Will Haff
Was $83,532.79 worth it?……………………………
Texas insurance consultant’s sentencing has been postponed to November 29, 2017 at 10:00 am, Courtroom #3, First Floor, 655 E. Cesar Chavez Blvd, San Antonio, Texas, Hon. Xavier Rodriguez residing…………………
Indictment Summary
WILLIAM 0. HAFF, knowingly, intentionally, and unlawfully combined, conspired, confederated, and agreed together with SM, JC, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to devise and execute a scheme and artifice to defraud the School Districts and to obtain money by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, utilizing transmissions by wire in interstate and foreign commerce, contrary to Title Case 5:15-cr-00065-XR Document 1 Filed 02/04/15 Page 3 of 6 18, United States Code, Section 1343, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.
MANNER AND MEANS
It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that:
11. SM and JC sought to corruptly influence the School Districts in order to direct the purchase by the School Districts of insurance policies from companies working with MPBG.
12. SM and JC knew that the Defendant, as a consultant to the School Districts, was obligated by contract to provide independent advice to the School Districts regarding insurance products.
13. The Defendant provided SM and JC information regarding School District RFPs, the content of the bids submitted by competing insurance companies, and other matters that were not available to insurance companies competing with MPBG and its clients for business from the School Districts.
14. The Defendant, conspiring with SM and JC, recommended to the Board of Trustees of the School Districts that the School Districts purchase insurance products from insurance companies with whom MPBG had a financial interest.
15. Prior to April 13, 2010, SM, individually and through MPBG, paid the Defendant at least $83,532.79 as compensation for his efforts to help the MPBG secure contracts at the School Districts on behalf of insurance companies with whom the MPBG had a financial interest.
16. The Defendant’s failure to disclose that he was receiving payments from SM and MPBG was material to the School Districts’ decisions to purchase insurance products from insurance companies with whom the MPBG had a financial interest.
