Fard Federal Complaint

Case 8:14-cv-00339-RAL-MAP Document 1 Filed 02/11/14 Page 1 of 45 PageID 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. _______________
ASSETS IDENTIFIED IN
PARAGRAPH 1 OF
VERIFIED COMPLAINT,
Defendants.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR FORFEITURE IN REM
Plaintiff United States of America, through the undersigned Assistant
United States Attorney, brings this complaint and alleges upon information and
belief, in accordance with Supp’l Rule G(2), Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or
Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a civil action in rem, to forfeit to the United States of
America, the following Defendant Assets:
A. Bank Accounts
1. Approximately $13,781.17 seized from Bank of America

Account Number 0037 6509 6738 (BOA 6738), a checking
account held in the name of Advanced Materials
Technology, Inc. (AMTI);

Account Number 2290 1264 9926 (BOA 9926), a savings
account held in the name of AMTI;
1

Account Number 0036 7685 7736 (BOA 7736), a checking
account held in the name of Akbar Fard & Faranak Fard;

Account Number 2290 2998 1444 (BOA1444), a savings
account held in the name of Akbar Fard;
B. Investment Accounts
1. Approximately $410,945.27 seized from Merrill Lynch

Account Number 5F3-44K16 (Merrill Lynch 44K16), a CMA
Investment Account held in the names of Akbar Fard &
Faranak Fard;
2. Approximately $35,909.72 seized from Merrill Lynch Account

Number 5F3-49360 (Merrill Lynch 49360), a retirement
account held in the name of Akbar Fard; and
C. Vehicle
1. a 2012 black Toyota 4Runner, VIN Number

JTEZU5JR9C5037038, Florida Tag Number 147WWM,
registered in the names of AMTI and Akbar Ghaneh Fard.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action
commenced by the United States by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1345, and over an
action for forfeiture by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1355.
3. This Court has in rem jurisdiction over the Defendant Assets
pursuant to:
a. 28 U.S.C. § 1355(b)(1)(A), because pertinent acts or
omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred within the Middle
District of Florida; and
2
b. 28 U.S.C. § 1355(b)(1)(B), because venue properly lies in
the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1395.
4. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1355(b)(1), because the acts or
omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred in this district, and pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1355(b)(1)(B) because the defendant vehicle was found in this district.
SEIZURE OF THE DEFENDANT ASSETS
5. The Defendant Assets were seized pursuant to seizure warrants
issued by this Court on March 5, 2013, and are in the Government's possession,
custody, or control.
6. Pursuant to Supp’l Rule G(3)(b)(i), the Clerk of Court must issue a
warrant to arrest the Defendant Assets because they are in the Government’s
possession, custody, or control.
BASIS FOR FORFEITURE
7. The Defendant Assets are subject to forfeiture to the United States
pursuant to:
a. 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), as property, real or personal,
which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a
violation of an offense constituting “specified unlawful activity” (as
defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)), or a conspiracy to commit such
offense, specifically, an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 641 related to
theft of public funds, an offense under 18 U.S.C § 666 related to
3
theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds, and
wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and
b. 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A), as property involved in the
commission of money laundering offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1957. Specifically, some of the Defendant Assets are subject to
forfeiture because they were involved in monetary transactions in
criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000.
FACTS
8. Specific details of the facts and circumstances supporting the
forfeiture of the Defendant Assets have been provided by Defense Criminal
Investigative Service (DCIS) Special Agent (SA) Robert J. Matteis, who has been
a Special Agent with DCIS since June 2008. Prior to joining DCIS, SA Matteis
was with the NASA OIG and the United States Air Force Office of Special
Investigations (AFOSI). He has received training in investigations of bribery,
fraud, money laundering, and theft of United States Government property, and
has participated in several such investigations. He personally participated in this
investigation and is thoroughly familiar with the information contained in this
complaint.
9. The following facts were acquired as a result of a joint investigation
by Special Agents of NASA OIG, DCIS, and the Naval Criminal Investigative
Service (NCIS), and are based on SA Matteis’ personal knowledge of this
investigation, including a review of documents and computer records related to
4
this investigation, witness interviews, and communications with others who have
personal knowledge of the events and circumstances described herein. The
following summary of the facts is intended to establish reasonable cause that the
United States can meet its burden of proof at trial. It does not attempt to provide
every detail of this investigation.
I. Introduction
10. Akbar Ghaneh Fard is the President and Owner of Advanced
Materials Technology, Inc. (AMTI). Fard, through his company, AMTI, submitted
fraudulent certified contract proposals and other documents to NASA and the
Department of Defense (DOD) [including the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and
the United States Navy (USN)] so as to fraudulently induce the Government to
award the maximum funding to AMTI for Small Business Innovative Research
(SBIR) contracts and Small Business Transfer Technology Research (STTR)
contracts.
11. Additionally, Fard, through AMTI, submitted via wire, fraudulent
invoices to the Government. The invoices incorrectly categorized how the
Government funds were spent as outlined in the proposals. The funds received
by Fard and AMTI were to be used for the negotiated costs associated with
proposals and contracts with the Government. However, Fard directed much of
these funds to himself through transfers to his various personal bank accounts,
various certificates of deposit and investment accounts, and to otherwise pay for
Fard’s own personal expenses.
5
12. Based on the actions described above, the Bank Accounts and
Investment Accounts are subject to forfeiture because they were funded by
payments on Government contracts that were fraudulently induced, and also
because Fard misused the funds distributed on the contracts for his personal
expenses and otherwise not in compliance with the terms of his proposals and
contracts. Transfers by Fard of the fraudulently obtained contract proceeds in
excess of $10,000 constitute a money laundering offense.
13. The Vehicle is subject to forfeiture because it was purchased with
funds from an account funded by Fard’s fraudulently induced Government
contracts. Additionally, this transaction of more than $10,000 in the fraudulently
obtained contract proceeds constitutes a money laundering offense.
A. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small

Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program
1. Program Background
14. Section 9(j) of the Small Business Act requires that the Small
Business Administration (SBA) issue an SBIR and STTR Program Policy
Directive for the general conduct of the SBIR and STTR Program within the
Federal Government. The statutory purpose of the program is to strengthen the
role of innovative small business concerns (SBCs) in federally-funded research
and development, and to increase competition, productivity and economic
growth. The specific program purposes are to: (a) stimulate technological
innovation; (b) use small businesses to meet federal research and development
needs; (c) foster and encourage participation in technical innovation by socially
6
and economically disadvantaged SBCs, and by SBCs that are 51 percent owned
and controlled by women; (d) increase private sector commercialization of
innovations derived from federal research and development; and (e) promote
cooperative research and development with a non-profit research institutions.
There are currently eleven federal agencies who participate in the SBIR and
STTR Program, including NASA and the DOD.
2. Contract Phases
15. Both the SBIR and STTR programs are divided into three funding
and development stages: Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 contracts. Phase 1
and Phase 2 contracts are competitive and require the SBC to submit separate
proposals for consideration. A contractor cannot be awarded a Phase 2 contract
without finishing Phase 1. Phase 3 contracts are optional endeavors for
commercialization, and most Phase 2 contracts do not turn into Phase 3
contracts.
16. Phase 1 contracts give the SBC an opportunity to establish the
scientific, technical, and commercial merit and feasibility of the proposed
innovation in fulfillment of governmental needs. Phase 1 contracts require
reporting on the work and results accomplished, including the strategy for the
development and transition of the proposed innovation. In general, SBIR Phase
1 contracts last up to six months with a maximum funding of $100,000. STTR
Phase 1 contracts are typically for one year with a maximum funding of
$100,000.
7
17. Phase 2 contracts give the SBC an opportunity to focus on the
development, demonstration, and delivery of the proposed innovation. It
continues the most promising Phase 1 projects through a competitive selection
based on scientific and technical merit, expected value to the Government, and
commercial potential. All Phase 2 contracts require reporting on the work and
results accomplished, and whenever possible, the delivery of a prototype unit or
software package, or a more complete product or service, for Government testing
and utilization. Both SBIR and STTR Phase 2 contracts are usually for a period
of 24 months with a maximum funding of $600,000.
18. Phase 3 contracts involve the commercialization of innovative
technologies, products, and services resulting from Phase 2, including their
further development for transition into Government programs, other Government
agencies, or the private sector. Phase 3 contracts are funded from sources other
than the SBIR and STTR Program and may be awarded without further
competition.
19. A reasonable profit or fee is available to the company receiving the
award under the SBIR/STTR Program; however, this profit/fee must be included
in the budget request and the amount of the fee approved by the agencies
participating in the program normally will not exceed 7% of total costs for each
phase of the project.
8
3. Solicitations and Submissions of Certified Proposals
20. NASA, for example, issues annual combined solicitations for the
SBIR and STTR Program each July via the NASA SBIR/STTR website located at
http://sbir.nasa.gov. The solicitations provide all the information needed for the
offeror to submit proposals. Only firms qualifying as a SBC under the SBA are
eligible to participate in the SBIR/STTR Program. Socially and economically
disadvantaged and women-owned SBCs are particularly encouraged to submit
proposals to the Government.
21. In the submission of Phase 1 and Phase 2 certified proposals, the
offeror must complete each section of the proposal, which includes: (a) a
certification cover sheet; (b) a description of the work, including, but not limited
to, the technical objectives, work plan, related research & development, key
personnel working on the project, possible efforts for commercialization,
information about company facilities, a disclosure of subcontractors and
consultants, and the potential applications of the project; and (c) a budget
summary which explains the use of the requested Government funds which
enable the Government to determine whether the proposed budget submitted by
the offeror is fair and reasonable. The Contractor must electronically submit and
upload all proposals onto the NASA Electronic Handbook where they will be
evaluated and reviewed by NASA officials for possible award.
22. With regards to the Budget Summary, the offeror will submit to the
Government a pricing proposal of estimated costs with detailed information for
9
each cost element to include the following: (a) Direct Labor Costs which specify
hourly labor rates of employees, hours needed to complete the project, and total
costs (i.e., hourly labor rates x hours needed to complete the project, + any
additional overhead costs = total costs) for each employee such as the Principal
Investigator, Program Manager and Research Associate; (b) Other Direct Costs
(ODCs), which specify costs for materials, supplies, tools, equipment,
accessories, subcontractors and travel needed to complete the project; and (c)
General and Administrative (G&A) costs, which encompass the expenses of
operating a business that are not directly linked to the company’s products or
services.
23. Unless otherwise modified during the course of the contract period,
the offeror is only entitled to what it budgeted for in its proposals. Thus, the
budgeted amount for the specific Direct Labor costs, ODCs and G&A costs are
the maximum amounts that can be invoiced by the company, and paid out by the
Government under the contract. The Government will fund up to the maximum
amounts on Phase 1 and Phase 2 proposals; however, if a company can perform
the contract for less than the cap, they must request an amount that is less than
the cap in their proposal.
24. According to NASA program solicitation rules, knowingly and
willfully making any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations
on the certified proposal is a felony under the Federal Criminal False Statement
Act, Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001. Furthermore, in the submission
10
of those proposals, the offeror must electronically certify that they “understand
that providing false information is a criminal offense under Title 18, United States
Code, Section 1001, False Statements, as well as Title 18, United States Code,
Section 287, False Claims.” This certification encompasses all aspects of the
proposal, specifically including the budget section, the qualifications of the
company, and the contents of the proposed research.
25. Each certified proposal is then judged and scored on its own merits
using factors such as: (a) the scientific/technical merit and feasibility of the
project; (b) the experience and qualifications of key personnel, subcontractors,
and the capabilities of the company’s facilities; (c) the effectiveness of the
proposed work plan; and (d) the commercial potential and feasibility. Before the
contract is awarded, however, the Government will rely upon all of the
information provided by the offeror regarding those costs in order to negotiate the
contract amount, and determine whether the offeror’s budget represents a fair
and reasonable price. If the proposal is selected, and if the Government believes
these cost representations are fair and reasonable during cost negotiations, the
contract will be awarded and the entire proposal will then be incorporated into the
contract, and is used as the statement of work.
B. Proactive Investigation of SBIR & STTR Companies
26. Due to the significant increase in SBIR and STTR contract fraud in
the United States, a proactive investigation was opened by agents in Florida in
August of 2009. The purpose of the proactive investigation was to identify SBIR
11
and STTR companies located in Florida who shared common characteristics with
other companies who were investigated and/or convicted for SBIR and STTR
fraud. Such characteristics or fraud indicators included, but were not limited to
the following: nonexistent business locations; business locations or laboratories
that have residential addresses; nonexistent company websites; minimal
company advertising; company proposals that were not specific or that were
completely silent regarding the individuals conducting work on the project;
research partners or subcontractors not adequately described in proposals; and
duplicated proposals or duplicated research sent to multiple agencies.
27. During the course of the proactive investigation, agents identified
several companies in Florida, including AMTI, who displayed a variety of these
characteristics or fraud indicators. Once these companies were identified,
agents then acquired and reviewed background data, proposals, contracts,
reports, invoices, financial documents, and other relevant information to
potentially substantiate those fraud indicators.
II. AMTI
28. According to the Florida Department of State website, Division of
Corporations, AMTI has been an active company in Florida since June 30, 2003.
From approximately January 2007 to the present, AMTI’s principal place of
business, mailing address, and registered agent address have been the current
residence of Fard and his family. Surveillance showed that this is a two-story
dwelling located in a residential neighborhood in Tampa, Florida. Before January
12
of 2007, AMTI’s principal places of business, mailing addresses, and registered
agent addresses were also located at Fard’s former residences located in
Tampa, Florida. According to these same records, Akbar Fard is the owner,
operator, and registered agent of AMTI. Akbar Fard has been the only listed
officer since the company was incorporated in 2003.
29. Since approximately August 2004, AMTI has been awarded a total
of eleven SBIR/STTR contracts with the United States Government valued at
over $2.4 million. There are a total of seven SBIR contracts with NASA; two
STTR contracts with USN; and two STTR contracts with MDA. In proposals to
the Government, AMTI describes itself as intending to develop new materials and
devices for the marketplace to specifically include polymeric materials and
processing, as well as nanomaterials and nanocomposites for a variety of
aerospace, electronic, electrochemical, environmental, and structural
applications. The following contract information, including the year of the award,
the contract number, the value of the contract, and the agency involved in the
contract, regarding AMTI’s eleven Government-awarded contracts is set forth in
the table below:
SBIR/STTR -
Year Phase Contract Number Value Agency
2004 STTR - 1 N00014-04-M-0261 $69,999 Navy
2004 STTR - 1 FA8650-04-M-5050 $99,999 MDA
2005 STTR - 2 N00014-05-C-0364 $499,999 Navy
2005 STTR - 1 FA9453-04-M-0329 $99,999 MDA
2006 SBIR - 1 NNJ07JB35C $99,999 NASA
2007 SBIR - 1 NNX08CC83P $99,999 NASA
13
2009 SBIR - 1 NNX10CE64P $99,999 NASA

