Phillip
L.B. Halpern

United States v. Randy "Duke" Cunningham

The investigation began with a newspaper story about a suspiciously inflated real estate transaction. Within weeks, search warrants had been executed on the war hero's home, his defense contractor's office, and the "Duke-Stir" — a yacht the contractor had moored at Washington's Capitol Yacht Club to serve as the Congressman's home. What emerged was one of the largest congressional bribery cases in American history: more than $2.4 million in bribes in the form of cash, a Rolls-Royce, antiques, lavish vacations, and prostitutes in a hot tub — a corruption so brazen that it required its own price list, which prosecutors dubbed the "bribe menu."

Cunningham pleaded guilty five months after the first newspaper story appeared, wept on the steps of the courthouse, and resigned from Congress. Sentenced to over eight years in federal prison — the longest sentence ever imposed at that time on a sitting member of Congress — the case serves as a reminder that public adulation is no shield from accountability. Although he had completed his prison sentence, President Trump pardoned Cunningham.

Co-lead prosecutor with AUSAs Jason Forge, Sanjay Bhandari, and Valerie Chu.

United States v. Duncan Hunter

Congressman Duncan Hunter and his wife Margaret financed a lifestyle well beyond their means by systematically diverting campaign funds for personal use. Over a seven-year period, the couple overdrew their personal bank account more than a thousand times, incurring tens of thousands of dollars in fees, while misappropriating more than $250,000 in contributions from supporters. The stolen funds paid for a wide range of personal expenses—from luxury travel and extramarital affairs to everyday purchases such as groceries, school tuition, and dining throughout San Diego.

The case took on broader significance because of Hunter’s response. Rather than accept responsibility, he publicly attacked federal law enforcement and prosecutors, invoking a “deep state” conspiracy and using that narrative to secure re-election in 2018 while under indictment. The prosecution highlighted the risk posed when criminal conduct is deflected through misinformation and political rhetoric. Hunter ultimately pleaded guilty, was sentenced to federal prison, and later received a presidential pardon—bringing the case to an end as consequential as its beginning.

⇓ Read the Government's Sentencing Memorandum

Co-lead prosecutor with AUSAs Emily Allen and Mark Conover

United States v. Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, et al.

Kyle "Dusty" Foggo rose to become the Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency—the third-highest position in the agency and the official responsible for its day-to-day operations—before a federal investigation dismantled his career. The case required executing a search warrant inside CIA headquarters, in Foggo's own office, one of the most secure areas of the facility and among the most extraordinary law enforcement actions ever taken against a sitting senior intelligence official.

Connected to the same web of defense contractor corruption that ensnared Duke Cunningham, Foggo was convicted of fraud for steering CIA contracts to a longtime friend in exchange for personal benefits, including luxury travel and accommodations. Because the contracts at issue involved highly classified programs, the defense attempted to "gray mail" the government by forcing disclosure of sensitive information. The prosecution navigated those risks while preserving national security, and the conviction established that even the highest levels of the intelligence community are not beyond the reach of federal criminal law.

Co-lead prosecutor with AUSAs Jason Forge and Valerie Chu.

United States v. Gregory Marino (“Operation Bullpen”)

Operation Bullpen exposed the largest counterfeit sports memorabilia operation in U.S. history—a sprawling scheme that flooded the market with forged autographs spanning the sports world, from Babe Ruth and Joe DiMaggio to Michael Jordan and Joe Montana, as well as celebrities and public figures as disparate as the Beatles, Bob Dylan, and even Mother Teresa. Tens of thousands of fake baseballs, jerseys, photographs, guitars, and novelty items were sold through dealers, auction houses, and seemingly legitimate authentication channels.

Skilled forgers produced convincing signatures in bulk while conspirators generated fraudulent certificates of authenticity, allowing the fakes to command premium prices from collectors who believed they were acquiring genuine artifacts. The case exposed a system built on trust, where authenticity itself became just another commodity—and demonstrated how easily that trust could be manipulated when the safeguards of the marketplace failed.

Sole Prosecutor

United States v. Floyd Landis

This prosecution followed one of cycling’s most dramatic rises and falls. After being stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title for doping, Floyd Landis launched a high-profile defense effort, soliciting hundreds of thousands of dollars from supporters with assurances that the funds would be used to prove his innocence and clear his name. The government established that those representations were false, and that donor funds were diverted to personal expenses.

