From the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Baltimore:
Rainier Ramos, age 50, of Bel Air, Maryland, pleaded guilty today to bribery in connection with his duties at the U.S. Army Public Health Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground.
The guilty plea was announced by United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein; Special Agent in Charge Gordon B. Johnson of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Baltimore Field Office; Special Agent in Charge L. Scott Moreland, Mid-Atlantic Fraud Field Office, Major Procurement Fraud Unit, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command; and Special Agent in Charge Robert E. Craig, Jr. of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service – Mid-Atlantic Field Office.
According to Ramos’ plea agreement, he was a civilian information technology professional at the U.S. Army Public Health Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). Beginning in 2009, Ramos solicited and accepted bribes from the owner and CEO of an information technology company headquartered in McLean, Virginia (the Company). Specifically, Ramos admitted that he sought and accepted, among other things, meals and drinks, rounds of golf, tickets to sporting events, and gift cards. The sporting events included courtside seats to Washington Wizards basketball games, football tickets and access to the company’s luxury suite for Washington Redskins games at FedEx field, tickets to the see the New Orleans Saints play at the Mercedes Benz Dome in New Orleans, and tickets to see the New Orleans Hornets basketball team in New Orleans. In exchange, Ramos admitted that he took official actions favorable to the Company and the owner in relation to the MEDCOM contract, which was worth more than $50 million.
For example, in exchange for bribes from the Company’s owner, Ramos sought contracting opportunities at APG in the spring and summer of 2010, that would allow the Company to develop a track record of performance, in order to increase the likelihood that the Company would be awarded the MEDCOM contract when it was recompeted in 2011. Ramos admitted that he took the following actions in exchange for bribes: influenced the award of a contract to the Company to deploy and configure 70 desktop and laptop computers at APG; recommended that the MEDCOM contract be reserved for companies that were part of the U.S. Small Business Administration 8(a) program, – a significant benefit to the Company as a certified 8(a) business; provided the owner of the Company with the winning proposal of the previous contractor on the MEDCOM contract, including pricing data, which was sensitive, proprietary information; and helped write the Statement of Work for the MEDCOM contract to increase the likelihood that the Company would be awarded that contract. On May 20, 2010, in an email to the owner of the Company, Ramos stated, “If there’s any way you can pull off a miracle and switch the 10 Eagles/Skins tickets you have already acquired for 10 Skins/Cowboys tickets, I’ll owe you some serious 8A business. . . . Thanks again for EVERYTHING.”
In August 2011, the solicitation for the MEDCOM contract was issued, and Ramos was selected as the Chairman of the Source Selection Board. In early 2012, Ramos recommended that the contract be awarded to the Company. After the Company was awarded the contract, Ramos approved invoices submitted by the Company under the contract. As of July 2016, the Company was paid almost $37 million by the U.S. government for invoices submitted under the MEDCOM contract.
Ramos faces a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison for bribery. As part of his plea agreement Ramos is required to pay a money judgment of at least $33,000, and pay restitution in the full amount of the victim’s losses. U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett has scheduled Ramos’ sentencing for July 12, 2017 at 2:00 p.m.
The National Procurement Fraud Task Force was formed in October 2006 to promote the early detection, identification, prevention and prosecution of procurement fraud associated with the increase in government contracting activity for national security and other government programs. The Procurement Fraud Task Force includes the United States Attorneys? Offices, the FBI, the U.S. Inspectors General community and a number of other federal law enforcement agencies. This case, as well as other cases brought by members of the Task Force, demonstrate the Department of Justice’s commitment to helping ensure the integrity of the government procurement process.
United States Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein thanked the FBI, Army CID, and DCIS for their work in the investigation. Mr. Rosenstein praised Assistant U.S. Attorney Leo J. Wise, who is prosecuting the case.
Harford Resident says
What an idiot. As a Federal employee, I wouldn’t even accept a cup of coffee from a contractor. Why would I risk a 30+ year career and pension benefits for tickets to a stupid football game? I hope this guy gets the full 15 years in the slammer. He deserves it Somebody once said to me, “you can’t fix stupid.”
Mike Hedrick says
You must admit that 15 years for some football tickets is a bit much. Mr. Ramos and his family have already paid dearly for his actions and more is yet to come.
Debar LSi says
What was the outcome of Bhupesh Wadhawan’s Sentencing yesterday? Did the REAL CEO BW get sentenced, or was it continued? Where is his plea?
United States District Court
District of Maryland
Judge: Bennett
Courtroom: 5D
Date: 11 OCT
Time: 11:00 AM
Proceeding: Sentencing Hearing, USA v. Bhupesh Wadhawan
Case: 17-cr-0250-RDB
http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/calendar
Agree on debarring LSi says
17-cr-00250-RDB All Defendants USA v. Wadhawan
Date filed 05/10/2017
Date of last filing 10/11/2017
History
Doc.
No. Dates Description
1
Filed & Entered: 05/10/2017
Information – Felony
Filed & Entered: 05/30/2017
Notice of Hearing by U.S. Attorneys Office
3
Filed & Entered: 06/09/2017
Notice of Attorney Appearance – Defendant
4
Filed & Entered: 06/09/2017
Notice of Attorney Appearance – Defendant
5
Filed & Entered: 06/09/2017
Notice of Attorney Appearance – Defendant
6
Filed & Entered: 06/22/2017
Initial Appearance
7
Filed & Entered: 06/22/2017
Arraignment
8
Filed & Entered: 06/22/2017
Waiver of Indictment
9
Filed & Entered: 06/22/2017
Plea Agreement
10
Filed & Entered: 06/22/2017
Order Setting Conditions of Release
11
Filed & Entered: 06/22/2017
Sentencing Order
12
Filed & Entered: 06/23/2017
Receipt for Surrender of Passport
Filed & Entered: 06/28/2017
Notice of Hearing by U.S. Attorneys Office
13
Filed & Entered: 07/05/2017
Order
Filed & Entered: 08/07/2017
Notice of Hearing by U.S. Attorneys Office
15
Filed & Entered: 09/27/2017
Sentencing Memorandum
16
Filed & Entered: 10/04/2017
Terminated: 10/05/2017
Motion to Seal
17
Filed & Entered: 10/04/2017
Proposed Sealed Document
18
Filed & Entered: 10/05/2017
Order on Motion to Seal
19
Filed & Entered: 10/09/2017
Terminated: 10/11/2017
Motion to Seal
20
Filed & Entered: 10/09/2017
Proposed Sealed Document
21
Filed & Entered: 10/11/2017
Order on Motion to Seal
22
Filed & Entered: 10/11/2017
Sentencing
Agree on debarring LSi says
Bhupesh Wadhawan allegedly facing 36-year Prison Sentence
Honorable Richard D. Bennett
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
United States Courthouse
101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
Re: United States v. Wadhawan
Criminal No. RD 17-258
Dear Judge Bennett:
An arraignment is scheduled for Bhupesh Wadhawan on June 22, 2017 at which time,
qased on representations from counsel for the Defendant, Mr. Wadhawan intends to waive
indictment and plead guilty to an information. This letter sets forth information related to the
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy the Court shall conduct and is meant as an aid to
the Court.
