 |
 |
U.S. Department of Justice |
Jim Vines
United States Attorney
Eli J.Richardson
Assistant U.S. Attorney
SUMNER COUNTY SHERIFF J.D. VANDERCOOK AND
HIS BROTHER INDICTED FOR MAIL FRAUD, WIRE FRAUD,
MONEY LAUNDERING, AND MISAPPLICATION OF FUNDS
Nashville, TN - March 16, 2006 J.D. Vandercook, age 66, the Sheriff of Sumner County, Tennessee, and his brother Jerry Vandercook, age 66, have been indicted by a federal grand jury in connection with a scheme to secretly funnel Sumner County funds to Jerry Vandercook, announced James K. Vines, the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, My Harrison, Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the Memphis Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Mark Gwyn, Director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI).
Sheriff Vandercook and his brother are charged separately, in two different indictments returned yesterday by a federal grand jury sitting in Nashville. The indictments, which were unsealed today, are both based for the most part on the same series of events, in which both men are alleged to have participated jointly. One indictment, in which Sheriff Vandercook is named as the sole defendant, charges the Sheriff with eight counts: mail fraud; wire fraud; four counts of money laundering; and two counts of misapplication of funds of an agency receiving federal assistance. The other indictment, in which Jerry Vandercook is named as the sole defendant, charges Jerry Vandercook with the same eight crimes, as well as a ninth count charging obstruction of justice by means of attempting to influence a witness in official proceedings.
According to the indictment, the charges arise out of a scheme devised by Jerry and Sheriff Vandercook (collectively, “the Vandercooks”) to: (1) defraud the government and people of Sumner County, and the Sumner County Sheriff’s Department (“SCSD”), of the intangible right of the honest services of the Sheriff of Sumner County, namely J.D. Vandercook; and (2) obtain money and property by means of false pretenses and representations.
As part of the alleged scheme, Sheriff Vandercook used his control within SCSD to hire Jerry Vandercook to build a maintenance garage for SCSD on Odoms Bend Road in Gallatin, Tennessee (hereinafter, the “building project”), in exchange for Jerry Vandercook receiving payment from SCSD funds. As further part of the alleged scheme, the Vandercooks conceived and executed a plot to conceal the fact that Sheriff Vandercook had hired his brother.
The indictment sets forth details of the alleged plot of concealment. The Vandercooks agreed that they would make it appear that a specific individual (“Individual A”), who did business as a sole proprietorship under a company name (hereinafter, Individual A’s company”), had been hired instead of Jerry Vandercook to perform the building project. Jerry Vandercook obtained letterhead of Individual A’s company (hereinafter, “company letterhead”) from Individual A. On company letterhead, the Vandercooks created a document, purportedly from Individual A, requesting a $48,000 advance payment in connection with the building project (the “$48,000 advance request”).
On or about February 17, 2005, J.D. Vandercook allegedly caused another SCSD employee to send a fax from Gallatin, Tennessee to a telephone company in Mobile, Alabama, which fax included the $48,000 advance request and a cover sheet requesting that a $48,000.00 check be released from an escrow account to Individual A’s company. As alleged in the indictment, the telephone company held funds in the escrow account for SCSD’s benefit; the telephone company deposited funds into the escrow account in return for the right to provide the inmate telephone service at Sumner County jail.
The indictment alleges that Individual A subsequently received by mail, from the telephone company, a $48,000 check drawn on the escrow account and payable to Individual A’s company. At Jerry Vandercook’s instruction, Individual A deposited the check into Individual A’s bank account in Sumner County on or about March 11, 2005, then wrote Jerry Vandercook a $48,000 check dated March 14, 2005 and gave the check to him.
Additionally, according to the indictment, the Vandercooks caused to be prepared, on purported company letterhead, a document dated April 12, 2005 (hereinafter, the “$25,569.78 request”), which bore a forged signature of Individual A and set forth a purported itemization of building project expenses totaling $25,569.78. Then, using the $25,569.78 request as justification, Sheriff Vandercook allegedly caused a check for $25,569.78, drawn on SCSD funds, to be made payable to Individual A’s company and delivered to Individual A. At Jerry Vandercook’s instruction, Individual A allegedly deposited the $25,569.78 check into Individual A’s bank account on or about April 12, kept $1,000 of the deposited $25,569.78, and wrote Jerry Vandercook a check for the remaining $24,469.78.
