UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
13-CR-602 (RJD)
13-MC-1011
U.S. Courthouse Brooklyn, New York
SEALED PROCEEDING
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-against-
CHARLES GORDON BLAZER – Defendant
November 25, 2013 10:00 a.m.
BEFORE: HONORABLE RAYMOND J. DEARIE
United States District Judge
For the Government:
LORETTA E. LYNCH United States Attorney
271 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201
BY: EVAN NORRIS
DARREN LaVERNE
AMANDA HECTOR
Assistant US Attorneys
For the Defendant:
FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER & ADELMAN LLP
7 Times Square
New York, New York
BY: ERIC CORNGOLD
MARY E MULLIGAN
ELIZABETH LOSEY
AND
STUART FRIEDMAN
Court Reporter:
RONALD E TOLKIN, RPR, RMR, CRR
Official Court Reporter
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201
THE CLERK: We are on this morning for a motion to close the courtroom under docket number 13- MC-1 01 1.
Can I ask the attorneys please to note your appearance for the record, beginning with counsel for the government.
MR. NORRIS: For the government, Evan Norris, Amanda 11 Hector, and Darren Laverne.
Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. CORNGOLD: Your Honor, we are here for the defendant, Eric Corngold, Mary Mulligan, and Elizabeth Losey from Friedman Kapl an. This is Stuart Friedman who is with us.
THE COURT: Mr. Friedman's role is?
MR. CORNGOLD: He represents the defendants also.
THE COURT: Welcome all.
We are missing one person. I assume he is with us?
MR. CORNGOLD: Yes.
THE COURT: Well, somewhat to my surprise I don't know who the young woman sitting on the front bench.
MS. MULLIGAN: She is the Pretrial Services Officer, Ms. Perez.
THE COURT: Ms. Perez, good morning.
THE CLERK: Ms. Perez, you can come closer. You can have a seat at the table.
THE COURT: Somewhat to my surprise but perhaps the situation will be corrected momentarily, we are in an empty courtroom although a very public courtroom. The government has served notice, which they are entitled. The Court has certainly scheduled this matter on the public calendar, the motion to close the courtroom.
We have learned in our experience that the government doesn't make these motions very often, nor does the Court grant them very often. Maybe that explains our apparent apathy.
Is there anything that anybody wants to add to this subsequent motion?
MR. CORNGOLD: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you join in it?
MR. CORNGOLD: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is there anything that the government wishes to add?
MR. NORRIS: Nothing substantively to the motion. I just add, Your Honor, as of Thursday, November 21st, the public docket sheet in this matter did reflect that there would be a motion to close the courtroom, and it noticed the date and time and location of today's hearing. Subsequently, on Friday, the court's public calendar reflected that same information.
THE COURT: Thank you.
For the record other than court personnel, pretrial, my law clerk, and the Court Security Officer, and representatives of the U .S. Attorney's Office, the Court Reporter, and my staff we are otherwise alone in this public courtroom.
Less I forget in granting the motion, after I made 11 my findings, I will direct the sealing of these minutes.
Presumably authorize the production of two copies, one to the government and one to Mr. Corngold pending further order of the Court, and the safeguarding of al l or any computers or other Court Reporter source material relati ve to the preparation of these minutes.
I read the government's application. Suffice it to say, in my view, we have not only complied with the notice requirements, that the findings that I need to make are readily made here, given the government's presentation in its letter motion to the Court dated November 21, 2013.
I read that letter a number of times, I read the proposed information and the draft order. I find that a public proceeding in this matter including but not limited to the identification of the defendant, would severely if not irreparably prejudice an ongoing investigation by the United States Attorney's Office and presumably the Grand Jury sitting here in the Eastern District of New York.
Both the nature of the investigation, the identity of the defendant himself, and the surrounding circumstances given the breathe of the investigation make it clear to me that any public release of information at this time would, as I say, irreparably damage that investigation, and the effectiveness of any prosecution thereafter to follow.
I cannot for the life of me at this point given the information provided to me consider any alternative to sealing that would reasonably safeguard the interest at stake, the integrity of the investigation. I think I can say, and it is compelling too, that the prejudice to the public by a public proceeding significantly outweighs the First Amendment rights of the public and the media through their access at this time. Needless to say, the application and my granting of that application will be for a limited duration as being possible.
