January 24, 2022

News

News Network

Pennsylvania Biofuel Company and Owners Sentenced on Environmental and Tax Crime Convictions Arising out of Renewable Fuels Fraud

11 min read
<div>Two biofuel company owners were sentenced to prison for conspiracy and making false statements to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and conspiracy to defraud the IRS and preparing a false tax claim.</div>

Two biofuel company owners were sentenced to prison for conspiracy and making false statements to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and conspiracy to defraud the IRS and preparing a false tax claim.  

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III sentenced Ben Wootton, 55 of Savannah, Georgia, to 70 months and Race Miner, 51, of Marco Island, Florida, to 66 months, after a jury convicted both defendants and their company, Keystone Biofuels Inc. (Keystone), in April 2019.  The company was originally located in Shiremanstown, Pennsylvania, and later in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.  Miner was the founder and chief executive officer of Keystone.  Wootton was president of Keystone, and a former member of the National Biodiesel Board.  The court ordered both men to pay restitution of $4,149,383.41 to the IRS and restitution of $5,076,376.07 to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.  Wootton and Miner will also have to serve a three-year term of supervised release after their term of imprisonment.  Keystone was sentenced to five years’ probation and ordered to pay restitution of $4,149,383.41 to the IRS and restitution of $5,076,376.07 to the Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection criminal fine.

“The EPA and IRS renewable fuels incentive programs are important components of the Congressional program to increase the use of biofuels to benefit the environment,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan D. Brightbill of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.  “Today’s sentences are a strong reminder that the federal government will not allow supposed “green” conmen to illegally take advantage of federal and state programs that are meant to offer financial incentives to enhance the environment and energy sustainability.”

“The complex fraud perpetrated by the defendants in this case struck directly at the heart of a government program that was specifically created to benefit the environment, business owners and the community at large,” said U.S. Attorney David J. Freed of the Middle District of Pennsylvania.  “Encouraging companies to develop and provide for sale clean renewable fuels is truly a win-win proposition for everyone.  Unfortunately, the defendants used this program to benefit only themselves.  Today’s sentences send a clear message that my office, our federal partners and the United States Department of Justice will not tolerate renewable fuels fraud and related offenses.”

“The defendants defrauded the IRS and sought to profit from a system intended to protect the environment,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division.  “The Tax Division will continue to aggressively investigate and prosecute with our partners such tax crimes.”

“Today’s sentencing demonstrates there are real penalties for those defrauding the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program,” said Jessica Taylor, Director of the EPA’s criminal enforcement program. “With this action EPA and its enforcement partners are continuing to protect both the integrity of the RINs program and the American taxpayer.”  

“Wootton and Miner actively engaged in a multimillion-dollar scheme designed to rob the government and line their own pockets.  Today, they learned there is a steep price to be paid for such greed,” said Jim Lee, Chief, IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI).  “It is the partnerships between IRS-CI and other federal agencies like the EPA that allow cases like this to come to fruition, holding accountable those who seek to enrich themselves through fraudulent means.”    

“The only green resource these two cared about was money, and they told lie after lie to perpetuate their fraud,” said Special Agent in Charge Michael J. Driscoll of the FBI’s Philadelphia Field Office. “Fair warning to anyone else seeking to scam the U.S. government and taxpayers like this: the FBI and our partners stand ready to investigate and hold you accountable as well.”

Wootton, Miner, and Keystone falsely represented that they were able to produce a fuel meeting the requirements set by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) for biodiesel (a renewable fuel) and adopted by the EPA, and as such were entitled to create renewable fuel credits, known as RINs, based on each gallon of renewable fuel produced.  The fuel and the RINs have financial value and could be sold and purchased by participants within the federal renewable fuels commercial system. 

Wootton and Miner were also convicted of fraudulently claiming federal tax refunds based on IRS’s Biofuel Mixture Credit.  The Biodiesel Mixture Credit is a type of “blender’s credit” for persons or businesses who mix biodiesel with diesel fuel and use or sell the mixture as a fuel.  Wootton and Miner caused Keystone to fraudulently claim tax refunds based on non-qualifying fuel and, in at least some instances, non-existent or non-mixed fuel.  In an attempt to hide their fraud scheme, the men created false corporate books and records and sham financial transactions to account for the nonexistent and non-qualifying fuel, and to create the appearance of legitimacy.

