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. |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Baltimore Division
THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT: INTRODUCTIONAt all times relevant to this Indictment, unless otherwise indicated: 1. The Defense Energy Support Center ("DESC"), a department of the Defense Logistics Agency, within the United States Department of Defense ("DOD"), is responsible for soliciting competitive bids for into-plane and Posts, Camps & Stations ("PC&S") fuel supply contracts to service United States military and civilian activities, evaluating those offers, and awarding resultant fuel supply contracts at numerous locations worldwide. Into-plane contracts require the contractor to deliver aviation fuel into authorized aircraft, including military and civilian DOD aircraft, at a particular commercial airport location. Generally, a single DESC into-plane solicitation will contain line items for numerous airport locations within a broad geographic area, but offerors are not required to submit an offer on all airport locations. Rather, each airport location may be awarded as a separate contract or, where a single offeror is awarded multiple airport locations from the same solicitation, those airport locations may be awarded in a single contract. PC&S contracts are awarded for delivery of fuel into authorized storage facilities, including tanks, bladders, or tanker trucks at destinations worldwide. 2. DESC awarded into-plane and PC&S fuel supply contracts via a full and open multi-stage competitive procurement process in which competing offerors submitted "initial" bids by a given date, which were reviewed by officials at DESC. After receipt of the initial bids, competing offerors were permitted to submit revised "best and final" bids. Offerors were not, however, allowed to view competing offerors' initial bids in preparing their best and final bids. A competitor could not submit a best and final bid unless it had also submitted an initial bid. 3. In February 2005, DESC issued Solicitation SP0600-05-R-0046 for into-plane fuel supply, containing line items for 109 airports throughout Asia and Eastern Europe. After an amendment that changed the initial due date, Solicitation SP0600-05-R-0046 called for initial bids to be submitted on April 11, 2005. Best and final bids for some of the locations were due in or around the first week of August 2005. In addition, in or around May 2005, DESC re-opened Solicitation SP0600-04-R-0012 for the into-plane contract at Baku, Azerbaijan. Solicitation SP0600-04-R-0012 was subsequently awarded on or around May 10, 2005. Finally, on or about June 16, 2005, DESC issued Solicitation SP0600-05-R-0205 for a PC&S fuel supply contract at Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan. The initial due date for SP0600-05-R-0205 was July 1, 2005. Amendments to Solicitation SP0600-05-R-0205 postponed the initial proposal due date until March 31, 2006, and best and final bids were due by July 13, 2006. The PC&S contract for Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan was awarded on August 16, 2006. 4. AVCARD was a division of Kropp Holdings, LLC, an S-corporation organized and existing under the laws of Maryland, with its principal place of business in Hunt Valley, MD. AVCARD was a provider of into-plane and PC&S fuel supply services to DESC. As part of its normal business operations, AVCARD developed and assembled bid packages that were submitted to DESC, in response to solicitations for into-plane and PC&S fuel supply services. In the process of assembling these bid packages, AVCARD created and maintained underlying data, including economic data, cost information, supplier information, profit and loss data, business forecasts and other confidential information that assisted it in deciding on which locations to bid and what price to bid at each location. AVCARD took reasonable measures to keep this information secret, and this information derived independent economic value, both actual and potential, because it was secret and not readily ascertainable by the public. 5. One of the defendants, Christopher CARTWRIGHT ("CARTWRIGHT"), a U.S. citizen, resided in Prague, Czech Republic. In or around 1992, CARTWRIGHT co-founded FAR EAST RUSSIA AIRCRAFT SERVICES and served as a Managing Co-Director. In or around 2005, CARTWRIGHT co-founded AEROCONTROL, LTD. 6. One of the defendants, Paul WILKINSON ("WILKINSON"), a U.S. citizen, resided in Prague, Czech Republic. In or around 1992, WILKINSON co-founded FAR EAST RUSSIA AIRCRAFT SERVICES with CARTWRIGHT and served as a Managing Co-Director. In or around 2005, WILKINSON co-founded AEROCONTROL, LTD with CARTWRIGHT. 7. One of the defendants, FAR EAST RUSSIA AIRCRAFT SERVICES ("FERAS") was headquartered at 5 Pod Kastany, Prague, Czech Republic. FERAS was co-founded by CARTWRIGHT and WILKINSON in or around 1992. It was affiliated with a company called Universal Weather & Aviation, which is located at 8797 Tallyho, Houston, Texas. FERAS maintained an office at the Universal Weather & Aviation complex in Houston. 8. One of the defendants, AEROCONTROL, LTD. ("AEROCONTROL"), was headquartered on the Isle of Man, a self-governing dependency of the United Kingdom. AEROCONTROL was co-founded by CARTWRIGHT and WILKINSON in or around 2005. 9. Matthew W. BITTENBENDER ("BITTENBENDER"), resided in Baltimore, Maryland, in the District of Maryland. From at least 1999 until December 2005, BITTENBENDER was employed by AVCARD and, as an employee, owed AVCARD a fiduciary duty. From at least 2002 until December 2005, BITTENBENDER held the position of Contract Fuel Manager for AVCARD and was responsible for preparing AVCARD's bids for certain government contracts, including DESC into-plane and PC&S fuel supply contracts. In particular, BITTENBENDER was responsible for helping prepare AVCARD's bid packages for DESC Solicitations SP0600-05-R-0046, SP0600-04-R-0012, and SP0600-05-R-0205. BITTENBENDER was terminated from AVCARD in or around December 2005. 10. Various individuals not made defendants in this Indictment, participated as co-conspirators in the offenses charged herein and performed acts and made statements in furtherance thereof. Whenever this Indictment refers to any act, deed or transaction of any company, it means that the company engaged in the act, deed or transaction by or through its officers, directors, employees, agents or other representatives while they were actively engaged in the management, direction, control or transaction of its business or affairs. COUNT 1: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES (18 U.S.C. § 371) DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE 11. The United States re-alleges paragraphs one through ten of this Indictment and incorporates by reference these paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein. 12. Beginning in or about February 2005 and continuing until at least in or about July 2006, the exact dates being unknown to the grand jury, in the District of Maryland and elsewhere, the defendants, CARTWRIGHT, WILKINSON, FERAS, and AEROCONTROL, and their co-conspirators did knowingly and wilfully combine, conspire, confederate, and agree to defraud the United States and an agency thereof, to wit, DESC, by impeding, impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful function of DESC's full and open competitive procurement process for into-plane and PC&S fuel supply contracts in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. MANNER AND MEANS 13. The defendants and their co-conspirators would and did carry out the conspiracy and effect its unlawful objects and executed the unlawful scheme to defraud the United States through the following manner and means, among others:
OVERT ACTS 14. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to achieve the objects and purposes thereof, CARTWRIGHT, WILKINSON, FERAS, and AEROCONTROL committed and caused to be committed the following overt acts, among others, in the District of Maryland and elsewhere:
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. COUNT 2: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WIRE FRAUD (18 U.S.C. § 1349) DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE 15. The United States re-alleges paragraphs one through ten of this Indictment and incorporates by reference these paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein. 16. Beginning in or about February 2005 and continuing until at least in or about July 2006, the exact dates being unknown to the grand jury, in the District of Maryland and elsewhere, the defendants, CARTWRIGHT, WILKINSON, FERAS and AEROCONTROL, and their co-conspirators did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other to commit wire fraud by (1) devising a scheme and artifice to defraud BITTENBENDER'S employer, AVCARD, of the intangible right to his honest services by materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 1346; and (2) devising a scheme and artifice to defraud BITTENBENDER's employer, AVCARD, of its confidential business information by materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343; all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349. 17. As an employee of AVCARD, BITTENBENDER owed AVCARD a fiduciary duty, and by soliciting, buying, and receiving AVCARD'S misappropriated confidential business information WILKINSON, CARTWRIGHT, FERAS, and AEROCONTROL induced and conspired with BITTENBENDER to breach that fiduciary duty, knowing and intending that such a breach would cause AVCARD significant financial loss. 18. During BITTENBENDER'S employment with AVCARD, he defrauded AVCARD of its confidential business information for his, CARTWRIGHT'S, WILKINSON'S, FERAS'S, and AEROCONTROL'S pecuniary benefit, while falsely and fraudulently pretending that he was performing his duty of safeguarding AVCARD'S confidential business information. 19. For purposes of executing such scheme and artifice to defraud AVCARD, BITTENBENDER, CARTWRIGHT, WILKINSON, FERAS and AEROCONTROL transmitted and caused to be transmitted writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds by wire communications in interstate and foreign commerce. MANNER AND MEANS 20. The defendants and their co-conspirators would and did carry out the conspiracy and effect its unlawful objects and executed the scheme to defraud AVCARD through the following manner and means, among others:
OVERT ACTS 21. The United States re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraph 14, subparagraphs A through R, of this Indictment and incorporates by reference these paragraphs and subparagraphs as if they were fully set forth herein. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349. COUNT 3: CONSPIRACY TO STEAL TRADE SECRETS (18 U.S.C. § 1832(a)(5)) DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE 22. The United States re-alleges paragraphs one through ten of this Indictment and incorporates by reference these paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein. 23. In the normal course of its business providing fuel supply services in interstate and foreign commerce, AVCARD kept all information related to its bids, including subcontractor information, costs, economic data, business plans, the prices it intended to bid, and its bid packages, confidential and took reasonable measures to protect and keep secret this proprietary information until it decided when, if ever, to publicize such information. Some of the protective measures AVCARD employed to safeguard its business information included maintaining the physical security of the AVCARD premises, limiting access to the confidential information only to those who needed it to perform their employment duties, implementing computer and data security policies, informing employees of their obligation to keep the information secret, and requiring employees, as a condition of employment, to adhere to a Corporate Ethics Statement, which expressly advised employees to safeguard AVCARD'S confidential information. 24. AVCARD derived independent economic value, both actual and potential, from its confidential bid information and the data underlying that bid information not being generally known to, or readily ascertainable through proper means by, the public. 25. AVCARD'S confidential bid information and the data underlying that bid information constitutes trade secrets as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(A)-(B). 26. Beginning in or about February 2005 and continuing until at least in or about July 2006, the exact dates being unknown to the grand jury, in the District of Maryland and elsewhere, the defendants CARTWRIGHT, WILKINSON, FERAS and AEROCONTROL and their co-conspirators did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other to convert for their own economic benefit AVCARD'S trade secrets, namely, AVCARD'S confidential bid information and data underlying that bid information, which were related to a product, namely fuel supply services, placed in interstate and foreign commerce by (a) knowingly stealing and without authorization appropriating, taking, carrying away and concealing those trade secrets, and by fraud, artifice, and deception obtaining those trade secrets; and (b) knowingly receiving, buying, and possessing those trade secrets, knowing them to have been stolen and appropriated, obtained, and converted without authorization; and knowing and intending all of their actions would substantially injure AVCARD, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1832(a)(1), (3), (5). MANNER AND MEANS 27. The defendants and their co-conspirators would and did carry out the conspiracy and its unlawful objects and executed the scheme to convert AVCARD'S trade secrets for their own economic benefit through the following manner and means, among others:
OVERT ACTS 28. The United States re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraph 14, subparagraphs A through R, of this Indictment and incorporates by reference these paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1832(a)(5).
DATED: 12/5/07
|