Manhattan DA Means Business: Corporate Criminal Enforcement Business, That Is

The initiative signals that the nation’s most prominent local prosecutor intends to devote significant resources to investigating corporations and their executives — not only the individuals who carry out misconduct, but also the entities and structures that, in the office’s words, “enable and profit from crime.” 

According to the office’s announcement, the Task Force will focus on “complex investigations targeting fraud and misconduct by corporations and corporate executives, including antitrust violations, health care and other consumer fraud.” The office has not identified specific targets. Its stated goals are to hold organizations fully accountable for corporate criminality, deter industry-wide misconduct, and catalyze systemic reform — specifically calling out the “systems and structures that serve as breeding ground for crime.” 

Traditionally, the Antitrust Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s Office has assumed primary responsibility for antitrust investigations in New York State. But this is not the first time that Bragg has invoked state antitrust law. In September 2025, Bragg stated he would use the Donnelly Act to combat wage fixing through his office’s Worker Protection Unit. This new Task Force suggests there will be an expanded focus on antitrust enforcement actions for other alleged wrongdoing — especially when compared to the office’s history. 

The Task Force is led by Matthew Bogdanos, a 40-year veteran of the office, and will be staffed by approximately five assistant district attorneys and two investigative analysts. It will draw on the office’s career investigators, forensic accountants, and Financial Intelligence Unit, which analyzes Financial Crimes Enforcement Network data. The announcement highlighted the team’s “deep white-collar experience” in prosecuting crimes such as financial services fraud, securities fraud, and antitrust matters. 

Two features merit attention: the explicit inclusion of antitrust places criminal enforcement of New York’s Donnelly Act on the agenda, and the emphasis on “systemic accountability” signals that investigations will look “upstream” to the companies, executives, and business partners that facilitated misconduct. 

Past Enforcement May Predict Future Actions

The office’s prior corporate cases offer a preview of how the Task Force could operate. The three matters below, brought between 2023 and 2026, illustrate the range of conduct, charging theories, and remedies the office pursues. 

1. Construction Kickback Indictment: Bid-Rigging and Commercial Bribery

In January 2023, the office obtained an indictment against 24 individuals and 26 companies in an alleged eight-year scheme in which a construction management executive steered subcontracts on major Manhattan high-rise projects in exchange for kickbacks. The 83-count indictment charged conspiracy, grand larceny, commercial bribing, money laundering, and Donnelly Act bid-rigging. The case demonstrates the office’s willingness to charge multiple entities in a single indictment and to charge criminal antitrust violations — a direct antecedent to the Task Force’s antitrust mandate.

2. Schnellbacher-Sendon Group: Workers’ Compensation Premium Fraud

In June 2025, the office obtained an indictment against Schnellbacher-Sendon Group, LLC, a New Jersey façade contractor, along with its owners and managers, for allegedly using fictitious subcontractors to conceal at least $40 million in cash payroll and avoid payment of more than $9 million in premiums to the New York State Insurance Fund. The office also obtained an indictment against the owner and manager of the check-cashing business that allegedly generated the cash. Charges included conspiracy and first-degree money laundering. The case illustrates the “upstream” strategy in practice: liability extended to a financial-services counterparty that allegedly enabled the scheme.

3. Silver Birch Systems and TeleEscrow: Corporate Vehicles for Financial Fraud 

In June, the office obtained an indictment against six individuals and two corporations — Silver Birch Systems, a purported telecommunications company that claimed it resold and routed VoIP minutes, and TeleEscrow, a purported Manhattan-based third-party escrow company — for allegedly defrauding commercial lenders of more than $76.4 million between 2019 and 2022. According to the indictment, the defendants created numerous sham companies to pose as Silver Birch’s vendors and customers, used TeleEscrow as their “bank” to manufacture the appearance of revenue, and made false representations about Silver Birch’s business, revenue, and assets to obtain financing. A commercial funding broker was also charged with facilitating several of the transactions. Charges include multiple counts of first-degree grand larceny, first-degree scheme to defraud, and conspiracy. The case shows the office’s capacity to unwind complex, document-intensive financial fraud aimed at sophisticated institutional counterparties, and its willingness to charge the corporate entities used to carry out such schemes.

Two additional cases warrant brief mention: the January 2024 guilty plea of JM3 Construction LLC, a general contractor for affordable housing contracts; and the 2024 indictment against HFZ Capital Group, a real estate investment company. Both cases further demonstrate DA Bragg’s office’s approach to complex corporate fraud cases. 

Key Takeaways 

The Task Force formalizes and expands an enforcement posture the Manhattan DA’s office has been building for several years. With federal resources in flux, companies should expect state prosecutors to fill perceived gaps. For companies with New York operations, the Task Force highlights several areas that may receive increased scrutiny.

• Antitrust compliance in labor markets. Hiring, compensation, no-poach practices, wage-fixing, and information sharing may remain areas of enforcement focus, particularly in health care, food service, and retail.
• Payroll, classification, and insurance reporting. The Task Force’s priorities underscore potential scrutiny of payroll reporting to insurers and tax authorities, subcontractor relationships, and prevailing-wage obligations.
• Third-party diligence. Subcontractors, payment processors, other intermediaries, and cash-intensive or unusual payment arrangements may warrant particular attention in light of the Task Force’s enforcement priorities.
• Internal reporting and investigations. Whistleblower complaints, particularly those involving workers, as well as investigation and document-preservation practices, may take on increased significance as enforcement activity develops.