2009 SBIR - 2 NNX09CB46C $599,997 NASA
2009 SBIR - 3 NNJ08HD15P $64,534 NASA
2011 SBIR - 1 NNX11C644P $99,999 NASA
2011 SBIR - 2 NNX11CB58C $599,999 NASA
Total $2,434,522
30. An examination of AMTI’s corporate checking account, BOA 6738,
showed that from August 24, 2004 to present, NASA and the DOD have paid and
deposited $2,113,845.24 into this account for the funding and performance of the
above-mentioned contracts. Following the execution of the March 2013 search
warrant on Fard’s residence, NASA stopped payment on Contract SBIR-2-B58C.
Prior to the stop payment, $432,000 had been paid. Fard had submitted an
additional invoice for $72,000, which remains outstanding. He never submitted
an invoice for the final $96,000.
31. For AMTI to receive payments from NASA, Fard must electronically
submit his research reports and invoices, via computer, to NASA through an
SBIR/STTR database administered by a company called REI Systems. The REI
Systems server is located in the state of Maryland. Once AMTI uploads reports
and invoices on the REI Systems database, the NASA Contracting Officer
Technical Representative will review the reports and then send confirmation to
the Contracting Officer for the distribution of payments on the invoices.
Payments from NASA to AMTI are distributed from the NASA Financial Office
located at the NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC) in Mississippi. Those
14
payments are electronically routed from the NSSC to the Federal Treasury, and
then electronically deposited from the Federal Treasury into the AMTI corporate
bank account located in Tampa, Florida. Similarly, payments made from the
DOD to AMTI were made electronically using Wide Area Workflow (WAWF).
Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) is a secure web based system developed by the
DOD for electronic invoicing, receipt, and acceptance. WAWF allows
vendors/contractors to electronically submit invoices and receiving reports; and
for the Government to inspect, accept, receive, and pay electronically in a real-
time, paperless environment. AMTI’s contracts with DOD were characterized as
Mechanization Of Contract Administration Service-South (MOCAS) and
administered by a Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) office.
MOCAS contracts were paid electronically by a bank funds transfer by the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service office in Columbus, Ohio (DFAS-
Columbus). Electronic payments by DFAS-Columbus were generated through
AMTI’s electronic submissions and a DCMA representative’s electronic approvals
in WAWF. The DCMA electronic approval in WAWF permitted DFAS-Columbus
to transfer funds to AMTI’s bank account in Tampa, Florida.
A. Specifics as to AMTI’s Contracts with NASA
1. Contract NNX09CB46C (SBIR-2-B46C)
32. In July of 2006, NASA solicited for SBIR proposals on the subtopic
entitled “Long Term Cryogenic Propellant Storage, Management, and
Acquisition.” On or about July 23, 2007, AMTI electronically submitted a certified
15
proposal, proposal number X9-01-9950, to NASA for funding on the subtopic for
a Phase 2 SBIR contract entitled, “Advanced Insulation Materials for Cryogenic
Propellant Storage Applications.”
33. In the proposal, AMTI requested $599,997 in order to complete the
project in two years. In the budget section of the proposal, also known as Form
C, AMTI proposed a cost breakdown as follows: (a) Direct Labor: Principal
Investigator, 2800 hours at $63 an hour equaling $176,400; Program Manager,
1,500 hours at $50 an hour equaling $75,000; & Research Associate, 2400 hours
at $18 an hour equaling $43,200; (b) Other Direct Costs: Materials for $21,254;
Glassware and Lab Supplies for $6,118; Small Tools for $9,108; Leasing
Equipment for $11,472; Mechanical Test Accessories for $26,000; Travelling for
$7,452, and Subcontractor for $33,000; (c) General & Administrative Costs:
$151,740; and (d) Profit: 7% of costs totaling $39,252.
34. In part 6 of the proposal under “Key Personnel and Bibliography of
Directly Related Work,” AMTI proposed that the Principal Investigator for the
proposed research would be Dr. Akbar Fard, and the Program Manager for the
proposed research would be Dr. Ray Armat. Although AMTI budgeted for a
Research Associate, they did not disclose the name, background, or experience
of the individual in the proposal. AMTI further proposed that Aydin Sunol would
act as a consultant or subcontractor on behalf of the University of South Florida
(USF). In part 9 of the proposal, under “Subcontracts and Consultants,” AMTI
again stated it had “retained the services of Dr. Aydin Sunol, from USF.” There
16
was no other mention throughout the entire proposal regarding the use
subcontractors or consultants other than USF.
35. On July 23, 2007, Fard electronically certified the information
contained in the proposal under the statement, “I understand that providing false
information is a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section
1001, False Statements, as well as Title 18, United States Code, Section 287,
False Claims.”
36. After the electronic submission of the proposal by Fard, it was
reviewed and evaluated by two NASA contracting officials. In that evaluation,
under factor number 2, “Experience, Qualification and Facilities,” both reviewers
analyzed the capabilities and experiences of all the AMTI employees and
proposed subcontractor. Based on the scoring of the entire proposal, which
included Form C and factor number 2, AMTI was subsequently awarded a Phase
II SBIR contract with NASA on September 30, 2009, under contract number
NNX09CB46C. The contract was officially awarded through the NASA Shared
Service Center in Mississippi and was administered out of the Johnson Space
Center in Houston, Texas.
37. Prior to the signing of the contract, on September 2, 2009, NASA
Contracting Officer Brad Binder conducted a formal price negotiation with Fard
regarding the proposed costs contained in Form C. Binder and Fard used the
same pricing data contained in AMTI’s proposal X9-01-9950 during contract
17
negotiations, as specified above, to include all costs associated with Direct
Labor, ODCs and G&A.
38. The Price Negotiation Memorandum dated September 2, 2009,
contained in the official contract file, which memorialized the official contract
negotiations between Contracting Officer Binder and Fard, stated that the
negotiated amount of $599,997 represented a fair and reasonable price based on
AMTI’s analysis of costs. Binder further stated in the memorandum that “the
Contracting Officer relied on the information provided by the contractor to
negotiate the amount.” As a result of the negotiations, Binder officially
recommended the contract be awarded to Fard and AMTI.
39. According to Contracting Officers and other Procurement Officials in
the Government who are experts on SBIR contracts, and who
negotiate SBIR contracts with small businesses, price negotiations, such as the
one between Fard and Binder, are a significant factor in evaluating and ultimately
awarding contracts. If the representations and certifications provided by the
contractor during those negotiations are false or misleading, the Government will
not award the contract and/or will immediately cancel the contract upon learning
of false information and fraud in the inducement.
40. Under Section C.1, “Statement of Work,” the contract stated “The
Contractor’s 2006 Phase II Proposal, number X9.01-9950 entitled ‘Advanced
Insulation Materials for Cryogenic Propellant Storage Applications’ is hereby
incorporated into this contract by reference as the Statement of Work.”
18
41. According to Contracting and Procurement Officials, when a
proposal is incorporated into the statement of work, the Contractor must follow all
of the representations and certifications made in the proposal to especially
include the expenditures relative to the negotiated budget.
42. Under Section E.1 of the contract, “Inspection of Research
Development,” Title 48, Part 52.246-7 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, is
also incorporated by reference. According to part 52.246-7 (f), “Inspection and
test by the Government does not relieve the Contractor from the responsibility for
defects or other failures to meet the contract requirements that may be
discovered before acceptance. Acceptance shall be conclusive, except for latent
defects, fraud, gross mistakes amounting to fraud, or as otherwise specified in
the contract.” The agents learned through his interactions with various
Contracting and Procurement Officials that this clause allows the Government to
reject, and/or deny any work product even after delivery, if that work product was
derived from fraudulent activities or misrepresentations.
43. Under Section H.1, titled “Limitation on Subcontracting,” the contract
states that “[s]ince selection of Research and Development contractors is
substantially based on the best scientific and technological sources, it is
important that the Contractor not subcontract technical or scientific work without
the Contracting Officer’s advance approval.” According to Contracting and
Procurement Officials, if a contractor does not disclose the use of subcontractors
19
or consultants, upon learning of the misrepresentation, the Government can deny
and/or immediately terminate the contract.
44. With regards to contract performance, the contract between AMTI
and NASA called for AMTI to electronically submit a series of seven quarterly
reports, one final report, and one prototype. For those deliverables, AMTI was
paid through its periodic electronic submission of interim invoices to the
Government, which were uploaded onto the REI Systems database as described
above. The contract was ultimately completed by AMTI on or around May 2012,
and AMTI was paid in full on the contract.
45. During the performance of this contract, and other contracts as
described below, there were multiple email communications contained in the REI
Systems database between Fard and contract administrators such as the
Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer Technical Representative
discussing topics such as confirmation of deliverables, SBIR funding, contract
modifications, contract payments and invoices, contract certifications, and other
topics related to the performance of the contracts.
2. Other Contracts with NASA Awarded to AMTI
46. During the period of performance of contract NNX09CB46C,
September 30, 2009 to May 2012, AMTI was awarded and paid under three
additional contracts as follows: (a) Phase 1 contract NNX10CE64P,
“Manufacture of Novel Cryogenic Thermal Protection Materials,” awarded for
$99,999; (b) Phase 2 contract NNX11CB58C, “Manufacture of Novel Cryogenic
20
Thermal Protection Materials” awarded for $599,999; and (c) Phase 1 contract
NN11CG44P “Advanced Sprayable Composite Coating for Cryogenic
Insulation,” awarded for $99,999. Thus, the total value of the four AMTI contracts
awarded from September 2009 to present is approximately $1.4 million. The
agents has reviewed the contract files and all other relevant contractual
documents regarding the three additional contracts, and determined that the
same SBIR rules and procedures as described above apply to these contracts as
well. Moreover, the agents identified Price Negotiation Memorandums
associated with those contracts as well. The Contracting Officers assigned to
those contract negotiations also relied on all of the representations and
certifications provided by AMTI relating to Direct Labor, ODCs and G&A.
47. As for Phase 1 contract NNX10CE64P, “Manufacture of Novel
Cryogenic Thermal Protection Materials,” in the proposal, AMTI proposed a cost
breakdown as follows: (a) Direct Labor: Principal Investigator for 690 hours at
$63 an hour equaling $43,470; Research Associate for 425 hours at $18 an hour
equaling $7,650; (b) ODCs: Glassware and Misc Equipment for $697; Chemicals
for $1,350 and Subcontractor for $15,000; (c) G&A Costs for $25,289.96; and (d)
Profit for 7% of costs totaling $6,541.99.
48. As for Phase 2 contract NNX11CB58C, “Manufacture of Novel
Cryogenic Thermal Protection Materials,” in the proposal, AMTI proposed a cost
breakdown as follows: (a) Direct Labor: Principal Investigator for 2150 hours at
$64 an hour equaling $137,600 and Research Associate for 1900 hours at $20
21
an hour equaling $38,000; (b) ODCs: Glassware and Lab Supplies for $3,260,
Small Tools for $5,673, Travelling for $6032, Materials for $18,441, and
Subcontractor for $200,000; (c) G&A Costs for $151,741.23; and (d) Profit for 7%
of costs totaling $39,252.31.
49. As for Phase 1 contract NN11CG44P, “Advanced Sprayable
Composite Coating for Cryogenic Insulation,” in the proposal, AMTI proposed a
cost breakdown as follows: (a) Direct Labor: Principal Investigator for 720
hours at $64 an hour equaling $46,080; and Research Associate for 350 hours at
$18 an hour equaling $6,300; (b) ODCs: Chemicals and Glassware for $787;
and Subcontractor for $15,000; (c) G&A Costs for $25,289.96; and (d) Profit for
7% of costs totaling $6,541.99.
III. Violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 641, 666, 1343, and 1957
50. The following table summarizes the total proposed and negotiated
Labor, ODCs, G&A, and Profit for all four awarded contracts from September
2009 to present, as identified above. NASA has stopped payment on Contract
B58C.
Table 2: Proposed/Negotiated Costs with NASA
NNX09CB46C NNX10CE64P NNX11CB58C NN11CG44P Total

