A corporation is seeking judicial intervention after a federal agency denied access to records it claims are essential for understanding actions taken during a high-profile investigation. On June 5, 2026, Aventura Technologies, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Department of the Army Criminal Investigation Division (DACID), alleging violations of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
According to court documents, Aventura Technologies submitted a FOIA request through its attorney on February 23, 2026, seeking communications and attachments between DACID—including Special Agent Claude Manigat—and both the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and the U.S. Probation Office. The requested materials relate to West Point’s designation as a victim in an alleged conspiracy involving Aventura and others to misrepresent the country of origin for security equipment sold to government agencies and private sector customers.
The background section outlines that DACID participated in an investigation which led to indictments in United States v. Cabasso, et al., Case No. 19-CR-582 (JIMA)(ARL). West Point was identified as a purported victim seeking restitution for an alleged loss totaling $188,000.01. The complaint notes that Special Agent Manigat was listed as West Point’s contact regarding this matter.
Aventura’s FOIA request specifically sought all communications discussing or transmitting any information about West Point’s victim status or related financial losses, including spreadsheets, summaries, source documents, and internal DACID records reflecting such exchanges. Additionally, Aventura asked for details sufficient to show when and how loss figures were provided to prosecutors or probation officials.
On March 23, 2026, DACID denied Aventura’s request in full by citing several FOIA exemptions—namely Exemption 7(A), (b)(7)(E), (b)(6), and (b)(7)(C)—without providing detailed explanations or specifying how disclosure could harm law enforcement proceedings. The letter from DACID’s FOIA/PA Division Chief offered only a “conclusory, boilerplate assertion” as justification for withholding all responsive records.
After receiving this denial, Aventura filed an administrative appeal that was also rejected on May 11, 2026. In its response letter signed by an Assistant to DACID’s General Counsel, DACID stated: “Given the presence of an active investigation, the release of the requested files could have interfered with effective law enforcement proceedings and were appropriately withheld.” However, according to Aventura’s complaint, no further explanation was given regarding potential harm or interference resulting from disclosure.
The legal filing alleges multiple violations by DACID: failure to make requested records available as required by FOIA; blanket withholding without proper justification; failure to conduct an adequate search for responsive documents; lack of review for segregable non-exempt information; and reliance on Exemption 7(A) without demonstrating any reasonably foreseeable interference with enforcement proceedings.
Aventura argues that “Exemption 7(A) does not permit blanket withholding” and that DACID did not conduct a document-by-document review nor identify categories of withheld documents as required by law. The complaint states: “DACID simply used Exemption 7(A) to justify a blanket withholding...without making any showing that disclosure...would result in any harm or interference with law enforcement proceedings.”
As relief from the court, Aventura requests expedited consideration under federal statute; declarations affirming that sought records are public; orders compelling DACID to conduct thorough searches and segregability reviews; production of all non-exempt materials; coverage of legal costs; and any other remedies deemed appropriate by the court. Additionally, Aventura asks for early case management measures including an initial status conference aimed at resolving issues around record scope and exemption application before incurring further litigation expenses.
The case is being handled by attorney Bryan Ha of White Plains, New York (455 Tarrytown Road #1244). The case identification number is 2:26-cv-03372.