Offense of Conviction
1. The Defendant agrees to waive indictment and plead guilty to a one count information
charging him with bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ~ 201. The Defendant admits that he
is, in fact, guilty of that offense and will so advise the Court.
2. The elements of the offense to which the Defendant has agreed to plead guilty, and which
this Office would prove if the case went to trial, are as follows:
a. First, that the Defendant, from on or about September 2009 to on or about 2016,
offered, promised and gave money or something else of value to a public official, R.R.;
b. Second, that R.R. was then a public official by virtue of his position as a civilian
information technology professional with the U.S. Army Public Health Command
(USAPHC) at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland; and
c. Third, that thy Defendant did so with the corrupt intent to influence an official act of
R.R. or to influence R.R. to commit a fraud on the United States or to induce R.R. to
omit acts in violation of his lawful duties.
Penalties
3. The maximum sentence provided by statute for the offense to which the Defendant is
pleading guilty is as follows: a 15 year term of incarceration, 5 years of supervised release
and a fine of $250,000 or a fine that is not more than three times the monetary equivalent
of the thing of value the defendant received, whichever is greater, and the defendant may
be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. In
addition, the Defendant must pay $100 as a special assessment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3013, which will be due and should be paid at or before the time of sentencing. This Court
may also order him to make restitution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663, 3663A, and 3664. 1
If a fme or restitution is imposed, it shall be payable immediately, unless, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3572(d), the Court orders otherwise. The Defendant understands that ifhe serves
a term of imprisonment, is released on supervised release, and then violates the conditions
of his supervised release, his supervised release could be revoked – even on the last day of
the term – and the Defendant could be returned to custody to serve another period of
incarceration and a new term of supervised release. The Defendant understands that the
Bureau of Prisons has sole discretion in designating the institution at which the Defendant
will serve any term of imprisonment imposed.
Waiver of Rights
The Defendant understands that by entering into this agreement, he surrenders certain
rights as outlined below:
a. If the Defendant had persisted in his plea of not guilty, he would have had the right to
a speedy jury trial with the close assistance of competent counsel. That trial could be
conducted by a judge, without a jury, if the Defendant, this Office, and the Court all
agreed.
b. If the Defendant elected a jury trial, the jury would be composed of twelve individuals
selected from the community. Counsel and the Defendant would have the opportunity
to challenge prospective jurors who demonstrated bias or who were otherwise
unqualified, and would have the opportunity to strike a certain number of jurors
peremptorily. All twelve jurors would have to agree unanimously before the Defendant
could be found guilty of any count. The jury would be instructed that the Defendant
was presumed to be innocent, and that presumption could be overcome only by proof
beyond a reasonable doubt.
c. the Defendant went to trial, the government would have the burden of proving the
Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defendant would have the right to
confront and cross-examine the government’s witnesses. The Defendant would not
have to present any defense witnesses or evidence whatsoever. the Defendant wanted
to call witnesses in his defense, however, he would have the subpoena power of the
Court to compel the witnesses to attend.
d. The Defendant would have the right to testify in his own defense ifhe so chose, and he
would have the right”to refuse to testify. he chose not to testify, the Court could
instruct the jury that they could not draw any adverse inference from his decision not
to testify.
e. the Defendant were found guilty after a trial, he would have the right to appeal the
verdict and the Court’s pretrial and trial decisions on the admissibility of evidence to
see if any errors were committed which would require a new trial or dismissal of the
charges against him. By pleading guilty, the Defendant knowingly gives up the right
to appeal the verdict and the Court’s decisions.
f. By pleading guilty, the Defendant will be giving up all of these rights, except the right,
under the limited circumstances set forth in the “Waiver of Appeal” paragraph below,
to appeal the sentence. By pleading guilty, the Defendant understands that he may have
to answer the Court’s questions both about the rights he is giving up and about the facts
of his case. Any statements the Defendant makes during such a hearing would not be
admissible against him during a trial except in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false
statement.
g. the Court accepts the Defendant’s plea of guilty, there will be no further trial or
proceeding of any kind, and the Court will find him guilty.
h. By pleading guilty, the Defendant will also be giving up certain valuable civil rights
and may be subject to deportation or other loss of immigration status.
i. The Defendant recognizes that ifhe is not a citizen of the United States, pleading guilty
may have consequences with respect to his immigration status. Under federal law,
conviction for a broad range of crimes can lead to adverse immigration consequences,
including automatic removal from the United States. Removal and other immigration
consequences are the subject of a separate proceeding, however, and the Defendant
understands that no one, including his attorney or the Court, can predict with certainty
the effect of a conviction on immigration status. Defendant nevertheless affirms that he
wants to plead guilty regardless of any potential immigration consequences.
Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Apply
5. The Defendant understands that the Court will determine a sentencing guidelines range
for this case (henceforth the “advisory guidelines range”) pursuant to the Sentencing
Reform Act of 1984 at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3742 (excepting 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(b)(l) and
3742(e)) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 991 through 998. The Defendant further understands that the
Court will impose a sentence pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act, as excised, and
must take into account the advisory guidelines range in establishing a reasonable
sentence.
Factual and Advisory Guidelines Stipulation
6. If this case were to go to trial, this Office would prove beyond a reasonable doubt the
facts set forth in Attachment A.
