Steven Ingersoll, an OG of OC (organized crime)!
Ingersoll's history of bribing conspirators, intimidating witnesses and getting kickbacks from gang members. Why, this sounds like something out of a RICO hearing! I feel like I'm back in Brooklyn.
Due to the overwhelming amount of information contained in the prosecution's February 19 sentencing brief, I'm publishing the document section by section. Where comments are appropriate, I will interject. Otherwise, you're reading the prosecution's statement.
Ingersoll’s Leadership Role in the Criminal Conspiracy Warrants A Four-Point Enhancement.
Steven Ingersoll’s ability to direct others to engage in actions that serve his
benefit has been manifested in a variety of ways:
The court is well aware of the three circuitous transactions orchestrated by
Ingersoll involving $30,000, then $200,000, and also $704,000 transferred between
Ingersoll’s Madison Arts account, to accounts belonging to Tammy and Roy
Bradley, to Gayle Ingersoll’s accounts, and on to Steven Ingersoll and Deborah
Ingersoll’s personal bank accounts.
The court is also aware of the evidence
presented at trial of the transactions conducted by Deborah Ingersoll, including
structured cash deposits and moving money through an account in her own name.
The attorney for Gayle Ingersoll acknowledged that there was no economic
purpose to the transactions that went through Gayle Ingersoll’s accounts.
Tammy Bradley told her brother, Roy Richard, that the series of $200,000 transactions were effectuated because Steven Ingersoll wanted to get back the $200,000 paid to buy the church that was converted into the Bay City Academy.
Tammy Bradley has told the court that she did what she was asked to do, without asking questions.
It is reasonable to infer that Steven Ingersoll was the person who set the
transactions in motion since he was the ultimate financial beneficiary of each
Tammy Bradley reluctantly acknowledged during her testimony at
Ingersoll’s sentencing hearing that almost all of the Bradleys’ income came from
Ingersoll and his entities.
Tammy and Roy Bradley’s willingness to give Ingersoll
a kickback of almost a million dollars of the money paid to them for the work
performed by their company on Steven Ingersoll’s projects is compelling evidence
of the management authority exercised by Ingersoll as part of the conspiracy.
In addition, Steven Ingersoll told Kaye Mentley, after the construction loan for BCA was approved, that the “seed money” that GTA had provided to BCA could be returned.
Tammy Bradley declined to answer the questions put to her regarding who
instructed her to engage in those transactions and what was said to her as to why
she should perform her part, during her testimony at the Ingersoll sentencing
The totality of the evidence before the court demonstrates that Ingersoll was
able to effectuate the transactions that contributed to him having substantial
unreported income in 2011, as well as 2009 and 2010, because he controlled the
GTA accounts and books.
Ingersoll was able to conceal those transactions because
he employed and directed the actions of his staff members, Margo Abbott, Heidi
Weber, and Stacey Young, as well as CPA Anthony Henning.
Ingersoll has even convinced counsel for the GTA board that it was in the interest of GTA to forgive Ingersoll’s theft of millions of taxpayer dollars intended for the use and benefit of GTA students.
In further support of the government’s contention that Steven Ingersoll should be assessed 4 points for his leadership role in the conspiracy, the government has presented the testimony of IRS-CI Special Agent Nicholas Russo regarding transactions with CS Computing.
The documentary evidence shows that Roy and Tammy Bradley paid $46,000 to CS Computing for work to be done on the BCA school renovation project and deducted that expense on their taxes.
However, when CS Computing
subsequently had reason to return the bulk of that money, $43,378, they made the
check to SSB, one of Steven Ingersoll’s solely owned entities – not the Bradleys –
as Ingersoll directed.
The day after Ingersoll deposited that check into the SSB account, he
moved $23,029.89 into a payroll account and $20,000 into his bank account for
The following day, Ingersoll transferred $20,000 from the SSI account to one of his personal accounts.
This series of transactions demonstrate, once again, Ingersoll’s ability to direct others to engage in financial transactions that
benefitted Ingersoll and his entities over the interests of others, such as Roy and
Tammy Bradley, who were economically dependent on Ingersoll. [NOTE: Additional comments from Russo in his affidavit -- “This is yet another in a series of transactions, in addition to those demonstrated at trial, in which Ingersoll was able to direct people to engage in financial transactions. The transaction amounted to business “sleight-of-hand” designed to result in personal financial benefit for Ingersoll, and sometimes for others, such as the Bradleys in this instance. The individual events Ingersoll orchestrated appear to be legitimate business transactions when viewed in isolation. Yet, detailed analysis of the series of money transfers between different parties, as Ingersoll arranged and described here, reveals additional details of the fraud scheme organized and directed by Ingersoll, and from which Ingersoll took the greatest personal benefit.”]
