Indictment against Michael Spano, Sr., Emil Schullo, James Inendino, Peter Volpe, and Gregory Ross

r

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

������ EASTERN DIVISION

����� �����

����� 

COUNT ONE

The SPECIAL JULY 2000‑1 GRAND JURY charges:

1. At all times relevant to this indictment:

(a) The Town of Cicero was a local government in the Northern District of Illinois that annually received benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, or other form of Federal assistance.

(b) Defendant EMIL SCHULLO was an agent and employee of the Town of Cicero; that is, he was the Director of Public Safety for the Town of Cicero, an executive office of the Town which also held the function of Superintendent of Police.

2. From in or about October, 1995, through at least April, 1998, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

MICHAEL SPANO, SR.,

EMIL SCHULLO,

JAMES INENDINO, and

PETER VOLPE,

1

defendants herein, did conspire and agree with one another and with persons known and unknown to the grand jury, to commit an offense against the United States; namely, to embezzle, steal, obtain by fraud, and otherwise without authority knowingly convert to the use of any person other than the rightful owner and intentionally misapply property valued at $5000 or more which was owned by and which was under the care, custody, and control of the Town of Cicero, such activity to be conducted by defendant SCHULLO for the benefit of himself and defendants SPANO, INENDINO, VOLPE, and others, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(1)(A).

3. It was part of the conspiracy that defendants SPANO, INENDINO, and VOLPE would and did agree to acquire undisclosed income from the Town of Cicero through investigative work paid for by the Town, which was to be obtained by means of cash kickbacks paid to defendant SCHULLO.
4. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants would and did solicit Sam Rovetuso, an individual now deceased who was cooperating with the government, to do investigative work for the Town of Cicero investigating Cicero police officers who were believed to be residing outside of the Town of Cicero in violation of the Town’s residency requirements.
5. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants would and did receive undisclosed cash disbursements as profits from the investigative work done by Sam Rovetuso for the Town of Cicero, and would pay a portion of these profits as kickbacks to defendant SCHULLO.
6. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants agreed to inflate the hourly investigative rate charged to the Town of Cicero by Sam Rovetuso as a means of generating undisclosed cash disbursements from monies paid to Rovetuso by the Town of Cicero.

7. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants agreed to inflate the hourly

investigative rate charged to the Town of Cicero by Sam Rovetuso in order to compensate Rovetuso for any income tax liability he would incur as a result of the payments made to him by the Town of Cicero.

8. It was further part of the conspiracy that the defendants agreed that defendants SPANO and VOLPE would each receive one third of the profits generated by the payments made to Sam Rovetuso by the Town of Cicero, and that defendant INENDINO and Sam Rovetuso would share the remaining one third of the profits generated by such payments.
9. It was further part of the conspiracy that the defendants agreed that defendant SCHULLO would receive a cash kickback of ten percent of the amounts billed to the Town of Cicero by Sam Rovetuso.
10. It was further part of the conspiracy that the defendants agreed to add false and nonexistent charges to invoices presented to the Town of Cicero in order to fund the ten percent kickback to be paid to defendant SCHULLO.
11. It was further part of the conspiracy that the defendants agreed that the checks made by the Town of Cicero in payment of the fraudulently inflated invoices would be made payable to Sam Rovetuso.
12. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant INENDINO would cause some of the Town of Cicero checks received by Sam Rovetuso to be cashed at the Taylor‑Ogden Currency Exchange in Chicago.
13. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant VOLPE would receive from Sam Rovetuso the cash shares for defendants SPANO, SCHULLO, and VOLPE from the Town of Cicero checks for further disbursement to those defendants. .

3

14. It was further a part of the conspiracy that defendant INENDINO would receive his share of cash from the Town of Cicero checks directly from Sam Rovetuso.
15. It was further part of the conspiracy that the defendants would and did misrepresent, conceal, and hide, and cause to be misrepresented, concealed, and hidden the purposes of, and the acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.
16. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its unlawful objectives, the defendants committed and caused to be committed the following overt acts:
17. On or about October 28, 1995, defendant VOLPE and Rovetuso discussed the possibility of getting business investigating Cicero employees who were believed to be living outside the Town of Cicero. Defendant VOLPE and Rovetuso discussed charging the Town $25 an hour for such investigative work.
18. On or about November 3, 1995, defendant VOLPE and Rovetuso discussed quoting defendant SCHULLO a price of $35 to $40 per hour for the Cicero residency investigation.
19. On or about November 6, 1995, defendant SCHULLO met with Rovetuso. SCHULLO indicated that he wanted at least three Cicero police officers investigated for residency violations. Rovetuso quoted SCHULLO a price of $40 per hour to conduct this investigation.
20. On or about November 8, 1995, Rovetuso, told defendant VOLPE about his meeting with defendant SCHULLO. When Rovetuso asked how he should bill the Town, VOLPE said to do it “whatever way it doesn’t come back to us in any way.”
21. On or about November 13, 1995, defendant SCHULLO met with Rovetuso and provided Rovetuso the names of the three Cicero police officers he wanted investigated.
22. On or about November 14,1995, Rovetuso told defendant VOLPE the names of the Cicero

4

police officers defendant SCHULLO wanted investigated. When Rovetuso asked VOLPE how much to bill the Town, VOLPE responded “I don’t think he’s worried about how much it’s gonna cost.” VOLPE later added that the billing had to be enough so that after “we get paid… everything needs to be spread out at the end. Make sure everybody’s taken care of.” In this same conversation, Rovetuso told defendant VOLPE that he would bill the Town $40 per hour, which would leave a $20 per hour profit, two thirds of which would go to defendants SPANO and VOLPE, and one third of which would be shared by Rovetuso and defendant INENDINO. VOLPE and Rovetuso then discussed how to handle the taxes on this money, and VOLPE suggested that Rovetuso increase the billing to the Town of Cicero to take care of any tax liability. VOLPE also suggested that in future billings, an extra $400 or $500 could be added on.

1. On or about November 17, 1995, defendant VOLPE told Rovetuso to add an extra 10% onto whatever price he bills the Town of Cicero. Rovetuso suggested to defendant VOLPE that they add an additional $10 per hour for the tax liability, thus charging the Town $50 per hour. VOLPE agreed and told Rovetuso to add the 10% on the invoice after the $50 per hour charge.
2. On or about November 22, 1995, defendant VOLPE told Rovetuso to give him the invoices to the Town so that VOLPE could submit them. VOLPE further told Rovetuso “when you get that check, cash it, give me the money… So everything is gonna be in your name.” In this same conversation , defendant VOLPE and Rovetuso discussed worksheets prepared by Rovetuso that showed the inflated hourly expense to be charged the Town of Cicero, the 10% kickback to be paid to defendant SCHULLO, and the profit figures that would go to Rovetuso and to defendants SPANO, INENDINO, and VOLPE. VOLPE told Rovetuso to use only initials on these worksheets when referring to the profit shares.

5

1. On or about November 28, 1995, Rovetuso delivered to defendant SCHULLO the first invoice for $5400 to be billed the Town of Cicero. During this conversation, Rovetuso showed SCHULLO the line item on the invoice, designated “Expense of Equipment,” that covered the 10% kickback, or “end,” to SCHULLO. Rovetuso told SCHULLO that this invoice item for SCHULLO was $50 short and that Rovetuso would make it up on the next invoice. SCHULLO said, “Okay.”
2. On or about November 28, 1995, Rovetuso told defendant VOLPE that he had given the first invoice to defendant SCHULLO and had mistakenly “shorted him $50, but we’ll make that up on the next invoice.” VOLPE said, “Alright,” and told Rovetuso to give him all the invoices in the future for delivery to SCHULLO. In this same conversation, defendant VOLPE told Rovetuso to increase future billings to the Town of Cicero to $55 per hour, “and you won’t get any negative feedback from him.”
3. On or about November 29, 1995, defendant INENDINO discussed with Rovetuso the conversation Rovetuso had with defendant SCHULLO the previous day.
4. On or about December 1,1995, defendant VOLPE gave Rovetuso a Town of Cicero check for $5400 at a McDonald’s restaurant in Berwyn, Illinois. Rovetuso and VOLPE reviewed the cash shares from the check that were to be provided to defendants SPANO, SCHULLO, INENDINO, and VOLPE.
5. On or about December 4, 1995, Rovetuso gave defendant VOLPE his, defendant SPANO’s, and defendant SCHULLO’s cash shares of the $5400 Cicero check, after Rovetuso had cashed that check at the Taylor-Ogden Currency Exchange.
6. On or about December 5,1995, Rovetuso met defendant INENDINO at a coffee shop and paid him his cash share of the Cicero check. INENDINO told Rovetuso that “Mikey” had spoken

6

to him about Rovetuso’s November 28, 1995 conversation with defendant SCHULLO.