Negotiated Labor ___________
Principal Investigator $176,400 $43,470 $137,600 $46,080 $403,550
Program Manager $75,000 $75,000
Research Associate $43,200 $7,650 $38,000 $6,300 $95,150
Subtotal $294,600 $51,120 $175,600 $52,380 $573,700
Negotiated ODCs
Materials $21,254 $18,441 $39,695
22
Glassware/Lab Supplies $6,118 $697 $3,260 $10,075

Small Tools $9,108 $5,673 $14,781
Travelling $7,452 $6,032 $13,484
Leasing Equipment $11,472 $11,472
Chemicals $1,350 $787 $2,137
Mech Test Accessories $26,000 $26,000
Subcontractor $33,000 $15,000 $200,000 $15,000 $263,000
Subtotal $114,404 $17,047 $233,406 $15,787 $380,644
Negotiated G&A $151,740.48 $25,289.96 $151,741.23 $25,289.96 $354,061.63
Negotiated Profit $39,252.11 $6,541.99 $39,252.31 $6,541.99 $91,688.40
PROPOSED/AWARDED $599,996.59 $99,998.95 $599,999.54 $99,998.95 $1,399,994.03
This table specifically represents the total amount of costs that were proposed by
AMTI on all four contracts. These proposed amounts were then specifically
negotiated into the statement of work and contract awards made from NASA to
AMTI. The representations made by AMTI in the proposals, as seen in Table 2,
were relied upon by NASA in awarding the above-listed contracts to AMTI. In
awarding the contracts, the Government believed that the above SBIR funds
would be utilized by AMTI is this exact manner, consistent with AMTI’s proposals
and negotiations. The agents learned from officers and officials who are experts
on SBIR contracts, that if the representations and certifications provided by the
contractor in the proposals and negotiations are false or misleading, relating to
labor, ODCs, and G&A, the Government will not award the contract and/or
immediately cancel the contract upon learning of false information or fraudulent
inducement.
23
A. Misrepresentations on Direct Labor, ODCs, and G&A by AMTI

and Akbar Fard
51. From September 2009 to approximately May 2012, Fard, on behalf
of AMTI, electronically submitted nine invoices to NASA relating to work
conducted on contract NNX09CB46C. NASA paid AMTI $599,997 for those
invoices Fard submitted on the contract. Eight of those invoices were for
$60,000 each, and the last invoice to NASA totaled $119,997. During this same
time frame, Fard also submitted and was paid on eleven other invoices to NASA
for $555,373.35 relating to the work he conducted on the three additional
contracts (NNX10CE64, NNX11CB58C, and NNX11CG44P). Thus, the total
amount of money that NASA paid out on those four contracts equals
$1,227,370.35. Contract NNX11CB58C is still open but payment has been
suspended.
52. The monies received from these invoices were required to be used
by Fard to pay for proposed and negotiated costs associated with proposals and
contracts to include “Direct Labor” (i.e., Principal Investigators, Research
Associates, Program Managers), ODCs (i.e., Materials, Supplies, Tools,
Equipment, Accessories, Subcontractors and Travel), and “G&A” (to include the
expenses of operating a business that are not directly linked to the company’s
products or services such as rent and utilities).
53. However, the relevant documentation, including, but not limited to,
AMTI corporate bank statements, AMTI corporate checks, Fard’s personal bank
account records, AMTI credit card records, Fard’s personal credit card records,
24
and Fard’s personal investment accounts, shows that on multiple occasions,
Fard did not actually expend the negotiated amounts on Direct Labor, ODCs and
G&A costs as required by the contracts, and that Fard misused a significant
portion of the above mentioned funds by personally enriching himself, as will be
discussed below.
54. Specifically, there is virtually no evidence that with regard to
Contract B46C, AMTI/Fard expended the negotiated amount of $75,000 on a
Program Manager; $95,150 on a Research Associate; $104,160 on Materials,
Glassware, Lab Supplies, Small Tools, Leasing Equipment, Chemicals,
Mechanical Test Accessories; $13,494 on Travel Expenses; and $354,061 on
G&A expenses. As reflected in Table 2, there are some possible G&A expenses
associated with rental payments made to the University of South Florida
Research Foundation totaling $9,600, and payments made to Fard’s wife,
Faranak Fard, for what are alleged to be secretarial or administrative support
services amounting to $31,072. When interviewed on March 6, 2013, Fard
claimed that his wife was an employee of AMTI and acted as his research
assistant at times. Fard stated that while his wife did not have a degree, she had
a computer science background and helped him perform “tests.” However,
during a simultaneously conducted interview, Fard’s wife claimed that she only
performed some administrative tasks (such as taking phone calls and ordering
office supplies), and that she did not have any technical knowledge about the
company.
25
55. Since three of the contracts are complete and have been paid in full
a complete comparison can be made of what Fard proposed and negotiated
(Table 2), with the funds that Fard misused, as depicted in Table 3, which
amount to approximately $418,000:
Table 3: Funds Misused by AMTI/Fard
Amount Proposed/Negotiated Funds

