United States v. Ponzo

── United States v. Ponzo ── Case No.: 25-1327 Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Date: April 01, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit Nos. 25-1203 25-1259 25-1327 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER PONZO; JOSEPH PONZO, Defendants, Appellants. APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge] Before Gelpí, Thompson, and Montecalvo, Circuit Judges. Christian G. Kiely, with whom Max D. Stern and Todd & Weld LLP were on brief, for appellant Christopher Ponzo. Michael J. Connolly, with whom Elizabeth R. Farrenkopf and Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLP were on brief, for appellant Joseph Ponzo. Lauren Maynard, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Leah B. Foley, United States Attorney, was on brief, for appellee. April 1, 2026  THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. OPENING Meet the Ponzo brothers, Chris and Joe (we use first names — as their briefs sometimes do — not out of disrespect but for clarity). A while back they pled guilty (without plea agreements) to felonies arising from a bribery scheme involving "Mass Save," a state-mandated program (funded by surcharges on utility bills) that supports energy-conservation projects.1 The copped-to charges covered (for both brothers) conspiracy and substantive honest-services wire fraud, lying to federal agents, and (for Joe only) aiding and assisting false tax returns. See respectively 18 U.S.C. § 1349, §§ 1343 and 1346, and § 1001(a)(2) and 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). A district judge then sentenced them each to 27 months in prison (an above-guidelines term for Chris but a within-guidelines stint for Joe), and ordered Chris to forfeit $13.2 million and Joe to forfeit $3.6 million. How the Ponzos became crooks and what they want from us is kind of a long story. But here's the short version (with more to come soon). 1As is our practice in guilty-plea appeals, we take the facts from the operative indictment, the uncontested parts of the presentence reports, the transcripts of key court hearings, and the sentencing record. See, e.g., United States v. Diaz-Serrano, 77 F.4th 41, 44 (1st Cir. 2023). - 2 -  Chris owned CAP Electric, Inc., a business specializing in energy-conservation work. In 2013 he began bribing people at CLEAResult, a firm that picked and oversaw contractors on Mass Save projects. He later pulled Joe into the scheme, with Chris and CLEAResult employee Eric Darlington helping Joe (and his wife) set up an air-sealing company called Air Tight Solutions, LLC as a Mass Save contractor (air-sealing — as its name suggests — blocks air, making buildings less drafty). Doing next to no work for the company (and without telling CLEAResult), Joe subcontracted the air-sealing projects to Chinasa Construction Services, Inc. and falsely claimed Chinasa employees were Air Tight employees — the Ponzos even created fake email addresses for the Chinasa staffers to make it look like they worked at Air Tight.2 To cover his share of the payola, Joe sent money from Air Tight to Chris and CAP Electric and labeled it "subcontractor" business expenses. Chris then bought off CLEAResult employees. From 2013 to 2017, for example, he gave Darlington $1,000 cash every week and bought him expensive things like an Apple MacBook, a John Deere tractor, bathroom fixtures, and outdoor lights. And after CLEAResult fired Darlington in 2017, the brothers began bribing 2 A bri