This document is available in three formats: this web page (for browsing content), PDF (comparable to original document formatting), and WordPerfect. To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,    

                  v.

WALTER J. VIVENZIO,

                  Defendant.


|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|         
Criminal No. 04-CR-333 GLS

Filed: 6/29/04

Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1
18 U.S.C. § 371

INFORMATION

COUNT ONE -- SHERMAN ACT CONSPIRACY
(15 U.S.C. § 1)

The United States of America, acting through its attorneys, charges:

1. Walter J. Vivenzio ("Vivenzio") is hereby made a defendant on the charge stated below.

I. DEFENDANT AND CO-CONSPIRATORS

During the period covered by this Count:

2. Vivenzio, a resident of East Berne, New York, was president and an owner of Waterblock Roofing and Sheetmetal, Inc. ("Waterblock").

3. Waterblock, a corporation located in Schenectady, New York, was engaged in the roofing business in the State of New York.

4. "CC-1" was a co-conspirator who was a maintenance manager at the Waterford, New York plant of the General Electric Company ("GE Waterford"). CC-1 had primary responsibility for selecting the companies that would be invited to bid or quote on roofing contracts for GE Waterford. In carrying out his responsibilities, CC-1 generally attempted to create the appearance that he was following a competitive bidding policy for roofing contracts, including contracts that were awarded to Waterblock.

5. "CC-2" was a co-conspirator who was a representative of a manufacturer of roofing products. CC-2 helped to select the companies that would be invited to bid or quote on roofing contracts for the Albany Medical Center ("AMC") and other purchasers of roofing products and services in the State of New York. CC-2 generally attempted to create the appearance that he was following a competitive bidding policy for roofing contracts, including contracts that were awarded to Waterblock.

6. Various persons and companies, not made defendants herein, including CC-1 and CC-2, participated as co-conspirators in the offense charged herein and performed acts and made statements in furtherance thereof.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE

7. From sometime in 1995 until approximately May 2002, the exact dates being unknown to the United States, the defendant and co-conspirators engaged in a combination and conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (Title 15, United States Code, Section 1).

8. The aforesaid combination and conspiracy consisted of a continuing agreement, understanding, and concert of action among the defendant and co-conspirators, the substantial terms of which were to rig bids for and allocate roofing contracts awarded by GE Waterford, AMC and other purchasers of roofing products and services in the State of New York.

9. For the purpose of forming and effectuating the aforesaid combination and conspiracy, the defendant and co-conspirators did those things which they combined and conspired to do, including, among other things:

  1. discussed the submission of prospective bids or quotations on certain roofing contracts;

  2. agreed among themselves which company would be the low bidder on each of the contracts discussed;

  3. arranged for co-conspirators to submit bids or quotations that were intentionally higher ("complementary" bids) in order to create the false appearance that a competitive bidding policy was being followed; and

  4. Vivenzio paid substantial amounts of cash to CC-1 for his assistance in frustrating and subverting the competitive bidding for roofing contracts at GE Waterford, and for ensuring that no potential competitors who were not co-conspirators would be invited to bid or quote on roofing contracts at that plant.

III. TRADE AND COMMERCE

10. During the period covered by this Count, defendant and co-conspirators were engaged in the roofing business in the State of New York. They provided roofing products and services to GE Waterford, AMC and others.

11. During the period covered by this Count, defendant and co-conspirators purchased substantial quantities of roofing products from manufacturers outside the State of New York.

12. During the period covered by this Count, the activities of the defendant and co-conspirators with respect to the provision of roofing products and services were within the flow of, and substantially affected, interstate trade and commerce.

IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. The aforesaid combination and conspiracy was carried out, in part, within the Northern District of New York within the five years preceding the filing of this Information.

IN VIOLATION OF TITLE 15, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1.

COUNT TWO -- CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MAIL FRAUD
(18 U.S.C. § 371)

The United States of America further charges:

14. Paragraphs 1 through 4 of Count One of this Information are repeated, realleged, and incorporated in Count Two as if fully set forth in this Count.

15. Various co-conspirators, not made defendants herein, including CC-1, participated in the offense charged herein and performed acts and made statements in furtherance thereof.

V. DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE

16. From sometime in 1995 until approximately May 2002, the exact dates being unknown to the United States, in the Northern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant and co-conspirators unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate and agree to commit an offense against the United States of America, to wit, to violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

17. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that the defendant and co-conspirators, having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud GE Waterford and to obtain money and property from GE Waterford by means of false pretenses, representations, and promises, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, would and did place in post offices and authorized depositories from mail matter, matters and things to be sent and delivered by the Postal Service, and take and receive therefrom, such matters and things, and knowingly cause to be delivered by mail according to the directions thereon, and at the place at which they were directed to be delivered, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341.

VI. THE MANNER AND MEANS BY WHICH THE CONSPIRACY WAS CARRIED OUT

The manner and means by which the conspiracy was sought to be accomplished included, among other things, the following:

18. During the period from sometime in 1995 until approximately May 2002, Vivenzio paid cash kickbacks to CC-1 in order to ensure that CC-1 would allocate to Waterblock all of the contracts for roofing products and services awarded by GE Waterford. (The kickbacks totaled at least $70,000 during this period.)

19. The kickbacks paid by Vivenzio to CC-1 were derived from the amounts by which Waterblock "padded" its bids or quotations to GE Waterford for contracts for roofing products and services, the "fraudulent overcharges."

20. CC-1's superiors at GE Waterford were not aware of and did not approve of the fraudulent overcharges. In order to make it appear that the prices at which the affected contracts awarded to Waterblock were fair and reasonable, CC-1 requested and Vivenzio obtained, from other co-conspirators, "complementary" bids.

VII. OVERT ACTS

21. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the illegal objects thereof, the defendant, and others known and unknown, committed the following overt acts, among others, in the Northern District of New York:

  1. On a number of occasions between sometime in 1995 and approximately May 2002, Vivenzio met with CC-1 at various locations, primarily the McDonald's parking lot near Exit 8 of Interstate 87, to pay CC-1 some portion of the kickbacks he was owed. (These payments were in cash and totaled at least $70,000.)

  2. Between sometime in 1995 and approximately May 2002, Vivenzio and CC-1 caused the General Electric Company to pay numerous fraudulently inflated invoices to Waterblock, which payments and invoices were sent from or to the General Electric Company by and through the United States mails.

IN VIOLATION OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 371.

Dated:

/s/______________________________
R. HEWITT PATE
Assistant Attorney General

/s/______________________________
JAMES M. GRIFFIN
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

/s/______________________________
SCOTT D. HAMMOND
Director of Criminal Enforcement

Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice


Thomas Spina Jr. for ________________
GLENN SUDDABY
United States Attorney
Northern District of New York

/s/______________________________
RALPH T. GIORDANO
Chief, New York Office

/s/___by EF______________________
MELVIN LUBLINSKI


/s/______________________________
EDWARD FRIEDMAN


/s/___by EF______________________
KEVIN HART

Attorneys, Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3630
New York, New York 10278
(212) 264-9320