Caldero Indictment

Case: 1:21-cr-00132 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/21 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:1
FIL ED AJS
4/2021
2/2
. BRUTO N UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
THOMA.SDG
IS T R IC T COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CLERK, U.S
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) No. 1:21-cr-00132

)
V. ) Violations: Title 18, United
) States Code, Sections
ROBERTO CALDERO ) 666(a)(2), 1343, 1346,
) 1952(a)(3), and 2
Judge Steven C. Seeger
COUNT ONE
Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cummings
The SPECIAL JANUARY 2019 GRAND JURY charges:
1. At times material to this indictment:
a. Defendant ROBERTO CALDERO was a resident of Chicago and
worked as a consultant.
The Custodial Services Contract
b. The Chicago Public Schools ("CPS") was an independent school
district and unit of local government governed by the Board of Education of the City
of Chicago (the "CBOE"). The CBOE was a governing body whose members were
appointed by the Mayor of the City of Chicago and were responsible for the
governance, organizational and financial oversight.of CPS. The Mayor of the City of
Chicago selected, and the CBOE approved the appointment of, the CPS Chief
Executive Officer (the "CPS CEO"), who was responsible for the management of CPS.
The CBOE and CPS received in excess of $10,000 in federal benefits for the calendar
year 2016.
c. In or around April 20L6, CPS solicited confidential non-public
proposals from companies willing to enter into a contract with CPS to provide
custodial services, engineering operations, and other trade services within Chicago
public schools for a three-year term (the "custodial services contract"). Owing to the
size, d.uration, and. possible extensions of the custod.ial services contract, the company
or cempanies awarded the custodial services contract were projected to receive total
payments,exceeding approximately $1 billion under the contract.
d. An evaluation committee (the "Evaluation Committee"), which
included representatives from various departments within CPS, was tasked to review
all proposals and to recommend to CBOE which company or companies should win
the custodial services contract. The Evaluation Committee's meetings were not
public and its discussions were to be treated as confi,d.ential. The CBOE was
responsible for deciding what company or companies would be awarded the custodial
services contract.
CPS Employee A was a CPS employee and a member of the

Evaluation Committee. CPS Employee A owed a duty of honest services to CPS and
the CBOE in the performance of CPS Employee A's duties. The CPS Code of Ethics
prohibited CPS Employee A from accepting anything of value, including, but not
limited to, a gifb, favor or promise of future employment based upon any explicit or
implicit mutual understanding that CPS Employee A's offi.cial actions would be
influenced. The CPS Code of Ethics further prohibited CPS Employee A from using
2
or disclosing confi,dential information gained by reason of CPS Employee lt's position
or employment.
f. Company A was a company based in Cleveland, Ohio, that
provided facility services, including janitorial and custodial services. On or about
JuIy 8, 2016, Company A submitted a proposal to CPS seeking to be award.ed the
custodial services contract or a portion of the custodial services work.
g. Company A retained Individual A and Individual A's company as
its registered lobbyist to help secure the custodial services contract for Company A.
h. CALDERO worked. with Individual A to attempt to secure all or
a portion of the custodial services contract for Company A.
The Honorary Street Name Designation and Park Renaming
i. The City of Chicago was a unit of local government known as a
municipal corporation, and was a political subd.ivision of the State of Illinois. The
City of Chicago received in excess of $10,000 in federal benefi.ts in 2016.
j. Pursuant to a provision of the Municipal

F ,a
Code of Chicago,
commonly known as the honorary street name ord.inance, the City of Chicago
provided. for a process by which streets within the City could be given an honorary
street name designation, so that in addition to a street's real name, the street would
also bear an honorary street name and sign in recognition of a particular individual,
k. The Chicago Park District was a unit of local government and a
politicat subdivision of the State of Illinois. The Chicago Park District Board of
3
Commissioners, the governing body of the Chicago Park District, was responsible for
approving the naming and renaming of parks.
1. Individual B was a resident of Western Springs, Illinois, who,
together with Individual B's relatives, sought to obtain an honorary street name
d.esignation in the name of Individual B's father for a street in Chicago, and to rename
a park after Individual B's grandfather.
m. CALDERO worked. for Individual B and Individual B's relatives
to obtain an honorary street designation for Individual B's father and to rename a
park in the honor of Individual B's grandfather.
The City Council and Alderman A
n. The City of Chicago's legislative branch of government was the
Chicago City Council (the "City Councili'), which was comprised of fifty City Council
members, each of whom represented. one of Chicago's fi.fty. wards, and who were
known as Aldermen. The Aldermen were compensated and publicly elected. As a
consequence of their membership on the City Council and their prominence as loca1
public officia1s, Aldermen were capable of infl.uencing, pressuring, and advising other
local public offrcials within Chicago concerning the business and affairs of the City of
Chicago and associated entities, such as CPS and the Chicago Park District. In
addition, Aldermen were capable of introducing, gathering votes in support for, and
voting on ordinances before the City Council, including those involving honorary
street name designations.
4
o. AldermanAwas Alderman for the Thenty-Fifth Ward in Chicago.
Alderman A was an employee of the City of Chicago, and was paid a salary by the
City of Chicago. As an employee of the City of Chicago, Alderman A owed. a duty of
honest services to the people of the City of Chicago. Unbeknownst to CALDERO and
others, Alderman A was cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
acted at the direction of law enforcement in connection with CALDERO's efforts to
obtain offrcial action from Alderman A and others after his cooperation began.
p. Citizens for Alderman A was an Illinois not-for-profi.t corporation
whose purpose was to support the election of Alderman A.
q. Democratic Orgatizatron A was an unincorporated political
organization whose purpose was to ad.vance the agenda of the Democratic party
within Alderman A's ward.
r. The Municipat Code of Chicago required. any person who, on
behatf of any person other than himself, or as any part of his duties as an employee
of another, und,ertook to influence any legislative or administrative action, including
but not limited to, the introduction, passage or other action to be taken on an
ordinance, resolution, motion, order, appointment or other matter before the City
Council, to register and file activity reports with the City of Chicago Board of Ethics.
2. Beginning in or around April 2016 and continuing to on or about July
L4,2017, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,
ROBERTO CALDERO,
defendant herein, together with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury,
knowingly devised, intended to devise, and participated in a scheme to d.efraud the
people of the City of Chicago of the intangible right to the honest services of CPS
Employee A and Alderman A, through bribery and the boncealment of material facts,
which scheme is further described below.
3. It was part of the scheme that CALDERO promised, gave and offered
public officials and employees, including but not limited to CPS Employee A and
Alderman A, various benefits in exchange for these public offi.cials and employees
taking offi.cial action benefi.tting CALDERO's clients with respect to the award of the
custodial services contract, an honorary street name designation and park renaming,
as d"escribed below.
Bribery in Connection with the Custodial Services Contract

4. It was further part of the scheme that, between in or around April 2016
and continuing through in or around January 2017, CALDERO promised, gave and
offered. CPS Employee A possible future smployment, champagne and discounted
event space for a family event, and admission to an annual benefi.t for a museum, in
exchange for, and the performance of, official acts by CPS Employee A, namely, CPS
6
Employee A's efforts to secure the custodial services contract, or a portion of the
custodial services work, for Compairy A.
5. It was further part of the scheme that in an effort to assist CALDERO,
CPS Employee A volunteered to join the Evaluation Committee for the purpose of
ensuring that Company A's bid was successful.
6. It was further part of the scheme that on multiple occasions between in
or around August 20LG and in or around January 2017, CALDERO sought, and CPS
Employee Aprovideal CALDERO, what CALDERO knew to be non-public confidential
CPS information concerning the Evaluation Committee's deliberations, including,
but not limited to, information about the Evaluation Committee's views about
Company A's bid, and weaknesses raised by other Evaluation Committee members
concerning Company A s bid.
7. Itwas furtherpart ofthe scheme that, in exchange for the items of value,
offers and promises CPS Employee A received from CALDERO, CPS Employee A
ad.vocated for Company A's selection for some or all of the custodial services contract
during Evaluation Committee meetings held in or around October 2016, and also
sought to advise and pressure other members of the Evaluation Committee to
eliminate one of Qempanf A's competitors from consideration.
8. It was further part of the scheme that, in exchange for the items of value
and promises received from CALDERO, CPS Employee A provided higher evaluation
scores for Company A's bid and lower scores for some of Company A's competitors in
his capacity as a member of the Evaluation Committee.
9. It was further part of the scheme that on or about September 30, 2016,
for purposes of securing Ald.erman A's assistance with award.ing part or all of the
custod.ial services contract to Company A, CALDERO told Ald.erman A that Company
A wanted assistance from Alderman A with respect to the custdd.ial services contract,
and that CALDERO had told Company A that CALDERO wanted Company A to
provid.e $10,000 to Alderman A's campaign.
10. It was further part of the scheme that on or about October 7, 20L6,
CALDERO again solicited Alderman lt's assistance with respect to the award of the
custodial services contract. CALDERO asked Alderman A to advise and exert
pressure on the Mayor of the City of Chicago to support Company A in its bid for the
'custodial :
A that if Alderman A could "do

services contract, and told Alderman
something" to help Company A, CALDERO.would cause Company A to provide
$10,000 to Alderman A.
11. It was further part of the scheme that on or about October 24, 20L6,
CALDERO offered Ald.erman A $10,000 in campaign contributions from Company A
and $2,500 in campaign contributions from Individual A in exchange for Alderman A
ad"vising and exerting pressure on another public official to cause CBOE to select
Company A for the custodial services contract.
8
L2. It was further part of the scheme that on or about October 24, 2016,
CALDERO sent an email to Alderman A and other members of the Chicago City
Council attaching a d.ocument containing a demand that one of the bidders on the
custodial services contract be excluded from future business with CPS and the City
of Chicago, for use in a letter CALDERO advocated they write the CBOE to eliminate
a competitor of Company A from consid.eration for the custodial services contract.
13. It was further part bf the scheme that on or about November 14, 20L6,
CALDERO, who was unaware that Alderman A .was cooperating with the
government, updated Individual A about the efforts CALDERO believed. Alderman A
was taking to assist Company A with respect to the award. of the custod.ial services
contract, and asked Individual A to write a check for Alderman A.
14. It was further part of the scheme that on or about November L4, 20T6,
Individual A sent CALDERO a text message stating iI hurr" one," referring to a check
for Alderman A.
15. It was further part of the scheme that on.or about November 14,2016,
Individuald sent CALDERO a text message in which he confirmed that a third party
would "write [a] check to [Alderman A]."
16. It was further part of the scheme that on or about November t4, 20L6,
CALDERO met with Alderman A and provided Alderman A with a check from
Individual A made payable to Citizens for Alderman A in the amount of $1,000, in
I
exchang€ for Alderman A pressuring and advising other public officials to support
Company A s bid on the custodial services contract.
L7. It was further part of the scheme that on or about December 6, 20L6,
CALDERO met with Alderman A and reported that a third party had made a
contribution to Alderman A on behalf of Company A and asked Alderman A to secure
a commitment from the CPS CEO to support Company A s bid on the custodial
services contract.
18. It was further part of the scheme that on or about December 7, 2016,
CALDERO caused a check from a third party for $5,000 to be paid to Democratic
Organization A in return for Alderman A pressuring and advising other public

officials to supportr Q6mpan/ A s bid for the custodial services contract.
19. It was further part of the scheme that on or about July 14, 20L7,
CALDERO asked Alderman A to exert pressure on the CPS CEO in support of
Company A s bid on the custodial contract and told Alderman A that Company A had
given Alderman A $5,000 and that Company A would give Alderman A another
$15,000 "if we got this thing done," which was in reference to the award of the
custodial services contract to Company A.
Briberv in Connection with Honorary Street Name and Park Renaming