Proposed Negotiated Paid on Costs Not Expended by Misused
Contract Amount Amount Contract Fard by Fard
Project Manager - $
NNX09CB46C $599,996.59 $599,996.59 $599.996.59 75,000 $75,000
Research Associate -
$43,200 $43,200
Materials - $21,254 $21,254
Glassware/Lab Supplies -
$6,118 $6,118
Small Tools - $9,108 $9,108
Travelling - $7,452 $7,452
Leasing Equipment -
$11,472 $11,472
Mech Test Accessories -
$26,000 $26,000
G&A - $151,740.48 $151,740
Total - $351,344 $351,344
NNX10CE64P $99,998.95 $99,998.95 $99,998.95 $7,650 $7,650
Glassware/Lab Supplies-
$697 $697
Chemicals - $1,350 $1,350
G&A - $25,289.96 $25,289.96
Total - $34,987 $34,987
NN11CG44P $99,998.95 $99,998.95 99,998.95 $6,300 $6,300
Chemicals - $787 $787
G&A - $25,289.96 $25,290
Total - $32,377 $32,377
26
Total $799,994.49 $799,994.49 $799,994.49 $418,708
With regard to contract B58C, although the contract was suspended before it was
completely paid, there is similarly no evidence that AMTI/Fard has expended
costs on a Research Associate (negotiated at $38,000); Materials, Glassware,
Tools, or Supplies (negotiated at $27,374); Travel (negotiated at $6,032); or
G&A (negotiated at $151,741.23) (except for costs associated with rental
payments to USF and payments made to his wife, which were spread out over
the life of the four contracts). Moreover, agents identified that only $75,000 out
of the negotiated $200,000 for subcontractor money has been paid.
56. As further detailed below, records show that between February 2010
and the present, Fard misused funds or personally enriched himself by writing
hundreds of what appear to be sham business checks from his AMTI corporate
bank account payable to himself, “Akbar Fard,” in the form of reimbursements for
business related expenses that often did not exist. In essence, these sham
business checks represented that AMTI was in fact reimbursing Fard for the
negotiated Direct Labor, ODCs, and G&A expenses associated with contracts. In
reality, the monies from these checks were not being used by Fard to pay for
negotiated contract expenses, but were being deposited into Fard’s personal
checking account. From there, Fard wire transferred proceeds into his personal
savings account and wire transferred a significant amount of proceeds into his
Merrill Lynch retirement and investment accounts. The remaining funds
27
contained in Fard’s personal checking account, which were derived from these
bogus reimbursement checks, were expended on personal items or personal
expenses such as credit card payments, mortgage payments, and a new car.
The remaining AMTI monies that were not deposited into Fard’s personal bank
account were retained by AMTI and have been accruing interest in either the
AMTI corporate checking account or the AMTI corporate savings account.
57. With regard to Fard’s misuse of the funds, during the time period of
February 2010 to present, Fard wrote 365 AMTI corporate checks, payable to
himself, “Akbar Fard,” totaling $596,621.13, which were made to appear like
business related reimbursements. But in reality, many of those checks were
bogus reimbursements for business related expenses that often did not exist as
discussed above. Fard also wrote an additional 23 AMTI checks to his wife,
totaling $31,072.
Table 4: Deposit Amounts into Fard’s Personal Checking Account 7736
Amount Date Amount Date Amount Date

4,241.55 2/17/2010 3,528.40 3/28/2011 11,592.75 3/19/2012
14,013.88 3/15/2010 3,278.39 4/7/2011 15,327.19 4/5/2012
4,977.88 4/29/2010 14,819.12 5/2/2011 12,876.83 5/1/2012
12,553.87 4/12/2010 15,459.27 5/11/2011 3,531.63 5/11/2012
1,810.72 5/11/2010 17,522.50 6/6/2011 12,903.53 6/4/2012
10,055.50 5/7/2010 5,238.57 6/13/2011 12,576.20 7/11/2012
14,264.13 6/3/2010 14,457.68 7/11/2011 13,339.52 8/24/2012
10,055.50 6/8/2010 2,209.49 7/29/2011 2,134.25 8/28/2012
10,055.50 7/6/2010 13,416.50 8/3/2011 12,929.36 9/10/2012
4,372.81 8/2/2010 2,680.75 9/2/2011 8,423.25 10/26/2012
2,043.92 8/16/2010 7,357.76 9/12/2011 13,274.60 10/9/2012
10,055.50 8/23/2010 16,447.76 9/19/2011 79,629 10/29/2012
1,492.01 9/9/2010 2,063.87 10/27/2011 11,969.25 11/2/2012
28
2,285.91 10/12/2010 16,103.49 10/27/2011 27,144.48 12/19/2012

2,303.18 10/18/2010 3,709.97 11/14/2011 3,555.89 1/3/2013
10,232.12 10/4/2010 13,883.66 12/5/2011 18,000.33 1/4/2013
11,543.58 11/8/2010 456.96 12/5/2011 $633,007.64 Total
868.00 11/22/2010 15,344.07 12/7/2011
11,635.00 12/9/2010 526.54 12/28/2011
20,192.93 1/6/2011 4,116.61 1/5/2012
1,733.67 2/3/2011 345.96 1/23/2012
11,197.00 2/15/2011 13,643.45 2/13/2012
1,508.68 2/28/2011 715.73 3/14/2012
11,241.60 3/11/2011 1,738.64 3/14/2012
58. A significant amount of the Government contract proceeds paid by
NASA to AMTI were funneled into Fard’s corporate and personal bank accounts
as well as Fard’s investment accounts for self-enrichment, rather than being used
for significant costs associated with negotiated Direct Labor, ODCs or G&A. This
misuse of the funds was in contravention to the agreed-upon costs and uses of
the funds, and shows that the contracts were fraudulently- induced – i.e. that the
Government would not have entered into these contracts based on the false
information provided in the proposal. Additionally, even if Fard had intended
these Direct Labor, ODC, or G&A costs to be incurred, during the first year he
knew he was not actually incurring those costs. However, he continued to
request the same amounts for these categories of costs in subsequent years
knowing he would not incur them. Fard never notified the Government that he
did not need funding for these costs.
59. Additional evidence of the misrepresentation and fraud is found in
AMTI’s tax records. AMTI filed Employment Tax Returns, Form 941, with the
29
IRS. Inspection of those returns and related W-2 statements provided by the IRS
for the periods January 2005 through the Quarter Ending September 2010,
revealed that AMTI had only one (1) employee – Akbar Ghaneh-Fard. However,
according to W-2s submitted by Faranak Fard, AMTI hired Faranak Fard as a
second employee, during the Quarter Ending December 2010 through Quarter
Ending December 2011. Faranak Fard was paid $773 in 2010, $14,665 in 2011,
and $13,027 in 2012. In summary, these tax records revealed that AMTI had
only one employee from years 2005 until the end of 2010, and had no more than
two employees thereafter. These establish that AMTI did not, at any time,
employ Program Managers, Research Associates or other employees, as stated
in certified proposals, before the end of 2010.
60. As stated above, had the Government known that the
representations and certifications provided by AMTI during their proposals and
negotiations were false or misleading (especially as to the funds needed for a
Program Manager that did not exist, a Research Associates that did not exist,
Materials and Supplies that were never purchased or used, unnecessary G&A
costs, and failure to disclose the use of pertinent subcontractors to the
Government), the Government would not have awarded the contracts or would
have immediately canceled the contract upon learning of false information and
fraudulent inducement. Fard specifically acknowledged in writing in his
proposals to the Government that providing false information to the Government
is a criminal offense under penalty of law.
30
61. Prior to 2010, AMTI was awarded additional contracts including
awards from NASA, the USN, and the MDA as identified in Table 1. In many of
those awards, the same scheme as explained above is evident in the records.
For instance, in STTR Phase 2 proposal N2-1408, “Advanced Fire-Retarded
Explosive Resistant Elastomers” awarded for several hundred thousand dollars
to AMTI by the U.S. Navy, Fard proposed 1060 hours at $19,080 for a Research
Assistant on the project. However, the agents found no payments to this
individual or payments that were consistent with negotiations relating to the
proposed labor overhead of $94,248. Similarly, the agents could not clearly
identify payments for approximately $60,000 in costs associated with materials,
chemicals, equipment and G&A. Rather, in those circumstances, the agents
identified the same diversions of negotiated funds to Fard’s personal accounts as
previously described.
B. Subcontracting Misrepresentations
62. During the time of the submission of AMTI’s proposal and contract
negotiation in September of 2009 regarding contract NNX09CB46C, Fard was
required to disclose and electronically certify under Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1001, to the use of subcontractors and consultants on the project.
Specifically, on Form A of the proposal, which is the proposal cover and
certification sheet, Fard answered “yes” to the use of subcontractors.
Specifically, under Section 9 of the proposal, which is the mandatory disclosure
section for subcontractors, Fard related that AMTI had retained the services of
31
Dr. Aydin Sunol, from the University of South Florida as a subcontractor. In the
proposal, Fard incorporated a letter from USF accepting the subcontract work. In
Form C of the budget section in the proposal, Fard included a subcontract
amount to USF for $33,000. No other subcontractors were thereafter disclosed
in the proposal or throughout the contract.
63. During the period of performance of contract NNX09CB46C, the
agents identified multiple checks from the AMTI corporate bank account made
payable to the University of South Florida for what appears to be legitimate
subcontracting work on the project. However, the records show twelve other
checks, totaling $60,536, were written from the AMTI corporate account made
payable to a Pennsylvania-based company, Applied Analytics Research (AAR).
All of those checks were written and paid during the same exact period of
performance on contract NNX09CB46C, and the note sections of each check
contained an AMTI invoice payment number. AAR specializes in contract
research, development, and consulting work, and works in the same industry as
AMTI.
64. According to the NNX09CB46C contract documents related to
subcontracting, including the AMTI proposal, the Price Negotiation
Memorandum, the contract file, email communications between AMTI and NASA,
reports submitted to NASA, and the budget summary, there is no evidence that
AMTI disclosed the use of AAR as a subcontractor nor requested and was
32
granted approval from the Government to use the services of AAR as a
subcontractor.
65. As stated above, under Section H.1, “Limitation on Subcontracting,”
SBIR contract NNX09CB46C, the contract specifically stated that “since selection
of Research and Development contractors is substantially based on the best
scientific and technological sources, it is important that the Contractor not
subcontract technical or scientific work without the Contracting Officer’s advance
approval.” According to various Contracting Officers and Procurement Officials,
if a contractor does not disclose the use of subcontractors or consultants, upon
learning of the misrepresentation, the Government can deny and/or immediately
terminate the contract.
66. The misrepresentations discussed above show that Fard
fraudulently induced the Government into awarding AMTI contracts by submitting
fraudulent certified contract proposals and other documents to the government in
order to receive the maximum funding for the contracts. In particular, such
misrepresentations include, but were not limited to, false information about
alleged employees and subcontractors, fabrications regarding requested costs
associated with proposals, and fabrications or misrepresentations with regard to
their offices and facilities. Fard submitted the required invoices via wire
containing the fraudulent and inaccurate details of the contracts (which we know
to be false now in comparing the negotiated amounts to the amounts actually
expended by Fard). These submissions via wire constitute wire fraud in violation
33
of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Fard and AMTI committed fraud in the inducement and
execution of these contracts, as he never had any intention to incur the claimed
costs, but used the money for their own personal enrichment. This conduct
violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 641, 666, and 1343. Every time Fard and AMTI signed
and submitted an invoice for the contracting work, they were representing that
the work was performed as indicated on the invoice. It is fraudulent to bill time
and/or costs to a SBIR Government contract when that time was not worked or
costs were not expended as proposed, negotiated, and contracted for. Such
billing is fraudulent even though the contract is a fixed price contract.
67. Since the proceeds of the contract were fraudulently obtained (and
also misused), the subsequent transfers of such proceeds by Fard in excess of
$10,000, and the use of proceeds for the purchase of the Vehicle, which was
also in excess of $10,000, violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957.
IV. Tracing the Fraudulent Proceeds from February 2010 to Present
68. Based on the fraud in the inducement and execution described
above, the specific amounts of money misused during the execution of the
contracts (depicted in Table 3), as well as the entire value of those contracts
(depicted in Table 6), are subject to forfeiture.
34
69. Table 5 below represents the total values of the contracts awarded
to AMTI since February 2010. Table 6 below depicts the amounts paid out to
AMTI on the contracts from February 2010 to present.1
Table 5: Total Awarded Contract Values, February 2010 to Present
Contract Values
NNX09CB46C $599,996.59
NNX10CE64P $99,998.95
NNX11CB58C $599,999.54
NN11CG44P $99,998.95
Total $1,399,994.03
70. From February 2010 to the present, $1,227,370.35 has been paid
out on those four contracts and deposited into BOA 6738 (the AMTI corporate
checking account). Table 6 below shows the dates, contracts, and the specific
amounts that have been paid to AMTI on those contracts (approximately
$168,000 was not paid out on contract B58C due to the suspension of the
contract):
Table 6: Government Funds Deposited into AMTI Corporate Checking Account
Date Amount Contract

2/2/2010 60,000.00 nnx09Cb46C
2/17/2010 30,000.00 nnx10Ce64P
4/19/2010 60,000.00 nnx09Cb46C
6/3/2010 30,000.00 nnx10Ce64P
7/19/2010 60,000.00 nnx09Cb46C
1
Because Fard’s scheme appears to go back at least to 2004, tracing of the fraudulently obtained
funds since February 2010 is provided in detail in this complaint as a snapshot of the transfers
that have occurred. Records show, however, that since 2004 Fard has had no other source of
income or significant deposits into any of the accounts sought for seizure and forfeiture other than
proceeds of the fraudulently obtained AMTI contracts.
35
8/23/2010 39,999.00 nnx10Ce64P