7. Further, it is the position of this Office that the following applicable sentencing
guidelines factors apply,
a. Base Offense Level
§ 2Cl.l(a)(2) 12
b. Specific Offense Characteristics
§ 2Cl.l{b){l) {> 1 bribe) +2
§ 2Cl.l{b)(2) referencing§ 2B1.l(L) (>$25,000,000) +22
Subtotal 36
8. The Defendant understands that there is no agreement as to his criminal history or
criminal history category, and that his criminal history could alter his offense level if he
is a career offender or if the instant offense was a part of a pattern of criminal conduct
from which he derived a substantial portion of his income.
Forfeiture
9. The Defendant understands that the Court may, upon acceptance of his guilty plea, enter
an order of forfeiture as part of his sentence, and that the order of forfeiture may include
assets directly traceable to his offense, substitute assets and/or a money judgment equal to
the value of the property derived from, or otherwise involved in, the offense. Specifically,
it is this Office’s position that the Court should enter an order of forfeiture of all property
involved in the offense, including but not limited to the following: a money judgment in
the amount of at least $36,929,658.37.
Waiver of Appeal
10. By pleading guilty, the Defendant knowingly waives all right, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
S or otherwise, to appeal his conviction;
Very truly yours,
Stephen M. Schenning
Acting United States Attorney
By: –
Leo J. Wise
Assistant United States Attorney
Agree on debarring LSi says
Bhupesh Wadhawan, Link Solutions, Inc CEO Guilty Plea
ATTACHMENT A
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Were the Government to proceed to trial in this case, it would prove, beyond a reasonable
doubt, by admissible testimonial and documentary evidence the guilt of the Defendant on the
charge of bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201.
1. The Defendant, Bhupesh Wadhawan, was the owner and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) of Link Solutions, me. (“LSI”) an information technology company
headquartered in McLean, Virginia. The Defendant founded LSI in December 2006.
2. R.R. was a civilian information technology professional at the U.S. Army Public Health
Command (“USAPHC”) at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. USAPHC was
responsible for providing direct information technology support services to users at the
Aberdeen Proving Ground, including U.S. Army Medical Command (MEDCOM), U.S.
Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense and others.
3. Beginning in September 2009, the Defendant engaged in a course of conduct that
consisted of directly or indirectly giving, offering, and promising a stream of benefits in
the form of meals and drinks, rounds of golf and tickets to sporting events, including
courtside seats to Washington Wizards basketball games, football tickets and access to
the LSI luxury suite for Washington Redskins football games at FedEx field, tickets to
see the New Orleans Saints play at the Mercedes Benz Superdome in New Orleans,
tickets to see the New Orleans Hornets basketball team in New Orleans, Louisiana, gift
cards and other things of value to R.R. in exchange for R.R.’ s favorable treatment of the
Defendant and the Defendant’s business interests in contracting with the United States, as
opportunities arose, in relation to contract number W81:XWH-l 1-R-0348 in violation of
R.R. ‘s lawful duty to the U.S. Army Public Health Command.
4. The Defendant met R.R. in March 2009 at the FOSE IT conference.
5. In September 2009, the Defendant invited R.R. to Mount Pleasant Golf Course. The
Defendant paid for R.R.’s round of golf, drinks and lunch.
6. fu early 2010, the Defendant expressed to R.R. his interest in a high value IT contract the
award of which, as the Defendant knew, R.R. had the ability to influence. That contract,
the Agency Information Technology Services Support (AITSS) contract, was held by CSC
Corporation in Fall 2009 but was ultimately re-competed as contract number W81XWH-
11-R-0348 (hereafter the “MEDCOM” contract) with a value of $10,000,000 in the base
year and the option to extend for 4 more years, for a total value of more than $50,000,000.
7. In Spring and Summer 2010, the Defendant sought a contracting opportunity at APG so
that LSI could develop a track record of performance. Such a track record would, in turn,
increase the likelihood that LSI would be awarded the MEDCOM contract when it was
re-competed. Ultimately, in exchange for things of value provided by the Defendant,
R.R. influenced the award of a $10,800 contract, contract number W91ZLK-10-P-1073,
to LSI to deploy and configure 70 desktop and laptop computers located at APG.
8. After the award ofthis contract, the Defendant advocated for and R.R. recommended that
a portion of the AITSS contract that had previously been awarded to CSC Corporation be
reserved for companies that were part of the U.S. Small Business Administration 8(a)
program. LSI was a certified 8(a) company and, as a result, would be in an enhanced
competitive position if the work that had previously been part of the CSC contract was
restricted to 8(a) companies, which CSC was not. Ultimately, in exchange for things of
value provided by the Defendant, R.R. influenced the decision to restrict the MEDCOM
contract to 8(a) companies, which was a significant benefit to LSI.
9. After the decision was made to restrict the former CSC contract to 8(a) entities. R.R., in
exchange for things of value provided by the Defendant, introduced the Defendant to
various potential teaming partners that R.R. and the Defendant believed would increase
the likelihood that LSI would be awarded the MEDCOM contract.
10. R.R. also provided the Defendant with a copy of CSC’s winning proposal for the AITSS
contract and with pricing data from the AITSS contract in exchange for things of value
provided by the Defendant. This was sensitive, proprietary information that enabled LSI
to tailor its proposal for the new contract and increase the likelihood that LSI would be
awarded the MEDCOM contract.
11. R.R. also included in the Statement of Work for the MEDCOM contract two
certifications that R.R. knew LSI had and, thus, increased the likelihood that LSI would
be awarded the MEDCOM contract.
23. The solicitation for the MEDCOM contract was issued in August 2011 and R.R. was
selected as the Chairman of the Source Selection Board. R.R. recommended that LSI be
awarded the contract in early 2012.
24. After LSI was awarded the contract, R.R. approved invoices LSI submitted in exchange
for payment from the United States into 2013. As July 2016, LSI has been paid
$36,929,658.37 by the United States for invoices submitted under the MEDCOM
contract.
