1. Document forgery in New York-Case overview
The project involved the fabrication and installation of museum exhibition facilities—a large-scale public initiative requiring strict compliance with New York City procurement standards.
The complainant vendor insisted that the official had improperly placed several professors on the evaluation committee without the required random-draw procedure.
The vendor further claimed that:
- Several evaluators were allegedly selected through prior communication rather than through blind lot-drawing.
- Internal discussions among employees suggested that specific evaluators had been “recommended” in advance.
- The resulting committee structure could advantage a particular bidder.
However, our investigation showed that the selected professors had no personal ties with the recommending individuals, and several did not participate in the actual evaluation.
Importantly, the company that ultimately won the bid was not connected to the professors in question.
Claims of collusion and document manipulation
The complaint implied that the evaluators’ names were intentionally inserted into official paperwork to create a committee favorable to a specific bidder.
This assertion was used to support accusations of bid-rigging and document forgery.
But interviews and supporting materials confirmed that the evaluators responded to public notices voluntarily.
Their names were accurately recorded, and no documentation had been fabricated or altered to create an advantage for any bidding party.
These findings contradicted the theory of concerted action or prearranged manipulation.
2. Document forgery in New York-Legal assessment
Under New York law, criminal liability for bid interference requires a demonstrable impact on the integrity or fairness of the procurement process.
Attempted interference is not independently punishable unless the statute explicitly criminalizes attempt.
In this matter:
Because no actual disruption to the bidding process occurred, the legal threshold for bid-interference liability was not met.
Failure of the document-forgery allegations
To constitute document forgery under New York penal standards, the prosecution must show that an official record was falsified, materially altered, or knowingly created with false information.
In this case:
The documents at issue were therefore valid administrative records, not falsified writings.
3. Document forgery in New York-Evidentiary findings
The prosecution reviewed statements from involved officials, evaluators, and vendors.
Multiple professors stated they applied independently after reviewing public announcements.
There was no personal, financial, or institutional link to any bidding company.
The absence of corroborating evidence weakened claims of prearranged selection or bid-rigging activity.
Document authenticity and procedural consistency
A technical assessment of the evaluation paperwork confirmed the accuracy of the entries.
The documents showed no alterations, no unauthorized insertions, and no irregular timestamp patterns.
They reflected a procedurally flawed but not criminally forged administrative process.
Given these findings, the prosecution found no intent to deceive and no alteration of government records—both required elements of document forgery.
4. Document forgery in New York–Final outcome and dismissal grounds
Prosecutors issued a formal dismissal based on the following:
- The evaluators who might have raised procedural questions did not participate in scoring.
- The winning bidder had no connection to the evaluators originally challenged.
- There was no evidence of deliberate coordination or shared intent among employees.
- Committee records were factually accurate, eliminating the possibility of document forgery.
Because neither bid-interference nor forgery elements were satisfied, the office declined to proceed with charges.
01 Dec, 2025