In that regard I charge counsel, the United States Attorney, and Mr. Corngold, and all counsel for the defendant to bring to the Court's attention any information that may definitely from here on out, that could in anyway conceivably alter the Court's finding or make an adjustment to the relief that I am now granting approprate.
That having been said I will grant the motion having made, I believe, what are the required findings. In this particular case I make without hesitation, and I will sign the order accordingly.
Elie, seal the courtroom.
THE CLERK: Certainly.
Do you have the keys to lock the courtroom?
COURT SECURITY OFFICER: It is locked.
THE CLERK: Judge Dearie, the courtroom is locked.
THE COURT: Was it locked before I made the findings.
COURT SECURITY OFFICER: I did, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Just now?
COURT SECURITY OFFICER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is everybody satisfied?
Will you do me a favor and just open the door, and see if there is anybody lusting about in the hallway yearning to get in here.
COURT SECURITY OFFICER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Monday morning at 10 after 10 you would think we are in the middle of the night.
COURT SECURITY OFFICER: No one out there, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The hallways is empty. Now the courtroom is sealed?
COURT SECURITY OFFICER: Yes it is.
THE COURT: And the order is signed.
MS. MULLIGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. NORRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That brings us to Mr. Blazer.
(Whereupon the defendant, Mr. Charles, enters the courtroom.)
Mr. Blazer, good morning.
THE DEFENDANT: Good morning, sir.
THE COURT: I have, as you probably know, just moment ago entertained a joint application by the United States Attorney and your defense team to seal the proceedings, which I have granted. We are now ready to proceed. With that I will turn it over to counsel. I take it we have arrived at a disposition?
MR. NORRIS: We have, Your Honor.
THE CLERK: Mr. Norris, excuse me for one second. I don't have a copy of the charging instrument. Could you just put the docket number on the record, please.
MR. NORRIS: We have a signed copy for Your Honor as well. I think I previously provided a draft copy.
THE COURT: The docket number is 13-CR-602. The defendant's name is Charles Blazer, B- L-A-Z-E-R.
THE CLERK: I am sorry.
THE COURT: Swear the defendant.
THE CLERK: Please raise your right right-hand.
(Defendant sworn to answer truthfully.)
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE CLERK: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Blazer, I know counsel has told you that I have to ask you some questions.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Quite a number of questions, actually.
If there is anything that I say that is not crystal clear to you, don't hesitate to interrupt me. I will do my best to explain, clarify.
If you wish at anytime -- I just want to make sure we identify everybody in the courtroom. The gentlemen I assume are agents?
MR. NORRIS: Yes, Your Honor. The two gentlemen that have entered are agents with the IRS and FBI. They are part of our team. There are three agents here, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, gentlemen.
Other than that we are here with the same persons identified earlier.
If you wish to talk to your lawyer at anytime or lawyers, just ask me and I will give you whatever time you need to talk privately with them.
THE DEFENDANT: Thank you.
THE COURT: We are in no hurry. This is obviously an important proceeding to you. I assume you understand that.
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: In that spirit please don't hesitate to interrupt, ask questions, and seek time to confer with counsel.
You are now under oath. That means that your answers to my questions must be truthful. If they were not in any material way, you could subject yourself to additional criminal charges for the offense of perjury, which is lying while under oath.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: I do, sir.
THE COURT: Let me begin first of all, sir, by asking you to state your full name.
THE DEFENDANT: Charles Gordon Blazer.
THE COURT: How old are you, sir?
THE DEFENDANT: 68.
THE COURT: You are the second person I know, I being the first one, to actually stop on that question. I guess it is some sort of a Freudian block.
THE DEFENDANT: It is.
THE COURT: What schooling or formal education have you had?
THE DEFENDANT: Partially through graduate school.
THE COURT: Here in the states?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, in New York.
THE COURT: How would you describe your health? I know you are wheel chair bound.
Tell me about your health.
THE DEFENDANT: My health has two sides to it.
Personally I have rectal cancer. I am being treated. I have gone through 20 weeks of chemotherapy, and I am looking pretty good for that. I am now in the process of radiation, and the prognoses is good.