12. Among the things of value that the Defendant gave R.R. and the official acts R.R. took in
exchange for things of value were the following:
a. On or about September 25, 2009, the Defendant paid for a round of golf for R.R.
at Mt. Pleasant Golf Course in Baltimore, Maryland. The round of golf for R.R.
and the other participants cost the Defendant $194.30.
b. On or about April 12, 2010, the Defendant paid for R.R. to play golf in the
AFCEA Aberdeen Chapter 2010 Fall Golf Outing. The Defendant paid $100 for
R.R. to participate in this tournament.
c. On May 15, 2010, R.R. emailed the Defendant,
This looks good, but I’d like you to bump it up a little more
[in reference to the Defendant’s proposal for contract
number W91ZLK-10-P-1073]. How about $50/hour, or is
that too high for work of this type? I really don’t know.
Obviously, I want to take care of you as much as I can.
( emphasis added)
d. On or about May 19, 2010, R.R. emailed the Defendant,
Hey man. I’m so sorry, but today was all about putting out
fires. I didn’t get a chance to work on the Contract
Services approval like I wanted to …. I will get to this as
soon as I can, so please forgive the delay.
e. On or about May 20, 2010 at 4:50 p.m., the Defendant emailed R.R. and asked
him “[t]ell me again what game(s) you wanted to go to this year. Might have a
little smprise for you ……… ”
f. Seven minutes later, on or about May 20, 2010 at 4:57 p.m., R.R. responded, 2
games in particular, Green Bay at Washington on October 10th and Eagles at
Skins MNF on November 15th
• I’ll be f’in ecstatic with whatever you can do.”
g. At 8: 17 p.m., that same night, R.R. emailed the Defendant and told him:
I left you a voicemail about this earlier this evening, and as
I said in my message, you ‘re going to want to kick my azz.
I spoke to my buddy, T.F ., who is a Sys Admin for the
Aberdeen Test Center, and one of the biggest Skins fans I
know. For some reason, I thought it was the Eagles at
Skins MNF game he really wanted to see for his bachelor
party on November 15th
, but it was really the Skins opener:
Sunday Night Football, Cowboys at Skins, 8:20 pm. Being
a die-hard NFL fan myself, I know that the Skins/Cowboys
rivalry is the biggest in the NFL, and the fact that they’re
meeting on the Skins season opener. ..on a Sunday night to
boot, tickets must be close to impossible to get.
If there’s any way you can pull off a miracle and switch
the 10 Eagles/Skins tickets you have already acquired
for 10 Skins/Cowboys tickets, I’ll owe you some serious
SA business …. Thanks again for EVERYTHING.
(emphasis added)
h. The Defendant replied to RR:
Dallas/Skins Game: I have you for 6 seats confIrmed. Just
have 4 of your buddies buy the cheapest seats they can fmd
and I will get them 4 guest passes, so that they can come to
the suite as well … GB/Skins: I have you confIrmed for 2
seats.
1. On or about August 19,2010, the Defendant took R.R and CSC employee
James Sirkis to dinner. The total cost for the dinner, paid by the Defendant,
was $326.97.
J. On or about August 20,2010, R.R. emailed the Defendant:
Thanks so much for an awesome dinner meeting last night .
. . . I see that Devona Davis from MRICD just sent you a
message about the Requirements Analyst FTE. Hope
you’re okay with this, but I’m going to call her on the side
and tell her that if she gets a draft sent to me, I’ll take care
of the rest. In reality, I’m going to send it to you and ask
for your help to develop a SOW. I’m guessing you’d be
okay with that.
k. On August 29,2010, USAPHC awarded contract number W91ZLK-1O-P-1073 to
LSI in order to deploy and confIgure 70 desktop and laptop computers located at
APG in the Edgewood Area, based on, among other factors, RR’s
recommendation that the contract be awarded to LSI.
l. On September 7, 2010, the Defendant paid $13,528.51 for the month of
September for use of the luxury suite LSI rented at FedEx field. This
included 22 tickets, as well as several guest passes and parking permits.
m. On September 12, 2010, R.R. attended the Washington Redskins versus Dallas
Cowboys game at the LSI luxury box with 6 of his friends.
n. On September 12 and 13, 2010, the Defendant paid $1957.82 for catering
expenses in the LSI luxury suite.
o. On or about September 20, 2010, the Defendant purchased four tickets for R.R.
and his wife and two children to attend a New Orleans Saints football game in
New Orleans on December 12, 2010, for a total cost of $855.95.
p. On or about November 2, 2010, a Manager of Client Services with the
Washington Redskins sent another Redskins employee an email with the subject
line, “Barry Kane will be in Bhupesh Wadhawan (Link Solution) suite for the
Philadelphia game (see note).” The body of the email contained the following,
“army-public health command … . one of the customers which is $10 million a
year annually to him the CIO is coming to the suite for the Philly game … ”
( emphasis added)
q. On December 12, 2010, R.R. and his family attended the New Orleans Saints
football game that the Defendant had paid for on September 20, 2010.
r. On August 8, 2011, R.R. signed a Source Selection Plan as the SSEB Chairperson
that made contract number W81XWH-1 l-R-0348 an 8(a) set aside.
s. Prior to August 17, 2011, R.R. provided the Defendant with a copy of CSC’s
winning proposal on the AITSS contract, which included the scope of work to be
performed under the MEDCOM contract number W81XWH-l 1-R-0348.
t. On August 17, 2011 a solicitation was issued for contract number W81 XWH- l 1-
R-0348. Included in the solicitation were requirements for certifications that had
been inserted in the statement of work by R.R. because he knew LSI possessed
them and would thus have an advantage over other companies that did not.
u. On November 7, 2011, the Defendant purchased four tickets for R.R. and his wife
and two children to attend a New Orleans Saints football game in New Orleans on
December 26, 2011, for a total cost of $1,154.95.
v. On December 15, 2011, the Defendant purchased four tickets for R.R. and his
wife and two children to attend a New Orleans Hornets basketball game in New
Orleans on December 28, 2011, for a total cost of $387.75
w. On December 26, 2011, R.R. and his family attended the New Orleans Saints
football game in New Orleans that the Defendant had purchased the tickets for on
November 7, 2011.
x. On December 28, 2011, R.R. and his family attended the New Orleans Hornets
basketball game in New Orleans that the Defendant had purchased the tickets for
on December 15, 2011.
y. On January 4, 2012, R.R., as the Chairman of the Source Selection Board,
submitted a memorandum to the Source Selection Authority recommending that
LSI be awarded the MEDCOM contact.
z. On February 6, 2012, LSI was awarded contract number WS lXWH-11-R-0348
based in part, on R.R.’ s recommendation that they be awarded the contract.
aa. In February and March 2012, the Defendant took R.R. lunch
approximately 10 times to discuss transition activities.
bb. On March 13, 2012, the Defendant invited R.R. played golf at Lake Presidential golf
course in Upper Marlboro, Maryland with R.R. and arranged for Hans Sugatan and
Dante Conrad of Getac to pay for RR.
cc. On March 30, 2012, R.R. attended the Washington Wizards Miami Heat
basketball game in courtside seats provided to him by the Defendant. In 2012,
Washington Wizards courtside seats sold for approximately $375 per ticket.
