RSS
Home
Is the Ferriero Case Really Fraud?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Joseph Ferriero was charged with fraud by a federal prosecutor sharply on the heels of the successful prosecution of State Senator Joseph Coniglio. The two cases have often been intermingled in commentary as indication of the corrupt democrat regime of Bergen County. However the cases could not be more different.
State Senator Coniglio was found guilty of fraud in a quid pro quo case involving payment for his consultation services in return for routing of state funding to the Hackensack University Medical Center. This is unquestionably a correct basis for fraud. For one, Senator Coniglio was holding office, held direct influence of state funding for his district, wherein the hospital was located, and the state funds were directed to the exclusion of other perhaps more deserving hospitals. Direction of funds in this manner could serve only one purpose, the enriched lining of the senator’s pocket.
The case of Ferriero and Dennis Oury is more complex. They are charged with fraud on the basis of attempting to obscure their involvement in Government Grants Consulting LLC, a grant lobbying company. Federal prosecutors claim that Ferriero and Oury started the grant lobbying company then from behind layers of this company they attempted to use Ferriero’s influence to help towns obtain state and county grants. The company then received a percentage of the grants received as payment; this was then split among the shareholders of the company which included Ferriero and Oury.
At cursory glance what stands out most in this case as compared to Senator Coniglio is that neither Ferriero or Oury actively hold public office. They have no direct control of the issuance of state funds, only influence. Granted Ferriero is the Democrat Party boss for Bergen County but where is the quid pro quo? Aside from the very suspicious manner in which these two men conducted their business, obscuring the level of their investments, naming lesser partners as corporate officers and presenting Ferriero’s endorsement of the grant applications; there was still a risk that the grant would not be processed and the application was handled in an appropriate manner by state officials.
Unless federal prosecutors can show real evidence of a quid pro quo or that the grant application was provided to the detriment of some other more deserving project, this case has all the markings of a normal business transaction in the form of a lobbying service. Ferriero is likely to dodge the bullet that his opponents had prematurely fired.
Related Articles:
Comments
.jpg)