It was further part of the scheme that between on or about July 15, 2016
.20.
and on or about September 13, 20t6, CALDERO promised Alderman A $50,000 in
campaign contributions from Individual B and Individual B's family in exchange for
10
Alderman A introducing and supporting an ordinance that would provide for an
honorary street name designation for Individual B's father and for advising and
pressuring Chicago Park District offrcials to rename a park in the City of Chicago for
Individual B's grandfather.
2L. It was further part of the scheme that on or about August L7, 20L6,
CALDERO told Alderman A that Ald"erman A would receive a campaign contribution
from Individual B and Individual B's family in exchange for Alderman A's assistance
in having a street named in honor of Individual B's father. CALDERO also told
Alderman A that once the.honorary street designation was completed., Alderman A
could also assist in getting a park renamed in honor of Individual B's grandfather,
and in exchange Ald.erman A would. receive an additional $50,000 in campaiga
contributions from Individual B and Individual B's family.
22. It was further part of the scheme that on or ab.out August 24, 201.6,
CALDERO told ALderman A that Alderman A would receive a $50,000 campaign
contributio.n from Individual B and Individual B's family in exchange for Alderman
A's assistance in having a street named in honor of Individual B's father and a park
renamed in honor of Individual B's grandfather. CALDERO told Alderman A that
the payments would come from businesses that are "related to" Individual B's family
"but not owned by them" because "it can't be [Individual B's last name] on the checks."
23. It was further part of the scheme that on or about September L3,20L6,
CALDERO told Alderman A that in ord.er for Individual B and Ind,ividual B's family
11
to contribute $50,000 to Alderman A, they needed to see some "forward motion" on
having a park renamed for Individual B's grandfather, and that once that happened,
CALDERO would "execute" on the $50,000 contribution.
24. It was further part of the scheme that on or about September 20,2016,
CALDERO asked about the honorary street designation for Individual B's father and
assured Alderman A that CALDERO would "hand.le" getting the campaign
contribution from Individual B.
25. It was further part of the scheme that in or around. October 20L6,
Alderman A introduced an ordinance in the Chicago City Council, which ordered the
City of Chicago Commissioner of Transportation to designate a street in Chicago to
honor Individual B's father.
26. It was further part.of the scheme that on or about December 7, 20L6, a
business owned by Individual B's family made a $5,000 contribution to Democratic
Organization A for the benefi.t of Alderman A.
27. It was further part of the scheme that for purposes of concealing the
illegal activity, CALDERO did not register with the City of Chicago Board of Ethics
as a lobbyist for Individual B, Individual B's family or any entity owned or controlled
by Individual B or Individual B's family.
28. It was further part of the scheme that CALDERO concealed,
misrepresented and hid, and caused to be concealed, misrepresented and hidden, the
existence and purpose of the scheme, and acts done in furtherance of the scheme.
72
29. On or about October 24, 20L6, at Chicago, in the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, and else*here,
ROBERTO CA],DERO,
defeudant herein, for the purpose of executing the scheme, knowingly'caused. to be
transmitted. by merns of a wire communication in interstate commerce, certain
writings, sigas, signals and sounds, namely, an email from CALDERO's Gmail
account to Ald.erman A attaching text that CALDERO sought to be included in a draft
letter from Ald.erman A and others to the CBOE regarding the custodial services
contract, which email was routed across state lings;
In violation of fitle 18, United States Code, Sectirons 1343 and 1346.
13
COUNT TVYO
The SPECIAL JANUARY 2019 GRAND JURY further charges:
L. Paragraphs 1 through 28 of Count One are incorporated here.
2. On or about November 23,2016,at Chicago, in the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,
ROBERTO CALDERO,
defendant herein, for the pulpose of executing the scheme, knowingly caused. to be
transmitted by means of a wire communication in interstate commerce, certain
writings, signs, signals and sounds, namely, an email from CALDERO's Gmail
account to Alderman A with attached talking points to be used by Alderman A to

exert pressure on other public offi.cials regard.ing Company A s bid on the custod.ial
services contract, which email was routed across state lines;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and L346.
L4
COUNT THREE
The SPECIAL JANUARY 2llg GRAND JURY turther charges:
.1. Paragraphe L through 28 of Count One are incorporated here.
2. On or about December 2,2Ai6, at Chicago, in the Northern District of
. Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, '
ROBERTO CALDERO,
defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the scheme, knowingly caused to be
transmitted by means of a wire communication in iriterstate commerce, certain
writings, signs, siguals and sounds, namely, an ema{ from CALDERO's Gmail
account to CPS f,mployee A attaching information regarrling the custodial seryices
act that CALDERO sent to CPS Employee A in support of Qempanf As bid on
the custodial services contract, which email wds routed. across state lines;
In violaticn of fitle 18, United States Code, Sections L343 and 1346.
15
COUNT FOUB
The SPECIAL JANUARY 2019 GRAND JURY further charges:
Paragraphs 1 throu9h2S of Count One are incorporated here.
2. On.or about December 7,201-.6, at Chicago, in the Northern District of
ROBERTO CALDERO,
defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the scheme, knowingly caused to.be
transmitted by means of a wire communication in interstate commerce, certain
writings, signs, signals and sounds, namely, an electronic funds transfer of

approximately $5,000 from BeLnont Bank and Thust to an account at JP Morgan
Chase Bank, routed. through a Chase data center located. in Delaware, which transfer
of funds represented a contribution to Democratie Organization A for the benefit of
Alderman A;
In violation of fit1e 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346.
L6
COUNT FIIIE
The SPECIAL JANUARY zDtg GRAND JURY turther charges:
1. Paragraphs L(a) through 1(h) of Count One are incorporated. here.
2. In or around September 2016, af Chicago, in the Northern District of
ROBERTO CALDERO,
defendant herein, corruptly gave, offered and agreed to give a thing of value, namely,
a d.iscounted rental rate for an event space, and champagne, to and. for the benefit of
CPS Employ.ee A, with intent to influence and reward CPS Employee A, as an agent
of CPS, in connection with anybusiness, transaction and series of transactions of CPS
involving.a fhing of value of $5,000 or more, namely, the award of the custodial
sen ices contract;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(2) and 2.
L7
COUNT SD(
The SPECIAL JANUARY 2019 GRAND ruRY further charges:
On or about November L5, 20L6, at approximately 4:48 p.m. (Session #L7827),
at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,
ROBERTO CALDERO,
defendant herein, used a facility in interstate commerce, namely, a cellular telephone
assigned telephone number (312) XXX-2020, with intent to promote, manage,
establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and
carrying on of an unlawful activity, namety, a violation of 720 ILCS 5/33-1(a)
(Bribery) and,T2OILCS 5/33-1(c) (Bribery), and thereafter, the defendant did perform
and attempt to perform an act to carly on and facilitate the promotion and. carrying
on of said unlawful activity;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1952(a)(3) and 2.
18
COUNT SEVEN
The SPECIAL JANUARY IOLLGRAND JURY turther charges:
On or about December 6, 2016, at approximately L1:51 a.m. (Session #L9L45),
at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,
ROBERTO CALDERO,
defendant herein, used a facility in interstate commerce, namely, a cellular telephone
assigned telephone number (312) XXX-2020, with intent to promote, manage,
establish, carry-on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and
carrying on of an unlawfrrl activity, namely, a violation of 720 ILCS 5/33-1(a)
(Bribery) aId.TZOILCS 5/33-1(c) (Bribery), and thereafber, 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, Sections 1952(a)(3) and 2.
19
EOUNTJIGET
The SPECIAL JANUARY |zOILGRAND JURY further charges:
1. Paragraphs 1(a) and 1(i) through 1(q) of Count One are incorporated
here.
2. On or about August 24, 20L6, at Chicago, in the Northern District of
ROBERTO CALDERO,
defendant herein, corruptly gave, offered and agreed to give a thing of value, namely,
a portion of a proposed $50,000 campaign contribution to and for the benefit of
Alderman A in exchange for Alderman A's introduction, support and vote in favor of
an honorary street name ordinance, with intent to influence and. reward Alderman
A, as an agent of the City of Chicago, in connection with any business, transaction
and series of transactions of the City of Chicago involving a thing of value of $5,000
or more, namely, an honorary street designation in the name of Individual B's father;
In violation of Tit1e 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(2) and2.
A TRUE BILL:
F'OREPERSON
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
20

