Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan
Click Here For The Best Atlanta Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.
Description: Atlanta, Georgia criminal law lawyer represented Defendant charged with accepting bribes from an Atlanta contractor in exchange for steering city business worth millions of dollars to the contractor's company in violation of 18 .S.C. 666, which provides:
(a) Whoever, if the circumstance described in subsection (b) of this section exists—
(1) being an agent of an organization, or of a State, local, or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof—
(A) embezzles, steals, obtains by fraud, or otherwise without authority knowingly converts to the use of any person other than the rightful owner or intentionally misapplies, property that—
(i) is valued at $5,000 or more, and
(ii) is owned by, or is under the care, custody, or control of such organization, government, or agency; or
(B) corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more; or
(2) corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an agent of an organization or of a State, local or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof, in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving anything of value of $5,000 or more;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that the organization, government, or agency receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance.
(c) This section does not apply to bona fide salary, wages, fees, or other compensation paid, or expenses paid or reimbursed, in the usual course of business.
(d) As used in this section—
(1) the term “agent” means a person authorized to act on behalf of another person or a government and, in the case of an organization or government, includes a servant or employee, and a partner, director, officer, manager, and representative;
(2) the term “government agency” means a subdivision of the executive, legislative, judicial, or other branch of government, including a department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board, and bureau, and a corporation or other legal entity established, and subject to control, by a government or governments for the execution of a governmental or intergovernmental program;
(3) the term “local” means of or pertaining to a political subdivision within a State;
(4) the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States; and
(5) the term “in any one-year period” means a continuous period that commences no earlier than twelve months before the commission of the offense or that ends no later than twelve months after the commission of the offense. Such period may include time both before and after the commission of the offense.
“Jo Ann Macrina betrayed the citizens of Atlanta by accepting cash, luxury items, and the promise of a future job in return for steering lucrative City of Atlanta contracts to a local businessman,” said U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Buchanan. “Public officials who enrich themselves at the expense of the citizens they are pledged to serve exact a heavy toll on taxpayers, the economy, and the public trust. We remain committed to prosecuting officials who violate their oath to the public.”
“Circumventing the process to hire contractors for the city by accepting bribes to profit personally is the highest form of public corruption,” said Keri Farley, Special Agent in Charge of FBI Atlanta. “As this verdict shows, the people of the City of Atlanta and the FBI will not tolerate anyone who takes advantage of city funds and abuses their position of trust.”
According to U.S. Attorney Buchanan, the charges and other information presented in court: Jo Ann Macrina served as the Commissioner of Atlanta’s Department of Watershed Management from 2011 through May 2016. During Macrina’s tenure, the City of Atlanta awarded contracts worth millions of dollars to PRAD Group Inc. (PRAD Group), an architectural, design, and construction management and services firm based in Atlanta. To ensure that PRAD Group received city business worth millions of dollars, Macrina replaced two evaluators who previously represented the Department of Watershed Management with herself and another individual and engaged in other efforts to alter scores that had previously been assigned to potential contractors.
Macrina also discussed potential employment with and accepted things of value from Lohrasb “Jeff” Jafari, who was the executive vice president of PRAD Group. In exchange, Macrina provided Jafari with access to confidential information and preferential treatment with respect to City of Atlanta projects.
Macrina accepted $10,000 in cash, jewelry, a room at a luxury hotel in Dubai, and landscaping work at her home from Jafari either directly or through another employee of PRAD Group. Shortly after Macrina’s employment with the City of Atlanta ended she began working for Jafari and PRAD Group. Between June 2016 and September 2016, Jafari and/or PRAD Group paid Macrina $30,000 in four separate payments.
Jo Ann Macrina, 65, of Daytona Beach Shores, Florida, was convicted of conspiracy and federal program bribery. She is scheduled to be sentenced at a later date.
The FBI Atlanta Field Office and IRS Criminal Investigation investigated the case.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Nathan P. Kitchens and Trial Attorney Jolee Porter of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section are prosecuting the case.
Outcome: Defendant was found guilty by a jury.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