1. On or about December 12, 1995, defendant VOLPE and Rovetuso discussed worksheets prepared by Rovetuso that showed the inflated hourly expense to be charged the Town of Cicero on the second invoice, the 10% kickback to be paid to defendant SCHULLO, and the profit figures that would go to Rovetuso and to defendants SPANO, INENDINO, and VOLPE. VOLPE told Rovetuso to use only the initials “P‑D… for police department” in designating the 10% kickback on the worksheet that was to be paid to defendant SCHULLO.
2. On or about December 15, 1995, defendant INENDINO cashed the second Cicero check at the Taylor-Ogden Currency Exchange, in the amount of $5,831.10, and received his cash share of the check from Rovetuso.
3. On or about December 18, 1995, defendant VOLPE received his, defendant SPANO’s, and defendant SCHULLO’s cash shares of the second Cicero check from Rovetuso. VOLPE confirmed that the Town of Cicero was charged $55 per hour on this invoice.
4. On or about December 22, 1995, defendant VOLPE met Rovetuso at the Taylor‑Ogden Currency Exchange, where they discussed the worksheets Rovetuso had supplied for the third invoice and “the ten percent add on for Emil.” VOLPE had brought the third check from the Town of Cicero to this meeting. Defendant INENDINO joined VOLPE and Rovetuso, and INENDINO caused the third Cicero check, in the amount of $15,411, to be cashed at the Taylor-Ogden Currency Exchange. VOLPE received his, defendant SPANO’s, and defendant SCHULLO’s cash shares of this check from Rovetuso.
5. While at the Taylor-Ogden Currency Exchange, on or about December 22, 1995, defendant INENDINO received his cash share of the third Cicero check from Rovetuso, and the two

7

discussed defendants SPANO’s, SCHULLO’s, and VOLPE’s cash shares of the check.

1. On or about December 30, 1995, defendant VOLPE received the fourth invoice to be delivered to the Town of Cicero.
2. On or about January 4, 1996, defendant VOLPE caused the fourth Cicero check, in the amount of $17,184.64, to be delivered to Rovetuso, which Rovetuso deposited into a relative’s personal checking account.
3. On or about January 5,1996, defendant INENDINO discussed the defendants’ cash shares from the fourth Cicero check with Rovetuso, and received his cash share of this check from Rovetuso.
4. On or about January 5, 1996, defendant VOLPE received his, defendant SPANO’s, and defendant SCHULLO’s cash shares of the fourth Cicero check from Rovetuso.
5. On or about January 12,1996, defendant VOLPE received the fifth invoice to be delivered to the Town of Cicero. Rovetuso asked for the name of an accountant to do his taxes, and VOLPE told Rovetuso that he did not want any IRS Forms 1099 issued.
6. On or about January 16, 1996, defendant VOLPE caused the fifth Cicero check, in the amount of $21,059.50, to be delivered to Rovetuso, which Rovetuso deposited into a relative’s personal checking account.
7. On or about January 19, 1996, defendant INENDINO and Rovetuso discussed the cash shares that would be paid to defendants SPANO, VOLPE, and SCHULLO, and INENDINO received his cash share of the fifth Cicero check from Rovetuso. Rovetuso showed INENDINO the line item on the fifth Cicero invoice used to pay SCHULLO his kickback.

1. On or about January 19,1996, defendant VOLPE received his, defendant SPANO’s, and

8

defendant SCHULLO’s cash shares of the fifth Cicero check from Rovetuso at the Capri Restaurant in Berwyn.