Therefore, the value of these four tickets was $1500.
dd. In 2011 and 2012, the Defendant gave R.R. tickets to courtside seats at Washington
Wizards games at the Verizon on at least 7 other occasions. In 2011 and 2012,
these tickets were worth $375 each for a total value of $10,500.
ee. On April 3, 2012, the Defendant bought R.R. dinner at Ruth’s Chris steakhouse in
Baltimore. The total cost of the dinner, which was attended by four people, R.R.
being the only government official, was $889.14.
ff. On May 3, 2012, the Defendant took R.R. to play golf at Mountain Branch golf
course in Joppa Maryland and spent more than $350.00 at the course.
gg. On June 26, 2012, the Defendant took R.R. to play golf at Lake Presidential golf
club in Upper Marlboro, Maryland.
hh. On November 1, 2013, R.R. approved an LSI invoice under contract number
W81:XWH-11-R-0348 in the amount of 436,423.30.
ii. As of July 2016, LSI had received approximately $36,929,658.37 in payments
from the United States pursuant to invoices submitted by LSI under contract
number W81XWH-11-R-0348.
26. At all times relevant, the defendant gave, promised or offered the money or thing of value
with the corrupt intent to influence an official act of that official or to influence that
official to commit a fraud on the United States or to induce that official to perform or
omit acts in violation of his lawful duty.
More Questions says
What about David Joslin’s relationship with Ranier Ramos? Isn’t David Joslin the paper CEO of Link Solutions, Inc?
Uh Oh says
That’s why there are sealed documents. David Joslin is next. This isn’t over.
Ms. Moderate says
The company was in the wrong as well. They knew that paying forward was illegal and I see nothing to indicate they have been charged. Of course they had a luxury suite at RFK so finding out who the company was wouldn’t be that difficult. Still, big business gets away without penalty while the worm gets crushed.
Concerned contractor says
The company name is in the paperwork attached. Link Solutions. This makes all contractors look bad.
Umpa says
Can we assume this company is done with federal contracts?
Scummy DoD Contractor says
Just to clarify, the company was 8A which means *small disadvantaged* (a.k.a. minority owned) business certification–NOT BIG BUSINESS. What makes it even worse, is that 8A companies already are given preferential treatment (e.g. non-competed sole source contracts) over other small businesses (i.e. not minority) and big businesses. SMH
The River of Truth says
Scummy DoD Civilian?
Scummy DoD Contractor says
No I meant I’m a scummy DoD contractor (27 years!). 😉
Umpa says
Risking all that over tickets and golf? It isn’t even like this stuff is in a gray area of what can be accepted from a contractor. As a manager/supervisor, clearly he knew he was breaking the law. Even taking snacks or coffee provided by a contractor at a meeting should make a federal employee think twice, let alone tickets to sporting events and golf outings.
Former contractor says
I was on that contract! Where is my restitution?!? He sold us out for golf, some fancy lunches/dinners and tickets to sporting events. In a sick way I hoped when the curtain would be pulled back to find out he had taken in millions to so disrupt our lives only to find out he sold us down the river for little its insulting!
Mike Hedrick says
Not sure why you would deserve restitution. As far as I know, the company was either the low bidder or next to lowest bidder, so why would you have been hurt by the outcome? The only ones that have a right to restitution are the companies that were in the bidding and not really given a fair chance.
Jess says
Your Restitution!!!! Give me a break! Your lucky you got to be employed for the term of the contract! Just think, you could have been in the unemployment line!
Jess says
Your Restitution!!! Your lucky you were on that contract and you got to be employed!! You could have ended up in the unemployment line!! You should be thanking that guy! If anyone has any bit of intelligence you will know that this article was overly exaggerated! Only in AMERICA!!!!!!
Jay says
Seriously is this any worse than selling illegal sportswear with forged signatures on them ? It’s not like these tickets were worth millions of dollars.
Give the guy a restaurant and lets move on.
Laughing loudly says
Whatever happened to that guy?
CobbleStone Streets says
Was just wondering the same thing…
Citizen in the Know says
Jay, of course it’s worse. This scheme resulted in Link Solutions STEALING millions of dollars from taxpayers and affected the lives of the folks who were performing on the contract that was being recompeted. Those folks (working on the contract for CSC) didn’t even have a chance. What about them? You clearly don’t understand the full implications of this.
1. The contracting officer got stuff.
2. The business (Link Solutions) got a contract it didn’t deserve worth millions of dollars.
3. BW, the owner of Link Solutions, made millions and is living the life of Riley in his ivory tower.
4. The taxpayers whose money goes to paying these contracts may be getting an inferior product from the contractor.
5. The people who were working for CSC in the Aberdeen Proving Ground area were unemployed (in an area where the only REAL work is contracting on APG.)
It’s a waterfall of events. These folks should all be in jail.
Just the facts says
Link solutions provided better service at a lower price than CSC. That is all hat matters.
Citizen in the Know says
Are you sure about that? Or were their CPARS also doctored to make it seem that they did a better job than they did? Once the credibility of the contracting office is called into question, you really cannot be sure. The lack of ethics leads down a very slippery slope and injects anything to do with this contract and its performance with a level of doubt.
That’s really sad, because I am certain that Link Solutions’ employees are fine, hardworking people whose work doesn’t deserve to be questioned. But still, it will (and should) occur.