At the same time I have a variety of other less significant ailments dealing with Diabetes II and coronary artery disease but holding up reasonably well.
THE COURT: Good luck.
THE DEFENDANT: Thank you.
THE COURT: Are you taking daily medication?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: Does your medication in any way effect your ability to concentrate on what I am saying?
THE DEFENDANT: No, it does not.
THE COURT: Are you physically comfortable now?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: So you are able to concentrate and participate in this proceeding given the gravity of this matter?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: In your discussions with counsel are you satisfied with their representation?
THE DEFENDANT: I am.
THE COURT: Counsel, are you satisfied that Mr. Blazer's fully understands the rights he will be waiving by waiving indictment and pleading guilty, and he is fully competent to proceed?
MR. CORNGOLD: We are, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now Mr. Blazer, again, as I am sure you were told, the first order of business here is what we commonly refer to as a waiver of indictment.
The charges in the Information are felony charges. Meaning that they carry with them a potential sentence in excess of one year. You have an absolute right to have a grand jury determine whether or not you will be charged with 15 any felony. The United States Attorney absent your waiver of that right does not have the legal authority or power to 1 7 charge you or anyone with a felony.
Do you understand what I am saying?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: Now you indicated to counsel your willingness to waive that right, but I am obliged to tell you a few things about the grand jury which no doubt you already know but none .the less here we go.
A grand jury does not determine whether you are guilty of any crime or not. The role of the grand jury is to determine, among other things, whether or not there is probable cause to believe that you committed an offense. When and if and only if the grand jury determines that there is probable cause to believe that you committed an offense, would the grand jury then be lawfully empowered to charge you with a felony violation.
A grand jury is composed of a maximum of 23 people drawn from the community, more or less like any other jury.
There must be grand jurors present to constitute a lawful quorum for hearing business, and of those grand jurors must agree that there is probable cause before they could charge you with any felony.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: I guess in the simplest terms that means, if given the opportunity the grand jury might or might not indict you for a felony, you or any other felon.
Do you understand?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: If they chose not to for any reason, as I said before, the United States Attorney could not charge you with a felony. They could re- present the case to a grand jury, to the same grand jury, to another grand jury, they could supplement their presentation of evidence before the grand jury. They could do a number of things in an attempt to satisfy the grand jury probable cause standard but they could not charge you with any felony.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: Have you spoken with counsel about this waiver of indictment?
THE DEFENDANT: I have.
THE COURT: Do you feel confident that you understand your rights before that body?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: The grand jury isn't a trial in any sense of the words, it is not an adversarial proceeding. Your lawyer is not there should you wish to testify before the grand jury, as you would be in a position to request.
A grand jury only hears witnesses presented by the United States Attorney, and based upon the questioning of the United States Attorney the basis of that presentation determines whether or not to charge a felony.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: Knowing all this are you prepared to waive your right to proceed before the Grand Jury?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: Are you confident that you understand that right and you have no questions for me about it?
THE DEFENDANT: That is correct.
THE COURT: Counsel, any reservations in your mind about Mr. Blazer's understanding of the nature of the rights he is prepared, apparently, to waive?
MR. CORNGOLD: We have no reservations, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Accordingly then I find that the defendant is fully aware of his rights to proceed before the Grand Jury and has voluntarily, and in the presence and with the assistance of counsel has voluntarily waived that right and, accordingly, the waiver of indictment is accepted by the 11 Court. Give me just a second I will so indicate by adding my signature to the writ.
One of the things that I neglected to mention is now that you waived indictment, and we proceed, we proceed just as if you were indicted for these offenses.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Having said that, Mr. Blazer, we will get to the next series of questions which are really designed to establish as a matter of record that you fully understand the rights that you give up by pleading guilty.
Bear with me while I put these questions to you.
Obviously, you now have a right absolutely to plead not guilty to the charges.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: I realize that may not be your stated intention but you have a right to call it all off as you sit here right now.
Do you understand what I am saying?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: If you were to plead not guilty to the charges you would be entitled to a speedy and public tri al by a jury with the assistance of counsel on the charges reflected in the Information and perhaps on other charges that the U.S. Attorney might seek from the Grand Jury.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: At tri al you would be presumed innocent of all charges. The government would have to overcome or try to overcome this presumption of innocence and prove you guilty by competent evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.
