1 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California 2 LINDA L. SUN Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 KEVIN J. RIGLEY Deputy Attorney General 4 State Bar No. 131800 300 So. Spring Street, Suite 1702 5 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 620-2558 6 Facsimile: (213) 897-2804 Attorneys/or Complainant 7 8 9 10 BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS FOR THE BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Second Amended Accusation Case No. 79/15-108 11 Against: 12 13 14 15 16 LOS COMPADRES SMOG CHECK 17410 Foothill Blvd. Unit D Fontana, CA 92335 OAH No. 2015070349 ALEXANDER SHAMOUN KOREL - OWNER SECOND AMENDED Mailing Address: 25412 Clovelly Court A C C USA T ION Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Automotive Repair Dealer Registration No. ARD 274203 SMOG CHECK 17 Smog Check Station License No. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 TC 274203 and CHRISTOPHER KOREL 25412 Clovelly Ct. Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Smog Check Inspector License No. EO 636046 and WILLIAM ALLAN GOMEZ-CAMACHO 4448 Blue Ridge Dr. Riverside, CA 92505 Smog Check Inspector License No. EO 636771 Respondents. 28 In the Matter of the First Amended Accusation Against: LOS COMPADRES SMOG CHECK
26
Embed
1 KAMALA D. LINDA KEVINbar.ca.gov/pdf/accusations/tc-274203_2016_06_22_acc.pdf · 14 Check Station License Number TC 274203 to Respondent Los Compadres; Alexander Korel. 15 The Smog
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California
2 LINDA L. SUN Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3 KEVIN J. RIGLEY Deputy Attorney General
4 State Bar No. 131800 300 So. Spring Street, Suite 1702
CHRISTOPHER KOREL 25412 Clovelly Ct. Moreno Valley, CA 92553
Smog Check Inspector License No. EO 636046
and
WILLIAM ALLAN GOMEZ-CAMACHO 4448 Blue Ridge Dr. Riverside, CA 92505
Smog Check Inspector License No. EO 636771
Respondents. 28 II-----------------------~~~~~
In the Matter of the First Amended Accusation Against: LOS COMPADRES SMOG CHECK
Complainant alleges:
2 PARTIES
3 I. Patrick Dorais (Complainant) brings this Second Amended Accusation solely in his
4 official capacity as the Chief of the Bureau of Automotive Repair, Department of Consumer
5 Affairs.
6 Automotive Repair Dealer Registration
7 2. On or about September 9, 2013, the Bureau of Automotive Repair issued Automotive
8 Repair Dealer Registration Number ARD 274203 to Los Compadres Smog Check; Alexander
9 Shamoun Korel - Owner (Respondent Los Compadres; Alexander Korel). The Automotive
10 Repair Dealer Registration was in full force and effect at all times relevant to the charges brought
II herein and will expire on September 30, 2016, unless renewed.
12 Smog Check Station
13 3. On or about September 24, 2013, the Bureau of Automotive Repair issued Smog
14 Check Station License Number TC 274203 to Respondent Los Compadres; Alexander Korel.
15 The Smog Check Station License was in full force and effect at all times relevant to the charges
16 brought herein and will expire on September 30, 2016, unless renewed.
17 Smog Check Inspector License
18 4. On or about September 19, 2013, the Bureau of Automotive Repair issued Smog
19 Check Inspector License Number EO 636046 to Christopher Joseph Korel (Respondent
20 Christopher Korel). The Smog Check Inspector License was in full force and effect at all times
21 relevant to the charges brought herein and will expire on January 31,2018, unless renewed.
22 Smog Check Inspector License
23 5. On or about April 17, 2014, the Bureau of Automotive Repair issued smog Check
24 Inspector License Number EO 636771 to William Allan Gomez-Camacho (Respondent Gomez-
25 Camacho). The Smog Check Inspector License, which was in full force and effect at all times
26 relevant to the charges brought herein, expired on January 31, 2016, and has not been renewed.
27 III
28 III
In the Matter of the First Amended Accusation Against; LOS COM PADRES SMOG CHECK
2
JURISDICTION
2 6. This Second Amended Accusation is brought before the Director of Consumer
3 Affairs (Director) for the Bureau of Automotive Repair, under the authority of the following laws.
4 7. Business and Professions Code section 9884.7 provides that the Director may revoke
5 an automotive repair dealer registration.
6 8. Business and Professions Code section 9884.13 provides, in pertinent part, that the
7 expiration of a valid registration shall not dcprive thc Director of jurisdiction to proceed with a
8 disciplinary proceeding against an automotive repair dealer or to render a dccision temporarily or
9 permanently invalidating (suspending or revoking) a registration.
