|This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content), and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). 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 |
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THROUGH ITS ATTORNEYS, CHARGES THAT:
At all times relevant to this Information:
1. The defendant AMERICAN COMPOSITE TIMBERS, INC.("ACT") is an entity organized and existing under the laws of New York with its principal place of business in Commack, New York. ACT is a reseller of plastic pilings to various entities including the City of New York.
2. Plastic marine pilings are reinforced synthetic pilings, resembling telephone poles, used as substitutes for traditional wood timber pilings in port and pier construction projects and other marine applications. ACT and its co-conspirators were engaged in selling plastic pilings to the City of New York.
3. From in or about 1999 until in or about February 2003, the exact dates being unknown to the United States, in the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ACT, together with other co-conspirators, did knowingly and intentionally conspire with co-conspirator CHARLES N. KRISS ("KRISS"), an agent of the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services, an organization or agency of the City of New York, a local government which received Federal benefits in excess of $10,000 in each of the years 1999 through 2003, to corruptly accept and agree to accept things of value from other persons, intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with business or a series of transactions of an organization or agency of the City of New York involving things of value of $5,000 or more, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 666(a)(1)(B), all in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371.
4. Various corporations and individuals, not made defendants in this Information, participated as co-conspirators in the offense charged herein and performed acts and made statements in furtherance thereof.
5. Whenever in this Information reference is made to any act, deed or transaction of any corporation, the allegation means that the corporation engaged in the act, deed, or transaction by or through its officers, directors, agents, employees, or other representatives while they were actively engaged in the management, direction, control or transaction of its business or affairs.
The CONSPIRACY AND ITS OBJECTS
6. KRISS was, as part of his employment with the City of New York, assigned to oversee aspects of repairs to Pier 86, a pier located on the Hudson River in Manhattan. At all times relevant to this Information, Pier 86 was the principal location of displays constituting the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum. The repairs to Pier 86 included the purchase and installation of plastic pilings from approximately January, 2000 through 2002, the exact dates being unknown to the United States.
7. From in or about 2000 through 2002, the exact dates being unknown to the United States, a corporate co-conspirator ("CORPORATION 1") received a series of orders for plastic pilings from ACT and others for use in repairs to Pier 86, and subsequently sold such plastic pilings to ACT and others.
8. It was an object of the conspiracy for KRISS to corruptly receive a series of payments from CORPORATION 1, intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with the procurement of plastic pilings from CORPORATION 1 for use in repairs to Pier 86 in the City of New York.
9. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to accomplish its objectives, the following overt acts, among others, were committed by ACT and co-conspirators in the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere:
10. The crime charged in Count One of this Indictment was carried out, in part, within the Eastern District of New York within the five years preceding the date of this Information, excluding the period during which the running of the statute of limitations was suspended pursuant to agreements with the Defendant.(All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371)