You, sir, would not be required to prove a thing.
You could sit back and do nothing and say nothing, and simply put the government to the burden of trying to convince the jury of your guilt.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: That means that if the government were to fail in anyway practical or technical or not, the jury would be required under my instructions to find you not guilty.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: In the course of a trial witnesses for the government would have to come here to Court and, of course, testify under oath in your presence and the presence of counsel. You would have the right, therefore, to confront each of these witnesses face-to-face here in the courtroom.
You would have the right through counsel to cross examine each of the government witnesses and, when appropriate, to object to evidence offered by the government.
You have the right to offer evidence in your own defense. In that regard, you have the right to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence under court order or subpoena, as we commonly refer to them.
At the trial you would have the right to testify if you chose to do so and only if you chose to do so. The decision whether or not to testify at tri al is yours to make, it is not counsel's. It is a decision that you obviously make in consultation with counsel, but just like the decision to plead guilty or not to plead guilty, it is a personal decision that you make.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: If you chose in consultation with counsel not to testify, as is your constitutional right to remain silent, no one can make you testify, not your lawyer, the government's lawyer or the Court.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: As I said, if you chose to avail yourself of that right I would instruct the jury if requested by counsel, and he likely would, in the strongest possible terms that under no circumstances could they the jury hold your decision against you.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: Al l right. Now having said that if you plead guilty and I accept your plea, you will be giving up these rights. There will be no tri al with the possible exception of a sentence, which I will get to momentarily.
There is no right to appeal. I will simply enter a judgment of guilty based upon what you tell me, based upon your pleas of guilty.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: Finally, before I can actual l y accept your plea, I am required to satisfy myself that you are in fact guilty of these charges. To do that in a few minutes I am going to ask you some questions. In responding to my questions obviously you will give up your right to remain silent. You will give up your constitutional right not to incriminate yourself. You will be called upon here in open Court to acknowledge your guilt.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: Are you willing now to give up your right to a trial and these others rights I just explained.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: Mr. Blazer, do you have any question about any of the material we covered so far?
THE DEFENDANT: No, I don't.
THE COURT: For the record, I have before me a document that bears the caption of this case. I guess I have a draft of the original that is in the government's possession.
MR. NORRIS: I gave it to the Courtroom Deputy, Your Honor. The original Information?
THE COURT: No, the agreement.
MR. NORRIS: I will hand that up, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Has that been fully executed?
MR. NORRIS: It has, Your Honor.
THE CLERK: I will mark it as Court Exhibit 1.
(So marked as Court Exhibit 1.)
THE COURT: It is a 19 page type written document bearing the caption of this case.
THE CLERK: Judge Dearie, I placed the original in front of Mr. Blazer.
THE COURT: All right.
The first question, did you read it?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: Did you read it carefully?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I did.
THE COURT: Would you agree that this is an important 19 pages in your life right now?
THE DEFENDANT: Extremely so.
THE COURT: Did you read it with that degree of
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I did.
THE COURT: Did you review it with counsel?
THE DEFENDANT: I did.
THE COURT: Have they satisfied you and answered of your questions?
THE DEFENDANT: They have.
THE COURT: Do you have any questions you would like to put to me?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
THE COURT: Do you feel that you understand everything in this document?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: I will not cover every aspect of this agreement. We will touch on a few things. Let me ask you this. Is your agreement with the United States Attorney fully and accurately set out in this Court Exhibit 1?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it is.
THE COURT: Are there any other understandings or agreements that induced your plea that are not reflected in this document?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
THE COURT: Can you confirm that, counselor?
MR. CORNGOLD: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. NORRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: We will come back to that momentarily.
Now the information is quite lengthy, and with the assistance of counsel I will summarize rather than read verbatim.
Is there any objection to that?
MS. MULLIGAN: No, Your Honor.
MR. CORNGOLD: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Have you read this Information?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: Have you read it carefully?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: With the same degree of care that you brought to the Agreement?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I did.
THE COURT: You conferred with counsel?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: Do you feel that you understand the nature of charges?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: Counsel responded to al l of your questions to your satisfaction?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, they have.
THE COURT: There are ten charges, if I am not mistaken, ten charges in total.
THE DEFENDANT: That is correct.