The prosecution of Wootton, Miner and Keystone is the first prosecution of a case under the federal renewable fuels program based on fuel that did not meet the program renewable fuel quality standards. 

The case was prosecuted by Senior Litigation Counsel Howard P. Stewart of the Environment and Natural Resources Division’s Environmental Crimes Section, Assistant U.S. Attorney Geoffrey MacArthur, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney David Lastra, and Trial Attorneys Mark Kotila and Michael C. Vasiliadis of the Tax Division.  EPA Region III Criminal Investigation Division, IRS Criminal Investigation and the FBI Philadelphia’s Harrisburg Resident Agency investigated the matter.

The year 2020 marks the 150th anniversary of the Department of Justice.  Learn more about the history of our agency at www.Justice.gov/Celebrating150Years.

News Network

  • Twenty-Two Charged in Connection with a More than $11-Million Paycheck Protection Program Fraud Scheme
    In Crime News
    Seventeen more individuals have been charged in connection with a fraudulent scheme to obtain approximately $11.1 million in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans and to use those funds to purchase luxury vehicles, jewelry and other personal items.
    [Read More…]
  • Joint Press Statement of the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Texas Man Indicted for Sending Violent Threats to Prominent Maryland Doctor Who Had Been a Vocal Advocate of the COVID-19 Vaccine
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in Baltimore, Maryland, has indicted a Texas man for sending a threatening communication to a Maryland doctor.
    [Read More…]
  • Department of State Participation in Taiwan-hosted Event on Open Government and Anti-Corruption
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Where Are Stars Made? NASA’s Spitzer Spies a Hot Spot
    In Space
    The most massive stars [Read More…]
  • Department Press Briefing – April 23, 2021
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Jalina Porter, Principal [Read More…]
  • Tunisia Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel [Read More…]
  • Pipeline Company to Pay $35 Million in Criminal Fines and Civil Penalties for Largest-Ever Inland Spill of Produced Water from Oil Drilling
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice today filed criminal charges under the Clean Water Act against Summit Midstream Partners LLC, a North Dakota pipeline company that discharged 29 million gallons of produced water from its pipeline near Williston, North Dakota, over the course of nearly five months in 2014-2015.
    [Read More…]
  • Zimbabwe Independence Day
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Louisiana Man Indicted for Attempted Murder of a Gay Man and Plot to Kidnap and Murder Other Gay Men
    In Crime News
    A Louisiana man was indicted and charged today in federal court in the Western District of Louisiana on six counts, including hate crime, kidnapping, firearm and obstruction charges.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken On CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS with Fareed Zakaria
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • NASA Telescope Named for ‘Mother of Hubble’ Nancy Grace Roman
    In Space
    At the agency’s [Read More…]
  • Aircraft Noise: Better Information Sharing Could Improve Responses to Washington, D.C. Area Helicopter Noise Concerns
    In U.S GAO News
    According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data for 2017 through 2019, over 50 helicopter operators conducted approximately 88,000 helicopter flights within 30 miles of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (D.C. area), though limited data on noise from these flights exist. According to operators, these flights supported various missions (see table below). While the number of flights has decreased slightly over the 3 years reviewed, it is unknown whether there has been a change in helicopter noise in the area. For example, most stakeholders do not collect noise data, and existing studies of helicopter noise in the area are limited. D.C. area airspace constraints—such as lower maximum altitudes near urban areas—combined with proximity to frequently traveled helicopter routes and operational factors may affect the noise heard by residents. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-Reported Helicopter Flights Conducted in the Washington, D.C. Area by Operator Mission, 2017–2019 Operator mission Number of flights Military 32,890 (37.4 percent) Air medical 18,322 (20.9 percent) Other aviation activity 13,977 (15.9 percent)a State and local law enforcement 12,861 (14.6 percent) Federal law enforcement and emergency support 5,497 (6.3 percent) News 4,298 (4.9 percent) Source: GAO analysis of FAA data. | GAO-21-200 Note: In this table, we refer to the Washington, D.C. area as including the area within 30 miles of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. aIncludes 666 flights for which FAA could not identify an operator or mission based on available historical records. FAA and operators reported taking steps to address public concerns about helicopter noise in the D.C. area. FAA receives and responds