Former contractor says
Having worked on the contract in question, i can tell you that LSI screwed the pooch and had no idea what they were doing. Bhupesh had an exit strategy in mind on day 1 on how to take money from the government and run.
Same old Stuff says
It is true that we are not sure if the contract was lower in price. AS a contractor on the contract as well, LSi picked us up, higher medical, benefits horrible, and as a result, most of the best developers left (there are a couple still left). Therefore, what kind of product is being delivered to PHC with a smaller developer team? Isn’t that wasting taxpayer money? Employees lost tenure with employers as well. List goes on.
Mike Hedrick says
1. How do you know this? Contracting Officer was never charged. Evidence???
2. As best I know, LS was either the lowest bidder or close to it. No evidence that they did an inferior job. Only people that have a real bitch are the other bidders on the contract. American tax payers really didn’t get screwed.
3. Owner of LS is most likely going to jail and will lose the right to ever bid on another government contract again.
4. See 2.
5. In the vast majority of service contracts like this a large percentage of the current employees are hired by the incoming contractor. Don’t know the specifics of this particular contract but suspect that very few were actually let go.
Citizen in the Know says
1. I’m sorry, I misspoke. I meant “member of the Source Selection Board.” At any rate, an influencer/decision maker employed by the Government got stuff in return for “favors.”
2. “Former Contractor” is the one who said they screwed pooch. I wonder, though, if their CPARS were doctored by someone influenced by Ramos.
3. One could only hope that the owner of LS is most likely going to jail and will lose the right to ever bid on another government contract again. He has already stepped down from his position as CEO. He is still the owner. I’d be interested to see the outcome and will agree to stand by to see how this unfolds.
4. See 2.
5. Being a member of this community, I understand that in many service contracts, incumbents are flipped to the new contractor. I would love to find out the percentage of people who were asked to stay. If LSi’s rates were that low, they may not have been able to maintain those folks at their present salary. Which basically screws over the incumbent employees who may be doing a great job. Again, I’d love to find out the truth.
Death of Democracy says
The losses in jobs and livelihoods this idiot caused is something he could never make restitution for. Better to hang his lifeless body from the nearest lamppost entering APG. If anyone from the company was aware of the gifts given, they too should be hanging from a lamppost beside him. They are a disgrace and dishonor to us all.
Henry Bankshaft says
Once upon a time there was a goat faced girl with goofy hair that thought her shit didn’t stink. Her and the perpetrator liked to rub their downtown entertainment districts together. People like this do not care about anyone other than themselves. I just hope the DOJ goes after them all. They are failed baseball bat abortions whose birth certificates are an apology from the condom factory.
Huh? says
What the heck are you talking about?
quantum says
Lets boil this BS down. Here we have someone who who wrongfully accepted gifts that don’t amount to anything in comparison to the size of the contract. He helped a company get their foot in the door by supplying them with information so they would be the competitive bidder on a government contract. What this translates into is a savings for the American taxpayers.
It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out the company that was gouging the taxpayers dropped a dime when their cushy revenue steam dried up.
For saving the taxpayers money for some sports tickets he gets to go to jail. Only in America.
quantum leap says
A rocket surgeon? Wow. Did you read the nonsense you just wrote. You are condoning fraud and bribery. You’re a joker – a rocket surgeon joker.
quantum says
I guess you missed the part where I wrote wrongfully and I even wrote it slow cause I know you don’t reed so fast…..
Ms. Moderate says
Rocket surgeon? I know you, I have heard that term many times over the years…lol…
Nada says
You know nothing!
Citizen in the Know says
Hmmmm….so you’re saying this guy should get off scott free? I don’t think so. It’s dirty. If the Contracting Officer is willing to do this for “so little,” what else is he willing to do? And if BW is willing to do this, knowing it’s illegal, what other illegal things would he be willing to do?
quantum says
What is wrong with idiots like yourself. Who said anywhere or even implied he should get off scott free? It’s no wonder at the success of fake news like Fox, morons like you can make up anything you want and claim it to be true.
You are the basic problem with todays society.
Citizen in the Know says
Quantum, please re-read your initial comment. You are really the basic problem with today’s society. One lacking in the ability to express oneself intelligibly in the written form. In other words, perhaps your words didn’t correctly express what you meant. Oh well, it really doesn’t matter, does it?
quantum says
Yea your lack of comprehension skills is clearly all my fault right along with your lack of personal responsibility.
Frigin classic…..
Mike Hedrick says
This “guy” isn’t getting off scott free. He and his family have already paid dearly for his wrongdoing and more is yet to come. Not sure where or how the figure for restitution was calculated but, if a government employee (yes, I was one)did it, you can be sure that it’s exaggerated, to say the least.
CapnDave says
Mike is an asshat
Donald Baker says
What you fail to take into account is that there typically is much, much more behind the scenes, than there is in the actual, published documents. Those who are familiar with Bhupesh and his antics are well aware of many, many more trips, tickets, inducements, etc….. At the end of the court case, the CEO goes to jail for 5 years and the government manager gets something close to that (we’ll know in November) for a series of actions that far exceed what you’ve read in the pleadings. And, if you’re wanting the company debarred, you should know that only one or two people knew what was happening, and one of them testified against their former boss.
Pil Skeaser says
They can all suck my ass.
Anonymous Reality check says
The real sad truth here is that I knew the guy involved from the Govt side and he is actually a very nice guy who I have known for 10 years. I am in IT, never sold him 1 product, but all of us in Sales, in IT try to have “relationships” with our customers. We are all brainwashed in the notion that he/she who owns the end user relationship will get the business. Bottom line he has a family and kids, is honestly a very good person who accepted things he shouldn’t have. For those talking about hanging his body up, get a F-Ing grip. You are prob the same people ready to shoot someone on the highway for cutting in front of you. Of course what happened here is wrong, but reality check for all of you, take a closer look at Wash. D.C. And tell me how many Senators and Congressman should be in jail for this same thing but aren’t.
Jaguar Judy says
Yeah, well the Congress has made it legal for themselves to accept ‘bribes’ in the form of contributions, speaking fees, ‘educational trips’, etc.
As Orwell wrote, “All animals are equal but SOME animals are more equal than others.”
Keesha Jackson says
Judy,
I always thought it was “All pigs are equal but…”.