THE COURT: Involving these organizations. I don't 15 know how you pronounce it, FIFA.
MR. NORRIS: FIFA, Your Honor.
THE COURT: FIFA, and its membership or constituent organization. The charges relate to events involving an exchange of elicit payments for one purpose or another. They identify FIFA and its attendant or related constituent organization as what we call an enterprise, a RICO enterprise.
RICO is an acronym for, and don't overreact to this as I am sure most people do, Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization. I will spare you the historical note.
Then it charges a number of things including conspiracy. Conspiracy, the initial paragraph explains, identifies these various organizations and what they do, their mission to promote the sports throughout the world, their role in the selection of various sites for World Cups and Gold Cups and so forth and so on. You have read it. You know about this more this than I do, that is for sure.
It alleges a conspiracy to corrupt this enterprise through the anticipated payment of funds pursuant to various criminal schemes. Reciting just a heading now, 1998 World Cup bribery scheme, referring to page 16. The Gold Cup bribery and kickback scheme. It involves a conspiracy to do these things. A conspiracy to use wire transfers to effect the payment of monies.
Tell me what your understanding of what a conspiracy is, what is a conspiracy?
THE DEFENDANT: That it is an activity conducted by a group of people for a specific aim and objective.
THE COURT: A specific what objective?
THE DEFENDANT: Aim or objective.
THE COURT: That is a B-Plus. It is a specific criminal aim or objective. Okay?
THE DEFENDANT: That is corrected.
THE COURT: It is an agreement to do something that the law forbids.
THE DEFENDANT: Okay.
THE COURT: It is the agreement itself.
THE DEFENDANT: Okay.
THE COURT: You and I were buddies on the street and we agreed to sell marijuana and we meant it. We were going to go into the marijuana business. We committed the crime of conspiracy to distribute marijuana, whether we ever distributed a single gram. It is an agreement itself.
Any questions about that?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
THE COURT: It also charges money laundering, tax evasion, violation of certain financial reporting laws as well.
Are you familiar with all of this?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Does anybody feel that I have to go into any more specifics given Mr. Blazer's familiarity with the charges?
MR. NORRIS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now I return to your agreement, Mr. Blazer, to discuss some important information relative to sentencing. This really comes, if you will, in three chapters.
The first being what the Statute provides. Each offense carries with it a potential penalty. There are no mandatory minimums here but there are statutory maximums.
Each penalty could be on top of the other. You could be sentenced to consecutive terms, one after another, and so forth and so on.
Paragraph one of your agreement sets out the statutory penalties that you face. For example in Count One, which is the racketeering conspiracy, there is a maximum term of twenty years imprisonment.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: This covers both Count One and Count Two, if I am not mistaken. The statutes al so provides for a period of what is called supervised release. If you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the Court is authorized by statute to impose a sentence of supervised release up to three years. Supervised release is a period of supervision that begins to run the moment that you are released from federal custody. This only comes into play if you are sentenced to a period of incarceration.
The important thing to remember is that if you are to violate the terms or conditions of supervised release at any point during the period of supervision, you could then under the terms of my sentence in this case be returned to prison for up to two years without any credit being given for the time you spent at liberty under the supervision.
Do you follow?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: So for Count One there is a maxi mum of twenty years, a fine of up to $250,000 or twice the gross profits of the enterprise. I am quoting the language of the statutory provision. Restitution is mandatory in an amount to be determined by the Court. The Court will impose a special assessment of $100 on each Count. You face certain criminal forfeitures as is provided for in your agreement. That is the subject I will turn to at the conclusion of this proceeding.
Count Two carries with it, I believe, the identical penalties.
THE DEFENDANT: All right.
THE COURT: As does Count Three except the fine here is the greater of $500,000 or twice the value of the monetary instruments or funds involved, that being the money laundering conspiracy. Again restitution is a special assessment and forfeiture.
Counts Four through Ni ne charge tax evasion. Each carries a maxi mum term of five years imprisonment. There is three years supervised release. There is a maximum fine of $100,000 and the cost of prosecution. Restitution to the Internal Revenue Service. There is a special assessment as I have noted.
