|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 COLUMBIA
The United States of America charges that:Information
1. In or about September 2004, the exact dates being unknown, in Kuwait and elsewhere, the Defendant
MARKUS E. MCCLAIN
being a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, did, directly or indirectly, demand, seek, receive, accept, and agree to receive and accept something of value for or because of official acts performed or to be performed by him; that is, MCCLAIN received items of value totaling approximately $15,000, namely cash, from a government contractor for or because of actions taken in his official capacity regarding the award of a Department of Defense ("DOD") contract for the leasing of vehicles at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, to that contractor.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 201, and pursuant to the extraterritorial venue provision, Title 18, United States Code, Section 3238.
18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C);
2. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), the Defendant once convicted of Count One (gratuity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B)) shall forfeit to the United States the following property:
3. Pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 26, United States Code, Section 2461, the Defendant shall forfeit substitute property, up to the value of the amount described in the foregoing paragraphs, if, by any act or omission of a Defendant, the property described in such paragraphs, or any portion thereof, cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; has been transferred, sold to or deposited with a third party; has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; has been substantially diminished in value; or has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty.
DATED: Feb 26, 2010, at Washington, D.C.