59. On or about January 26,1996, defendants caused Rovetuso to purchase a cashier’s check in the amount of $21,059.50 as a replacement check to deliver to defendant INENDINO, after a hold had been placed on Rovetuso’s initial deposit of the fifth Cicero check.
60. On or about January 27, 1996, defendant VOLPE received the sixth and final invoice from Rovetuso to be delivered to the Town of Cicero along with two investigative reports prepared by Rovetuso concerning the Cicero residency investigation. VOLPE and Rovetuso discussed the cash shares to be paid from this last invoice to Rovetuso and to defendants SPANO, SCHULLO, INENDINO, and VOLPE.
61. On or about February 1, 1996, defendant VOLPE delivered the sixth Cicero check, in the amount of $10,945, to Rovetuso. VOLPE told Rovetuso that he would soon have the name of an accountant for him.
62. On or about February 12, 1996, defendant VOLPE received his, defendant SPANO’s, and defendant SCHULLO’s cash shares of the sixth Cicero check from Rovetuso, and they discussed the breakdown of the total cash shares paid out on all six checks.
63. On or about February 26,1996, defendant INENDINO received his cash share of the sixth Cicero check from Rovetuso, and they discussed the breakdown of the total cash shares paid out on all six checks, including to defendants SPANO, VOLPE, and SCHULLO. .

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

9

COUNT TWO

The SPECIAL JULY 2000-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference paragraph one of Count One of this indictment.
2. From in or about October, 1995, through at least February, 1996, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

MICHAEL SPANO, SR., JAMES INENDINO, and PETER VOLPE, defendants herein, did corruptly give, offer, and agree to give a thing of value to a person, namely cash payments of $5000 or more to Emil Schullo, with the intent to influence and reward him in his capacity as an agent of the Town of Cicero, in connection with the business and series of transactions of the Town of Cicero, a local government that received federal benefits in excess of $10,000;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(2).

10

COUNT THREE

The SPECIAL JULY 2000‑1 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference paragraph one of Count One of this indictment.
2. From in or about October, 1995, through at least February, 1996, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

EMIL SCHULLO, defendant herein, being an agent of the Town of Cicero, a local government which received federal benefits in excess of $10,000, did corruptly accept and agree to accept a thing of value from any person, namely cash payments of $5000 or more from Michael Spano, Sr., James Inendino, Peter Volpe, and Sam Rovetuso, intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with the business and series of transactions of the Town of Cicero;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(1)(B).

11

COUNT FOUR

The SPECIAL JULY 2000-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference paragraph one of Count One of this indictment.
2. From in or about November, 1995, through at least February, 1996, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

EMIL SCHULLO, defendant herein, being an agent of the Town of Cicero, a local government which received federal benefits in excess of $10,000, did embezzle, steal, obtain by fraud, and otherwise without authority knowingly convert to the use of any person other than the rightful owner and intentionally misapplied property that was valued at $5000 or more; namely, Town of Cicero funds disbursed to Sam Rovetuso for the benefit of others, including defendant SCHULLO, such funds being owned by and under the care, custody, and control of the Town of Cicero;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(1)(A); and

3. From in or about November, 1995, through at least February, 1996, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

MICHAEL SPANO, SR., JAMES INENDINO, and PETER VOLPE, defendants herein, did knowingly aid and abet this offense;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.

12

COUNT FIVE

The SPECIAL JULY 2000‑1 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Beginning in or about October, 1995, and continuing thereafter through at least April, 1998, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

MICHAEL SPANO, SR., JAMES INENDINO, and PETER VOLPE,

defendants herein, did conspire and agree with one another and with persons known and unknown to the grand jury, to conduct and cause to be conducted financial transactions, in and affecting interstate commerce, knowing that the property involved in the financial transactions represented some form of unlawful activity, and which financial transactions in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activities, namely, the unlawful thefts, embezzlements, and payments concerning programs receiving federal funds, as more fully described in Counts Two through Four of this indictment, knowing that the financial transactions were designed, in whole or in part, to conceal and disguise the nature, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of said specified unlawful activities, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).

2. It was part of the conspiracy that defendants would and did acquire and receive sums of money from the Town of Cicero by means of false pretenses, and inflated and fraudulent billings and invoices submitted to the Town of Cicero in payment for an investigation conducted by Sam Rovetuso, and would conceal their interests in the payments made by the Town.
3. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants would and did cause the false and fraudulent billings to the Town of Cicero to be made in the name of Sam Rovetuso in order to conceal the defendants’ interests in the billed amounts.