I actually checked it out (Animal Farm chapter 10) and you are right. Again. But in the situation we are talking about with politicians there is little difference.
CapnDave says
Politicians a almost all scum. Trump bing the King Scumma7e
CapnDave says
Politicians are almost all scum. The King scum is now president.
Mike Hedrick says
AMEN!!!!
Jess says
Are you Serious!!!!! They actually wasted time on publishing something like this!!! Boring!!! This shit goes on daily in the government!! I was a witness to several government employees accepting gratuities all the time!! The sad part is this poor guy got caught!! And you all know who you are!! What a shame, when we ALL know this is what goes on at APG all the time! Tragic!
Bob says
Update on sentencing?
PHC Colleague says
Yeah, what happened with sentencing? Did it occur on the 12th or was it rescheduled?
Mrs. Me says
Right..what happened with sentencing? Did it occur on the 12th or has it been rescheduled?
Just me says
Sentencing for Ramos was rescheduled until November so he can benefit from BW sentencing in October.
Bob says
So, BW has been indicted? Can’t find anything on the web about his arrest, hearing, etc. Where did you see this?
Bilb says
Who ate all of my cornchips? I hope it wasn’t that smelly guy that lives next door. Was it the rocket surgeon? I hope they find out who ate those basketball pumps! I heard that the bad guy was was actually a newt named Corn Bob!
Debar LSi says
What was the outcome of Bhupesh Wadhawan’s Sentencing yesterday? Did the REAL CEO BW get sentenced, or was it continued? Where is his plea?
United States District Court
District of Maryland
Judge: Bennett
Courtroom: 5D
Date: 11 OCT
Time: 11:00 AM
Proceeding: Sentencing Hearing, USA v. Bhupesh Wadhawan
Case: 17-cr-0250-RDB
http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/calendar
Uh Oh says
He was sentenced. He will be locked up as of January 11th and has to pay restitution.
BH says
What was Bhupesh’s sentence? Can’t access the case.
Debar Link says
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v.
BHUPESH W ADHA WAN
JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE
(For Offenses Committed on or After November I, 1987)
Case Number: RDB-1-17-CR-00250-001
Defendant’s Attorney: John L Brownlee
Assistant U.S. Attorney: Leo Joseph Wise
THE DEFENDANT:
~ pleaded guilty to a 1 count Criminal Information
o pleaded nolo contendere to count(s) __ , which was accepted by the court.
o was found guilty on count(s) __ after a plea of not guilty.
Title & Section
18 U.S.C. S 201(b)(l)(A) and (C) Nature of Offense Bribery
The defendant is adjudged guilty of the offenses listed above and sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 6 of this judgment. The sentence is imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 as modified by U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for this district within 30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid.
Name of Court Reporter: Douglas Zweizig
October 11,2017
Date of Imposition of Judgment
United States District Judge
IMPRISONMENT
The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of 60 months as to the 1count Criminal Information.
The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons:
1. That the defendant be placed at the Minimum/Male camp at FCI Cumberland, in Cumberland Maryland or alternatively at the Minimum/Male camp at FCI Petersburg – Low in Hopewell, VA.
2. That the defendant receive psychological counseling and treatment for which he may be eligible.
The defendant shall surrender, at his own expense, to the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons at the date and time specified in a written notice to be sent to the defendant by the United States Marshal. If the defendant does not receive such a written notice, defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal: before 2pm on January 11,2018.
A defendant who fails to report either to the designated institution or to the United States Marshal a directed shall be subject to the penalties of Title 18 U.S.c. ~3146. If convicted of an offense while on release, the defendant shall be subject to the penalties set forth in 18 u.s.c. ~3147. For violation of a condition of release, the defendant shall be subject to the sanctions set forth in Title 18 u.s.c. ~3148. Any bond or property posted may be forfeited and judgment entered against the defendant and the surety in the full amount of the bond.
I have executed this judgment as follows:
Defendant delivered on __ to __ at __ , with a certified copy of this judgment.
UNITED STATES MARSHAL
By: _
DEPUTY U.S. MARSHAL
SUPERVISED RELEASE
Upon release from imprisonment, the defendant shall be on supervised release for a term of 3 years. The defendant shall comply with all of the following conditions: The defendant shall report to the probation office in the district to which the defendant is released within 72 hours of release from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.
A. MANDATORY CONDITIONS
I) You must not commit another federal, state or local crime.
2) You must not unlawfully possess a controlled substance.
3) You must refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance. You must submit to one drug test within 15 days of release from imprisonment and at least two periodic drug tests thereafter, as determined by the court.
IXI The above drug testing condition is suspended, based on the court’s determination that you pose a low risk of future substance abuse. (check if applicable)
You must comply with the standard conditions that have been adopted by this court as well as with any other conditions on the attached page
B. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION
As part of your supervised release, you must comply with the following standard conditions of supervision. These conditions are imposed because they establish the basic expectations for your behavior while on supervision and identify the minimum tools needed by probation officers to keep informed, report to the court about, and bring about improvements in your conduct and condition.
I) You must report to the probation office in the federal judicial district where you are authorized to reside within 72 hours of your release from imprisonment, unless the probation officer instructs you to report to a different probation office or within a different time frame.
2) After initially reporting to the probation office, you will receive instructions from the court or the probation officer about how and when you must report to the probation officer, and you must report to the probation officer as instructed.
3) You must not knowingly leave the federal judicial district where you are authorized to reside without first getting permission from the court or the probation officer.
4) You must answer truthfully the questions asked by your probation officer.
5) You must live at a place approved by the probation officer. If you plan to change where you live or anything about your living arrangements (such as the people you live with), you must notify the probation officer at least 10 days before the change. If notifying the probation officer in advance is not possible due to unanticipated circumstances, you must notify the probation officer within 72 hours of becoming aware of a change or expected change.
6) You must allow the probation officer to visit you at any time at your home or elsewhere, and you must permit the probation officer to take any items prohibited by the conditions of your supervision that he or she observes in plain view.
