Kenneth Wienski Complaint

12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KENNETH WIENSKI CRIMINAL COMPLAINT CASE NUMBER: /6 -/35~ S/C&- I, Richard S. Gunn, Anne Arundel County Police Detective and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Task Force Officer, the undersigned complainant, being duly sworn, state that the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. From in or about July 2009 through at least August 31, 2009, in the District of Maryland and elsewhere, the defendant did: participate in the conduct of a gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1955, and did participate in a conspiracy to launq,e+,th~_P!"9G~e_d13. Qf~tJ~e~g~1UPl.:lng pu~:liness,in,vJolation of 18 U.S.C. section 1956(a) (2)(A). I further state that this complaint is based on the facts in the ATTACHED AFFIDAVIT. Jwi}~- Richard S. Gunn Detective, Anne Arundel County Police Dept. Task Force Officer, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence, April 13, 2010, Date and Time Issued Case 1:10-mj-01356-SKG Document 1 Filed 05/19/10 Page 1 of 12

Transcript of Kenneth Wienski Complaint

Page 1: Kenneth Wienski Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

KENNETH WIENSKI

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

CASE NUMBER: /6 -/35~ S/C&-

I, Richard S. Gunn, Anne Arundel County Police Detective andImmigration and Customs Enforcement Task Force Officer, the undersignedcomplainant, being duly sworn, state that the following is true andcorrect to the best of my knowledge and belief. From in or about July2009 through at least August 31, 2009, in the District of Maryland andelsewhere, the defendant did:

participate in the conduct of a gambling business in violationof 18 U.S.C. section 1955, and did participate in a conspiracyto launq,e+,th~ _P!"9G~e_d13.Qf~tJ~e~g~1UPl.:lngpu~:liness,in,vJolationof 18 U.S.C. section 1956(a) (2) (A).

I further state that this complaint is based on the facts in the ATTACHED AFFIDAVIT.

Jwi}~-Richard S. GunnDetective, Anne Arundel County Police Dept.Task Force Officer, Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence,

April 13, 2010,Date and Time Issued

Case 1:10-mj-01356-SKG Document 1 Filed 05/19/10 Page 1 of 12

Page 2: Kenneth Wienski Complaint

(D.-/~5b sr.k

Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint

I. Purpose of the AffidavitThis Affidavit is submitted in support of a complaint and

arrest warrant for:Kenneth Wiens~i, 353 Westridge Drive, O'Fallon, M063366,date of birth 04-04-~959.

Your affiant submits' that there is probable cause to believethat Kenneth Wienski participated in the conduct of a gamblingbusiness in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1955, and that he

conspiracy to launderparticipated in agambling business1956 (a)(2)(A).II. Affiant

in violation ofthe18

proceedsU.S.C.

of thesection

I, Richard S. Gunn, am a sworn member of the Anne ArundelCounty Police Department in Maryland. I completed the police-training academy in 1990 and was assigned to routine patrol. In1995, I was assigned to a Tactical Patrol Unit, working problemareas in the Western District of the county and focusing on drugcases. In 1998, I was transferred to\Narcotics Section of the

"Criminal Investigation Division. In October 2008, I wasassigned to Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") as aTask Force Officer in the Financial Investigations Unit. I haveattended .a thirty-hour training seminar involving MoneyLaundering Investigations. As a Task Force Officer, I haveparticipated in several federal financial investigationsincluding the execution of federal search warrants.III. Applicable Statutes

18 U.S.C. section""1955;lConducting Illegal Gambling' Business.

1

Case 1:10-mj-01356-SKG Document 1 Filed 05/19/10 Page 2 of 12

Page 3: Kenneth Wienski Complaint

(a) Whoever conducts, finances, manages, supervises,directs, or owns all or part of an illegal gamblingbusiness shall be fined under this title or imprisoned notmore than five years, or both.(b) As used in this section-

(1) "illegal gambling business" means a gamblingbusiness which-

'v(i) is a violation of the law of a State orpolitical subdivision in which 'it is conducted;

(ii) involves five or more, persons who conduct,finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own all or partof such business; and

(iii) has been or remains in substantiallycontinuious operation for a period in excess of thirty'days or has a gross revenue of $2000 in any singleday.(2) "gambling" includes but is not limited to

poolselling, bookmaking .....(3) "State" means any State of the United States.

* * *(d) Any property, including money, used in violation of theprovisions of this section may be seized and forfeited tothe United States.

Maryland Criminal Code section 12-102Betting, wagering, gambling and related activities.

(a) Prohibited. ~ A person may not:(1) bet, wager or gamble;(2) make or sell a book or pool on the result of a

race, contest, or contingency;* * *

(4) ,receive , become the depository of, record,register, or forward, or propose, agree, or pretend ,toforward, money or any other thing or consideration ofvalue, to be bet wagered or gambled on the result of arace, contest, or contingency.