13

4. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants would and did cause the Town of Cicero to issue checks in payment for the submitted invoices to be made payable to Sam Rovetuso in order to conceal the defendants’ interests in the proceeds of the checks.
5. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants would and did cause some of the Town of Cicero checks made payable to Rovetuso to be cashed at the Taylor‑Ogden Currency Exchange in Chicago, a business where defendant INENDINO was employed.
6. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants would and did cause Sam Rovetuso to provide portions of the cash proceeds of the Town of Cicero checks cashed at the Taylor‑Ogden Currency Exchange to the defendants.
7. It was furtherpart of theconspiracy that defendants would and did later cause Sam Rovetuso to deposit the Town of Cicero checks made payable to him into a relative’s checking account at First Bank of Chicago.
8. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants would and did cause Sam Rovetuso to write checks on his relative’s First Bank account for amounts equaling the Town of Cicero checks deposited.
9. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants SPANO, SCHULLO, INENDINO, and VOLPE would and did cause Sam Rovetuso to cash some of the checks written on his relative’s First Bank account at the Taylor‑Ogden Currency Exchange.
10. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants would and did cause Sam Rovetuso to provide portions of the cash proceeds of the personal checks cashed at the Taylor-Ogden Currency Exchange to the defendants.

11. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants would and did conduct financial

14

transactions in part to conceal and disguise their ownership and interest in the proceeds of the fraudulent and inflated billings they caused to be made to the Town of Cicero.

12. It was further part of the conspiracy that the defendants would and did misrepresent, conceal, and hide, and cause to be misrepresented, concealed, and hidden the purposes of, and the acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.
13. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its unlawful objectives, the defendants committed and caused to be committed the following overt acts:
14. On or about December 22, 1995, defendants INENDINO, VOLPE, and Rovetuso had a conversation concerning the cashing of the checks received from the Town of Cicero.
15. On or about December 22, 1995, defendant INENDINO caused a Cicero check in the amount of $15,411 to be cashed at the Taylor‑Ogden Currency Exchange.
16. On or about January 4, 1996, the defendants caused Rovetuso to deposit a Cicero check in the amount of $17,184.64, into a relative’s personal checking account, and to write two personal checks to himself totaling the same amount.
17. On or about January 17, 1996, the defendants caused Rovetuso to deposit a Cicero check in the amount of $21,059.50, into a relative’s personal checking account.
18. On or about January 19, 1996, the defendants caused Rovetuso to write a personal check to himself for $21,059. 50, and to cash this check described at the Taylor‑Ogden Currency Exchange.
19. On or about January 26, 1996, the defendants caused Rovetuso to purchase a cashier’s check in the amount of $21,049.50, at the First Bank of Chicago, and to deliver it to the Taylor�Ogden Currency Exchange.

1. On or about February 1, 1996, the defendants caused Rovetuso to deposit a Cicero check

15

in the amount of $10,945, into a relative’s personal checking account.

1. On or about February 6, 1996, the defendants caused an associate of Rovetuso’s to cash a check at the First Bank of Chicago in the amount of $2,200 and made payable to that associate.
2. On or about February 8, 1996, the defendants caused an associate of Rovetuso’s to cash a check at the First Bank of Chicago in the amount of $2,900 and made payable to that associate.
3. On or about February 9, 1996, the defendants caused an associate of Rovetuso’s to cash a check at the First Bank of Chicago in the amount of $2,800 and made payable to that associate.
4. On or about August 18, 1997, defendant VOLPE provided Rovetuso with a check in the amount of $2,800, bearing the notations “finder’s fee/forest preserve.”

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h).

16

COUNT SIX

The SPECIAL JULY 2000‑1 GRAND JURY further charges:

On or about January 19, 1996, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

MICHAEL SPANO, SR., JAMES INENDINO, and PETER VOLPE,

defendants herein, knowingly conducted and attempted to conduct a financial transaction affecting interstate commerce, namely, the cashing of a check at the Taylor‑Ogden Currency Exchange made payable to Sam Rovetuso in the amount of $21,059.50 drawn on an account at the First Bank of Chicago, which financial transaction involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activities, that is, the unlawful thefts, embezzlements, and payments concerning programs receiving federal funds, as more fully described in Counts Two through Four of this indictment, knowing that the financial transaction was designed, in whole or in part, to conceal and disguise the nature, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of said specified unlawful activities, and that while conducting and attempting to conduct such financial transaction, knew that the property involved in the financial transaction represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2, 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).

17

COUNT SEVEN

The SPECIAL JULY 2000‑1 GRAND JURY further charges:

On or about January 26, 1996, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

MICHAEL SPANO, SR., JAMES INENDINO, and PETER VOLPE,

defendants herein, knowingly conducted and attempted to conduct a financial transaction affecting interstate commerce, namely, the delivery of a First Bank cashier’s check to the Taylor‑Ogden Currency Exchange made payable to Sam Rovetuso in the amount of $21,059.50, which financial transaction involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activities, that is, the unlawful thefts, embezzlements, and payments concerning programs receiving federal funds, as more fully described in Counts Two through Four of this indictment, knowing that the financial transaction was designed, in whole or in part, to conceal and disguise the nature, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of said specified unlawful activities, and that while conducting and attempting to conduct such financial transaction, knew that the property involved in the financial transaction represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2, 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).

18

COUNT EIGHT

The SPECIAL JULY 2000‑1 GRAND JURY further charges:

On or about February 6, 1996, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

MICHAEL SPANO, SR., JAMES INENDINO, and PETER VOLPE,

defendants herein, knowingly conducted and attempted to conduct a financial transaction affecting interstate commerce, namely, the cashing of a check at the First Bank of Chicago, made payable to an associate of Sam Rovetuso’s in the amount of $2,200 drawn on an account at the First Bank, which financial transaction involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activities, that is, the unlawful thefts, embezzlements, and payments concerning programs receiving federal funds, as more fully described in Counts Two through Four of this indictment, knowing that the financial transaction was designed, in whole or in part, to conceal and disguise the nature; source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of said specified unlawful activities, and that while conducting and attempting to conduct such financial transaction, knew that the property involved in the financial transaction represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2, 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).

19

COUNT NINE

The SPECIAL JULY 2000‑1 GRAND JURY further charges:

On or about February 8, 1996, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

MICHAEL SPANO, SR., JAMES INENDINO, and PETER VOLPE,

defendants herein, knowingly conducted and attempted to conduct a financial transaction affecting interstate commerce, namely, the cashing of a check at the First Bank of Chicago, made payable to an associate of Sam Rovetuso’s in the amount of $2,900 drawn on an account at the First Bank, which financial transaction involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activities, that is, the unlawful thefts, embezzlements, and payments concerning programs receiving federal funds, as more fully described in Counts Two through Four of this indictment, knowing that the financial transaction was designed, in whole or in part, to conceal and disguise the nature, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of said specified unlawful activities, and that while conducting and attempting to conduct such financial transaction, knew that the property involved in the financial transaction represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2, 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).

20

COUNT TEN

The SPECIAL JULY 2000-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

On or‑about February 9, 1996, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

MICHAEL SPANO, SR., JAMES INENDINO, and PETER VOLPE,

defendants herein, knowingly conducted and attempted to conduct a financial transaction affecting interstate commerce, namely, the cashing of a check at the First Bank of Chicago, made payable to an associate of Sam Rovetuso’s in the amount of $2,800 drawn on an account at the First Bank, which financial transaction involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activities, that is, the unlawful thefts, embezzlements, and payments concerning programs receiving federal funds, as more fully described in Counts Two through Four of this indictment, knowing that the financial transaction was designed, in whole or in part, to conceal and disguise the nature, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of said specified unlawful activities, and that while conducting and attempting to conduct such financial transaction, knew that the property involved in the financial transaction represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2, 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).

