Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 ,/l

FILEtr'
APR 1 L[odf| UNITED STATES DISTzuCT COURT
NORTHERN DISTzuCT OF ILLINOIS
..EH8ffil,E R[YI8U* EASTERN DIVISION

I-INITED STATES OF AMEzuCA )

N. lgcR 922
Violations: Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 666(a)(2), 1 00 1 (a)(2),
CHARLES CUI and t9s2(a)(3)

UUDGE
COT]NT ONE MAG ISIM]E JUDGE COI,E

The SPECIAL DECEMBER 2017 GRAND JURY charges:

1. At times material to this indictment:

Relevant Entities and Individuals

a. The City of Chicago was a unit of local government known as a municipal

corporation, and a political subdivision of the State of Illinois. The City of Chicago received in

excess of $10,000 in federal benefits during the period from April l,20l7,through March 31, 2018.

b. The City of Chicago's legislative branch of government was the Chicago

City Council, which was comprised of fifty City Council members, each of whom represented one

of Chicago's fifty wards, and who were also known as Aldermen. The Aldermen were compensated

and publicly elected.

c. The City Council maintained a Committee on Finance, which exercised

broad powers pertaining to the City's finances. The Committee on Finance's powers included

making recommendations to the full City Council on whether to approve requests for tax increment

financing ("TIF"). TIF was a special funding tool used by the City of Chicago to promote public

and private investment across the City. TIF funds were used, among other things, to put vacant
 Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2

properties back to productive use, such as in conjunction with private development projects. Private

individuals or entities seeking to obtain TIF funds in connection with their projects had to submit

an application to the City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development for review.

Applications were thereafter referred to the Committee on Finance for review, and if approved by

the Committee on Finance, the application would be submitted to the fuIl City Council for a vote.

d. Alderman A was Alderman of the Fourteenth Ward in Chicago and

Chairman of the Committee on Finance. As Chairman of the Committee on Finance, Alderman A

had authority over which matters would be considered by that Committee. Alderman A was an

employee and agent of the City of Chicago, and was paid a salary by the City of Chicago.

e. Alderman A was admiued to practice law in Illinois and was the proprietor

of a private law firm, Law Firm A, which specialized in contesting tax assessments made on real

property and seeking reductions in such tax assessments for the firm's clients.

f. The City of Chicago Department of Buildings was an agency of the City of

Chicago. The Department of Buildings issued building permits and sign permits in the City of

Chicago.

g. The City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development was an

agency ofthe City of Chicago. The Department of Planning and Development ensured that building

permits complied with the Chicago ZontngOrdinance.

h. Defendant CHARLES CUI was the managing member of Company A, a

limited liability company which owned the property located at 4901 West Irving Park Road in

Chicago, Illinois (the "4901 Property"), which was located in an area outside of Alderman A's

ward. CUI graduated from a law school located in Chicago, was admitted to practice law in

Michigan, and operated his own law firm.

 Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3

1. Company B was a retailer with multiple retail outlets in the Chicagoland

area. Company B had contracted with Company A to operate a retail outlet at the 4901 Property.

j. Individual A was associated with a real estate consulting and project

management firm in Chicago.

k. Individual B was areal estate attorney located in Park Ridge, Illinois.

TIF Fundine for the 4901 Propertv

2. On or about February 10,2016, an ordinance was submitted to the City Council

seeking approval of a redevelopment agreement between the City of Chicago and Company A that

provided for $2,000,000 in TIF funding for the redevelopment of the 4901 Properfy (the

"Ordinance"). The Ordinance was referred to the Committee on Finance.

3. On or about March lI, 2016, the Committee on Finance, with Alderman A

presiding, recommended that the Ordinance pass.

4. On or about March 16,2016, on the motion of Alderman A, the City Council passed

the Ordinance. Alderman A voted in favor of the Ordinance.

5. On or about June 28, 2016, the City of Chicago and Company A signed a

redevelopment agreement for the 4901 Property, which gave Company A access to $2,000,000 in

TIF funds for the redevelopment of the 4901 Property. These TIF funds were payable only after

the conditions provided in the redevelopment agreement were met, and no TIF funds had been

disbursed on or before September 5,2017.

Permit for the 4901 Propertv

6. On or about April 17, 2017, CUI caused to be submitted to the Department of

Buildings an application for a permit for an existing pole sign located at the 4901 Property. The

application proposed that the sign would be used to advertise Company B.

 Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4

7. On or about May 18,2017, the application for the permit was denied by the

Department of Planning and Development.

8. On or about llly 21,2017, CUI, on behalf of Company A, entered into an

agreement with Company B that provided that, if Company A was unable to obtain the necessary

approvals to allow Company B to use the pole sign at the 4901 Property, then Company A would

reduce Company B's rent for the 4901 Property according to an agteed-upon formula. CUI

estimated this rent reduction to have a total cost to Company A of $750,000.