Title 31 U.S.C. section 5363Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

No person engaged in the business of betting or wageringmay knowingly accept, in connection with the participationof another person in unlawful internet gambling -

* * *(2) an electronic fund transfer, or funds transmitted

by or through a money transmitting business, or the

2

Case 1:10-mj-01356-SKG Document 1 Filed 05/19/10 Page 3 of 12

Page 4: Kenneth Wienski Complaint

proceeds oftransmittingperson; ....

an' electronicservice, from or

funds transferon behalf of

orsuch

moneyother

18 u.s.c. section 1084Transmission of wagering information

(a) Whoever being engaged in the business of betting orwagering knowingly uses a wire communication facilityfor the transmission in interstate or 'foreign commerceof bets, or wagers or information assisting in theplacing or bets or wagers on any sporting event orcontest, or for the transmission of a wirecommunication which entitles the recipient to receivemoney or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or forinformation assisting in the placing of bets orwagers, shall be fined or imprisoned not more than twoyears, or both.

Title 18 U.S.C. section 1956(a)(2)(A)Money laundering

(2) Whoever ...transmits ...or attempts to transmit ...funds...to a place in the United States from or through aplace outside the United States -(A) with the intent to promote the carrying on ofspecified unlawful activity [shall have committed anoffense] .

IV. Probable CauseIntroduction

The information set forth below is based upon youraffiant's review of records and upon information provided byother sworn law enforcement officers participating in thisinvestigation. Your affiant has not included each and everyfact obtained pursuant to this investigation. Your affiant hasset forth those facts that he believes are essential toestablish the necessary foundation for the lssuance of theseizure warrant for the specified acco~nt.

BackgroundYour affiant co~ducted, a number of Internet searches and

3

Case 1:10-mj-01356-SKG Document 1 Filed 05/19/10 Page 4 of 12

Page 5: Kenneth Wienski Complaint

..,

found the following: (1) that there are dozens of Internet

gambling sites, such as BODOG, Pokerstars, FullTilt, and

Absolute Poker, that allow a gambler to play various games of

chance and to wager on the outcome ?f various sporting events;

(2) that these sites allow gamblers to use various forms of

payment to wager and then to receive payouts for winning; (3)

that these companies are a11 physically located outside of the

United States while the majority of the customers are found in

the United States. Because customers are in the United States,

these businesses rely upon the'U.S. banking system to facilitate

the movement of funds to and from their customers, the gamblers.

Recent developments" including a number of seizures of

accounts connected with this activity, and the passage of the

Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, have made it

increasingly.difficult for Internet, gaming operators to move

money to and from their customers. Specifically, 31 U.S. c.section 5363 prohibited the gaming operators from accepting

nearly all forms of payment from players who gambled on their

web-sites.

Payment ProcessorsBased on training and experience, the affiant knows that,

in order to facilitate the movement of funds to and from their

customers, Internet gambling operators began using money-

processing businesses generally called "payment processors."

Typically, an Internet gaming operator directs the payment

processor to collect funds from individual gamblers, funds

intended to be used to wager with the gambling organization; the

payment processor then notifies the gambling organization when

the funds are available. The gaming operator also typically

sends a large check or wire transfer from off-shore directly to

4

Case 1:10-mj-01356-SKG Document 1 Filed 05/19/10 Page 5 of 12

Page 6: Kenneth Wienski Complaint

the payment processor who then distributes the money, at the

direction of the gaming site operators, to gamblers for their

winnings. The payment to the .gambler is accomplished either by

check or electronic funds transfer. Many of these processors

were created specifically. to move gambling money since 2006.

BODOG pays offIn December 2006, an undercover agent opened a gambling

account with BODOG.com, and after using a credit card to fund

the account, placed wagers on football games online while the

agent was in Maryland. In February 2007, a confidential

informant, CI-l, who had been employed by a company that

developed software for poker and casino games for BODOGin 2005

and 2006, personally observed that BODOGemploys approximately

150 people in Costa Rica. These people conduct the sports

bookmaking operation for BODOG. According to this informant,

BODOGtakes in from $250,000 to millions of dollars per day on

sports bookmaking alone.

Direct ChannelBy February 2007, the agent had accumulated some winnings

and requested a payout from his BODOGaccount. In March 2007,

the agent recei ved a check drawn on the bank account of a

payment processor located in Florida known as Direct Channel.

Bank records indicated that the Direct Channel account was

funded by several wire transfers from an account in the name of

MPSProcessing Ltd in London totaling over $2.5 million. During

this same pe~.iod~_c~t:.her~:_~~.!e_.nu~ex<?u~_~mCi;J.lerchecks issued from

the account, which is characteristic of gambling payouts by a

payment processor. In October 2007, another cooperating

individual, CI-2, admitted that he was a highly-placed person in

5

Case 1:10-mj-01356-SKG Document 1 Filed 05/19/10 Page 6 of 12

Page 7: Kenneth Wienski Complaint

MPS Processing Ltd, which was processing gambling payouts on

behalf of BODOG.