There is reason to believe that Ingersoll induced Roy and Tammy Bradley to
become involved in Ingersoll’s acquisition of real estate, too.
For example, on
April 29, 2011, Roy Bradley took an interest in a piece of real estate in Bay City
via a warranty deed.
On February 28, 2012, Roy and Tammy Bradley quitclaimed their interests in the same property to Farragut Schoolhouse LLC, one of Ingersoll’s many solely owned entities.
Such manifestations of coordinated, conspiratorial actions organized by Ingersoll seem to be limitless.
An additional manifestation of Ingersoll’s leadership and control warrants serious consideration by the court: Ingersoll also orchestrated the actions of others in his effort to avoid being found guilty of the crimes charged in the indictment against him.
Ingersoll, in large measure, sought to take control of Roy Bradley’s defense in a related criminal case involving illegal asbestos removal during the renovation of a church into the Bay City Academy building.
Roy Bradley’s attorney in the asbestos case described Ingersoll’s conduct [NOTE: attorney Elias Escobedo from December 19, 2014 hearing]:
Each time that I met with Mr. Bradley at his home, there would be Steve Ingersoll, Mr. Bradley, occasionally Jerry Essex [Bradley’s co-defendant in the asbestos case], and on one or two occasions Gayle Ingersoll. Steve Ingersoll was dictating, orchestrating or directing, if you will, the defense.
He was even attempting to convince me to introduce evidence into trial that was not consistent with the rules of evidence.
It became apparent to me that I was not representing Roy Bradley, that I was probably representing more than anybody else, in some form or fashion, Steve Ingersoll.
The court found that Steven Ingersoll, Gayle Ingersoll, Roy Bradley, Tammy Bradley (all codefendants in the present case), joined by Kristy Bradley (Roy and Tammy Bradley’s daughter), engaged in conduct resulting in the intimidation of
government witness which, in turn, warranted a bond modification for those co-defendants.
The court also observed that Steven Ingersoll was an unindicted co-defendant in the asbestos case at one point during Roy Bradley’s trial on those charges.
Kristy Bradley’s involvement with Ingersoll and his schemes was not limited
to preparing trial subpoenas, however.
She also improperly notarized and served
as a witness on a quit claim deed transferring real property from Steven Ingersoll
to Gerald Essex, supposedly in exchange for $25,000 and “other valuable
consideration” approximately a month after Roy Bradley and Gerald Essex were
indicted together in the asbestos case.
Essex’ ability to actually pay the recited consideration is questionable, since his request for appointed counsel was granted based on his lack of financial resources and his only known income stream at that time was the very modest cash wages he received under the table from Roy and Tammy Bradley for working on Ingersoll’s projects.
In short, Ingersoll undertook effective measures to dissuade Roy Bradley
and Gerald Essex from cooperating with the government or accepting the
government’s plea offers.
Ingersoll also organized and led the witness intimidation
efforts during the Bradley and Essex asbestos trial, recognizing that his financial
empire could continue if he successfully demonstrated to his co-conspirators that
he would assist them in avoiding responsibility for their crimes.
Similarly, on March 26, 2015, just a couple of weeks after he was convicted
by a jury, Ingersoll transferred his interest in another piece of real estate to KyleAndrezjewski.
Andrezjewski was an employee of Roy Bradley and a person that the government repeatedly but unsuccessfully sought to serve with a subpoena to testify at trial.
The address for Andrezjewski on the deed from Ingersoll is for a place owned by Steven Ingersoll. It is also where Gayle Ingersoll testified that he lived during the trial.
The deed from Steven Ingersoll to Andrezjewski was notarized by Kristy Bradley, using her married name, Kristy Wyson.
The implication from these facts is that Ingersoll rewarded Andrezjewski for not testifying at trial, just as Ingersoll rewarded Gerald Essex regarding the asbestos trial.
In sum, Ingersoll’s ability to recruit participants in all of his complex schemes demonstrates his leadership position in his organization consistent with a
4-point role assessment under USSG §3B1.1(a).