Landis ultimately pleaded guilty. The case carried a certain irony: a cyclist undone first by substances moving through his bloodstream and later by money moving through electronic wires. His eventual admission of doping helped expose a broader performance-enhancement conspiracy in professional cycling, implicating Lance Armstrong and contributing to a reckoning that reshaped the sport.

Sole Prosecutor

United States v. Saied Asefi Inanlou, et al.

Following the fall of the Shah, the Islamic Republic of Iran faced a critical vulnerability: its air force depended on American-made F-14 Tomcats, and spare parts had become unavailable after the severance of U.S.-Iran relations. Between 1981 and 1985, the defendants orchestrated a scheme to steal sensitive military components—including navigation system gimbals and missile-related parts—from aircraft carriers, maintenance facilities, and supply depots in California, Virginia, Washington State, and the Philippines.

The stolen components were routed through front companies, mislabeled as benign goods, and shipped through international channels to Iran. The investigation uncovered a vast network of at least 20 co-conspirators and shipments worth millions of dollars. The case resulted in substantial prison sentences and prompted lasting reforms in how the Navy safeguards sensitive military equipment, underscoring the national security risks posed by insider theft and illicit export schemes.

Assisted by AUSA C. Stevens Crandall.

United States v. Maureen O'Connor

Maureen O'Connor, a former two-term Mayor of San Diego, was widely regarded as one of the city's most respected public figures. What unfolded in the decade leading up to 2009 was a story of addiction, financial collapse, and the misuse of charitable funds on a staggering scale. O'Connor reported more than $1 billion in gambling winnings to the IRS—but lost even more. As her gambling intensified, casinos flew her by private jet to continue playing. To sustain her gambling and cover mounting losses, she misappropriated approximately $2.1 million from the charitable foundation established by her late husband, Bob Peterson, founder of Jack in the Box.

To conceal the embezzlement and avoid taxes on the diverted funds, she characterized the transfers as loans. In one of the rare federal criminal cases involving the abuse of a charitable organization, O'Connor admitted her misconduct, agreed to repay the foundation in full, and resolved all resulting tax liabilities. The case underscored a simple principle: public esteem, however well-earned, offers no exemption from the law.

Sole Prosecutor.

United States v. Jose Susumo Azano-Matsura, et al.

Jose Susumo Azano-Matsura, a wealthy Mexican defense contractor, injected nearly $600,000 in illegal foreign money into San Diego’s 2012 mayoral race, funding both Democratic and Republican candidates through straw donors, shell corporations, and a network of intermediaries. His objective was straightforward: gain influence over local officials to advance a proposed waterfront development project known as “Miami West,” worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

The evidence included undercover recordings, financial records, and communications reflecting efforts to conceal the true source of the funds. Convicted on 36 felony counts, Azano was sentenced to federal prison, fined more than $560,000, and ordered deported upon his release. The case underscored a clear principle: American elections are not for sale—even to those with substantial resources and access.

Supervising prosecutor, assisting AUSAs Andrew Schopler, Mark Pletcher, Helen Hong, and Billy Joe McLean

United States v. Patrick Frega, et al. (“The Judges Case”)

The corruption in the “Judges” case unfolded not in a back alley, but inside San Diego’s courthouse. Over more than a decade, attorney Patrick Frega provided three sitting Superior Court judges with more than $100,000 in benefits—including car repairs, cash, ghostwritten novels, vacations, and payments to relatives—in exchange for favorable treatment in high-stakes civil cases worth millions of dollars. The most significant testimony came from Judge Michael Greer, the former presiding judge, who cooperated and admitted accepting substantial bribes.

Because prosecuting state court judges in federal court presented novel legal challenges, the case was charged under RICO. This innovative approach was controversial at the time, both for its use of state-law bribery as predicate acts and for treating the San Diego Superior Court as the enterprise. All three judges were convicted, exposing a system in which judicial decisions had been quietly influenced by personal favors and financial benefit.

Co-lead prosecutor with AUSA Charles LaBella, assisted by AUSAs Steve Clark, Tom McNamara, Kevin Kelly, and John Kirby

United States v. Hilma Marie Witte, et al.

Most criminal conspiracies are driven by money or greed. The Witte case was driven by something more disturbing: a mother’s authority over her own children. Hilma Marie Witte orchestrated the murders of her husband and mother-in-law by recruiting her children to carry out the killings, turning familial trust into the instrument of the crime. The facts were extraordinary.