Caldero Indictment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caldero Indictment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caldero Indictment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:21-cr-00132 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/21 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) No. 1:21-cr-00132

1. At times material to this indictment:

a. Defendant ROBERTO CALDERO was a resident of Chicago and

The Custodial Services Contract

b. The Chicago Public Schools ("CPS") was an independent school

c. In or around April 20L6, CPS solicited confidential non-public

payments,exceeding approximately $1 billion under the contract.

d. An evaluation committee (the "Evaluation Committee"), which

CPS Employee A was a CPS employee and a member of the

or disclosing confi,dential information gained by reason of CPS Employee lt's position

f. Company A was a company based in Cleveland, Ohio, that

provided facility services, including janitorial and custodial services. On or about

JuIy 8, 2016, Company A submitted a proposal to CPS seeking to be award.ed the

custodial services contract or a portion of the custodial services work.

g. Company A retained Individual A and Individual A's company as

h. CALDERO worked. with Individual A to attempt to secure all or

a portion of the custodial services contract for Company A.

The Honorary Street Name Designation and Park Renaming

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

City of Chicago received in excess of $10,000 in federal benefi.ts in 2016.

j. Pursuant to a provision of the Municipal

k. The Chicago Park District was a unit of local government and a

approving the naming and renaming of parks.

1. Individual B was a resident of Western Springs, Illinois, who,

a park after Individual B's grandfather.

m. CALDERO worked. for Individual B and Individual B's relatives

park in the honor of Individual B's grandfather.

The City Council and Alderman A

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

known as Aldermen. The Aldermen were compensated and publicly elected. As a

street name designations.

o. AldermanAwas Alderman for the Thenty-Fifth Ward in Chicago.

City of Chicago. As an employee of the City of Chicago, Alderman A owed. a duty of

acted at the direction of law enforcement in connection with CALDERO's efforts to

p. Citizens for Alderman A was an Illinois not-for-profi.t corporation

whose purpose was to support the election of Alderman A.

q. Democratic Orgatizatron A was an unincorporated political

within Alderman A's ward.

r. The Municipat Code of Chicago required. any person who, on

of another, und,ertook to influence any legislative or administrative action, including

2. Beginning in or around April 2016 and continuing to on or about July

L4,2017, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

which scheme is further described below.

Bribery in Connection with the Custodial Services Contract

offered. CPS Employee A possible future smployment, champagne and discounted

custodial services work, for Compairy A.

5. It was further part of the scheme that in an effort to assist CALDERO,

ensuring that Company A's bid was successful.

6. It was further part of the scheme that on multiple occasions between in

Employee Aprovideal CALDERO, what CALDERO knew to be non-public confidential

CPS information concerning the Evaluation Committee's deliberations, including,

concerning Company A s bid.

sought to advise and pressure other members of the Evaluation Committee to

eliminate one of Qempanf A's competitors from consideration.

his capacity as a member of the Evaluation Committee.

custod.ial services contract to Company A, CALDERO told Ald.erman A that Company

provid.e $10,000 to Alderman A's campaign.

custodial services contract. CALDERO asked Alderman A to advise and exert