Criminal Defense News

Two arrested on federal bribery charges in connection with ticket-fixing scheme at Adjudication Services Branch

Washington, D.C. - United States Attorney Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., Acting Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI's Washington Field Office Michael Rolince, Metropolitan Police Department Chief Charles Ramsey, District of Columbia Inspector General Charles Maddox, and Natwar Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer for the District of Columbia, announced today the arrest of two persons in connection with a ticket-fixing bribery scheme at the Adjudication Services Branch. Arrested were Tonette R. Cooks, 28, of the 4800 block of Fort Totten Drive, N.E., Washington, D.C. and Sherry J. McKnight, 38, of the 3000 block of Stanton Road, S.E., Washington, D.C., both of whom were charged with one count of bribery, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 201. If convicted of the charge, the defendants face up to 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Both defendants are expected to make their initial appearance in U.S. District Court tomorrow, August 8, 2003.

The arrests are the result of a joint federal and local task force in which agents of the FBI, the District of Columbia Office of the Inspector General ("DC OIG"), officers from the Metropolitan Police Department and investigators from the District of Columbia, Office of the Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), Office of Integrity and Oversight, began conducting a criminal investigation in January 2003 into a bribery and fraud scheme carried out by Tonette Cooks, who is employed as a teller at the District of Columbia Office of Finance and Treasury ("OFT") and a civilian go-between, Sherry McKnight.

The District of Columbia's Adjudication Services Branch has an office located at 65 K Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. Persons who have been fined for various traffic or parking violations may pay those fines in person at that location. OFT employs six tellers who work at 65 K Street, N.E., whose job it is to accept payment of the fines, by cash, check, or credit card. Those fines are records in a computer system maintained by OFT (the "OFT system"). Once the fines are paid, the individual's DMV record, reflecting the parking or traffic violations, is cleared.

The joint task force investigation revealed that Cooks and McKnight were involved in a bribery scheme where Cooks allegedly manipulated the Department of Motor Vehicle ("DMV") computer system to clear out unpaid fines for a reduced amount for parking and traffic violations, without an actual payment of money to the D.C. Treasurer. Instead, cash was accepted as a bribe by Cooks, and/or McKnight on behalf of Cooks, from various customers as payment in full for ticket. The customers were given computerized printouts, purportedly as receipts which falsely indicated that the tickets had been paid in full. A preliminary review of computer records at the OFT indicated the fraudulent scheme carried out by McKnight and Cooks cost the District of Columbia over $100,000 in lost revenue just in the month of June 2003.

As part of the task force investigation, several undercover "buy-offs" of unpaid tickets were made with the defendants in May and June 2003, which form the basis of the bribery charge. The investigation is ongoing.

In announcing today's arrests, U.S. Attorney Howard, Acting Assistant Director Michael Rolince, Chief Charles Ramsey, Inspector General Charles Maddox, and Chief Financial Office Gandhi commended the work of the agents and officers of the task force and Assistant United States Attorney Debra Long-Doyle, who is prosecuting the case.

A felony complaint is merely a formal charge that a defendant has committed a violation of criminal laws. Every defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

Contact us now to obtain a free case review or want more information on our Maryland Criminal Defense Lawyers.

	Did You Know?
	Res Ipsa Loquitur - Literally, "a thing that speaks for itself." In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence.