PATERSON — Federal authorities have dismissed criminal charges against the owner of a Lyndhurst security company that sold about $13 million in cameras and other equipment to the Passaic County Sheriff’s Office.
Officials did not reveal why they dropped the charges, which had accused Tamer Zakhary of selling equipment that came from Chinese companies banned under the National Defense Authorization Act.
“We are gratified that the government took the time to look closely at the statute and the facts in this case in arriving at its decision to dismiss the matter,” said Zakhary’s lawyer, Charles McKenna.
What remains unclear is what will happen with the security equipment the sheriff’s office bought from Zakhary’s company, Packetalk. The sheriff’s office had only installed some of the devices and kept much of it in storage after federal authorities alerted county officials to their probe of Zakhary about a year ago.
United States Attorney Philip Sellinger dismissed the charges against Zakhary on Thursday.
When asked about the status of the cameras in storage, said sheriff’s office spokesman Bill Maer said: “The department is awaiting direction from both law enforcement and the Passaic County administration before we take any further action regarding the Packetalk equipment.”
Passaic County spokesman Keith Furlong said administration officials “continue to cooperate with law enforcement as a victim in this matter.”
“Proactive measures are being taken, including exploring the possibility of litigation, to protect taxpayer dollars,” Furlong added.
Sellinger’s order said that further prosecution of the charges "is not in the interests of the United States at this time.” The dismissal was “without prejudice,” which means federal authorities are allowed to pursue the charges again if they see fit.
The original charges of wire fraud and making false statements were filed in late December, when federal authorities said Zakhary’s company sold at least $35 million worth of cameras and other equipment to various New Jersey law enforcement agencies.
Less than three months after that, lawyers in the case signed a court order that said the two sides were negotiating a plea agreement.
How those plea negotiations evolved into a dismissal remains unclear.
Comments / 0