to complaints on helicopter noise from the public through its Noise Ombudsman and has recently developed online forms that improve FAA's ability to identify and respond to helicopter noise issues. Operators reported using FAA-recommended practices, such as flying at maximum altitudes and limiting night flights, to address helicopter noise in the D.C. area, but such practices are likely not feasible for operators with military, law enforcement, or air medical evacuation missions. FAA's and operators' approach to addressing these issues in the D.C. area is impeded because they do not consistently or fully share the information needed to do so. According to nearly all the operators we interviewed, FAA has not communicated with operators about helicopter noise or forwarded complaints to them. Similarly, operators often receive noise complaints from the public—some complaints are not directed to the correct operator—but do not typically share these complaints with FAA. As a result, operators have not consistently responded to residents' inquiries about helicopter noise and activity. By developing a mechanism for FAA and operators to share information, FAA could help improve responses to individual helicopter noise concerns and determine what additional strategies, if any, are needed to further address helicopter noise. Helicopter noise can potentially expose members of the public to a variety of negative effects, ranging from annoyance to more serious medical issues. FAA is responsible for managing navigable U.S. airspace and regulating noise from civil helicopter operations. Residents of the D.C. area have raised concerns about the number of helicopter flights and the resulting noise. GAO was asked to review issues related to helicopter flights and noise within the D.C. area. Among its objectives, this report examines: (1) what is known about helicopter flights and noise from flights in the D.C. area, and (2) the extent to which FAA and helicopter operators have taken action to address helicopter noise in the D.C. area. GAO reviewed statutes, regulations, policies, and documents on helicopter noise. GAO analyzed (1) available data on helicopter operations and noise in the D.C. area for 2017 through 2019, and (2) FAA's approach to responding to helicopter complaints. GAO also interviewed FAA officials; representatives from 18 D.C. area helicopter operators, selected based on operator type and number of flights; and 10 local communities, selected based on factors including geography and stakeholder recommendations. GAO recommends that FAA develop a mechanism to exchange helicopter noise information with operators in the D.C. area. FAA agreed with GAO's recommendation. For more information, contact Heather Krause at (202) 512-2834 or KrauseH@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Michael R. Pompeo and Bahraini Foreign Minister Al Zayani at the U.S.-Bahrain Strategic Dialogue
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Weapon System Sustainment: Aircraft Mission Capable Rates Generally Did Not Meet Goals and Cost of Sustaining Selected Weapon Systems Varied Widely
    In U.S GAO News
    Mission Capable Rates for Selected Department of Defense Aircraft GAO examined 46 types of aircraft and found that only three met their annual mission capable goals in a majority of the years for fiscal years 2011 through 2019 and 24 did not meet their annual mission capable goals in any fiscal year as shown below. The mission capable rate—the percentage of total time when the aircraft can fly and perform at least one mission—is used to assess the health and readiness of an aircraft fleet. Number of Times Selected Aircraft Met Their Annual Mission Capable Goal, Fiscal years 2011 through 2019 aThe military departments did not provide mission capable goals for all nine years for these aircraft. Aggregating the trends at the military service level, the average annual mission capable rate for the selected Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps aircraft decreased since fiscal year 2011, while the average annual mission capable rate for the selected Army aircraft slightly increased. While the average mission capable rate for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter showed an increase from fiscal year 2012 to 2019, it trended downward from fiscal year 2015 through fiscal year 2018 before improving slightly in fiscal year 2019. For fiscal year 2019, GAO found only three of the 46 types of aircraft examined met the service-established mission capable goal. Furthermore, for fiscal year 2019: six aircraft were 5 percentage points or fewer below the goal; 18 were from 15 to 6 percentage points below the goal; and 19 were more than 15 percentage points below the goal, including 11 that were 25 or more percentage points below the goal. Program officials provided various reasons for the overall decline in mission capable rates, including aging aircraft, maintenance challenges, and supply support issues as shown below. Sustainment Challenges Affecting Some of the Selected Department of Defense Aircraft aA service life extension refers to a modification to extend the service life of an aircraft beyond what was planned. bDiminishing manufacturing sources refers