Former Pittsburgh employee pleads guilty to helping defraud city of federal funds
By Brian Bowling
Published: Thursday, Dec. 6, 2012, 11:08 a.m.
A former city employee pleaded guilty Thursday to taking $6,000 to help a businessman defraud Pittsburgh on a federally funded contract.
Christine Ann Kebr, 55, admitted that she helped Arthur J. Bedway, 63, of Robinson set up a sham “woman-owned” company, Alpha Outfitters LLC in Esplen, so that he could bid on the contract to install mobile data terminals in city police vehicles.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Cessar said Kebr, a senior systems analyst for the city until July 2011, manipulated the bidding process so that Bedway's company obtained the contract, which paid more than $327,000 between 2006 and 2009.
She also created the invoices the company submitted to the city so that it would overpay for the work, he said.
Bedway, the owner of Carnegie-based Victory Security, is facing federal charges of bribery, conspiracy and mail fraud.
U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon scheduled Kebr's sentencing for April 4. Kebr faces up to five years in prison, a possible fine and three years of probation.
Kebr and her attorney, Gary Gerson, declined comment after the hearing. She remains free on a $10,000 unsecured bond.
Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.