us department of justice antitrust case brief - 00429-10095

8/14/2019 US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00429-10095

1/8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICH IGAN

SOUTHE RN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FILED: November 27, 2001

Pla int iff, CRIMINAL NO. 00-80278

v. HONORABLE: Denise Page Hood

VIOLATION: 18 U.S.C. 371

D-2 J OH N A. BAKE R,

OFFE NSE: Conspira cy toCommit

Defendant . Mail Fra ud

_________________________________

FIRST SUPERSEDING

INFORMATION

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CHARGES:

I

DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE

1. Beginning at least as ear ly as 1989, an d cont inuing at least into April

1995, the exact dat es being unkn own to the Un ited Stat es, Defendan t J OHN A.

BAKER a nd co-conspira tors did u nla wfully, willfully, an d kn owingly cons pire,

combine, confedera te a nd a gree to commit an offense a gainst th e Un ited Sta tes of

America, to wit, to violat e Title 18, Unit ed St at es Code, Sections 1341 an d 1346, all

in violat ion of Title 18, Un ited S ta tes Code, Section 371.

2. It was a pa rt an d an object of th e conspira cy that J OHN A. BAKER and

co-conspirators, having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to


2/8

2

defra ud a nd obtain money from Genera l Motors Corporat ion by means of an

agreement to rig bids a nd a llocat e cont ra cts, a nd to deprive Genera l Motors

Corpora tion of its r ight t o honest services from it s emp loyee; execut ed th e scheme

an d ar tifice to defra ud by and t hr ough t he use of th e United St at es mails, in

violat ion of Title 18, Unit ed St at es Code, sections 1341 an d 1346.

II

DEF EN DANT AND CO-CONSP IRATORS

3. During t he period covered by th is Inform at ion, J OHN A. BAKER was t he

president of Sau ger Indust ries, Inc. Sau ger Indust ries, Inc. is a corporat ion

organ ized an d existing un der t he laws of th e Sta te of Michigan with its pr incipal

place of business in Tr oy, Michigan .

4. Var ious individua ls and corporat ions, not made defendan ts in th is

Information, participated as co-conspirators in the offense charged and performed

acts and m ade stat ements in furthera nce thereof.

5. Whenever t his Inform at ion r efers t o an y act, deed, or t ra nsa ction of an y

corporat ion, it m eans th at th e corporat ion en gaged in t he a ct, deed, or t ra nsa ction

by or t hr ough it s officers, directors, employees, agent s, or oth er r epresen ta tives

while th ey were actively engaged in th e ma na gement , direction, cont rol, or

tr an saction of its business or a ffairs.


3/8

3

III

GOALS OF THE CONSP IRACY

6. The scheme a nd a rt ifice to defra ud a nd obtain money from General

Motors Corpora tion resu lted in t he a war d of millions of dollar s in r igged tooling

contr acts to Defenda nt a nd co-consp ira tors. The consp ira tors also bribed a Gener al

Motors Corpora tion employee in exchan ge for limit ing th e list of bidders t o the

mem bers of th e consp ira cy. As a r esult of th is schem e, Gener al Motors Corpora tion

was a lso deprived of its int an gible right to ha ve their employee perform his job in

an h onest fashion.

IV

MEANS AND METH ODS OF TH E CONSP IRACY

The mea ns a nd m ethods by which t he conspira cy was sought t o be

accomplished in cluded, am ong oth ers, th e following:

7. Beginning at least a s early as 1989 an d cont inuing at least u nt il April

1995, J OHN A. BAKER a nd co-conspira tors a greed th at th ey would be t he only

vendors allowed to bid on cert ain tooling cont ra cts a t Gen era l Motors Corporat ion.

As par t of th e agreement , the Defenda nt an d co-conspira tors discussed t he

subm ission of prospective bids for tooling cont ra cts for var ious au tomotive projects

at General Motors Corporat ion. For each bid, eith er t he Defendan t or a co-

conspira tor wa s designat ed as t he low, responsive bidder for t ooling contr acts a t

General Motors Corporation, and either the Defendant and/or co-conspirators would


4/8

4

submit intent iona lly high, complementa ry bids for tooling cont ra cts at Genera l

Motors Corpora tion. After t hese decisions wer e made, Defenda nt an d co-

conspira tors exchan ged bid pr ices before subm ission t o Gener al Motors

Corp ora tion. As a r esult of th ese collusive bids, Defenda nt an d co-conspira tors

provided tooling to, and r eceived paymen t from, Gener al Motors Corporat ion. Once

General Motors Corpora tion issued paymen t to Defendan t an d h is co-conspira tors,

false invoices wer e sen t to th e winn ing co-conspira tors in order to effect kickback

payment s. Fina lly, Defendan t and co-conspira tors sent these kickback payment s

to th e schem es orga nizer t o pay th e Genera l Motors Corporat ion em ployee tha t

provided assist an ce in th e subm ission of rigged bids.