7) You must work full time (at least 30 hours per week) at a lawful type of employment, unless the probation officer excuses you from doing so. If you do not have full-time employment you must try to find full-time employment, unless the probation officer excuses you from doing so. If you plan to change where you work or anything about your work (such as your position or your job responsibilities), you must notify the probation officer at least 10 days before the change. If notifying the probation officer at least 10 days in advance is not possible due to unanticipated circumstances, you must notifY the probation officer within 72 hours of becoming aware of a change or expected change.
8) You must not communicate or interact with someone you know is engaged in criminal activity. If you know someone has been convicted of a felony, you must not knowingly communicate or interact with that person without first getting the permission of the probation officer.
9) If you are arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer, you must notify the probation officer within 72 hours.
10) You must not own, possess, or have access to a firearm, ammunition, destructive device, or dangerous weapon (i.e., anything that was designed, or was modified for, the specific purpose of causing bodily injury or death to another person such as nunchakus or tasers).
II) You must not act or make any agreement with a law enforcement agency to act as a confidential human source or informant without first getting the permission of the court.
12) If the probation officer determines that you pose a risk to another person (including an organization), the probation officer may require you to notify the person about the risk and you must comply with that instruction. The probation officer may contact the person and confirm that you have notified the person about the risk.
13) You must follow the instructions of the probation officer related to the conditions of supervision.
C. SUPERVISED RELEASE
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
1. You must provide the probation officer with access to any requested financial information and authorize the reease of any financial information. The probation office may share financial information with the U.S.
CRIMINAL MONETARY PENALTIES
The defendant must pay the total criminal monetary penalties under the schedule of payments on Sheet 6.
Assessment TOTALS $100.00
Restitution $2,215,779.00
Restitution Ordered Priority or Percentage
$2,215,779.00
If the defendant makes a partial payment, each payee shall receive an approximately proportioned payment, unless specified otherwise in the priority order or percentage payment column below. However, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ~ 3664(i), all non federal victims must be paid before the United States is paid.
Name of Payee Total Loss*
Clerk, US District Court
101 W. Lombard Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
TOTALS $—— $ $2,215,779.00
D Restitution amount ordered pursuant to plea agreement
~ The defendant must pay interest on restitution and a fine of more than $2,500, unless the restitution or fine is paid in full before the fifteenth day after the date of the judgment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ~ 3612(t). All of the payment options on Sheet 6 may be subject to penalties for delinquency and default, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ~ 3612(g).
SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS
Payments shall be applied in the following order: (1) assessment, (2) restitution principal, (3) restitution interest, (4) fine principal, (5) fine interest, (6) community restitution, (7) penalties, and (8) costs, including cost of prosecution and court costs.
Payment of the total fine and other criminal monetary penalties shall be due as follows:
A IZI Payment of $100.00 Special Assessment shall be due within 30 days.
B 0 $ immediately, balance due (in accordance with C, D, or E); or
C 0 Not later than ; or
o 0 Installments to commence day(s) after the date of this judgment.
E IZI Restitution payments in equal monthly (e.g. equal weekly, monthly, quarterly) installments of $ 2,000.00 over a period of 3 years to commence when the defendant is placed on supervised release.
The defendant will receive credit for all payments previously made toward any criminal monetary penalties imposed.
Unless the court expressly orders otherwise, if this judgment imposes a period of imprisonment, payment of criminal monetary penalties shall be due during the period of imprisonment. All criminal monetary penalties, except those payments made through the Bureau of Prisons Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, are to be made to the Clerk of the Court.
o NO RESTITUTION OR OTHER FINANCIAL PENALTY SHALL BE COLLECTED THROUGH THE INMATE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY PROGRAM.
If the entire amount of criminal monetary penalties is not paid prior to the commencement of supervision, the balance shall be paid:
o in equal monthly installments during the term of supervision; or
o on a nominal payment schedule of $ per month during the term of supervision.
The U.S. probation officer may recommend a modification of the payment schedule depending on the defendant’s financial circumstances.
Special instructions regarding the payment of criminal monetary penalties:
o Joint and Several
Defendant and Co-Defendant Names and Case Numbers (including defendant number), Total Amount, Joint and Several Amount, and corresponding payee, if appropriate.
o The defendant shall pay the cost of prosecution.
o The defendant shall pay the following court cost(s):
IZI The defendant shall forfeit the defendant’s interest in the following property to the United States: $2,215,779.00
At Uh Oh says
Does the company have to pay back the 36 million?
Donald Baker says
No….the company actually has avoided any issue. Bhupesh owes the Government $ 2,000 per month for 36 months (once he’s released) and has forfeited $ 2.2M in ‘property’. One might assume that they got that figure as the value of his portion of Link Solutions.
Bunk says
Link Solutions, Inc pays convicted briber Bhupesh Wadhawan’s sister more than that every month and pays his cousin more than that every month. They both work there. I guess its all in the family. LSI has avoided the issue by some odd setup. Weren’t there family promotions during the investigation? Seems like plenty of time was left to set it up. Maybe the government will pay the company of a briber to receive money back. I bet everyone who works there is very proud to say they work as link solutions. Bribe prepare for conviction to pay fines and stockpile money. Now wonder he did it. Mercedes BMW big house and short time in a country club prison. Get out and pick up the cash and retire.
Bob says
So. After all of that, BW only gets 5 yrs? Based on that, guessing RR will walk without doing time. Doesn’t make sense. They both knew better. Some deterrent:(
BH says
Rainier Ramos was scheduled to be sentenced today. What was his sentence?
Ugh! says
A year
x contractor says
On November 7, 2017, United States District Judge Richard D. Bennett sentenced Rainier Ramos, age 50, of Bel Air, Maryland, to two years in prison, including a 12-month period of home confinement, followed by three years of supervised release for bribery in connection with his duties at the U.S. Army Public Health Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Judge Bennett also ordered Ramos to pay a money judgment of at least $33,000, and pay restitution in the full amount of the victim’s losses, $2,215,779.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/owner-defense-contracting-firm-sentenced-5-years-prison-paying-bribes-civilian-employee
Bob says
How did they determine victim losses and how do we claim our $?
BH says
Did Bhupesh turn himself in at 2:00 today to start his 5 year sentence?
SoulCrusher says
Yes, he turned himself in and is at the Cumberland FCI. You can look him up yourself at https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/
SoulCrusher says
His inmate number is 63453-037…..