(CNSNews.com) - The Department of Justice has declined to prosecute an FBI agent—who has now resigned—who worked for an FBI contractor while still with the FBI, made “false representations” relating to mortgage loans, filed false financial disclosure forms and “exchanged sexually explicit text messages” on a government cell phone, according to the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Justice.
“Prosecution of the SSA was declined,” the IG said in an investigative summary.
The IG issued the investigative summary on February 5. On March 15, CNSNews.com asked the Justice Department six questions about the case. The department has not responded.
“The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General initiated this investigation upon the receipt of information alleging that a Federal Bureau of Investigation Supervisory Special Agent (SSA), engaged in outside employment with an FBI contractor without FBI approval; falsely represented material facts on mortgage loan documents; and misused the SSA’s government vehicle,” said the IG’s investigative summary.
“During the course of its investigation, the OIG found indications that the SSA accepted gifts from an applicant for FBI employment, a prohibited source; used FBI resources to vet clients for the contractor with whom the SSA was employed; made false statements on annual financial disclosure forms; and misused the SSA’s government cell phone,” the summary said.
“The SSA resigned during the course of the investigation after the OIG sought to interview the SSA,” it said.
“The OIG investigation substantiated that the SSA violated federal law or regulation in making false representations related to two mortgage loans and filing false annual disclosure forms by not reporting income received from the contractor,” the IG’s summary said.
“The OIG investigation also substantiated that the SSA violated federal law or regulations, and FBI ethics policies, by working for a contractor that was currently under contract with the FBI, accepting gifts from an applicant for FBI employment and assisting the applicant in the selection process, misusing the SSA’s government vehicle by allowing family members to ride in the vehicle, and exchanging sexually explicit text messages on the SSA’s government cell phone,” the IG’s summary said.
“Prosecution of the SSA was declined,” it said.
[The passage above from the IG's investigative summary cites the IG's conclusion that an FBI supervisory special agent filed false financial disclousre forms and exchanged sexually explicit text messages on a government phone.]
“The OIG has completed its investigation and provided its report to the FBI for appropriate action,” it said.
CNSNews.com submitted six questions about this case to the Department of Justice’s press office on Friday, March 15, 2019 at 4:14 p.m.
Those questions were: 1) To which prosecutor was this case referred? 2) Why did the prosecutor decline to prosecute this FBI SSA? 3) Is this former FBI SSA receiving a pension from the federal government? 4) Was this FBI SSA, who resigned, allowed to keep his security clearance? 5) What is the name of the FBI contractor that hired this FBI agent when he was still on active duty with the FBI? 6) Was any action taken against this FBI contractor? If so, what was that action? If not, why not?
When DOJ did not respond, CNSNews.com submitted the questions again at 8:54 a.m. today. As of 5:00 p.m. today, DOJ still had not responded.
In relation to a previous case in which the Justice Department declined to prosecute a senior DOJ official whom the IG determined had sexually assaulted a subordinate, the DOJ indicated to CNSNews.com that it does not comment on investigative referrals that do not result in public charges and that it does not comment on personnel matters or the security clearances of specific individuals.
In response to inquiries from CNSNews.com about another case in which the DOJ declined to prosecute an FBI agent who mishandled classified information and provided misleading testimony, the DOJ provided a general explanation for who it handles referrals from its inspector general.
“When the IG develops reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of Federal criminal law, the IG is required by the IG Act to refer the matter to a prosecutor,” a DOJ spokesperson told CNSNews.com then.
“The IG presents their cases directly to the prosecuting offices, and the prosecutors make the decisions about whether to accept or decline cases for prosecution,” DOJ said then. “Those decisions are made looking at the law and the facts.”
“The process by which a particular prosecuting office is chosen varies, and is primarily determined by the location where the alleged offense occurred, i.e., the proper venue for a prosecution,” said the DOJ. “There are instances in which the Department, through the ODAG [Office of the Deputy Attorney General], determines to what USAO [U.S. Attorney Office] we present our case, i.e., when a particular office may have a conflict and needs to be recused from handling the case.”