Finally, Count Ten, which is a failure to file FBAR, with a maximum of ten years in prison and three years of supervised release, and a fine of up to $500,000. I don't know that restitution plays here. There is a $100 special assessment. There are other penal ties, according to your agreement, a civil money penalty of $487,875.74 as described in Paragraph 3(g) of your agreement.
Have I missed something?
MR. NORRIS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Those are the statutory penal ties. I add they could be made to run consecutively.
Now we go to Chapter Two. Chapter Two involves what 10 we call the sentencing guidelines. The guidelines are designed to inform the Court, to guide the Court I should say, now I can use the term guide literally, where within this rather broad statutory range you would be sentenced.
To do that we apply these various guidelines and establish a sentencing range, which I am not obligated to follow but I am obligated to consider. Because I am obligated to consider it, I am obligated to calculate it as the first step in the sentence an accurate guideline sentencing range.
I won't be in a position to do that until I have seen the presentence report. This is somewhere down the road.
That is a document prepared by the Probation Department with your input as well as counsel's, and the United States Attorney, and the relevant investigatory agencies.
The report will tell the story of the case and your involvement in it, your role, and so forth. It will provide a personal hi story, a financial hi story, a criminal hi story if any, and it will contain the Probation Department's recommended calculation of the advisory guideline range.
You will see that along with counsel before I do.
You will be given an opportunity to voice objections, comments, and give suggestions to Probation. The document will come to me.
At that point if the parties are in disagreement with some aspect of the calculation it will be incumbent upon me to resolve those differences and, as I said, apply the guidelines as I understand them. I will use them as a guide but not a control ling guide in deciding when we get to Chapter 3 down in sentencing, what is under all of the circumstances in the case a reasonable sentence.
At the end of the day if you think that I have imposed an unreasonable sentence - - there is no appellate waiver?
MR. NORRIS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: If you think I have imposed an unreasonable sentence, you may appeal my sentence to the higher court. If you are not at that time able to afford the fees and counsel, counsel will be furnished at the expense of the Court. The United States Attorney you should understand, Mr. [Blazer], has a comparable right of appeal should they feel that I have been unreasonably lenient. They may seek appellate review of the sentence. Should that happen your interest in that proceeding will simply be represented by counsel of your choosing or counsel provided by the Court.
Bear with me just a second. We have covered a lot of ground, Mr. Blazer.
THE DEFENDANT: Indeed.
THE COURT: I trust you have heard this information before.
THE DEFENDANT: From my attorneys, yes, sir.
THE COURT: Are there any questions that you would like to put to me?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
THE COURT: Counsel, is there anything that I left out that I should include?
MR. NORRIS: No, Your Honor.
MR. CORNGOLD: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are there any questions before I take your plea?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
THE COURT: Are you ready to plead?
THE DEFENDANT: I am.
THE COURT: What is your plea to Count One through inclusive, guilty or not guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.
THE COURT: Are you pleading guilty voluntarily?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: Of your own free will?
THE DEFENDANT: Totally.
THE COURT: Has anybody forced you to plead guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: Has anybody made a promise to you that is not reflected in this agreement?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: Has anybody given you any assurance as to what I will do when it comes to sentence?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: We turn to the charges. Has an allocution been prepared?
MR. CORNGOLD: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Why don't we start with that and then we will go from there.
MR. CORNGOLD: We have done it count by count.
THE COURT: Even better.
Mr. Blazer, tell me what you did.
THE DEFENDANT: Regarding Count One.
From in and about and between 1990 to December 2011, I was employed by and associated with the Federation Internationale de Football Association, commonly known as FIFA, and one of its constituent confederations, the Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football, commonly known as CONCACAF, and their sports marketing affiliates.
During this time, the principal purpose of FIFA and CONCACAF, as well as other affiliated soccer governing bodies and sports marketing companies, was to promote and/or regulate the sport of soccer worldwide as part of an ongoing organization. Among other things, FIFA and CONCACAF held sports-related events and conducted business overseas and in the United States, including in the Eastern District of New York, and utilized American financial institutions in their banking and investment activities. CONCACAF al so had its headquarters in New York.
From 1997 through 2013, I served as a FIFA executive committee member. One of my responsibilities in that role was participating in the selection of the host countries for the World Cup. I also served as General Secretary of CONCACAF from 1990 through December of 2011, and was responsible for, among other things, participating in the negotiations for sponsorship and media rights.