10 9. Health and Safety Code scction 44002 provides, in pertinent part, that the Director
11 has all the powers and authority granted under the Automotive Repair Act for enforcing the
12 Motor Vehicle Inspection Program.
13 10. Health and Safety Code section 44072.6 provides, in pertinent part, that the expiration
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
or suspension of a license by operation of law, or by order or dccision ofthc Director of
Consumcr Affairs, or a court oflaw, or the voluntary surrender of the liccnse shall not deprive the
Director of jurisdiction to proceed with disciplinary action.
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS
11. Code section 490 states, in pertinent part:
"(a) In addition to any other action that a board is permitted to takc against a licensee, a board may suspend or revoke a license on the ground that the licensee has been convicted ofa crime, ifthc crime is substantially relatcd to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession for which the license was issued.
"(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a board may exercise any authority to discipline a liccnsee fur conviction of a crime that is indepcndent of the authority granted undcr subdivision (a) only ifthc crime is substantially rclated to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession fur which the liccnsee's license was issued.
"( c) A conviction within the meaning of this section means a plea or verdict of guilty or a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere. An action that a board is permitted to take following the establishment of a conviction may be taken when the time for appeal has elapsed, or the judgment of conviction has been affirmed on appeal, or when an order granting probation is made suspending the imposition of sentence, irrespective of a subsequent order under Section 1203.4 of the Penal Code."
3 In the Matter of the First Amended Accusation Against: LOS CaMP ADRES SMOG CHECK
12. Code section 493 states:
2 "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in a proceeding conducted by a board within
3 thc department pursuant to law to deny an application for a license or to suspend or revoke a
4 license or otherwise take disciplinary action against a person who holds a license, upon the
5 ground that the applicant or the liccnsee has been convicted ofa crime substantially related to thc
6 qualifications, functions, and duties of the licensec in question, the record of conviction of the
7 crime shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that the conviction occurrcd, but only of that fact,
8 and the board may inquire into the circumstances surrounding the commission ofthe crime in
9 order to fix the degree of discipline or to determinc if the conviction is substantially related to thc
10 qualifications, functions, and dutics of the licensee in question." As used in this section, 'license'
II includes 'certificate,' 'permit,' 'authority,' and 'registration.'"
12 13. Section 9884.7 ofthc Code states, in pertinent part:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"(a) The director, whcre the automotive repair dealcr cannot show thcre was a bona fide error, may deny, suspend, rcvoke, or place on probation the registration of an automotive repair dealer for any ofthe following acts or omissions rclated to the conduct of the busincss of the automotivc repair dcaler, which are donc by the automotive repair dealer or any automotivc technician, employee, partner, officer, or member of the automotivc repair dcaler.
(1) Making or authorizing in any manner or by any means whatever any statement written or oral which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading.
(4) Any other conduct that constitutes fraud.
(6) Failurc in any material respect to comply with the provisions of this chapter or regulations adoptcd pursuant to it.
"(b) Except as provided for in subdivision (c), ifan automotive repair dcaler opcrates more than one place of business in this state, the director pursuant to subdivision (a) shall only suspend, revoke, or place on probation thc registration of the specific placc of business which has violated any of the provisions of this chapter. This violation, or action by the director, shall not affect in any manner the right of the automotive repair dealer to operate his or hcr other places of business.
"(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), the director may suspend, revoke, or place on probation thc registration for all places of business operatcd in this state by an automotive repair dealcr upon a finding that the automotive repair dealcr has, or is, cngaged in a course of repeated and willful violations of this chapter, or regulations adopted pursuant to it."
In the Matter of the First Amended Accusation Against; LOS COM PADRES SMOG CHECK
4
14. Section 9884.8 of the Code states:
2 "All work done by an automotive repair dealer, including all warranty work, shall be
3 recorded on an invoice and shall describe all service work done and parts supplied. Service work
4 and parts shall be listed separately on the invoice, which shall also state separately the subtotal
5 prices for service work and for parts, not including sales tax, and shall state separately the sales
6 tax, if any, applicable to each. If any used, rebuilt, or reconditioned parts are supplied, the invoice
7 shall clearly state that fact. If a part of a component system is composed of new and used, rebuilt
8 or reconditioned parts, that invoice shall clearly state that fact. The invoice shall include a
9 statement indicating whether any crash parts are original equipment manufacturer crash parts or
10 nonoriginal cquipment manufacturcr aftcrmarket crash parts. One copy of the invoice shall bc
II given to thc customer and onc copy shall be retained by the automotive repair dealcr."