to a loss or impending loss of manufacturers or suppliers of items. cObsolescence refers to a lack of availability of a part due to its lack of usefulness or its no longer being current or available for production. Operating and Support Costs for Selected Department of Defense Aircraft Operating and support (O&S) costs, such as the costs of maintenance and supply support, totaled over $49 billion in fiscal year 2018 for the aircraft GAO reviewed and ranged from a low of $118.03 million for the KC-130T Hercules (Navy) to a high of $4.24 billion for the KC-135 Stratotanker (Air Force). The trends in O&S costs varied by aircraft from fiscal year 2011 to 2018. For example, total O&S costs for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (Navy) increased $1.13 billion due in part to extensive maintenance needs. In contrast, the F-15C/D Eagle (Air Force) costs decreased by $490 million due in part to a reduction in the size of the fleet. Maintenance-specific costs for the aircraft types we examined also varied widely. Why This Matters The Department of Defense (DOD) spends tens of billions of dollars annually to sustain its weapon systems in an effort to ensure that these systems are available to simultaneously support today's military operations and maintain the capability to meet future defense requirements. This report provides observations on mission capable rates and costs to operate and sustain 46 fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft in the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. How GAO Did This Study GAO was asked to report on the condition and costs of sustaining DOD's aircraft. GAO collected and analyzed data on mission capable rates and O&S costs from the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force for fiscal years 2011 through 2019. GAO reviewed documentation and interviewed program office officials to identify reasons for the trends in mission capability rates and O&S costs as well as any challenges in sustaining the aircraft. This is a public version of a sensitive report issued in August 2020. Information on mission capable and aircraft availability rates were deemed to be sensitive and has been omitted from this report. For more information, contact Director Diana Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Panama’s Independence Day
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • The China Initiative: Year-in-Review (2019-20)
    In Crime News
    On the two-year anniversary of the Attorney General’s China Initiative, the Department continues its significant focus on the Initiative’s goals and announced substantial progress during the past year in disrupting and deterring the wide range of national security threats posed by the policies and practices of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government.
    [Read More…]
  • Attorney General William P. Barr Announces Updates on Operation Legend at Press Conference in Kansas City, Missouri
    In Crime News
    At a press conference in Kansas City, Missouri, today, Attorney General William P. Barr announced updates on Operation Legend.
    [Read More…]
  • United States and Japan Hold Bilateral Security Discussions
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Military Training: Observations on the Army’s Implementation of a Metric for Measuring Ground Force Training
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO FoundThe full spectrum training mile metric is similar in some ways to the tank mile metric and dissimilar in other ways. Both metrics measure training activity of nondeployed units associated with recommended training events based on the Army's approved training strategy. Specifically, they both calculate the average number of miles a unit is expected to drive its vehicles on an annual basis for training that occurs during the reset and train/ready stages of the Army’s Force Generation (ARFORGEN) cycle.However, the full spectrum training mile metric applies to all Army components (active component, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard) while the tank mile metric does not apply to the Army Reserve, because the Army Reserve does not have tanks. The full spectrum training mile metric also is based on multiple vehicles including the M1 Abrams tank, M2/M3 Bradley, Stryker, up-armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle, medium tactical vehicle, and palletized load system, while the tank mile metric is limited to the M1 Abrams tank. According to Army officials, the full spectrum training mile metric—and its incorporation of a wider array of vehicles—is more reflective of the type of vehicles the Army is actually using to train its ground forces for full spectrum operations.The Army’s full spectrum training mile metric is based on certain assumptions associated with standards set in the Army’s training strategy and force-generation model. Because the metric is a standard for actual training to be measured against, the metric’s assumptions are based on desired or expected conditions and may not fully align with actual conditions. For example, the Army made certain assumptions about the length of time units would spend in each stage of the ARFORGEN cycle, assumed that units would