this guy is guilty of paying k for work that reasonably would have cost up to k something i don't understand here am i correct that the crux of the case against stevens was that he got some work done to his house for a reduced cost as part of some kind of kick back what exactly were the charges against him the residential contractor who finished the renovation for veco augie paone believes the stevens' remodeling could have cost if all the work was done efficiently around to close to the figure stevens cited last year the stevens paid for the rennovations and assumed that covered everything so was there any question stevens paid the k he claimed if he did and if the work is reasonably valued at k then how on earth can the prosecution claim he got some sort of unreported gift or illegal kickback