept gifts, except that they may accept benefits ``in the 
form of loans from banks and other financial institutions on 
terms generally available to the public.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\House Ethics Manual at 69 (emphasis in original).
    \14\House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(3)(A), clarifies that Members may 
accept ``[a]nything for which the Member . . . pays the market value . 
. .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Meeks has represented to the Committee that 
he obtained a personal loan in the amount of $40,000 from Mr. 
Ahmad on January 29, 2007.\15\ According to Representative 
Meeks, ``the loan was an unsecured balloon loan to be paid, 
with interest, within 10 years'' and ``the loan was recorded on 
a form loan agreement.''\16\ Representative Meeks further 
informed the Committee that he ``tried to locate the agreement 
but could not, and believes it is lost.''\17\ Representative 
Meeks stated that when he elected to repay the loan, which he 
did on June 19, 2010, he was thus required to estimate the 
interest due.\18\ Representative Meeks stated that he 
ultimately paid an interest rate of 12.5%, compounded annually, 
which Representative Meeks' representatives had determined was 
the market rate for an unsecured loan in the 2007-2010 
timeframe.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Letter from Representative Meeks to Chairman Bonner and Ranking 
Member Sanchez, Sept. 9, 2011, at 2.
    \16\Id.
    \17\Id.
    \18\Id.
    \19\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Committee staff questioned Representative Meeks' COS about 
the Ahmad loan on two occasions. In June 2010, the COS 
indicated that the COS would produce the loan agreement to the 
Committee, but then informed Committee staff that, after 
consulting with Representative Meeks, a copy of the loan 
document could not be found. The COS further advised 
Committeestaff to contact Mr. Ahmad directly in order to obtain it. In 
November 2011, the COS told Committee staff that, after initially being 
told by Representative Meeks that a written copy of the loan existed, 
Representative Meeks informed the COS that he could not find it. The 
COS stated that Representative Meeks said the contract was a standard 
document that Representative Meeks had purchased at a store and that he 
was very angry at himself for having lost it.
    The Committee staff has not been able to interview Mr. 
Ahmad. This is because Mr. Ahmad currently has a federal 
criminal case pending against him for conspiracy to commit bank 
and wire fraud and Mr. Ahmad's attorney has informed Committee 
staff that Mr. Ahmad would decline any request for a voluntary 
interview with the Committee, and, if subpoenaed, Mr. Ahmad 
would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights unless the Committee 
gave him immunity from criminal prosecution.\20\ Although 
Committee staff has not spoken with Mr. Ahmad, Committee staff 
did talk with Mr. Ahmad's attorney on October 6, 2010, and 
again in August 2012. In October 2010, the attorney told the 
Committee staff that ``the facts are the facts'' and that 
``there was no loan document signed by Representative Meeks and 
there was no fixed interest rate.'' In August 2012, staff 
followed up with the attorney to determine if there was any 
documentary evidence to corroborate these statements. The 
attorney informed Committee staff that, to his knowledge, there 
are no such documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Mr. Ahmad was arrested on June 22, 2011, and indicted on August 
18, 2011. On September 22, 2011, the Department of Justice asked the 
Committee to refrain from contacting Mr. Ahmad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      IV. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

    As discussed in Section III.A, even assuming that the Ahmad 
loan was, in fact, a loan and not a gift, Representative Meeks 
did not disclose the loan as a liability on his 2007 and 2008, 
Financial Disclosure Statements, and thus did not comply with 
EIGA and House Rule XXVI, clause 2, which incorporated EIGA 
into the House Rules. In analyzing Representative Meeks' 
omission, it is important to recognize that inadvertent errors 
on Financial Disclosure Statements are ``not uncommon,'' as the 
Committee noted in a recent report:

          [B]etween 30% and 50% of all Financial Disclosure 
        Statements reviewed by the Committee each year contain 
        errors or require a corrected statement. For over 95% 
        of these inaccurate Financial Disclosure Statements, 
        the filer appears to be unaware of the errors until 
        they are notified by the Committee. Some filers also 
        appear to become aware of errors after being notified 
        by members of the media or outside groups who review 
        the statements and other public records. Generally, 
        unless there is some evidence that errors or omissions 
        are knowing or willful, or appear to be significantly 
        related to other potential violations, the Committee 
        notifies the filer of the error and requires that he or 
        she submit an amendment, which is then publicly filed. 
        Once the amendment is properly submitted, the Committee 
        takes no further action.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\House Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to 
Representative Vernon G. Buchanan, H. Rpt. 112-588, 112th Congress, 2d 
Session, 2012, at 5.

    Representative Meeks has stated that he made a good faith 
effort to comply with the financial disclosure requirements and 
that his failure to disclose the Ahmad loan as a liability on 
his Financial Disclosure Statements was the result of an 
inadvertent oversight. If the Committee had identified evidence 
sufficient to establish that the Ahmad loan was actually an 
impermissible gift, then the Committee could have inferred that 
Representative Meeks' failure to disclose the gift was knowing 
or willful. The Committee cautions that each Member is 
responsible for filing timely and accurate Financial Disclosure 
Statements, and proper disclosure is necessary to be in 
compliance with House Rules and federal law. However, as 
discussed below, the Committee determined that the evidence did 
not establish that the Ahmad loan was an impermissible gift. 
Further, there is no evidence that Representative Meeks' 
failure to disclose the Ahmad loan as a liability on his 
Financial Disclosure Statements was in bad faith or was knowing 
or willful. The Committee's practice in such cases is to notify 
a Member of the identified errors on their Financial Disclosure 
Statements and require them to publicly amend their Statements. 
In this case, Representative Meeks has already publicly amended 
his Financial Disclosure Statements to properly disclose the 
Ahmad loan. Therefore, the Committee concludes that no further 
action is necessary with respect to Representative Meeks' 
failure to disclose the Ahmad loan, and considers the 
investigation of this allegation closed.
    The record is less clear with respect to the allegation 
that the Ahmad loan was an impermissible gift. As discussed in 
Section III.B, Committee staff has not been able to interview 
Mr. Ahmad. However, Representative Meeks has consistently 
represented to the Committee, to his COS, and to the Managing 
Member of the investment firm that provided the loan used to 
satisfy the Ahmad loan, that the loan was memorialized in 
writing and had a set repayment schedule and rate of interest. 
Representative Meeks has asserted that he cannot produce the 
loan document now because he has misplaced it. Thus, even if 
the Committee was able to interview Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Ahmad 
contradicted Representative Meeks' version of events regarding 
the Ahmad loan, the Committee would be left with a ``swearing 
contest'' between a Member and a person who has pled guilty to 
conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, and is awaiting 
sentencing. Unless Mr. Ahmad was able to provide some 
documentary evidence indicating that the payment to 
Representative Meeks was not a loan--or that it did not have 
the standard indicia of commercial reasonability, such as 
written terms and a commercially reasonable rate of interest--
it would be unreasonable for the Committee to conclude, on the 
basis of his testimony alone, that Representative Meeks was 
lying to the Committee.
    Given this situation, and in light of the representations 
from Mr. Ahmad's attorney that Mr. Ahmad has no documents to 
support the allegation that the loan had no written terms or 
set interest rate, and that Mr. Ahmad would assert his Fifth 
Amendment rights if the Committee issued a subpoena for his 
testimony, the Committee has decided to close its investigation 
regarding the allegation that Representative Meeks received an 
improper gift from Mr. Ahmad.

V. STATEMENT UNDER RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(c) OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF 
                            REPRESENTATIVES

    The Committee made no special oversight findings in this 
Report. No budget statement is submitted. No funding is 
authorized by any measure in this Report. No oversight findings 
are considered pertinent.

                                  

```