V

OVERT ACTS

In fur th era nce of th e cons pira cy, and t o effect t he objects th ereof, th e U.S.

ma ils were u sed to comm it th e following overt a cts in th e Ea ster n Dist rict of

Michigan an d elsewhere:

8. Between ap pr oximat ely 1989 an d April 1995, Defenda nt a nd co-

conspirators caused General Motors to send purchase orders to them for tooling

contracts obtained as a result of rigged bids.

9. Between ap pr oximat ely 1989 an d April 1995, Defenda nt a nd co-

conspira tors bu ilt an d shipped a ssembly line t ools for Gen era l Motors Corporat ion


5/8

5

an d caused Genera l Motors Corporat ion t o send pa yments or indicia of payment s to

th e conspira tors.

10. Between a ppr oxima tely 1989 an d Apr il 1995, Defenda nt a nd co-

conspira tors sen t an d r eceived false invoices r epresenting a mount s owed t o the

schemes organ izer an d t o the Gen era l Motors Corporat ion em ployee for h is

assistance in the submission of rigged bids.


conspira tors sent checks t o pay the schemes organizer an d t o pay the General

Motors Corpora tion emp loyee for his a ssista nce in th e subm ission of rigged bids.


conspira tors caused t he Gener al Motors Corporat ion employee to use t he m ails to

obta in pa yments for his a ssistan ce in t he su bmission of rigged bids.


6/8

6

VI

J URISDICTION AND VENU E

13. The scheme a nd a rt ifice to defra ud char ged in t his Inform at ion wa s

car ried out , in pa rt , with in th e East ern Distr ict of Michigan a nd with in th e five

year s preceding th e filing of th is Inform at ion, excluding t he per iod dur ing which

the sta tut e of limitations h as been su spended pursua nt to an agreement with th e

Defendan t (atta chm ent 1).

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ /s/

CHARLES A. J AMES ALAN M. GERSHEL

Assistant At torney General United Sta tes At torney

Ant it rust Division Eastern Dist r ict of Michigan

/s/ /s/

J AMES M. GRIFFIN KEITH E. CORBETTDepu ty Assist an t At tor ney Gen er al Assist an t U.S. At tor ney

/s/ /s/

SCOTT D. HAMMOND ERIC M. STRAUS

Director of Cr iminal Enforcement Assistant U.S. At t orney

/s/

SCOTT M. WATSONChief, Cleveland Field Office

MICHAEL F. WOOD, Assistant Chief

KEVIN C. CULUM, Att orn ey

BRIAN J . STACK, Att orney

Dated: November 15, 2001


7/8

Atta chment 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICH IGAN

SOUTHE RN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRIMINAL NO. 00-80278

Pla int iff, Honorable Denise Page Hood

v. VIOLATION: 18 U.S.C. 371

D-2 JOHN A. BAKER, OFFENSE: Mail F raud

Defendants.

_________________________________

WAIVER OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

J ohn A. Baker, the a bove-na med Defendan t, who has agreed to enter int o

th e att ached Inform at ion a nd P lea Agreement, wherein he a grees to plead guilty to

Cons pira cy to commit m ail frau d, in violat ion of 18 U.S.C. 371, her eby waives the

ru nn ing of any st at ut e of limitat ions from Mar ch 29, 2000, through t he filing of the

at ta ched Inform at ion. Accordingly, as to an y action by th e United Stat es

Attorn eys Office of the E ast ern Distr ict of Michigan pur sua nt to 18 U.S.C. 371,

th e period of tim e from Mar ch 29, 2000, th rough t he filing of th e at ta ched

Inform at ion, sha ll not be included for t he pu rpose of determ ining the st at ut e of


8/8

2

limita tions, th e doctr ines of waiver, laches, or est oppel, th e applicability of Feder al

Rule of Crimina l Pr ocedure 48, or an y sta tu tory or const itut iona l right to a speedy

tr ial or t o th e absen ce of pre-indictm ent delay.

/s/

JOHN A. BAKER

Defendant

/s/

J AMES H. HUDNUT

Coun sel for J ohn A. Bak er

DATE: __November 27, 2001_______

us department of justice antitrust case brief - 00429-10095

Documents