Lieutenant Daniel Griffin and Sergeant William Robertson of the Massachusetts State Police orchestrated a scheme between 2015 and 2017 to defraud federal grants funding highway safety initiatives. They falsely claimed overtime hours for sobriety checkpoints and traffic safety programs, billing for shifts they did not work or for tasks performed during regular hours. The scheme involved 'double-dipping' by billing for overtime-specific tasks during normal work hours and encouraging subordinates to do the same. The fraud was uncovered by a Department of Transportation inspector general who analyzed billing data, fuel records, and radio traffic. Both defendants were convicted at trial of wire fraud, theft of federal funds, and conspiracy. Griffin also pleaded guilty to separate tax fraud and wire fraud charges related to his private security business and false financial aid applications to his children's school. The district court sentenced them to prison terms and ordered substantial restitution and forfeiture.
The First Circuit addressed several key issues. 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 of intent to defraud, including testimony that subordinates knew the billing was wrong and evidence that Robertson ordered the destruction of incriminating documents. Third, the court upheld the district court's sentencing enhancements. It ruled that the 'zero-point offender' reduction was properly denied to Robertson because he received a leadership enhancement, interpreting the Guidelines' use of 'and' as disqualifying a defendant if they met either condition. The court also affirmed the 'leadership role' and 'abuse of public trust' enhancements, noting Robertson's authority to organize the scheme and his position as a police officer. Fourth, the court rejected sentencing disparity claims from both defendants, finding they failed to provide sufficient 'apples-to-apples' data to compare their cases with others. Finally, the court vacated the forfeiture order against Griffin. While the district court used the full amount of financial aid as a proxy for loss in sentencing, the court held that for civil forfeiture, the government bears the burden of proving specifically which portion of the funds was 'traceable to' the fraud. Because the government could not distinguish between aid Griffin would have received honestly and aid obtained through fraud, the forfeiture order was legally insufficient.
The convictions and prison sentences for Robertson and Griffin stand, and the restitution orders remain in place. However, the forfeiture order against Griffin regarding the financial aid is vacated. The government must now prove on remand exactly how much of the $177,600 in financial aid was directly traceable to the fraud, rather than what Griffin would have received had he been truthful. If the government cannot separate the fraudulent proceeds from legitimate aid, the forfeiture may be reduced or eliminated.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download