2002-04-04 -- Bost, Sara B. -- Indictment -- News Release

NEWARK - The mayor of Irvington Township, Sara B. Bost, was indicted today for accepting $8,500 in corrupt payments in two separate schemes, and for attempted witness tampering, U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie announced.

Bost, 54, a former Essex County freeholder, was not arrested by federal authorities and will not be making a court appearance today. Bost is expected to be arraigned on the Indictment within the next two weeks before the U.S. District Judge to whom the case is assigned, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney James B. Nobile, Chief of the Special Prosecutions Division.

The Indictment alleges two separate cases of Bost seeking and taking corrupt payments:

• one for $1,500, received in November 1998 from a Newark paving contractor. The payment was allegedly passed to her by a township employee acting as an intermediary at Bost's instructions.

• a second for $7,000, paid on two separate occasions to principals of a large apartment complex in Irvington. The payments were made to Bost to ensure that she would not take action to damage the company's significant investment in the apartment complex and to ensure its continued success.

Bost allegedly received these payments while inside her Irvington mayor's office.

Finally, the Indictment charges Bost with witness tampering, for attempting to cover up the $1,500 payment by coaching the employee to provide false and misleading information to law-enforcement officials who might question him and to respond that he knew of no corrupt payments.

The specific charges in the Indictment are:

• Count One, wire fraud, and Counts Two and Five, mail fraud (18 USC §§ 1341, 1343 and 1346), which each carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

• Count Three, Solicitation and Acceptance of Money to Influence and Reward (18 USC § 666(a)(1)(B)), which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

• Count Four, Attempted Corrupt Persuasion of Another (18 USC § 1512(b)(3)), which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

As described in the Indictment, in late August 1998, Bost instructed a township employee to find a paver for the parking lot of the old Police Athletic Building (PAL Building) in Irvington, immediately prior to its grand reopening as a recreation center on Sept. 3, 1998. The Newark paving contractor was hired for the job. (The contractor is a cooperating witness who tape-recorded conversations with the employee and is not identified in the Indictment.)

After the employee informed Bost that the Newark paving contractor could do the work for $15,000, Bost allegedly advised the employee that the amount was acceptable to her and that she wanted $1,500 for herself from the paving contractor.

The employee relayed the mayor's demand to the Paver, along with an advance from the Township of $5,000, according to the Indictment.

To make the transaction appear legitimate - and to ensure that the Township Council would not question the expense when called on to consider it - the employee and paver crafted three written quotes purporting to be from separate, independent contractors, with the Newark paving contractor being the lowest bidder.

After the Township Council's authorization of the $15,000 contract on Oct. 14, 1998, the Township made a $10,000 payment that had come from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds.

In late October 1998, according to the Indictment, the Newark paving contractor gave the employee $2,000 in cash, and in early November 1998, Bost received her $1,500 portion in cash from the employee.

(The charges state that Bost was directly involved in, and took credit for, the project to refurbish the PAL Building and had authorized federal HUD funds for the refurbishments.)

The Indictment also charges Bost with violating the federal witness-tampering statute.

The Indictment states that during an April 27, 1999, encounter with the employee - who was, by that time, cooperating with federal authorities and who tape-recorded the conversation - Bost coached the employee to provide false and misleading information to authorities in the event he was questioned about a payment.

Bost also allegedly asked if the employee was wearing a wire and physically checked him in an attempt to ensure that he was not wearing a tape-recording device.

Bost allegedly ensured the employee that since there was no one else around when the employee was dealing with the paving contractor, there was nothing to worry about.

The Indictment charges that Bost, in approximately 1995, initially solicited one of the individuals associated with a large housing complex in Irvington for a $10,000 to $15,000 payment while at an upscale restaurant on the West Side in Midtown Manhattan, N.Y. Bost allegedly agreed later to take a lesser $5,000 payment, and, about a month later - during a private meeting in the mayor's office with one of the principals of the housing complex - Bost received the cash in an envelope.

The charges allege that this payment was made to ensure that Bost would not take action to damage the company's significant investment in the apartment complex.

Approximately 18 months later, according to the charges, another principal of the housing complex paid Bost $2,000 in cash while at her Irvington Township office, during the December holiday season, to ensure the continued success of the complex.

The Indictment further alleges that Bost filed Financial Disclosure Statements with the State of New Jersey by mail that intentionally did not disclose the receipt of any of the cash payments, including her statement for the 1996 reporting year, mailed in late April, 1997.

Despite Indictment, every defendant is presumed innocent, unless and until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt following a trial at which the defendant has all of the trial rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and federal law.

An Indictment is a formal charge made by a grand jury, a body of 16 to 23 citizens, Christie noted. Grand jury proceedings are secret, and neither persons under investigation nor their attorneys have the right to be present. A grand jury may vote an Indictment if 12 or more jurors find probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed the crime or crimes charged.

Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, the judge to whom this case is assigned would, upon conviction, determine an actual sentence based upon a formula that takes into account the severity and characteristics of the offense, and the defendant's criminal history, if any.

Parole, however, has been abolished in the federal system. Under Sentencing Guidelines, defendants who are given custodial terms must serve nearly all that time.

Christie credited Special Agents of the FBI Newark in Newark, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Philip W. Thomas; and Special Agents of HUD, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Ruth Ritzema for their work in developing the case. Christie also credited Special Agents of the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation section, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Anne D. Fahy, for their assistance.

The Government is represented by Counsel to the United States Attorney Paula T. Dow and Assistant U.S. Attorney Nobile, of the U.S. Attorney's Special Prosecutions Division in Newark.

Defense Attorney: Raymond A. Brown, Esq. Newark