The indictment further alleges that at the request of Jerry Vandercook, and in return for approximately $400 paid by Sheriff Vandercook, an individual (“Individual B”) provided an estimate of the reasonable cost of the building project, which Sheriff Vandercook thereafter used publicly in an effort to justify the building project.
The indictment further details an alleged plot by the Vandercooks to conceal the existence of their scheme. In about late May 2005, the Vandercooks allegedly met with Individual A, and instructed Individual A to claim, if asked, that the building project had been awarded originally to Individual A, and that Individual A in turn had subcontracted the work to Jerry Vandercook after Individual A was forced to travel out of state due to a medical problem of a family member.
In addition, Sheriff Vandercook allegedly made knowingly false statements to employees of the Tennessee’s Comptroller of the Treasury, in connection with a review of certain affairs of SCSD conducted by the Comptroller during the summer of 2005. Among the alleged false statements were statements substantially to the effect that: (1) Sheriff Vandercook spoke with two contractors, not including Jerry Vandercook, about the possibility of performing the building project; (2) one of the contractors advised that he was not willing to bid on the building project because he had no idea of the value of inmate labor, while Individual A’s company agreed to use inmate labor to construct the maintenance building; (3) Sheriff Vandercook chose Individual A’s company to perform the building project; and (4) Jerry Vandercook took over supervision of the building project from Individual A after Individual A had to leave the state for an extended period.
Based on these allegations, in each indictment, the respective defendant is charged: (1) in Count One with wire fraud (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343), in connection with the alleged scheme, based on each defendant allegedly causing the February 17, 2005 fax to be sent from SCSD to the telephone company in Mobile; (2) in Count Two with mail fraud (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341), in connection with the alleged scheme, based on each defendant allegedly causing the $48,000 check to be sent by U.S. mail from the telephone company to Individual A; (3) in Counts Three and Four, respectively, with money laundering in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), based on Individual A’s alleged deposit of the $48,000 check and the $25,569.78 check, respectively; (4) in Counts Five and Six, respectively, with money laundering in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957(a), also based on Individual A’s alleged deposit of the $48,000 check and the $25,569.78 check, respectively; and (5) misapplication of funds owned by an agency receiving federal assistance (Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(1)(A)).
The indictment against Jerry Vandercook, but not Sheriff Vandercook, contains a ninth count. In Count Nine, Jerry Vandercook is alleged to have approached Individual B on January 27, 2006 and showed Individual B what Jerry Vandercook indicated was a grand jury subpoena issued in connection with a pending grand jury investigation regarding the building project. According to Count Nine, Jerry Vandercook then asked Individual B to falsely tell investigators investigating the building project that prior to commencement of the building project, Sheriff Vandercook had asked Individual B whether Individual B would bid on performing the building project using inmate labor, but that Individual B declined.
Based on these allegations, Count Nine charges Jerry Vandercook with attempting to corruptly persuade Individual B with the intent to influence Individual B’s testimony in the grand jury investigation and a parallel FBI investigation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1).
Counts One through Six of each indictment each carry a maximum prison sentence of 20 years. Counts Seven and Eight of each indictment each carry maximum prison sentence of ten years. Count Nine of the indictment against Jerry Vandercook carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years. All counts of both indictments carrying a maximum fine of $250,000 with the exception of Counts Three and Four, which each carry a maximum fine of $500,000.
“This indictment shows our determination to root out and prosecute corruption wherever it occurs, be it at the local, state or federal level,” said U.S. Attorney Vines. “The acts alleged in these indictments constitute a gross abuse of public trust by a top county law enforcement official and his brother. Like all public officials, county sheriffs and their associates must not be permitted to use the trust vested in them by county citizens to benefit themselves or their confederates illegally.”
“Public officials who commit crimes such as those described in the indictments must understand that they may be spending time in jail instead of spending time in the very neighborhoods they swore to ‘protect and serve,’” said SAC Harrison of the FBI.
“Today’s indictments are a keen illustration that no one is above the law. These kinds of activities destroy public trust, but I hope that citizens would also be encouraged, knowing that public corruption in Tennessee will not be tolerated,” said Director Gwyn of the T.B.I.
Both men were arrested this morning without incident in Sumner County, and face an initial appearance in federal court in Nashville this afternoon.
The public is reminded that an indictment constitutes only an allegation and is not evidence of guilt. An indicted defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a jury trial at which the Government would bear the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to each count of the indictment.
The investigation was initiated by the FBI and is being conducted jointly by the FBI and the TBI. The United States is being represented by Assistant United States Attorney Eli J. Richardson.