21

COUNT ELEVEN

The SPECIAL JULY 2000‑1 GRAND JURY further charges:

On or about August 18, 1997, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

MICHAEL SPANO, SR., JAMES INENDINO, and PETER VOLPE,

defendants herein, knowingly conducted and attempted to conduct a financial transaction affecting interstate commerce, namely, the delivery of a check to Sam Rovetuso, made payable to him in the amount of $2,800 drawn on an account of Hargrave Secret Service Ltd., at the Harris Bank of Palatine, Illinois, which financial transaction involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activities, that is, the unlawful thefts, embezzlements, and payments concerning programs receiving federal funds, as more fully described in Counts Two through Four of this indictment, knowing that the financial transaction was designed, in whole or in part, to conceal and disguise the nature, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of said specified unlawful activities, and that while conducting and attempting to conduct such financial transaction, knew that the property involved in the financial transaction represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2, 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).

22

COUNT TWELVE

The SPECIAL JULY 2000‑1 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs three through fifteen of Count One of this indictment.
2. From in or about August, 1995, through at least April, 1998, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

MICHAEL SPANO, SR., JAMES INENDINO, PETER VOLPE, and GREGORY ROSS

defendants herein, did willfully and knowingly conspire and agree with one another and with persons known and unknown to the grand jury to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful government functions of the Internal Revenue Service of the Treasury Department in the ascertainment, computation, assessment, and collection of the revenue: to wit, income taxes.

3. It was part of the conspiracy that defendants agreed to conceal from the Internal Revenue Service monies received by them as income from the Town of Cicero through Sam Rovetuso for tax years 1995 and 1996.
4. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant ROSS, an accountant and tax preparer, would assist the concealment of income received by defendants from the Town of Cicero in 1995 and 1996 by preparing false individual income tax returns (IRS Forms 1040, including attached Forms Schedule C) for those years for Sam Rovetuso.

5. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant ROSS would cause false entries to be

23

made on the 1995 individual income tax return he prepared for Sam Rovetuso.

6. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant ROSS would prepare individual income tax returns for Sam Rovetuso in 1995 and 1996 that did not disclose disbursements made by Rovetuso to Emil Schullo and defendants SPANO, INENDINO, and VOLPE from monies Rovetuso received from the Town of Cicero in those years.
7. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant ROSS would fail to prepare corresponding IRS Forms 1099 for the cash disbursements made by Rovetuso to Emil Schullo and defendants SPANO, INENDINO, and VOLPE in 1995 and 1996.
8. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant ROSS would cause the false 1995 and 1996 tax returns he prepared for Rovetuso to be filed with the Internal Revenue Service.
9. It was further part of the conspiracy that certain defendants would and did file individual income tax returns in 1995 and 1996 that did not correctly report income they each received in those years from the Town of Cicero through Rovetuso.
10. It was further part of the conspiracy that certain defendants would and did file individual income tax returns in 1995 and 1996 that did not correctly identify the source of income they each received in those years from the Town of Cicero through Rovetuso.
11. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants SPANO, INENDINO, VOLPE, and ROSS would and did discuss reimbursing in part Sam Rovetuso for any tax liability he incurred as a result of his reporting income from the Town of Cicero in 1995 and 1996.
12. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants SPANO, INENDINO, and VOLPE agreed to share payments to be made to Rovetuso to reimburse him for tax liability he incurred as a result of his reporting income from the Town of Cicero in 1996.

24

13. It was further part of the conspiracy that the tax reimbursements made by the defendants to Rovetuso would also be concealed.
14. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its unlawful objectives, the defendants committed and caused to be committed the following overt acts:
15. On or about March 19, 1996, defendant ROSS met with Rovetuso for the purposes of preparing Rovetuso’s 1995 tax return. Rovetuso told ROSS that Rovetuso’s partners were not to get IRS Forms 1099.
16. On or about April 9, 1996, defendant ROSS wag provided worksheets by Rovetuso showing the cash payments made by Rovetuso in 1995 to Emil Schullo and defendants SPANO, INENDINO, and VOLPE from the Cicero checks.
17. On or about April 15, 1996, defendant ROSS provided Rovetuso with a 1995 individual income tax return for Rovetuso (IRS Form 1040), with attached IRS Form Schedule C, which did not,disclose cash disbursements paid to Emil Schullo and defendants SPANO, INENDINO, and VOLPE by Rovetuso from the Cicero checks, which falsely deducted $16,900 as “cost of labor,” and which falsely deducted the cash payments made to Schullo as “equipment rental.” ROSS also failed to prepare IRS Forms 1099 for Schullo and for defendants SPANO, INENDINO, and VOLPE.
18. On or about July 30, 1996, defendants SPANO, INENDINO, and VOLPE met Rovetuso, and SPANO, in referring to ROSS, told Rovetuso that “Greg is to me like we are.” SPANO told Rovetuso to give him a copy of a tax notice Rovetuso had received from the State of Illinois because SPANO was going to see ROSS later.
19. On or about November 27, 1996, defendant ROSS told Rovetuso that ROSS was worried about the cash payments that Rovetuso had made.