JBL ServicesLater in March. 2007, the agent received another check by

mail in Maryland as a payout of BODOGgambling winnings. This

check was drawn on an account at the Bank of North Georgia in

the name of JBL Services Inc. In October of 2007, the agent

requested another payout of gambling winnings and received

another check from Georgia from JBL. The JBL bank .records

indicated large in-coming wire transfers of funds from off-shore

followed by numerous smaller checks issued from the account,

which is characteristic of gambling payouts by a payment

processor.

In January 2008, based on warrants issued in Maryland,

agents seized the c6ntents of eight JBL Services bank accounts

in Georgia, on grounds that~. the .._~c~,qu,Iltswere involved in the

processing of proceeds from Internet gambling. Approximately

$14 million was seized from these accounts and the funds were

subsequently the subject of an order of forfeiture in the

District of Maryla~d.

ZipPaymentsIn June 2008, agents received information that BODOGfunds

were being processed by ZipPayments accounts in Nevada. As with

the Direct Channel. and JBL Services accounts, the zipPayments

bank records indicated large in-coming wire transfers of funds

from off-shore followed by numerous smaller checks issued from

the account, which is characteristic of gambling payouts by a

payment processor.. These bank records also included checks

mailed to Maryland. This demonstrates that BODOGwas operating

an illegal gambling business in Maryland in violation of 18

Case 1:10-mj-01356-SKG Document 1 Filed 05/19/10 Page 7 of 12

Page 8: Kenneth Wienski Complaint

U.S.C. section 1955. It' also demonstrates that BODOG wasengaged in the movement of funds to Maryland in violation of 18U.S.C. sections 1084 and 1956, and 31 U.S.C. section 5363. InJuly 2008, based on warrants issued in Maryland, agents seized,approximately $9.8 million from these accounts, and the furidswere subsequently the subject of an order of forfeiture in theDistrict of Maryland.

ElectracashAt some point after the JBL seizures, ICE agents

interviewed another confidential source, CI-3, who had beenpersonally involved in processing gambling payouts for BODOG atleast in 2007 and 2008. According to CI-3, Electracash Inc.("Electracash"), which was located in California, was processingtran'sactions for BODOG ,and other illegal on-line gamingoperators of the same size, such as Pokerstars, Full Tilt, andAbsolute Poker. During 2007 through 2008, CI-3 handled check-processing operations for BODOG and worked in conjunction withElectracash to process collections and payouts of gamblingmoney; CI-3, therefore, had frequent business contacts withElectracash.

Bank records pertaining to Electracash accounts show thesame patteJ;.n.~de~~rJf>.~d~P9Y~, w.~t:.h+.,~rge;Ln-c()mingtransfers offunds from off-shore, followed by numerous transfers out insmaller amounts characteristic of gambling payouts. In July2009, based on warrants issued in Maryland, agents seizedapproximately $2 million from these accounts, and these fundsare currently the subject of a forfeiture action in the Districtof Maryland.

HMO Inc.Bank records pertaining to the Electracash accounts also

7

Case 1:10-mj-01356-SKG Document 1 Filed 05/19/10 Page 8 of 12

Page 9: Kenneth Wienski Complaint

showed transactions with accounts in the name of HMD Inc. andForshay Enterprises at other banks in July 2009. Bank recordspertaining to the HMD accounts also showed the same pattern oflarge wire transfers from off-shore banks that moved into theElectracash accounts and then into the HMD .accounts, and thesewere followed by numerous smaller check paYments, at least 10 ofthese checks were sent. to individuals in Maryland. Agentsinterviewed some of these people and they confirmed that thepaYments were for on-line gambling winnings. This demonstratesthat on-line gambling organizations were operating an illegalgambling business in Maryland in violation of 18U.S.C. section1955.' It also demonstrates that these organizations and HMDwere engaged in the movement of funds to Maryland in violationof 18 U.S.C. sections 1084 and 1956, and 31U.S.C. section 5363.In August 2009, based on warrants issued in Maryland, agentsseized approximately $1.7 million from a number of HMD andForshay Enterprises accounts, and these funds are currently thesubject of a forfeiture action,in the District of Maryland.

SNR Inc. and Diversified Check SolutionsThe bank records pertaining to the HMD accounts also showed

a number of transactions with accounts in the name of SNR, whichis identified on the internet as. a medical billing company.Bank records pertaining to the SNR accounts included a series ofACH settlement charges, which, according to bank officials,indicates that the accounts were used to debit a large number ofindividual accounts. In March 2010, ICE agents interviewed twoconfidential informants independently, CI-4 and CI-s, who are.both famili~;-_Ylitl:!__~l.!~,actiy~t~~~_9f HMD ~nd SNR. ~ccording toCI-4 and CI-s, these transactions reflect debits of individualgamblers' accounts for funds to support the individual's online

8

Case 1:10-mj-01356-SKG Document 1 Filed 05/19/10 Page 9 of 12

Page 10: Kenneth Wienski Complaint

gambling activities with Full Tilt Poker and Poker Stars.

According to CI-4 and CI-S, HMDhandled check payouts of

gambling winnings and another company called Diversified Check

Solutions ("Diversified") used the SNR accounts to handle the

ACHcollections from gamblers. This is corroborated by the SNR

bank records, which. show transfers to and from Diversified in

Missouri.

According to CI-4 and CI-S, people working at Diversified

carne up with the idea of creating a fake medical billing company

to conceal the gambling transactions. According to GI-4 and CI-

S, a person familiar to them, who has no knowledge of medical

billing, created a website for the fake company. They said that

this same person was listed as the president of SNRon corporate

documents, and that he also signed documents to open the SNR

bank accounts that were used for the transactions involving the

gambling funds. Bank records include the SNR corporate

documents and the account opening papers, which corroborate the

informationp+ovideq py ,91-4and C;I-:-S.

Kenneth Wienski

According to CI-,4 and CI-S, James Davitt was running HMD

and Forshay Enterprises while these businesses were processing

the gambling funds. Both CI-4 and CI-S stated that Davitt's

main contact at Diversified was Kenneth Wienski, who is the

Executive Officer of Diversified Check Solutions, which is

located near St. Louis, Missouri. According to CI-4 and CI-S,

in conversations between Davitt and Wienski and others, it was

openly discussed that Diversified would be processing gambling

funds, and that there was a need for a fake medical billing

company to cover these activities.

According to CI-4 and CI-S, in July 2009, Wienski told

9

Case 1:10-mj-01356-SKG Document 1 Filed 05/19/10 Page 10 of 12

Page 11: Kenneth Wienski Complaint

'!>.

Davitt that he thought that Diversified could handle thegambling transaction business with HMD, but that he wantedDavitt to give him a "side payment" of around $60,000 to make ithappen. Wienski then said he wanted to supervise the set up ofthe SNR medical billing website. Wienski also provideddirection to Davitt on completing the financial documents neededto establish the SNR bank acdounts. Shortly after that,Diversified began processing the gambling transactions.

Email records confirm that Wienski had frequent contactwith Davitt during that time period. According to CI-4 and CI-S,Davitt and Wienski had no contacts that were not related to thegambling payment processing.

I recently reviewed a copy of a "Consulting Agreement"between Forshay Enterprises and A.Jones, 353 Westridge Drive,0' Fallon, Missouri, dated July 2009, which states that Forshaywould pay A. Jones $20,000 per month for consulting services.According to CI-4, this was a fake agreement to cover the "sidepayment" to Wienski. The address for "A.Jones" is Wienski'shome address.

This agreement also states that Forshay would pay a non-refundable retainer in the amount of $75,000 to A.Jones using aBank of America account. Bank records confirm that an accountwas opened in July 2009 at the Bank of America in the name ofCharlottE;:"W;i,E?nR~Lt!:lew:j.f,e"of K~nnE?t,hWienski, doing businessas "A.Jones" and using the Wienski home address.

According to CI-4 and CI-S, Davitt directed another personto purchase a cashier's check in the amount of $75,000 on August29, 2009, payable to "Sterling Ltd." and to mail the check toWienski. Bank records confirm that a cashier's check in theamount of $75,000 was deposited into three accounts in the name

10

Case 1:10-mj-01356-SKG Document 1 Filed 05/19/10 Page 11 of 12

Page 12: Kenneth Wienski Complaint

-:./1'

~of Sterling Ltd. at the Bank of America two days later, onAugust 31, 2009. The mailing address for Sterling Ltd. is 353

Westridge Drive, which is Wienski's home address. During thenext few weeks, nearly all of the funds were removed from theSterling accounts and deposited into wienski's personal bankaccounts, including a check in the amount of $12,500 payable toWienski's wife, Charlotte.v. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, I submit that there is probablecause to believe that Kenneth Wienski participated in theconduct of a gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. section1955, and that he participated in a conspiracy to launder theproceeds of the gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C.section 19.56 (a)(2) (A).

J\. Afl W.!1iJvv-4 .R. Scott Gunn, DetectlveAnne Arundel County MarylandPolice DepartmentTask Force OfficerImmigration and CustomsEnforcement

11

Case 1:10-mj-01356-SKG Document 1 Filed 05/19/10 Page 12 of 12