11/17/2010 60,000.00 nnx09Cb46C
1/18/2011 60,000.00 nnx09Cb46C
4/21/2011 29,169.00 nnx11Cg44P
4/27/2011 60,000.00 nnx09Cb46C
6/23/2011 26,206.35 nnx11Cg44P
8/2/2011 60,000.00 nnx09Cb46C
10/25/2011 39,999.00 nnx11Cg44P
10/26/2011 72,000.00 nnx11Cb58C
2/2/2012 72,000.00 nnx11cb58c
4/18/2012 72,000.00 nnx11cb58c
6/5/2012 119,997.00 nnx09Cb46C
6/11/2012 60,000.00 nnx09Cb46C
7/17/2012 72,000.00 nnx11cb58c
10/18/2012 72,000.00 nnx11cb58c
Total $1,155,370.35
71. As discussed above, instead of using proposed and negotiated funds
as certified to the Government, Fard personally enriched himself, and diverted
funds from his AMTI corporate checking account in a number of ways. One way
Fard misused the funds was by writing what appear to be hundreds of business
checks from his AMTI corporate bank account paid to himself, “Akbar Fard,”
representing that AMTI was reimbursing Fard for the negotiated Direct Labor,
ODCs, and G&A expenses associated with the contracts in the form of
reimbursements for business-related expenses that often did not exist.
72. Bank records show that, going back to at least 2004, all of the
funds in the AMTI corporate accounts were from proceeds of the SBIR contracts.
Fard does not have any other source of income in the AMTI corporate accounts.
Likewise, nearly all of the funds in Fard’s personal accounts are from the AMTI
36
corporate accounts and have been since approximately 2004. The records show
that since at least 2004, Fard has been committing the same scheme and show
no other income flowing in and out of the AMTI accounts or his personal bank
and investment accounts. He has no other job, or other source of income, from
which funds were deposited into his personal account. Thus, the funds in the
seized accounts are subject to forfeiture as proceeds or property traceable to
proceeds of the fraud as detailed below.
A. Bank Accounts
1. $13,781.17 Seized From BOA 6738
73. BOA 6738 wass the AMTI corporate checking account and was
opened on July 14, 2004. Akbar G. Fard is the sole signatory on the account.
74. As detailed above, from August 24, 2004 to February 2013, NASA
and DOD payments on the fraudulently induced contracts, totaling
$2,113,845.24, were deposited into this account. In February 2010, the time of
the first deposit from contract NNX09CB46C, the balance in the account was
$621.01.
75. From February 2010 to March 2013, $1,227,370.35 was paid out
on the four contracts identified above in Table 5, and deposited into BOA 6738.
(Table 6).
76. The deposited contract funds were then transferred to various other
accounts, discussed in detail below. The balance in the account at the time of
seizure on March 6, 2013 was $13,781.17.
37
2. $100,059.56 Seized From BOA 9926
77. This account was the primary savings account for AMTI. The
account was opened on March 12, 2009, and Akbar G. Fard is the sole signatory
on the account.
78. Bank records reviewed by the agents revealed that this account
was funded solely by transfers from BOA 6738. As of approximately February
2010, the account balance was $1,362.58.
79. After Fard began receiving payments on the fraudulently-induced
contracts discussed above, he transferred a total of $129,000 from BOA 6738
into BOA 9926.
80. The balance in the account at the time of seizure on March 6, 2013
was $100,059.56.
3. $7,772.62 Seized From BOA 7736
81. This was a personal checking account held by Akbar Fard and
Faranak Fard, which was opened on or about November 29, 2002. The only
signatories on the account were Akbar G. Fard and Faranak G. Fard. In
February 2010, the balance in the account was $1,245.78.
82. Since 2004, virtually all of the deposits into BOA 7736 came from
the AMTI corporate accounts since approximately 2004. The agents could not
identify any source of deposits in Account 7736 aside from the re-deposit of fraud
proceeds. Neither Fard nor his wife had another job, or other source of income,
from which funds were deposited into this personal account.
38
83. Specifically, during the time period of February 2010 to present,
Fard wrote approximately 365 AMTI corporate checks, paid to “Akbar Fard” in the
amount of $596,621.13 from BOA 6738 (discussed above). Fard wrote an
additional 23 AMTI checks to his wife in the amount of $31,072 from BOA 6738
(discussed above). All 388 checks were deposited into BOA 7736, which
entered the account by way of 64 separate deposits totaling $633,007.64 (each
deposit was comprised of multiple AMTI checks which were deposited in groups,
and only a few of the deposited checks came from sources other than AMTI).
(See Table 4). Specifically, analysis conducted by the agents showed that along
with the 388 checks from BOA 6738 totaling $627,693.13, the 64 deposits also
contained merchant refunds, totaling a few thousand dollars, thus, the total
deposts were $633,007.64.
84. As mentioned, the records do show some nominal deposits, such
as $27 from Walgreens or small refunds from merchants; however, they did not
add up to more than several thousand dollars. And while the records do show
several IRS tax refund deposits, these refunds were a return of income, and
taxes paid on, the fraudulently obtained SBIR contracts.
85. Records show that Fard transferred funds from BOA 7736 to his
investment accounts (discussed in detail below). Funds from BOA 7736 also
were used by Fard for miscellaneous personal expenses, including but not
limited to, personal credit card bills totaling $112,224; mortgage payments on his
home totaling $61,063.46; and the purchase of a vehicle totaling $14,745.
39
86. At the time of the seizure on March 6, 2013, $7,772.62 remained in
BOA 7736.
4. $196,573.96 Seized From BOA 1444
87. This account was a personal savings account held by Fard, which
was opened on or about August 27, 2009. Akbar G. Fard is the only signatory on
the account. As of approximately February 2010, the balance in the account was
$25,522.04.
88. After Fard began receiving payments on the fraudulently-induced
contracts discussed above, Fard transferred $313,000 from BOA 7736
(discussed above) into BOA 1444.
89. Funds from BOA 1444 were transferred by Fard to his investment
accounts (discussed below).
90. At the time of seizure on March 6, 2013, $196,573.96, remained in
BOA 1444.
B. Investment Accounts
1. $410,945.72 Seized From Merrill Lynch 44K16
91. This is account was a CMA Investment Account held in the names
of Akbar Fard and Faranak Fard, which was opened on or about October 31,
2007 as Account number FL4590410. The funding for this account is described
below.
92. Between November 2007 and October 2008, approximately
$99,546 was transferred into the account from BOA 7736. In December 2008, a
40
wire transfer in the amount of $65,500 was made from an account identified as
“GCB 004286.” Although the agents have not identified the GCB account, there
is probable cause to believe that the funds were also fraud proceeds because
neither of the Fards had any other source of income. From February 2010 to
June 2010, Fard made four wire transfers totaling $35,300 from BOA 1444 to
Merrill Lynch FL4590410. In September 2010, the account became Merrill
Lynch 44K16 and had a balance of $211,500.
93. From November 2011 to May 2012, Fard made three wire transfers
totaling $140,000 from BOA 1444 to Merrill Lynch 44K16. Fard also made two
wire transfers totaling $36,200 into Merrill Lynch 44K16 from BOA 7736.
94. Any interest and/or profit that Fard has earned on any of his
accounts are also subject to seizure and forfeiture as property traceable to
proceeds. See United States v. Cekosky, 171 F. App’x 785 (11th Cir. 2006)
(interest earned on bank deposits subject to forfeiture because the defendant
would not have obtained or retained it but for the criminal offense).
95. At the time of seizure on March 6, 2013, the balance in Merrill
Lynch 44K16 was $410,945.72.
2. $35,902.72 Seized From Merrill Lynch 49360
96. This was a retirement account held by Fard, which was opened on
or about November 13, 2008 as account FL4729949. The account balance as
of approximately February 2010 was $11,254.18. Again, because neither Fard
nor his wife had any other source of income, there is probable cause to believe
41
that the funds were also fraud proceeds. Merrill Lynch FL4729949 changed to
Merrill Lynch 49360 in August 2010.
97. Fard then made one wire transfer totaling $5,000 from BOA 1444
into Merrill Lynch 49360. Fard also wrote two checks totaling $10,000 from BOA
7736 that were deposited into Merrill Lynch 49360.
98. All of the fraud proceeds deposited into this account, as well as any
interest or profit earned on those deposits, are subject to forfeiture.
99. At the time of seizure on March 6, 2013, the balance in Merrill Lynch
49360 was $35,902.72.
C. 2012 Toyota 4Runner, VIN Number JTEZU5JR9C5037038
100. On or about December 16, 2012, Fard wrote a check from BOA
6738, payable to Courtesy Toyota, for $27,240.12 for the purchase of the 2012
Toyota 4Runner, VIN Number JTEZU5JR9C5037038, Florida Tag Number
147WWM, registered in the names of AMTI and Akbar Ghaneh Fard.
Accordingly, the vehicle was involved in a monetary transaction (the purchase) of
more than $10,000 in criminally derived proceeds (Fard’s fraud proceeds).
VI. CONCLUSION
101. As required by Supp'l Rule G(2)(f), the facts set forth herein support
a reasonable belief that the Government will be able to meet its burden of proof
at trial. Specifically, for the reasons outlined above, probable cause exists to
believe that the Defendant Assets (the Bank Accounts, Investment Accounts and
Vehicle) constitute:
42
a. property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived
from proceeds traceable to a violation of an any offense constituting
“specified unlawful activity” (as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)),
or a conspiracy to commit such offense, specifically, an offense
under 18 U.S.C. § 641 related to theft of public funds, an offense
under 18 U.S.C § 666 related to theft or bribery concerning
programs receiving federal funds, and wire fraud in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1343; and
b. property involved in the commission of money laundering
offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, to the extent that the
funds on deposit and the vehicle were involved in monetary
transactions in criminally derived property of a value greater than
$10,000.
Thus, the Defendant Assets are subject to forfeiture to the United States
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)C) and 981(a)(1)(A).
WHEREFORE, pursuant to Supp’l Rule G, Plaintiff, United States of
America, respectfully requests that process of forfeiture be issued against the
Defendant Assets; that due notice be given to all interested parties to appear and
show cause why the forfeiture should not be decreed; that the Defendant Assets
be forfeited to the United States for disposition according to law; and that the
United States have such other and further relief as this case may require.
43
Dated : February 11. 2014 Respectfully submitted ,
A. LEE BENTLEY, Ill

United States Attorney
By ~Mf~
Assistant United States Attorney
USA NO . 141
400 N. Tampa Street, Suite 3200
Tampa , Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 27 4-6000
Facsimile: (813) 274-6220
E-mail: Natalie.Adams@usdoj.gov
44
VERIFICATION
I, Robert J . Matteis, hereby verify and declare under penalty of perjury,
that I am a Special Agent with the Defense Criminal Investigative Service , and
pursuant to 28 U.S.C . § 1746, that I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint
for Forfeiture in Rem and know the contents thereof, and that the matters
contained in the Verified Complaint are true to my own knowledge and belief.
The sources of my knowledge and information and the grounds of my
belief are the official files and records of the United States, information supplied
to me by other law enforcement officers, as well as my investigation of this case
together with NASA OIG Special Agents.
I hereby verify and declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.