have all the vehicles that were included in their modified table of organization and equipment, and assumed units would accomplish all the training in the Army’s training strategy. However, prior GAO reports and Army readiness reports have both shown that units do not always have all the equipment, including vehicles included in their modified table of organization and equipment, available when they are conducting training. Army officials have also acknowledged that many units are not currently executing the ARFORGEN training cycle and the Army’s training strategy as envisioned. To the extent that units do not have all of their equipment, including vehicles, or complete all recommended training, the units’ actual miles driven may differ from the Army’s full spectrum training mile metric. According to a responsible Army official, the Army tracks historical data on actual miles driven and has, in the past, adjusted assumptions used to develop its tank mile metric to more closely reflect actual conditions. The Army plans to continue this practice now with the new metric in place. For example, when conducting its 2010 training strategy review, the Army reduced its estimated miles per training day and event to more closely reflect actual miles driven.The Army uses the full spectrum training mile metric to measure training activity. Specifically, the Army compares the actual miles its units have driven to conduct ground force training to its full spectrum training mile metric to determine how well it executed its training strategy. However, the Army does not use the full spectrum training mile metric to develop its training cost estimates or related funding needs. The Army uses its Training Resource Model, rather than its full spectrum training mile metric, to develop its training cost estimates and funding needs. While some of the inputs to the full spectrum training mile metric and the Training Resource Model are the same (i.e., the number and duration of training events and the numbers of units and vehicles available for training) the Training Resource Model contains unique inputs, such as cost factors that are not related to the full spectrum training mile metric. Specifically, the cost calculation in the Training Resource Model includes the cost to drive a vehicle, expressed as cost per mile, that are linked to the number of units and vehicles, as well as other indirect nonmileage support costs, such as civilian pay. The Training Resource Model, like the full spectrum training mile metric, assumes, among other things, that all recommended training events will be fully executed. To the extent that all training does not occur or other assumptions do not hold true, requirements could differ from estimates derived from the Training Resource Model. According to an Army official, the Training Resource Model is one of several sources of information the Army considers when developing its funding requests for training. For example, the official stated the Army uses historical data on actual miles driven to adjust its funding requests to more closely reflect actual conditions.Why GAO Did This StudyIn 2008, the Army issued a field manual that identified the need to expand its training focus so units would be trained and ready to operate across a full spectrum of operations including offensive, defensive, stability, and civil support operations. To support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the last several years, the Army has focused its ground force training on preparing units for counterinsurgency operations. With the withdrawal from operations in Iraq, fewer units are engaged in counterinsurgency operations and now have more time to train for full spectrum operations.To reflect the shift in training focus, the Army, in April 2011, updated its training strategy and also established a new metric to measure training activity—referred to as the full spectrum training mile metric. This metric replaced the Army’s traditional tank mile metric, which represented the average number of miles the Army expected to drive its tanks while conducting training. In its fiscal year 2012 budget materials, the Army provided background information on its transition to the new metric, and, starting in fiscal year 2012, began using the new metric.House report 112-78 directed GAO to review the Army’s transition to the full spectrum training mile metric and report its findings by February 28, 2012. To address this mandate, we determined (1) how the Army's full spectrum training mile metric differs from its traditional tank mile metric; (2) the key assumptions associated with the full spectrum training mile metric and to what extent these assumptions reflect actual conditions; and (3) to what extent the Army uses the full spectrum training mile metric to measure training execution and develop training cost estimates and related funding needs. Additionally, for background purposes, this report includes information on how training is reflected in the Army’s operation and maintenance budget-justification materials.For more information, contact Sharon L. Pickup at 202-512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]

Crime

Network News © 2005 Area.Control.Network™ All rights reserved.