25

1. On or about June 23, 1997, defendant ROSS and Rovetuso discussed a draft 1996 income statement that ROSS had prepared for Rovetuso, and they also discussed payments Rovetuso had made to Emil Schullo and defendants SPANO, INENDINO, and VOLPE from the Cicero checks.
2. On or about July 2, 1997, defendant ROSS told Rovetuso that he had talked to “Mikey” about Rovetuso’s 1996 tax return, and told him that if ROSS did not expense the cash payments Rovetuso made, it would cost Rovetuso an additional $12,000 in tax. ROSS told Rovetuso that “Mikey” would talk to “Jimmy” about this.
3. On or about July 26, 1997, defendants SPANO, INENDINO, and ROSS met Rovetuso at an International House of Pancakes. They discussed the $10 per hour increase added onto the Cicero invoices to cover the taxes that would be assessed to Rovetuso, the fact that this add on was insufficient to cover Rovetuso’s projected tax liability for 1996, and that the amount added on for taxes was going to be around $8000 short. SPANO and INENDINO agreed to split this shortage four ways, and SPANO directed ROSS to get the bottom line.
4. On or about August 4, 1997, defendant VOLPE told Rovetuso that there would be a three�way split on Rovetuso’s taxes.
5. On or about August 7, 1997, defendant VOLPE told Rovetuso that he was told to bring $2500 to Rovetuso.
6. On or about August 13, 1997, defendant ROSS returned Rovetuso’s 1996 worksheets to him, and defendant ROSS provided Rovetuso with a 1996 individual income tax return for Rovetuso (IRS Form 1040), with attached IRS Form Schedule C, that did not disclose cash disbursements paid to Emil Schullo and defendants SPANO, INENDINO, and VOLPE by Rovetuso from the Cicero checks. ROSS also failed to prepare IRS Forms 1099 for Emil Schullo and defendants SPANO,

26

INENDINO, and VOLPE. Defendant ROSS told Rovetuso that if he is asked about the deduction taken in 1995 for the cash payments to Schullo, Rovetuso should say he did not remember or did not know about it. ROSS also told Rovetuso that it was a mistake to have the meeting at the International House of Pancakes.

1. On or about August 18, 1997, defendant VOLPE gave Rovetuso a check for $2800 for Rovetuso’s taxes. The words “finders fee/forest preserve” were written in the “memo” section of the check.
2. On or about April 23, 1998, defendant SPANO and Rovetuso discussed a federal investigation into deductions made on Rovetuso’s 1995 tax return. SPANO told Rovetuso to find some bills to support the equipment expenses deducted on that return.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

27

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION

The SPECIAL JULY 2000‑1 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. The allegations contained in Counts Five through Eleven of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated herein by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeiture pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 982.
2. As a result of their violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956, and their conspiracy to violate this provision, as alleged in the foregoing Indictment,

MICHAEL SPANO, SR., JAMES INENDINO, and PETER VOLPE,

defendants herein, shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1), any and all right, title, and interest defendants have in any property, real and personal, involved in such offenses, and any property traceable to such property.

3. The interests of the defendants, jointly and severally, subject to forfeiture pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982 include: all money and other property that represents the subject of each transaction; all money and other property that is traceable thereto; and all money and property that facilitated the transactions, including but not limited to approximately $75,831.24.
4. To the extent that the property described above as being subject to forfeiture pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants:

(a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

(b) has been transferred to, sold to, or deposited with a third person; (c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

(d) has been substantially diminished in value, or

28

(e) has been commingled with other property that cannot be subdivided without difficulty; the United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property under the provisions of Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b)(1).

All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982.

A TRUE BILL:

,

FOREPERSON

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

29