12 15. Section 9889.3 ofthc Code states, in pertinent part:
13 "Thc dircctor may suspend, revoke, or take other disciplinary action against a license as
14 providcd in this article [Article 7 (commencing with section 9889.1) of Chapter 20.3 of Division
15 3 of the Business and Professions Code 1 ifthe licensee or any partner, officer, or director thereof:
16
17 "(b) Is convictcd of any crime substantially related to the qualifications, functions and
18 duties of the licenseholder in question.
19
20 "(d) Commits any act involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit whercby anothcr is injurcd."
21 16. Business and Professions Code scction 22, subdivision (a), states:
22
23
24
25
"Board" as uscd in any provision of this Code, rcfers to the board in which the
administration of the provision is vested, and unless otherwise expressly provided, shall include
26 17. Business and Professions Codc section 477, subdivision (b), states, in pertinent part,
27 that a "license" includes "registration" and "certificate."
28
5 In the Matter of the First Amended Accusation Against: LOS COMPADRES SMOG CHECK
18. Health and Safety Code section 44072.2 states, in pertinent part:
2 The director may suspend, revoke, or take other disciplinary action against a license as provided in this articlc if the licensee, or any partner, officer, or
3 dircctor thercof, does any of the following:
4 (a) Violatcs any section of this chapter [the Motor Vehicle Inspcction Program (Health and Safety Code § 44000, et seq.)] and the regulations adopted
5 pursuant to it, which related to thc licensed activities.
6
7
8 chapter.
(c) Violates any ofthc regulations adoptcd by the director pursuant to this
(d) Commits any act involving dishoncsty, fraud, or deceit whcreby 9 another is injured ...
10 19. Hcalth and Safcty Code section 44072.10 states, in pertinent part:
I I
12
13
14
15
(c) The dcpartment shall revokc the license of any smog check technician or station liccnsec who fraudulently certifies vehicles or participates in the fraudulent inspcction of vehicles. A fraudulent inspection includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(1) Clean piping, as defined by thc department ...
16 20. Health and Safety Code scction 44072.8 states that when a licensc has been revoked
17 or suspended following a hearing under this article, any additionallicensc issued under this
18 chapter in thc name of the licensec may be likewise revoked or suspcnded by the director.
19 21. California Codc of Regulations, title 16, section 3340.1 states, in pertincnt:
20
21
22
23
24
"Clean piping," for the purposes of Health and Safety Codc section 44072.10(c)(l), means the use ofa substitute exhaust emissions sample in place of the actual test vehiclc's exhaust in order to cause the EIS to issue a certificatc of compliance for the test vehicle ...
COST RECOVERY
25 22. Business and Proressions Code section 125.3 providcs, in pertinent part, that a Board
26 may requcst the administrative law judge to direct a licentiate found to have committed a
27 violation or violations of the licensing act to pay a sum not to excecd the reasonable costs of the
28 investigation and enforcement of the casco
In the Matter of the First Amended Accusation Against: SECOND AMENDED ACCUSATION
LOS COM PADRES SMOG CHECK
4
1 UNDERCOVER OPERATION #1: APRIL 22. 2014
2 23. On April 4, 2014, the Bureau conducted an undercover vehicle operation at Los
3 Compadres Smog Check. The Bureau's vehicle, a 2002 Ford was documented by a representative
4 from one of the Bureau's Forensic Documentation Laboratories. This Bureau representative
5 (BAR lab rep) determined the required emissions controls for the vehicle, and removed the 2002
6 Ford's existing catalytic converter and "H" pipe. The BAR lab rep then installed an illegal, "off-
7 road" "X" pipe that had no catalytic converters. The BAR lab rep also removed the 2002 Ford's
8 existing air filter housing and inlet tube, and replaced them with a non approved cold air inlet
9 system that did not have an Executive Order (EO) sticker and is not a legal intake system in
I 0 California. The BAR lab rep also installed an illegal open breather, modiJYing the 2002 Ford's
II positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system. The BAR lab rep also installed a modification to
12 prevent the 2002 Ford's MIL from illuminating with the missing catalytic converters. The
13 components installed by the BAR lab rcp caused the 2002 Ford, in its mechanical condition, to
14 fail the smog test for Gross Polluter tailpipe emissions, and missing or modified components.
15 24. On April 9, 2014, the BAR lab rep released custody ofthe 2002 Ford in the same
16 mechanical condition to a Bureau Field Representative (BAR field rep) at an undisclosed location
17 in the city of Riverside, California.
