Wednesday, February 12, 2025
Google search engine
HomeGENERAL NEWSJermoine 'Jay' C. Brantley, Haneef Z. Saleem, Brian Morris Charged over Multimillion-dollar...

Jermoine ‘Jay’ C. Brantley, Haneef Z. Saleem, Brian Morris Charged over Multimillion-dollar Illegal Import, Fraudulent Distribution of Trichloroisocyanuric Acid

A federal grand jury indicted three defendants in connection with alleged schemes to import from China, fraudulently market, and illegally transport the hazardous chemical trichloroisocyanuric acid (TCCA) in violation of various U.S. laws and regulations.

One of the defendants, Jermoine “Jay” C. Brantley (aka Jay E. Johnson), 52, of Murrieta, Calif., was arrested on September 5 at his home and made an initial appearance in Los Angeles the next day.  The other two defendants— Haneef Z. Saleem, 44, of New York, New York, and Brian Morris, 49, of Peoria, Ariz.—were scheduled to appear with Brantley in San Francisco before U.S. Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse on September 12 to face the charges.

According to the 26-count indictment, filed August 27 and unsealed September 9, all three defendants conspired to commit wire fraud to convince customers and potential customers to buy the TCCA.  In addition, all three defendants are charged with crimes related to the alleged transportation of the chemical from various U.S. ports to other destinations throughout the United States.  Brantley and Saleem are also charged with conspiring to smuggle the TCCA into the United States in violation of various laws and regulations.

The chemical at issue, TCCA, is a product commonly referred to in the swimming pool industry as chlorine.  The indictment describes how, during the early 2020s, a domestic shortage of TCCA and an increase in the tariffs and duties applying to the importation of the chemical from China resulted in a dramatic increase in the price of TCCA in the United States.  

Brantley and Saleem allegedly took steps to smuggle the product into the country without paying applicable tariffs and duties that would have made the price of the product less competitive.  

In addition to the smuggling scheme, the indictment describes how all three defendants allegedly participated in a scheme to fraudulently market and sell the product and arranged to have the hazardous materials transported without the proper paperwork and precautions from U.S. ports to customers throughout the United States.

The indictment alleges Brantley and Saleem avoided tariffs and duties when importing TCCA from China by supplying the wrong import codes to their brokers so that certain duties would not be assessed.  At the time, under the applicable tariff schedule for goods imported into the United States, TCCA was subject to significant “anti-dumping” and “countervailing” duties.  

Brantley and Saleem allegedly avoided paying these anti-dumping and countervailing duties by supplying their brokers with code numbers that misidentified the product, identifying it as “disinfectant” and “swimming pool disinfectant” rather than as TCCA.  According to the indictment, Brantley and Saleem caused 66 TCCA shipments to be imported with codes that did not trigger the applicable tariffs and duties.

In addition to the smuggling conspiracy, the indictment describes several ways in which all three defendants allegedly lured customers into purchasing the imported TCCA by making false representations about the product, including false descriptions of the strength and efficacy of the product and its registration status with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  

According to the indictment, the defendants represented to customers and potential customers that their product contained 99 per cent TCCA when, in fact, it had been diluted with boric acid. The indictment also alleges the defendants falsely represented that they, or their products, were “registered with the EPA.”  

However, the defendants never properly registered with the EPA to import the chemical and attempted to avoid inspections by mislabeling their product with EPA registration numbers for a different manufacturer.  The indictment alleges customers purchased more than $3.2 million in response to the defendants’ fraudulent representations.

The indictment also describes how the defendants allegedly violated rules about transporting oxidizers and hazardous materials.  Defendants’ shipments failed to contain labels identifying the TCCA as a “5.1 oxidizer” and “hazardous material.”

In sum, the defendants are charged with the following crimes and, if convicted, face the following maximum statutory penalties:

DefendantChargeMaximum Statutory Penalties (per count)
All three defendantsConspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud
18 U.S.C. § 1349
(one count)
20 years’ imprisonment; $1,000,000 fine; maximum 3 years’ supervised release
All three defendantsWire Fraud
18 U.S.C. § 1343
(four counts)
20 years’ imprisonment; $1,000,000 fine; 3 years’ supervised release
Brantley and Saleem onlyConspiracy to Smuggle Goods Into the United States
18 U.S.C. § 371
(one count)
5 years’ imprisonment; $250,000 fine; 3 years’ supervised release
Brantley and Saleem onlySmuggling Goods into the United States
18 U.S.C. § 545
(four counts)
20 years’ imprisonment; 3 years’ supervised release; $250,000 fine
Brantley and Saleem onlyEntry of Goods Falsely Classified
18 U.S.C. § 541
(four counts)
2 years’ imprisonment; $250,000 fine; 1 year of supervised release
Brantley and Saleem onlyEntry of Goods by Means of False Statements
18 U.S.C. § 542
(four counts)
2 years’ imprisonment; 1 year of supervised release; $250,000 fine
All three defendantsDistribution or Sale of Unregistered Pesticide
7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(1)(A), (E) & 136l(b)(1)(B)
(two counts)
1 year of imprisonment; 1 year of supervised release; $50,000 fine
All three defendantsDistribution or Sale of Misbranded Pesticide
7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(1)(A), (E) & 136l(b)(1)(B)
(two counts)
1 years of imprisonment; 1 years of supervised release; $250,000 fine
All three defendantsViolation of the Hazardous Substances Act
49 U.S.C. § 5124(c) & (d)
(four counts)
5 years’ imprisonment; 3 years’ supervised release; $250,000 fine

An indictment merely alleges that crimes have been committed, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In addition to the penalties listed above, the defendants may be ordered to pay restitution, if appropriate.

RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisment -
Google search engine

Most Popular