During my association with FIFA and CONCACAF, among other things, I and others agreed that I or a co-conspirator would commit at least two acts of racketeering activity.
Among other things, I agreed with other persons in or around 1992 to facilitate the acceptance of a bribe in conjunction with the selection of the host nation for the 1998 World Cup.
Beginning in or about 1993 and continuing through the early 2000s, I and others agreed to accept bribes and kickbacks in conjunction with the broadcast and other rights to the 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2003 Gold Cups. Beginning in or around 2004 and continuing through 2011, I and others on the FIFA executive committee agreed to accept bribes in conjunction with the selection of South Africa as the host nation for the 2010 World Cup. Among other things, my actions described above had common participants and results.PWT
That is with regard to Count One.
THE COURT: All right.
Go ahead.
THE DEFENDANT: Count Two.
Between April of 2004 and May 2011, I and others who were fiduciaries to both FIFA and CONCACAF, in contravention of our duties, I and others, while acting in our official capacities, agreed to participate in a scheme to defraud FIFA and CONCACAF of the right to honest services by taking undisclosed bribes. I and others agreed to use e-mail, telephone, and a wire transfer into and out of the United States in furtherance of the scheme. Funds procured through these improper payments passed through JFK Airport in the form of a check.
That is regarding Count Two.
Number three.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE DEFENDANT: Number three.
Between December 2008 and May 2011, I and others agreed to and transmitted funds by wire transfer and checks from places within the United States to places in the Caribbean, and from places in the Caribbean to places in the United States. I agreed to and took these actions to, among other things, promote and conceal my receipt of bribes and kickbacks. I knew that the funds involved were the proceeds of an unlawful bribe, and I and others used wires, e-mails, and telephone to effectuate payment of and conceal the nature of the bribe. Funds procured through these improper payments passed through JFK Airport in the form of a check.
Regarding Counts Four through Nine.
Between 2005 and 2010, while a resident of New York, New York, I knowingly and wilfully failed to file an income tax return and failed to pay income taxes. In this way, I intentionally concealed my true income from the IRS, thereby defrauding the IRS of income tax owed. I knew that my actions were wrong at the time.
THE COURT: Repeat that again.
THE DEFENDANT: Between 2005 and 2010, while a resident of New York, New York, I knowingly and willfully failed to file an income tax return and failed to pay income taxes. In this way, I intentionally concealed my true income from the IRS, thereby defrauding the IRS of income tax owed.
I knew that my actions were wrong at the time.
MR. CORNGOLD: Mr. Blazer is waiving venue for these.
THE COURT: Do you know what venue is, Mr. Blazer?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Continue.
THE DEFENDANT: Count 10.
In 2010, while a resident of New York, I had an interest in and controlled bank accounts in the Bahamas with a total value exceeds $10,000. I intentionally and willfully did not file a report disclosing those accounts to the Department of the Treasury. I did this while violating the Federal Tax Law.
THE COURT: All right.
You have seen it before?
MR. NORRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is there anything that you want to add?
MR. NORRIS: Two quick points.
With respect to Count Three. I would just note that the places in the Caribbean that the defendant referred to are outside of the United States.
With respect to Counts Four through Nine, the defendant owes substantial federal income tax for each of the years 2005 to 2010. I believe we could prove that if this case were to go to tri al.
THE COURT: Anything el se, Mr. Corngold?
MR. CORNGOLD: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: May I have a copy of that, if you have no objection.
MR. CORNGOLD: We have no objection.
THE COURT: I don't need it right this minute but if you can get me a clean copy of it I would appreciate it.
MR. NORRIS: One other point, as well, with respect to Count Ten and Venue, I would note that there are local IRS offices within the Eastern District of New York that the defendant could have filed the FBAR form which gets the venue to that count.
THE COURT: Based on the information given to me I find that the defendant is acting voluntarily, that he fully understands hi s rights, the consequences and possible consequences of his pleas, and there are a factual basis for these pleas of guilty. I, therefore, accept the plea of guilty to Counts One through Ten inclusive of the information bearing Docket number 13-CR-602.
Mr. Blazer, at the appropriate time I urge you to cooperate with the Probation Department in their preparation of the presentence report consistent, of course, with the advice of counsel.
