HELENA — Mold Wranglers, Inc., a Kalispell-based company that provides hazardous material mitigation services, today admitted to filing false requests for payment to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs claiming an abatement of lead paint was done at Freedom’s Path Fort Harrison when it was not, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said.
The defendant, Mold Wranglers, Inc., appeared for arraignment on and pleaded guilty to an information charging one count of False Claim Act conspiracy, a felony. Mold Wranglers was represented by Jonathan Carpenter, owner of the company. The company faces a maximum fine of $500,000 and restitution.
Chief U.S. District Judge Brian M. Morris presided. The court will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. Sentencing was set for March 4, 2025.
The government alleged in court documents that Mold Wranglers agreed to perform work at the Freedom’s Path Fort Harrison, which is affordable rental housing for veterans and their families at Fort Harrison. The project consisted of converting residential units for military veterans and their families. From 2018 to 2019, Mold Wranglers conducted work at Freedom’s Path Fort Harrison, including, but not limited to, painting over lead-based paint with an encapsulating paint. Because of the dangers associated with lead, federal regulations strictly regulate all lead work. All contractors must hold certifications to conduct such work, and the Environmental Protection Agency must receive notification that lead work is occurring. Mold Wranglers’ employees were not certified to conduct lead work, they failed to notify the EPA and they applied the encapsulating paint inconsistent with the paint manufacturer specifications.
Mold Wranglers submitted 11 Subcontractor Requisitions for Payment detailing that lead-based paint work was performed. Those claims, through other companies, were submitted to the VA and paid with federal funds. When doing so, Mold Wranglers and others claimed they performed an “abatement,” which was false. Indeed, the companies specifically agreed they would not perform an abatement, which requires certain specifications be met. In an email, one individual said:
“The plan is to aesthetically repair the paint and finish the homes. It’s not to remove the lead hazard and if the plan is to go down the abatement road, then it will be a significant increase to the scope of the work.”
Th companies requested and received payment of approximately $456,000 from the United States for an “abatement.”
The U.S. Attorney’s Office is prosecuting the case. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Criminal Investigation Division and Office of Inspector General, Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General, and Department of Housing and Urban Development conducted the investigation.