9. On or about August 23,2017, at approximately 9:58 a.m., CUI sent an email to

Alderman A, which stated, "Good Morning, [Alderman A]. I had the chance to meet you with
[Individual A] couple of months ago. Hope you still remember me. I have a legal matter that may

need your representation, if your schedule allows. I own a property located at 4901 W. Irving Park

Road, which used to be a Bank of America building. My tenant [Company B] applied to reuse the

existing pole sign in fronl of the building (see attached photo), but was denied by zoning, stating

the pole sign was abandoned for several years, and now is illegal. Can you look into the matter,

and advise how to proceed? [Company B] really needs it, otherwise they will either cancel the

Iease, or ask for significant rent reduction. It is such a beautiful sign, it is becoming a landmark

for the community and it costs lots of money to remove it."

10. On or about August 24,2017, at approximately 11:59 a.m., CUI forwarded to

Individual A the email he wrote to Alderman A on or about August 23,2017, and further wrote,

"fyi. I threw your name there. Maybe he [Alderman A] thinks there is conflict of interest, because

of his position. I'11 ask him to represent me for property tax appeal, which will be a big bite,

comparing with this."

 Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5

I l. On or about August 24, 2017, at approximately 12:03 p.m., CUI sent an email to

Individual B, who had represented CUI in property tax appeals for the 4901 Property. In that

email, CUI wrote, "Can I ask you for a favor? Can I have [Alderman A] handle 4901 W. Irving

Park property tax appeal for me, at least for this year? I have TIF deal going with the City, and he

is the Chairman of Finance Committee. He handled [sic] his tax appeal business card to me, and

I need his favor for my tif money. In addition, I need his help for my zoning etc for my project.

He is a powerful broker in City Hall, and I need him now. I'll transfer the case back to you after
this year."

12. On or about August 24,2077, at approximately 12:17 p.m., CUI sent an email to

Alderman A, that stated, 'oDear [Alderman A], I currently have this property 4901,4925,4939 W.

Irving Park Road under redevelopment. I may need your representation for tax appeal. The

property was totally vacant till July this year. . . . . Please let me know if you have time to handle

this matter for me. Please let me know when we can schedule a brief phone call. Thank you!"

13. On or about September 5,2017, CUI signed a contingent fee agreement with Law

Firm A that provided, among other things, CUI would retain Law Firm A to perform real estate

tax work and pay Law Firm A a fee for its work, based on a specified percentage of any tax

reduction obtained for CUI.

14. Between in or around August 201.7 and continuing until in or around 2018, in the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

CHARLES CUI,

defendant herein, comrptly offered and agreed to give things of value, namely, fees arising from

the retention of Law Firm A, intending to influence and reward Alderman A, ffi agent of the City

of Chicago, in connection with a business, transaction, and series of transactions of the City of
 Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6

Chicago involving a thing of value of $5,000 or more, namely, a permit and tax increment

financing conceming the 4901 Property;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(2).

 Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7

COT]NT TWO

The SPECIAL DECEMBER2O17 GRAND JURY turther charges:

On or about August 24, 2017, at approximately 12:03 p.m., at Chicago, in the Northem

District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

CHARLES CUI,

defendant herein, caused the use of a facility in interstate commerce, namely, an electronic mail

account and associated communication network operated by the service provider Yahoo!, with

intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management,

establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, namely, a violation of 720ILCS 5/33-l

(Bribery), 720 ILCS 5133-3($@) (Official Misconduct), 720 ILCS 5129A-l (Commercial

Bribery), ardT2}lLCS 5129A-2 (Commercial Bribe Receiving), and thereafter, the defendant did

perform and attempt to perform an act to carry on and facilitate the promotion and carrying on of

said unlawful activity;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952(a)(3).

 Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8

COUNT THREE

The SPECIAL DECEMBER 2017 GRAND JURY turther charges:

On or about August 24, 2017, at approximately 12:17 p.m., at Chicago, in the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

CHARLES CUI,

defendant herein, caused the use of a facility in interstate commerce, namely, an electronic mail

account and associated communication network operated by the service provider Yahoo!, with

intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management,

establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, namely, a violation of 720ILCS 5i33-1

(Bribery), 720 ILCS 5133-3($@) (Official Misconduct), 720 ILCS 5/29A-l (Commercial

Bribery), andTZ}lLCS 5129A-2 (Commercial Bribe Receiving), and thereafter, the defendant did

perform and attempt to perform an act to carry on and facilitate the promotion and carrying on of

said unlawfrrl activity;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952(a)(3).

 Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9

COUIIT X'OUR

The SPECIAL DECEMBER 2017 GRAND JURY turther charges:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 13 of Count One of this indictment are incorporated here.

2. Prior to on or about November 29,2078, the Federal Bureau of Investigation had

initiated an investigation of Alderman A and CUI concerning potential violations of federal

criminal law.

3. One issue material to the investigation was the reason why CUI offered to hire

Alderman A as a tax appeal attomey in or around August 2017.

4. On or about November 29,2018, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division,

CHARLES CUI,

defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent

statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the government ofthe United States, when

he stated the following:

 Case: 1:19-cr-00322 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/19 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10

i. CUI had made no business offers to Alderman A during the pole signage matter;

ii. CUI offered business to Alderman A "just because he is a good tax appeal lawyer";

iii. The information CUI provided to federal agents during his interview was accurate

to the best ofhis knowledge.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(aX2).

A TRUE BILL:

FOREPERSON

I-INITED STATES ATTORNEY

10