Case 1:21-cr-00443-TSC Document1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 1of8
`Case 1:21-cr-00443-TSC Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 1 of 8
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`v.
`
`SERIS SECURITY NV,
`DANNY VANDORMAEL,
`PETER VERPOORT,and
`JEAN PAUL VAN AVERMAET
`
`Criminal No.
`
`Filed:
`
`Violation: 15 U.S.C. § 1
`Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade
`
` Defendants.
`
`The Grand Jury charges thatatall times relevant to this Indictment:
`
`COUNT ONE
`Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade
`(15 U.S.C. § 1)
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`1.
`
`The Department of Defense maintains military bases in Belgium to protect the
`
`national security of the United States. On behalf of the United States government, the Department
`
`of Defense enters into and funds contracts for security services with SERIS SECURITY NV and
`
`others to protect these physical locations and the safety ofpersonnelstationed there.
`
`2.
`
`Security services include individual guards protecting physical buildings, mobile
`
`monitoringofcertain locations, and electronic surveillance of defined areas. Individual customers,
`
`including the Department of Defense, seeking security services issued tenders and invited firms to
`
`bid on these contracts. These tenders listed the location to be guarded, the duration ofthe services,
`
`and the overall scope ofservices sought. When a company submitted a winning bid,it was selected
`
`to enter into a contract with the customer for the provision of the services sought.
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cr-00443-TSC Document1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 2 of 8
`Case 1:21-cr-00443-TSC Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 2 of 8
`
`DEFENDANTS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS
`
`3.
`
`Defendant SERIS SECURITY NV (“SERIS”) was a company organized and
`
`existing under the laws of Belgium and hadits principal place of business in Brussels, Belgium.
`
`SERIS was a provider ofsecurity services to a variety of customers in Belgium. Defendant SERIS
`
`submitted bids for and was awarded contracts for the provision of security services in Belgium,
`
`including those with the United States, through the Department of Defense.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant DANNY VANDORMAEL (“VANDORMAEL?”)wasa resident and
`
`citizen of Belgium. From atleast as early as 2007 and continuing until 2020, the exact dates being
`unknown to the Grand Jury, VANDORMAELwas employed as the Chief Executive Officer for
`
`SERIS,and in that role oversaw the provision of security services.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant PETER VERPOORT (“VERPOORT”) wasa resident and citizen of
`
`Belgium. From atleast as early as 2007 and continuing until 2020, the exact dates being unknown
`
`to the Grand Jury, VERPOORTwasemployed as the Director, Guarding & Monitoring for SERIS,
`
`andin that role was responsible for the guarding and monitoring services provided by SERIS.
`
`6.
`
`G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS NV (“G48”), charged elsewhere, was a company
`
`organized and existing under the laws of Belgium and had its principal place of business in
`Brussels, Belgium. G4S was a provider ofsecurity services to a variety ofcustomers in Belgium.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant JEAN PAUL VAN AVERMAET (“VAN AVERMAET”) was a
`
`resident and citizen of Belgium. From atleast as early as 2010 and continuing until 2020, the exact
`
`dates being unknownto the Grand Jury, VAN AVERMAETwasemployedas the ChiefExecutive
`
`Officer for G4S, andin that role oversaw the provision of security services.
`
`8.
`
`Individual 1 resided in Belgium and was employedas the Sales Director for G4S,
`
`and in that role was responsible for the sales of security services provided by G4S.
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cr-00443-TSC Document1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 3of8
`Case 1:21-cr-00443-TSC Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 3 of 8
`
`9.
`
`Individual 2 resided in Belgium and was employed as the Operations Director for
`
`GAS,andin that role was responsible for security services operations at G4S.
`10.
`Company A was a company organized and existing underthe laws ofBelgium and
`
`hadits principal place of business in Brussels, Belgium. Company A was a provider of security
`
`services to a variety of customers in Belgium.
`
`11.
`
`Individual 3 resided in Belgium and was employed as the Country President for
`
`Company A,andin that role oversaw the provision of security services.
`
`12.
`
`Individual 4 resided in Belgium and was employed as the Director of Guarding
`
`Operations for Company A, and in that role was responsible for the guarding and monitoring
`
`services provided by Company A.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant SERIS, G4S, and Company A were competitors in the security services
`
`industry in Belgium.
`
`14.
`
`Various corporations and individuals, not made Defendants in this Indictment,
`
`participated as co-conspirators in the offense charged herein and performed acts and made
`
`statements in furtherance thereof.
`
`15.
`
`Wheneverin this Indictment reference is made to any act, deed, or transaction of
`
`any corporation,the allegation means that the corporation engagedin the act, deed, or transaction
`
`by or throughits officers, directors, agents, employees, or other representatives while they were
`
`actively engaged in the management,direction, control, or transaction ofits business oraffairs.
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cr-00443-TSC Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 4 of 8
`Case 1:21-cr-00443-TSC Document1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 4 of 8
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE
`
`16.
`
`Beginning at least as early as Spring 2019 and continuing until as late as Summer
`
`2020, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, the Defendants
`
`SERIS SECURITY NV,
`DANNY VANDORMAEL,
`PETER VERPOORT,and
`JEAN PAUL VAN AVERMAET
`
`and their co-conspirators entered into and engaged in a combination and conspiracy to suppress
`
`and eliminate competition by allocating customers, rigging bids, and fixing prices for contracts for
`
`the provision of security services in Belgium, including those with the United States, through the
`
`Department of Defense, and those with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
`
`Communications and Information Agency (the “NCI Agency”), which is funded in part by the
`
`United States. The combination and conspiracy engaged in by the Defendants and their co-
`
`conspirators was a per se unlawful, and thus unreasonable,restraint of interstate and foreign trade
`
`and commercein violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1).
`
`17.
