RECEIVED 0201$ Case 2:16-cr KM Document 26 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY -

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : 18 U.S.C. 641 RECEIVED Case 2:16-cr KM Document 26 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 31 energy efficiency or code compliance, up to an amount of S conditions that were considered to affect their health and safety, and their homes accessibility, grants in the form of loans to low-income families to rehabilitate their homes and to repair Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) under a federal program that provided ( CBDCD ) was a local government agency that received federal funding from the United States c. The City of Bayonne Department of Community Development approximately $91,000 in or about as a police officer for the City of Bayonne Police Department earning a base salary of b. Domenico Lillo was defendant Lillo s husband and was employed of Bayonne, earning a base salary of approximately $38,000 in or about a. Defendant Rose Lillo ( defendant Lillo ) was employed by the City 1. At all times relevant to this Indictment: COUNT ONE (Aiding and Abetting Theft of Government Funds) The Grand Jury, in and for the District of New Jersey, sitting at Newark, charges: INDICTMENT :\L ROSE LILLO : WLLd T WCh CL v. : 18 U.S.C. 2 ATS:3C 18 U.S.C L 0201$ 201 4R001 98/JSP-SGS

2 the home to be renovated and submit an application to the CBDCD truthfully certifying that the threshold. combined income of the applicant and any member of his or her household fell below a specified Case 2:16-cr KM Document 26 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 8 PageID: , defendant Lillo and Domenico Lillo continued to reside at Premises 1, until in or about July i. Although the purchase of Premises 2 closed on or about April 17, prosecuted for any misrepresentations made in connection with their loan application. Lillo, Domenico Lillo, and Relative I also signed a document acknowledging that they could be at the residence for at least one year from the date they took occupancy of Premises 2. Defendant reside at Premises 2 within 60 days after obtaining the loan, and that they would continue to reside Occupancy and Financial Status Affidavit in which they represented under oath that they would defendant Lillo, Domenico Lillo, and Relative 1, on or about April 17, 2012, each executed an induce Bayonne Community Bank to lend them the funds necessary to purchase Premises 2, purchased by defendant Lillo, Domenico Lillo, and Relative I on or about April 17, To h. There was a single-family residence in Bayonne ( Premises 2 ) resided in an apartment on the second floor of Premises I in or about Domenico Lillo lived in an apartment on the first floor of Premises 1 in or about Relative 1 multi-family residence owned by defendant Lillo and Domenico Lillo. Defendant Lillo and g. There was a property in Bayonne ( Premises 1 ) that was a administering the HUD program described in paragraphs 1(c) and 1(d) above. f. Public Official 1 was a CBDCD official who was responsible for approximately $24,985 per year in pension and social security payments. e. Relative 1 was a relative of defendant Lillo, who received d. To be eligible for a rehabilitation loan, an applicant had to reside in

3 Domenico Lillo, completed and submitted to the CBDCD a Home Improvement Loan 2. In or about April 2012, Relative 1, with the aid of defendant Lillo and 1, and used it as his principal residence until in or about Case 2:16-cr KM Document 26 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 33 3 Premises 2 was unoccupied at the time that the application was executed, which would have made the signature line certifying that the statements made on the application were true and correct. forms, a Rehabilitation Assistance Program Application, which contained a legend just above with the assistance of defendant Lillo and Domenico Lillo, completed and executed, among other attended a meeting in Bayonne with, among others, Public Official 1. At the meeting, Relative 1, 5. On or about May 11, 2012, defendant Lillo, Domenico Lillo, and Relative 1 processed quickly because it was an emergency. Lillo also explained to Public Official 1, in substance and in part, that the application needed to be false and fraudulent information with respect to the residents and income information. Defendant to Public Official I the Pre-application described above in paragraphs 2 and 3, which contained 4. In or about April 2012, in Bayonne, New Jersey, defendant Lillo submitted Relative 1 would have been ineligible to receive the loan for which Relative 1 had applied. income for defendant Lillo and Domenico Lillo, both of whom intended to reside at Premises 2, ineligible for such a loan. Had Relative 1 included on the Pre-Application the combined yearly which fell below the $58,700 income maximum beyond which an applicant would have been Premises 2, and, thus, included only Relative l s income of approximately $24,985 per year, 3. The Pre-Application falsely listed Relative 1 as the sole resident of statements to a department or agency of the U.S. Government constituted a federal offense. Pre-Application, (Pre-Application ) which contained a legend warning applicants that false Relative 1 never resided at Premises 2. Instead, Relative 1 continued to reside at Premises

4 application for Relative 1, which authorized a contractor selected by defendant Lillo and 6. At the May 11, 2012 meeting, Public Official 1 approved the $20,000 loan l s gross income of approximately $24,985 was listed on the application. Case 2:16-cr KM Document 26 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 34 4 In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641 and Section 2. entitled. United States, that is approximately S20,000 in grant funds to which she and others were not converting to her own use and the use of others, money of HUD, a department and agency of the did knowingly and intentionally aid and abet others in embezzling, stealing, purloining, and ROSE LILLO District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendant 9. Between in or about December 2011 and in or about July 2012, in the Premises 2, while Relative 1 remained living in Premises In or about July 2012, defendant Lillo and Domenico Lillo moved into Community Bank on or about June 21, performed the remodeling work at Premises 2, which check the contractor negotiated at Bayonne turn, caused CBDCD to issue a $20,000 check made payable to Relative 1 and the contractor who the HUD program administered by CBDCD, HUD released $20,000 to CBDCD. Official 1, in Premises 2 and that the total household income for Premises 2 fell below the income threshold for in the Rehabilitation Assistance Program Application that Relative 1 was the sole occupant of 7. On or about June 20, 2012, in reliance on the intentionally false assertions Domenico Lillo to commence remodeling work on Premises 2. the applicant ineligible had this fact been disclosed in the application. Additionally, only Relative

5 incorporated as if set forth herein. 1. Paragraphs 1-8 of Count One of this Indictment are realleged and Case 2:16-cr KM Document 26 Filed 06/20/16 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 35 5 In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1012 and Section 2. HUD-funded $20,000 rehabilitation loan. applications to the CBDCD that she knew contained false information in order to obtain a for HUD, that is, defendant Lillo assisted Relative 1 with the making and submission of with intent to defraud, did aid and abet another in the making of a false report and statement to and ROSE LILLO District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant 2. Between in or about December 2011 and in or about July 2012, in the (Making a False Report and Statement to HUD) COUNT TWO

6 realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of noticing forfeiture pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 246 1(c). 1. The allegations contained in Count One of this Indictment are hereby Case 2:16-cr KM Document 26 Filed 06/20/16 Page 6 of 8 PageID: (p), as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c). the property described above in paragraph 2, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section the United States of America will be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property up to the value of without difficulty; e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided d) has been substantially diminished in value; or c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court; b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; forfeiture described in paragraph 2 hereim 3. If by any act or omission of defendant Lillo, any of the property subject to to be forfeited is money in the amount of $20,000. personal, which constitutes and is derived from proceeds traceable to this offense. The property 98l(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), any and all property, real and shall forfeit to the United States of America, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section ROSE LILLO Section 641 set forth in Count One of this Indictment, defendant 2. Upon conviction of the offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code, FORFEITURE ALLEGATION

7 States Code, Section 246 1(c). Case 2:16-cr KM Document 26 Filed 06/20/16 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 37 United States Attorney Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981 (a)(1 )(C) and Title 28, United 7 V FOREPERSON V A TRUE BILl 1 /. /

8 Case 2:16-cr KM Document 26 Filed 06/20/16 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 38 CoWt o12a 2 V. 1oSE