18 25. On April 22, 2014, a Bureau undercovcr operator (undercover operator) was
19 instructed to drive the 2002 Ford, which was still in the same mechanical condition, to a
20 prearranged location in the city of Fontana, California. The undercover operator was thcn
21 instructcd to drive the vehicle to Los Compadres Smog Check (Respondent Los Compadres;
22 Alexander Korel' facility), located at 17410 Foothill Blvd. Unit D, Fontana, CA, and request a
23 Smog Chcck inspection. The undercover operator drove to Respondent's fucility, parked in their
24 parking lot and walked towards the facility, at which point he was met by an individual later
25 identified as Respondent Christopher Korel. The undercover operator also saw two other
26 individuals at the facility at that timc; one ofthcm was later identified as Rcspondent Gomez-
27 Camacho, the other was an unidentified male.
28
In the Matter of the First Amended Accusation Against: SECOND AMENDED ACCUSATION LOS COM PADRES SMOG CHECK
5
26. Respondent Christopher Korel informed the undercover opcrator that there was one
2 vehicle ahead of him and for him to take a seat. Shortly thereafter, Respondent Christopher Korel
3 approached the undercover operator and asked for the 2002 Ford's keys. Respondent Christopher
4 Korel then drove the 2002 Ford into the smog-testing bay of Respondent Los Compadres;
5 Alexander Korel's facility. At this point, Respondent Gomez-Camacho asked for and received
6 the undercover operator's DMV Renewal Notice. The vehicle was in the smog test bay when the
7 undercover operator then approached Respondent Christopher Korel and informed him that he
8 had been referred to Respondent Los Compadres; Alexander Korel's facility by an unnamed third
9 party who had also told the undercover operator that Respondent Los Compadres; Alexander
10 Korel Smog Check would pass his vehicle for $150.00. Respondent Christopher Korel then
II asked the undercover operator for his personal identification. The undercover operator provided
12 his identification, at which point Respondent Korel stated, "we usually charge $200.00 to
13 $250.00 to make it pass". The undercover operator responded by asking Respondent Christopher
14 Korel ifit could be done for $200.00, to which Respondent Christopher Korel replied, "Yes".
15 The undercover operator then agreed to the $200.00 amount. Thereafter, Respondent Christopher
16 Korel statcd that it would take about 15 minutes and for the undercover operator to sit and wait.
17 27. The undercover operator sat in a chair and positioned himself near the front office and
18 smog bay testing area so that he had an unobstructed view ofthe 2002 Ford being tested. The
19 undercover operator did not sign any documents, nor did he receive any paperwork prior to the
20 smog test being performed.
21 28. Respondent Christopher Korel drove the 2002 Ford onto the dynamometer and exited
22 the vehicle. Respondent Christopher Korel then entered information into the Emissions
23 Inspection System (EIS) machine. Shortly thereafter, he re-entered the 2002 Ford and raised the
24 engine revolutions per minute (RPMs). As this was occurring, Respondent Gomez-Camacho
25 removed the EIS machine exhaust sample probe, which was located on the exterior portion ofthc
26 facility's building, from the wall and inserted it into the 2002 Ford's tailpipe. Respondent Gomez-
27 Camacho then handed the EIS machine's On-Board Diagnostics (OBDII) cable to Respondent
28 Christopher Korel, who ran the vehicle on the dynamometer, while giving instructions to
In the Matter of the First Amended Accusation Against: SECOND AMENDED ACCUSATION illS COM PADRES SMOG CHECK
6
1 Respondent Gomez-Camacho and the other unidentified male who was assisting, by saying "hold
2 it right there".
3 29. Upon the completion of the emissions portion of the test, the unidentified male
4 removed the EIS machinc exhaust samplc probe from thc 2002 Ford's exhaust tailpipe and
5 returned it to its previous location on the exterior portion of the building. Rcspondent
6 Christophcr Korel then handed the OBDII cable to Respondent Gomez-Camacho, exited the
7 vehicle, and continued the smog check inspection process by inputting information into the EIS
8 machine. At this point, thc unidentified male backed the 2002 Ford out of the smog check-testing
9 bay and parked it in the driveway near the building.