`
`The charged combination and conspiracy consisted of a continuing agreement,
`
`understanding, and concert of action among the Defendants and their co-conspirators,
`
`the
`
`substantial terms of which were that they would allocate customers, rig bids, and fix prices for
`
`contracts for the provision of security services in Belgium, including contracts with the United
`
`States and the NCI Agency, by coordinating price increases; submitting artificially-determined,
`
`non-competitive, inflated bids; and refraining from bidding for certain contracts. The objective of
`
`the conspiracy was to be awarded certain security services contracts, including those with the
`
`United States, through the Department of Defense, and those with the NCI Agency, whichis
`
`funded in part by the United States, and receive payments for those contracts, including from the
`
`Department of Defense, at non-competitive, inflated prices for the duration of the contracts.
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cr-00443-TSC Document1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 5 of8
`Case 1:21-cr-00443-TSC Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 5 of 8
`
`MEANS AND METHODS OF THE CONSPIRACY
`
`18.
`
`For the purpose of forming and carrying out
`
`the charged combination and
`
`conspiracy, the Defendants and co-conspirators did those things that they combined and conspired
`
`to do, including, among otherthings:
`
`(a)
`
`attending meetings and engaging in discussions during which they agreed to
`
`allocate customers, rig bids, and fix prices. For example, on September 17, 2019, VAN
`
`AVERMAETorganized a“BVBOcoordination” breakfast meeting with VANDORMAEL
`
`and Individual 3 at a hotel in Belgium;
`
`(b)_participating in meetings to discuss which co-conspirator would submit the winning
`
`bid on particular tenders, including those issued by the Department of Defensefor locations
`
`in Belgium. For example, on December 16, 2019, to facilitate allocation of upcoming
`
`tenders, VERPOORTsent an email to Individual 1, Individual 2, and Individual 4
`
`suggesting each of them prepare a list of contracts “that are important in 2020” for
`
`discussion at a meeting on December 20, 2019;
`
`(c)
`communicating with each other via phone, text message, encrypted messaging
`applications, and email to discuss which co-conspirator would submit the winning bid on
`
`particular tenders, including those issued by the Department of Defense for locations in
`
`Belgium. For example, during March 2020, VANDORMAELsenta series of encrypted
`
`messages to Individual 3 where VANDORMAELsought confirmation from Individual 3
`
`that Company A wouldbid atartificially high prices suggested by VANDORMAELfor a
`
`particular Department of Defense tender. In these messages, VANDORMAELreminded
`
`Individual 3 of the “vice versa” arrangement requiring Company A to submit a non-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cr-00443-TSC Document1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 6 of 8
`Case 1:21-cr-00443-TSC Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 6 of 8
`
`competitive bid in exchange for SERIS having submitted a non-competitive bid for another
`
`contract, which Company A won;
`
`(d)
`
`agreeing, during those meetings and communications, not to compete against each
`
`other for particular tenders, including those issued by the Department of Defense for
`
`locations in Belgium;
`
`(ce)
`
`submitting or withholding bids in accordance with the agreements reached,
`
`including to and from the Department of Defense for locations in Belgium;
`
`(f)
`
`providing security services at collusive and non-competitive prices, including to the
`
`Departmentof Defense at locations in Belgium; and
`
`(g)
`
`receiving payments for security services at collusive, non-competitive prices,
`
`including from the Department ofDefense for locations in Belgium.
`
`TRADE AND COMMERCE
`
`19.
`
`The United States solicited bids from and entered into contracts with the
`
`Defendants for security services provided to United States military bases in Belgium. The charged
`
`combination and conspiracy had a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on U.S.
`
`interstate, import, and export trade and commerce,andthateffect, in part, gives rise to this charge.
`
`The charged combination and conspiracy also had a substantial and intended effect in the United
`
`States.
`
`20.
`
`For example:
`
`(a)
`
`the charged combination and conspiracy prevented the
`
`DepartmentofDefensefrom receiving true competition for bids on a contract for security services
`
`in Belgium; (b) the charged combination and conspiracy also caused the Department of Defense
`
`to pay non-competitive prices for security services providedat military bases andinstallations in
`
`Belgium; and (c) proposals, contracts, invoices for payment, payments, and other documents and
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cr-00443-TSC Document1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 7 of8
`Case 1:21-cr-00443-TSC Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 7 of 8
`
`items essential to the provision ofsecurity services were transmitted in foreign trade and commerce
`
`between the Defendants and their co-conspirators located in Belgium and their customers located
`
`in the United States and elsewhere.
`
`21.
`
`The business activities of Defendants and their co-conspirators in connection with
`
`the security services contracts that are the subject of this Indictment were within the flow of, and
`
`substantially affected, commerce amongthe states and with foreign nations.
`
`ALL IN VIOLATION OF TITLE 15, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION1.
`
`Dated:
`
`A TRUE BILL
`
`FOREPERSON
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cr-00443-TSC Document1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 8 of 8
`Case 1:21-cr-00443-TSC Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 8 of 8
`
`ChMAER.
`
`RICHARD A. POWERS
`Acting Assistant Attorney General
`
`Premges)
`LOeS)N.PRICE,JR.
`
`Director of Criminal Enforcement
`
`Ah
`
`JOSEPH MUOIO
`Chief, New York Office
`
`U.S. Departmentof Justice
`Antitrust Division
`
`Ter MY
`
`EYITAYO ST. MATTHEW-DANIEL
`Assistant Chief, New York Office
`
`fg. &.
`
`BRYAN SERINO
`DINA HOFFER
`. KATHRYN KUSHNER
`Trial Attorneys, New York Office
`
`U.S. Departmentof Justice
`Antitrust Division
`26 Federal Plaza, Suite 3630
`New York, NY 10278
`Tel: 212-335-8000
`
`