Her husband was killed by her oldest child in a staged hunting accident. The mother-in-law was killed by the younger child with a crossbow; her body dismembered and partially concealed in the family garden. As suspicion grew, the remains were placed in a Coleman cooler, transported across the country in the family RV, and ultimately discarded in the Otay Mesa landfill in San Diego. The case revealed a chilling inversion of a fundamental role: the person expected to protect became the architect of harm, using family trust as both shield and weapon.

Sole Prosecutor

United States v. Robert Morales

The largest bribery case ever brought against an IRS agent began with a simple premise: the man responsible for enforcing the nation’s tax laws had instead converted his position into a private toll booth. Over the course of roughly a decade, Morales accepted more than $600,000 in bribes from a wealthy taxpayer in exchange for shielding him from audits and helping conceal millions of dollars in income from the government. The scheme was anything but crude.

Morales and his son constructed a maze of sham corporations, ghost employees, and phony payroll checks, laundering payments through relatives while living far beyond his reported salary—cars, investments, and Super Bowl tickets. The investigation culminated in an undercover operation in which Morales agreed to launder what he believed to be drug proceeds, sealing his fate. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy, bribery, money laundering, and tax fraud, and was sentenced to 12 years in federal prison—an IRS agent undone by his own accounting.

Assisted by DOJ Trial Attorney Steven Ward.

United States v. Mario Saikhon

Mario Saikhon, a wealthy Imperial Valley farmer, orchestrated an expansive tax evasion scheme that grew increasingly complex until it collapsed under its own weight. Over a period of years, he concealed millions in income by partnering with a corrupt IRS agent—the same agent at the center of the Morales prosecution—paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for audit protection and inside guidance on how to evade detection.

Rather than relying on a single method, Saikhon constructed a sprawling paper architecture of sham corporations, nominee accounts, and fictitious payroll arrangements designed to siphon off profits while minimizing reported income. The relationship evolved into a decade-long criminal enterprise. When investigators followed the money to Mexico City and back, Saikhon was convicted of conspiracy, tax evasion, and bribery—the largest individual criminal tax prosecution in the history of the Internal Revenue Service.

Sole Prosecutor.

United States v. Robert Bradley, et al.

The Bradley case broke new ground in federal tax enforcement: it was the first criminal tax prosecution brought against a charitable foundation in the United States. Bradley and his co-conspirators created what appeared to be a legitimate charitable entity, but in reality used it as a vehicle for financial fraud—exploiting both its tax-exempt status and the public trust afforded to charitable organizations to conceal conduct that was anything but charitable.

The prosecution required navigating novel legal terrain, as no prior federal criminal tax case had targeted a charitable foundation as the instrument of the offense. The case expanded the government’s ability to address abuse of the charitable form and established that nonprofit status, grounded in public trust, does not extend to conduct designed for private benefit.

Sole Prosecutor

United States v. A&W Sales Corp., et al.

A Hepatitis A outbreak spread through grade schools across the Midwest, infecting hundreds of students and teachers. Federal investigators traced the source to a food contractor that had cut corners in its production and distribution processes. The prosecution of A&W Sales Corp. held a corporate defendant directly accountable for the human cost of those failures—children sickened, families disrupted, and a community's trust in the school lunch program shaken.

The case demonstrated that federal criminal enforcement is not confined to financial misconduct but extends to corporate practices that cause direct and measurable harm. Securing a conviction required building a chain of evidence from contaminated strawberries harvested in Mexico, through importation into the United States, and into the company's production process. The prosecution established a clear principle: cutting corners on safety is not merely a regulatory failure, but a federal crime.

Assisted by AUSA Melanie Pierson.

United States v. Javid Naghdi

Javid Naghdi, a pharmacist, operated an international counterfeit prescription drug ring of extraordinary scale—the largest such case ever prosecuted by the Food and Drug Administration. He assembled the equipment, raw materials, and packaging necessary to manufacture counterfeit pharmaceuticals and marketed them to distributors at below-market prices, falsely claiming access to bulk inventory through a high-volume pharmaceutical operation. After being indicted and posting bail, he fled to London, where he continued running the scheme from abroad, apparently calculating that distance from the United States would place him beyond reach. He was wrong.

Working with British authorities, Halpern launched a complex undercover operation in which a federal agent posed as a pharmaceutical wholesaler negotiating a multi-million-dollar purchase. The operation led to Naghdi’s arrest in London and his return to the United States, where he was sentenced to 14 years in federal prison. The case stands as a landmark in FDA criminal enforcement. It demonstrates that large-scale pharmaceutical counterfeiting—whether domestic or international—will be pursued relentlessly, and that those who attempt to evade justice by operating from abroad will ultimately be brought back to face it.

