Lieutenant Daniel Griffin and Sergeant William Robertson of the Massachusetts State Police (MSP) orchestrated a fraud scheme between 2015 and 2017 involving hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal grants. These grants funded highway safety initiatives like DUI checkpoints and seatbelt enforcement programs. Instead of working their full shifts, the officers routinely arrived late, left early, or performed overtime tasks during their regular work hours while still billing for full overtime shifts. They also encouraged their subordinates to participate in this 'double-dipping' scheme. The fraud was uncovered by a Department of Transportation inspector general who noticed billing anomalies. After a trial with over twenty witnesses, a jury convicted both men of wire fraud, theft of federal funds, and conspiracy. Griffin also pleaded guilty to separate tax and wire fraud charges related to his private security business and financial aid fraud at his children's school. The district court sentenced them to prison terms and ordered substantial restitution and forfeiture.
The First Circuit addressed several challenges raised by the defendants. First, the court rejected a constitutional vagueness challenge to the fraud statutes, ruling that the defendants waived the claim by failing to raise it in a pre-trial motion as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3). Second, regarding sufficiency of the evidence, the court found ample proof that the defendants acted with intent to defraud, noting that subordinates testified they knew the conduct was wrong and that Robertson ordered the destruction of incriminating documents. The court also held that Robertson was liable for wire fraud counts involving Griffin's payments because the use of wires to transfer funds was a reasonably foreseeable part of their joint scheme. Third, the court upheld the sentencing enhancements. It ruled that Robertson was ineligible for the 'zero-point offender' reduction because he received a leadership enhancement, interpreting the relevant Guidelines provision as disqualifying defendants who met either condition. The court affirmed the leadership enhancement based on Robertson's role in organizing the team and supervising the fraud, and the abuse-of-trust enhancement because his position as a police officer and sergeant significantly facilitated the concealment of the crime. Finally, regarding Griffin's forfeiture order, the court distinguished the burden of proof in forfeiture from the sentencing loss calculation. While the sentencing court could use a reasonable estimate of gain, the government bears the burden in forfeiture proceedings to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the specific property is 'traceable to' the offense. The court found the government failed to prove what portion of the financial aid Griffin received was actually the fruit of his fraud versus what he would have received had he been honest.
The convictions and prison sentences for both officers stand, reinforcing that federal fraud statutes apply to overtime billing schemes involving federal grants and that police officers can face enhanced sentences for abusing their public trust. However, the decision limits the government's ability to seize assets in fraud cases where it cannot precisely distinguish between illicit gains and legitimate entitlements. The case is remanded to the district court to determine the specific amount of financial aid traceable to Griffin's fraud before any forfeiture can be enforced.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download