4-
Executed this _L{_ day of February, 2014.
~ f~
~7~ -
1
Robert J. Matte is
Special Agent
Defense Criminal Investigative Service
45
JS 44
(Rev. 3/99) Case 8:14-cv-00339-RAL-MAP Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID 46
CIVIL COVER SHEET
This JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by
law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the
Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ASSETS IDENTIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF

VERIFIED COMPLAINT
(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF________________ COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE
TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED
(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER) ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)
Natalie H. Adams, AUSA
United States Attorney's Office N/A
400 N. Tampa Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 274-6000
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (PLACE AN AX@ IN ONE BOX ONLY) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an AX@ in one box for plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and one box for defendant)
 1 U.S. Government  3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State  1  1 Incorporated or Principal Place  4  4
of Business in This State
 2 U.S. Government  4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties Citizen of Another State  2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place  5  5
in Item III) of Business in Another State
Citizen of Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6  6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (PLACE AN AX@ IN ONE BOX ONLY)
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY  610 Agriculture  422 Appeal 28 USC158  400 State Reapportionment
 120 Marine  310 Airplane  362 Personal Injury -  620 Other Food & Drug  410 Antitrust
 130 Miller Act  315 Airplane Product Med.  625 Drug Related Seizure  423 Withdrawal  430 Banks and Banking
 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability Malpractice of Property 21 USC 28 USC 157  450 Commerce/ICC
 
150 Recovery of  320 Assault, Libel &  365 Personal Injury - 630 881 Rates/etc.

Overpayment Slander Product Liability 640 Liquor Laws PROPERTY RIGHTS  460 Deportation
 
 151 & Enforcement of  330 Federal Employers=  368 Asbestos personal  650 R.R. & Truck  820 Copyrights  470 Racketeer Influenced
152 Judgment Liability Injury Product 660 Airline Regs.  830 Patent and
Medicare Act  340 Marine Liability Occupation  840 Trademark Corrupt
 Recovery of Defaulted  345 Marine Product Safety/Heath Organizations
153 Student loans Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY X 690 Other SOCIAL SECURITY  810 Selective Service
 (Excl. Veterans)  350 Motor Vehicle  370 Other Fraud  850 Securities/Commodities/
 160 Recovery of Overpayment  355 Motor Vehicle  371 Truth in Lending LABOR  861 HIA (1395ff) Exchange
 190 of Veteran=s Benefits Product  380 Other Personal  862 Black Lung (923)  875 Customer Challenge
195 Stockholders= Suits Liability Property  710 Fair Labor Standards  863 DIWC/DIWW 12 USC 3410
Other Contract  360 Other Personal Damage Act (405(g))
Contract Product Liability Injury  385 Property Damage  720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations  864 SSID Title XVI  891 Agricultural Acts
 Product Liability  865 RSI (405(g))  892 Economic Stabilization
 210 REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS 730 Labor/Mgmt. Act
 220 PRISONER PETITIONS  Reporting FEDERAL TAX SUITS  893 Environmental Matters
 
 230 Land condemnation  441 Voting & Disclosure Act  894 Energy Allocation Act
240 Foreclosure  442 Employment  510 Motions to Vacate  740  870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff  895 Freedom of

245 Rent Lease & Ejectment  443 Housing/ Sentence 790 Railway Labor Act or Defendant) Information Act
290 Torts to Land HABEAS CORPUS: 791 Other Labor Litigation  871 IRS - Third Party  900 Appeal of Fee
Tort Product Liability Accommodations  530 General Empl. Ret. Inc. 26 USC 7609 Determination
All Other Real Property  444 Welfare  535 Death Penalty Security Act Under Equal
 440 Other Civil Rights  540 Mandamus & Other Access to
 550 Civil Rights Justice
 555 Prison Condition  950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
 890 Other Statutory Actions
V. ORIGIN (PLACE AN AX@ IN ONE BOX ONLY)
Appeal to District
 1 Original  2 Removed from  3 Remanded from  4 Reinstated or  5 Transferred from  6 Multidistrict  7 Judge from
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened another district (specify) Litigation Magistrate Judgment
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION ( CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS
DIVERSITY.)
GOVERNMENT SEEKS FORFEITURE PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 981(a)(1)(C)
VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
 CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION JURY DEMAND  YES  NO
UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (See Instructions):
JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
2/11/14 s/Natalie H. Adams
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY NATALIE H. ADAMS, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
RECEIPT # _____________ AMOUNT ________________ APPLYING IFP ____________________ JUDGE ______________ _____ MAG. JUDGE ________________

Fard Federal Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fard Federal Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 8:14-cv-00339-RAL-MAP Document 1 Filed 02/11/14 Page 1 of 45 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case No. _______________

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR FORFEITURE IN REM

Plaintiff United States of America, through the undersigned Assistant

Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a civil action in rem, to forfeit to the United States of

America, the following Defendant Assets:

1. Approximately $13,781.17 seized from Bank of America

2. Approximately $100,059.56 seized from Bank of America

3. Approximately $7,772.60 seized from Bank of America

4. Approximately $196,573.96 seized from Bank of America

1. Approximately $410,945.27 seized from Merrill Lynch

2. Approximately $35,909.72 seized from Merrill Lynch Account

1. a 2012 black Toyota 4Runner, VIN Number

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action

commenced by the United States by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1345, and over an

action for forfeiture by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1355.

3. This Court has in rem jurisdiction over the Defendant Assets

a. 28 U.S.C. § 1355(b)(1)(A), because pertinent acts or

omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred within the Middle

District of Florida; and

b. 28 U.S.C. § 1355(b)(1)(B), because venue properly lies in

the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1395.

District of Florida, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1355(b)(1), because the acts or

SEIZURE OF THE DEFENDANT ASSETS

5. The Defendant Assets were seized pursuant to seizure warrants

6. Pursuant to Supp’l Rule G(3)(b)(i), the Clerk of Court must issue a

possession, custody, or control.

BASIS FOR FORFEITURE

7. The Defendant Assets are subject to forfeiture to the United States

a. 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), as property, real or personal,

which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a

violation of an offense constituting “specified unlawful activity” (as

defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)), or a conspiracy to commit such

offense, specifically, an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 641 related to

theft of public funds, an offense under 18 U.S.C § 666 related to

theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds, and

wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and

b. 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A), as property involved in the

commission of money laundering offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1957. Specifically, some of the Defendant Assets are subject to

forfeiture because they were involved in monetary transactions in

criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000.

8. Specific details of the facts and circumstances supporting the

forfeiture of the Defendant Assets have been provided by Defense Criminal

Investigations (AFOSI). He has received training in investigations of bribery,

has participated in several such investigations. He personally participated in this

investigation and is thoroughly familiar with the information contained in this

9. The following facts were acquired as a result of a joint investigation

Service (NCIS), and are based on SA Matteis’ personal knowledge of this

investigation, including a review of documents and computer records related to

personal knowledge of the events and circumstances described herein. The

every detail of this investigation.

10. Akbar Ghaneh Fard is the President and Owner of Advanced

the United States Navy (USN)] so as to fraudulently induce the Government to

(SBIR) contracts and Small Business Transfer Technology Research (STTR)

11. Additionally, Fard, through AMTI, submitted via wire, fraudulent

invoices to the Government. The invoices incorrectly categorized how the

Fard’s own personal expenses.

Investment Accounts are subject to forfeiture because they were funded by