Sole Prosecutor

United States v. Metabolife International, et al.

At its peak, Metabolife International was the nation’s largest company in the dietary supplement industry, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue from ephedra-based weight-loss products. The federal case exposed a systematic pattern of concealment: the company had received reports of serious adverse health events—heart attacks, strokes, and seizures—linked to its products and failed to disclose them to the FDA as required by federal law, choosing revenue over the health and safety of its customers.

The prosecution contributed to the eventual ban on ephedra-containing supplements and established an important precedent for corporate accountability in an industry that had long operated in a regulatory gray area. The case demonstrated that the supplement market is not beyond the reach of federal criminal enforcement—and that concealing known safety risks from the regulators is a crime, not merely a business decision.

Assisted by AUSA Kyle Hoffman.

United States v. Richard Anthony Fitton

Richard Anthony Fitton, a strength coach at the University of Miami, operated an international steroid trafficking network, concealing product in tire wells, false compartments, and modified fuel tanks to move inventory across the U.S.–Mexico border. At the time, steroids had not yet been classified as controlled substances under federal law, and Fitton believed his activities carried little legal risk. Prosecuting the case therefore required creative use of existing statutes and a detailed understanding of smuggling techniques. Fitton’s operation began to unravel after he was stopped at the San Ysidro Port of Entry with internationally recognized powerlifter Victoria Steenrod.

Halpern directed that both be arrested. After his release on bond, Fitton fled. Halpern pursued the case over several years, ultimately assembling multiple federal charges and uncovering a broader distribution network. The charges—smuggling under 18 U.S.C. § 545, unlawful introduction of a prescription drug into interstate commerce, and failure to report illegal income—were drawn from existing statutes in the absence of steroid-specific criminal law. The case became the first federal prosecution of steroid distribution in the United States, establishing a framework that would guide subsequent enforcement and earning Halpern a reputation in the industry press as “the steroid smuggler’s worst nightmare.”

Sole Prosecutor

United States v. David Jenkins, et al.

The Jenkins investigation dismantled the largest counterfeit steroid ring ever uncovered in the United States—a sophisticated operation producing and distributing fake anabolic steroids on a mass scale, exposing thousands of users to unknown and potentially dangerous substances. The organization operated through an elaborate distribution network that spanned virtually every state, moving product through channels designed to mimic legitimate pharmaceutical supply chains.

The case, built on years of accumulated expertise in steroid enforcement, represented the culmination of Halpern’s work in this area. It brought to a close a series of investigations that began with a single phone call from a border inspector in 1984 and ended with the dismantling of the most extensive counterfeit steroid operation the government had encountered. Jenkins and his co-conspirators were convicted on multiple felony counts and brought national attention to the dangers posed by anabolic steroids.

Sole Prosecutor

United States v. William Cambra

Human Growth Hormone had circulated for years in athletic and anti-aging circles—marketed as a performance enhancer, a recovery accelerant, and a so-called “fountain of youth”—before federal enforcement addressed its illegal distribution outside legitimate medical channels. The Cambra prosecution was the first federal case brought against the unlawful distribution of HGH, establishing the framework that would guide enforcement in this area for years to come.

The case signaled that federal criminal enforcement extended beyond traditional controlled substances to the broader market for performance-enhancing compounds sold without prescription or medical supervision. Cambra’s prosecution drew a clear line: HGH distributed outside legitimate medical channels is not a regulatory matter—it is a federal crime. The precedent proved consequential as HGH enforcement expanded in subsequent years across professional sports and the anti-aging industry.

Sole Prosecutor

United States v. Francis George Christie, et al.

In the mid-1980s, President Reagan's executive order imposing a comprehensive trade embargo on Libya was a central tool of U.S. foreign policy against the government of Muammar Gaddafi. Christie and his co-conspirators set out to evade it—arranging for the export of restricted oil industry equipment, including Solar gas turbine systems essential to pumping crude from deep desert oil fields. Working through Oil Patch Productions in Louisiana and Christie Noble Services, a Scottish turbine company, the defendants used intermediaries, falsified invoices, and altered equipment markings to conceal Libya as the ultimate destination of the shipments.

Prosecuting an embargo violation required connecting complex international transactions to the specific prohibitions of a Presidential executive order—largely untested legal ground at the time. The conviction demonstrated that embargoes carried real criminal consequences and that the government would pursue those who attempted to circumvent them through layered international schemes. The case established a framework that subsequent embargo enforcement actions would follow.

Sole Prosecutor.