Let's take up the subject of forfeiture. You will recall in your agreement there are strict understandings, undertaking, and agreements relative to forfeiture of certain sums.
I have before me an order of forfeiture which I take it, Mr. Corngold, you have seen?
MR. CORNGOLD: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is there any objection if I sign that?
MR. CORNGOLD: No, Your Honor.
MR. NORRIS: Your Honor, if I could, could I provide up to the court two identical copies, as well?
THE COURT: More triplicate?
MR. NORRIS: More triplicate, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Al l right, I signed the order of forfeiture.
Is there anything else?
REDACTED
THE COURT: We will set a date for l ate next year as
REDACTED
THE COURT: Mr. Blazer, my last question is do you have any questions?
THE DEFENDANT: Nothing.
THE COURT: Are you sure?
THE DEFENDANT: One moment, Your Honor.
MR. NORRIS: Your Honor, can we just have one moment to confer?
THE COURT: Take your time.
(Whereupon counsel confer.)
MR. NORRIS: Two final matters.
With respect to bail.
THE COURT: The gentleman has not be processed?
MR. NORRIS: He is going to be processed by the Marshals after we leave this proceeding.
The parties jointly recommend a $10,000,000 unsecured bond.
REDACTED
THE COURT: I have no objection to that. I have one thought that just occurred to me. As we concluded, Mr. Blazer, I asked you if you had any final questions. You seemed to indicate that you might.
THE DEFENDANT: It was pertaining to this document.
THE COURT: Are you satisfied now?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: Well, fair enough. Good luck with your health.
MR. CORNGOLD: Your Honor, I have one thing for the record.
We looked at the Pretrial Services report and there are certain bank accounts that are not mentioned in there. I think in the interview they didn't cover it. The government is well aware, I think, of the accounts. I don't think that it should change anything with respect to the bail conditions.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. NORRIS: Your Honor, if we could, if you could ask the defendant to confirm that there are additional accounts not listed on that Pretrial Services report. It appears that Pretrial Services didn't inquire about foreign bank accounts.
THE CLERK: Gentlemen, just one second please.
THE COURT:
REDACTED
If there are any variations, any change in circumstances, any relaxation of travel authorizations and etcetera, I want Pretrial Services informed. Okay. Yes, sir?
THE DEFENDANT: The answer was yes to the last question. I didn't get a chance to look at the document, I have, and I just want to record that my answer was yes.
THE COURT: Yes, you have additional bank accounts that are listed.
THE DEFENDANT: That were not listed on that document, correct.
MR. NORRIS: Just so the record is clear my understanding is that, and counsel and the defendant can confirm this, it wasn't that they were not disclosed to Pretrial Services, it is that they didn't ask about foreign assets. So in reviewing that we wanted to make sure that the record is clear.
THE COURT: There was no attempt to deceive, is that what you are getting at?
MR. NORRIS: Yes, foreign assets and a trading account in the United States. Again, the IRS and the FBI and the government are aware of this.
THE COURT: Now, is there anything else?
MR. CORNGOLD: No, Your Honor.
MR. NORRIS: No, Your Honor. Thank you very much.
THE CLERK: Mr. Blazer, I need your signature on this form. I need your signature right here.
THE COURT: Elie, here is the file.
THE CLERK: Judge Dearie, I need your signature right here.
THE COURT: Yes.
THE CLERK: Just for the record, I have a sentence control date of November 7th, 2014 at 10 a.m.
THE DEFENDANT: I want to hand this back to you.
THE CLERK: This actually, Mr. Norris, I will ask you to hold this in your file.
MR. NORRIS: Yes.
THE CLERK: I will give you a copy of the waiver and everything here will be under seal.
MR. NORRIS: Thank you very much for your help.
THE CLERK: Ms. Perez, I want to give you a copy of this bond for your file.
Who is dealing with the Marshal s right now, the case agent? I will give you this bond, the original, to give it to the Marshal s. Let me make this perfectly clear. It i s absolutely important that you give this to the Marshal s.
MR. NORRIS: Thank you.
(Whereupon Judge Dearie l eaves the courtroom.)
(Matter concluded at 1 1 a.m.)
Unsealed, June 3 2015