10 30. Respondent Gomez-Camacho removed the Vehicle Inspection Report (VIR) from the
II EIS machine's printer and walked over to the desk located within the front office area. Thc
12 undcrcover operator then stood up walked over to the counter of the front office. While standing
13 there, the undercover operator observed Respondent Gomez-Camacho sign the VIR. Respondent
14 Gomez-Camacho then handed thc undercover operator two (2) documents; an cstimate and an
15 invoice, and asked the undercover operator to sign both documents, which he did. The
16 undercover operator then askcd if the amount was $200.00, to which Respondent Gomez-
17 Camacho responded, "Yes". After the undercovcr operator paid Respondent Gomcz-Camacho
18 the $200.00, Rcspondent Gomez-Camacho provided him with an unsigned estimate and an
19 unsigned invoice with a business card attached, the VIR that the undercover operator had
20 previously watchcd Rcspondent Gomez-Camacho sign; the DMV Renewal Notice the undercover
21 operator had prcviously given him. Respondent Gomez-Camacho then commented to the
22 undcrcover operator that the 2002 Ford had no "cats". The undercovcr opcrator then asked
23 Respondent Gomez-Camacho if he could bring another vehicle to them to be tcsted, and asked if
24 the pricc would be thc same. Respondent Gomez-Camacho said that he was pretty sure he could
25 do so, but that he would need to look at the vehicle first. Just prior to leaving, the undercover
26 operator also asked Respondent Christopher Korel about returning to the facility with a "hot rod"
27 vehicle to be tested. Respondent Christopher Korel said "no problcm, but I have to look at it fIrst
28 to givc you a price". At such time, Respondent Christopher Korcl also mentioncd to the
In the Matter of the First Amended Accusation Against SECOND AMENDED ACCUSATION LOS COM PADRES SMOG CHECK
7
undercover operator that the 2002 Ford did not have any catalytic converters. The undercover
2 operator then left the Respondent's facility to meet with the Bureau field representative assigned
3 to the casco
4 31. A Bureau field representative subsequently downloaded the BAR 97 Test Detail from
5 the Bureau's Vehicle Information Database (VID) and confirmed that Respondent Los
6 Compadres; Alexander Korel had fraudulently issued Certificate of Compliance with
7 regard to the 2002 Ford.
8 32. On April 29, 2014, a Bureau representative performed a smog check inspection on the
9 2002 Ford, which was stilI in the same mechanical condition. The Bureau representative noted
10 that the 2002 Ford had an aftermarket cold air intake system, an open PCV breather clement, no
11 catalytic converters, and that an aftermarket "X" pipe had been installed without catalytic
12 converters. The 2002 Ford failed the inspection due to the following reasons: "Modified PCV,
13 Missing Catalytic Converters and Modified Other Emission Related Components". In addition,
14 the vehicle failed the tailpipe emissions portion of the Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM) test
15 duc to high Hydrocarbons (HC), Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NO) at both 15
16 mph and 25 mph.
17 FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
18 (Conviction of a Substantially Related Crime)
19 33. Respondent Christopher Korel's smog check inspector license is subject to discipline
20 pursuant to Code sections 490 and 493, in that Respondent Christopher Korel was convicted of a
21 crime substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of a smog check inspector.
22 On or about January I 1,2016, Respondent Christopher Korel was convicted of one felony count
23 of violating Penal Code section 502, subdivision (c), [unauthorized computer access and fraud] in
24 the criminal proceeding entitled The People of the State of California vs. Christopher Joseph
25 Korel (Super. Ct. San Bernardino County, 2015, Case No. FSBI405387). In regard to the
26 circumstances surrounding the conviction, Complainant refers to, and by this reference
27 incorporates, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 23 through 32, and below in paragraphs
28 50 through 59, as though set forth fully.
In the Matter of the First Amended Accusation Against: SECOND AMENDED ACCUSATION LOS COM PADRES SMOG CHECK
8
1 SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
2 (Acts Constituting Dishonesty, Fraud or Deceit)
3 34. Respondent Christopher Korel's smog check inspector license is subject to discipline
4 pursuant to Code section 9889.3, subdivision (b), and Health and Safety Code section 44072.1,
5 subdivision (d), in that Respondent Christopher Korel committed acts involving dishonesty, fraud
6 or deceit, with the intent to substantially benefit himself, or substantially injure another.
7 Complainant refers to, and by this reference incorporates, the allegations set forth above in
8 paragraphs 23 through 32, and below in paragraphs 50 through 59, as though set forth fully.
9 THIRD CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
10 (Conviction of a Substantially Related Crime)
11 35. Respondent Gomez-Camacho's smog check inspector license is subject to discipline
12 pursuant to Code sections 490 and 493, in that Respondent Gomez-Camacho was convicted of a
13 crime substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties ofa smog check inspector.
14 On or about January II, 2016, Respondent Gomez-Camacho was convicted of one misdemeanor