United States v. Richard P. Sullivan

When Vice President George Bush launched the South Florida Task Force it was the most ambitious and expensive drug enforcement operation in the nation's history. In response, traffickers began rerouting their operations westward. Customs Special Agent Richard P. Sullivan, assigned to guard that border, saw this as an opportunity and took it. Rather than intercepting drugs, he facilitated their distribution — supplying the organization with aeronautical charts designating radar-free zones, border patrol schedules, and safe landing areas — effectively handing them a map through the government's own defenses. Sullivan also worked with other corrupt Customs officers to ensure the flights crossed the Mexican border without scrutiny. For his role, Sullivan received hundreds of thousands of dollars delivered in cash-filled manila envelopes.

To handle distribution on the ground, Sullivan recruited his brother — a member of the Outlaw Motorcycle Gang — to use gang members to offload and move the product. The case was extraordinarily complex to investigate and try, a corruption case layered inside a narcotics conspiracy layered inside an institutional betrayal. Sullivan's conviction in 1986 stood for a principle that goes beyond the underlying offenses: when the gatekeeper becomes the conduit, the system's defenses aren't merely tested — they are bypassed from within. Accountability, the case made clear, must run inward as well as outward.

Sole Prosecutor.

United States v. Dan Duchaine ("The Steroid Guru")

Dan Duchaine was the defining figure in the underground anabolic steroid market—the Guru whose writings, consulting network, and direct participation in acquisition and distribution made him the architect of a black-market economy designed to operate entirely outside federal oversight. As government control of anabolic steroids tightened in the 1980s, Duchaine had become the movement's ideological and operational center, normalizing the diversion of controlled substances from legitimate medical channels into an unregulated shadow market that served thousands of users.

His downfall came through an undercover operation using a cooperating associate who recorded Duchaine openly discussing the scope of his operation—the scale of his shipments, the number of clients, the profits. The recordings provided the foundation for federal charges, but Duchaine led the investigation on a chase before ultimately being brought to account. He pleaded guilty and was convicted. In his Underground Steroid Handbook, he had advised readers to avoid the Southern District of California—an acknowledgment, however grudging, that he understood the risks. The prosecution underscored a simple rule: when demand drives markets in controlled substances, those markets do not escape federal law by operating in shadow channels. The answer is not tolerance—it is prosecution.

Sole Prosecutor.

United States v. Harold J. Sherbondy

Harold J. Sherbondy operated a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme that lured investors with promises of extraordinary returns from trading Eurobonds and commodities on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Rather than generating legitimate profits, he used new investor money to pay returns to earlier participants, while issuing fraudulent account statements showing consistent gains. To maintain this classic Ponzi scheme, Sherbondy discouraged withdrawals and required investors to lock up their funds, all while portraying himself as a wealthy international financier with ties to major institutions and corporate boards.

Sherbondy was particularly effective at targeting former PSA employees, convincing them to invest their entire individual retirement accounts (IRA funds) generated from the PSA buyout. He financed an extravagant lifestyle with stolen investor money—corporate jets, luxury vehicles, Mexican groves, international travel—while bragging about having made billions through his investments. As with all Ponzi schemes, the operation depended on a continuous flow of new money and ultimately collapsed under its own weight. The prosecution underscored a simple rule: investment returns must be earned, not fabricated. When profits are paid from investor funds rather than real activity, the enterprise is not investment—it is fraud.

Sole Prosecutor.

United States v. Parthasarathi "Bob" Majumder

Parthasarathi "Bob" Majumder, the owner of a San Diego-area defense contracting company, orchestrated a scheme to funnel illegal campaign contributions to members of Congress, including Representatives Duncan Hunter and Randy Cunningham, and Senator John Kerry. Over several years, Majumder recruited "straw donors" from his employees, subcontractors, and associates and convinced them to make political contributions in their own names. He would then reimburse them and, in this manner, conceal himself as the true source of the funds. Majumder's contributions were aimed at these three lawmakers as they all had influence over defense appropriations—which he was illegally seeking for his company while evading federal limits and disclosure requirements.

The case was built through financial records and witness testimony establishing the coordinated reimbursement scheme. Majumder pleaded guilty to felony campaign finance violations. The prosecution underscored a fundamental rule of federal election law: contributions must be made in the name of the true donor. When that rule is deliberately evaded through straw donors, the system designed to ensure transparency—disclosure requirements, contribution limits—becomes a fiction. Money flows to influence, and the public has no way to know whose interests are actually being served.

Sole Prosecutor.