About | Contact | Great Jersey City Stories | Mafia at Hudson County Facts | Mafia Stories from the Tunnel Bar | NJ Mafia | Return to the Main Menu | Send this Page

The defendants Andrew Russo, Castellazzo, Delucia, Fusco and Anthony Russo conspired to extort members and associates of the Gambino family of money to pay for medical care and other expenses incurred by Colombo family associate Walter Samperi.

TM:EAG/AL

F.#2010R00153 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

–X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -against -No. 11 CR 30 (SLT) ANDREW RUSSO, et al., Defendants. ————–X

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR PERMANENT ORDERS OF DETENTION

LORETTA E. LYNCH United States Attorney Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201

ELIZABETH A. GEDDES

JAMES D. GATTA

ALLON LIFSHITZ

Assistant United States Attorneys (Of Counsel)

Table of Contents

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT BACKGROUND

1.             Overview of the Investigation

II.         The Defendants Are Members or Associates of the Colombo Family

A.        The Defendants’ positions in the Colombo Family

B.         The Induction Ceremony Scheduled for December 7, 2010

III.       The Defendants Are Charged With Crimes of Violence

A.        Murder of Joseph Scopo

B.         Robbery -Staten Island Residence

C.         Extortion

Conspiracy to Extort the Gambino Family

Extortion of a Gambling Club in the Bronx

3 . Extortion Conspiracy -Container Seller

4. Extortion -Local 6A

5 . Extortion -John Doe #14

D. Loansharking

1. Loansharking Conspiracy -John Doe #11

2 . Loansharking -John Doe #15 and John Doe #17

3 . Loansharking Conspiracy -John Doe #19

4. Loansharking -John Doe #20

1 2 3

3 3

4 7 7 8 9 9

11

11 12 13 13 13

14 15 16

E. Bribery Scheme

F. Fraud -MoneyGram 17 DISCUSSION 18

1. Legal Standard 18

A. Bail Reform Act 18

B. Organized Crime Defendants 19

1. Organized Crime Leaders Are Dangers to the Community . 20

2. Organized Crime Defendants Are Likely to Commit Crimes if Released on Bail 24

3 . Elaborate Bail Packages Are Insufficient to Protect the Community Against Violent Organized Crime Defendants 25

II. The Defendants Should Be Detained 27

A. The Defendants Are a Danger to the Community 27

1. Nature and Circumstances of the Crimes Charged . 28

2. History and Characteristics of the Defendants . 29

a. Andrew Russo 29

b. Benjamin Castellazzo 31

c. Richard Fusco 31

d. Dennis Delucia 32

e. Reynold Maragni 32

f. Anthony Russo 32

g. Daniel Capaldo 33

h. Emanuele Favuzza 34

i. Joseph Savarese

j. Ralph Scopo, Jr. 35

k. Ilario Sessa 35

l. Michael Castellano 36 ffi. Giuseppe Destefano 36

n. Anthony Durso 37

o. Scott Fappiano 37

3 . Seriousness of Danger Posed by the Defendants’ Release 38

4 . Evidence of the Defendants’ Guilt 39

B. The Defendants Constitute a Risk of Flight 39 CONCLUSION 41

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The government hereby moves for permanent orders of detention with respect to the following defendants, each of whom is a member or associate of the Colombo organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra (the “Colombo family”): Andrew Russo, Benjamin Castellazzo, Richard Fusco, Dennis Delucia, Reynold Maragni, Anthony Russo, Daniel Capaldo, Emanuele Favuzza, Joseph Savarese, Ralph Scopo, Jr., Ilario Sessa, Michael Castellano, Giuseppe Destefano, Anthony Durso and Scott Fappiano.

As further described below, each of these defendants poses a danger to the community and a risk of flight, and should therefore be detained pending trial.

1

The government makes this motion without prejudice to making additional arguments in support of the detention of any of the defendants whose detention the government seeks in this motion, and without prejudice to seeking a permanent order of detention against other defendants indicted in this or related matters.

BACKGROUND

The government proffers the following facts concerning

the charges at issue and pretrial detention. 2 See United States

v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (the

government is entitled to proceed by proffer in a detention

hearing); United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540, 542 (2d Cir.

1995) (same); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1145 (2d

cir. 1986) (same).’

The proffer includes a brief description of the

following: (1) the government’s investigation of the Colombo

family and the defendants; (2) the defendants’ association with,

and positions in, the Colombo family; and (3) the defendants’

2 The proffer of facts set forth herein does not purport to provide a complete statement of all facts and evidence of which the government is aware or that it will seek to introduce at trial.

,

As the Second Circuit has explained:

[I]n the pre-trial context, few detention

hearings involve live testimony or cross

examination. Most proceed on proffers. See

United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125,

131 (2d Cir. 2000). This is because bail

hearings are “typically informal affairs, not substitutes for trial or discovery.” United

States v. Acevedo-Ramos, 755 F.2d 203, 206

(1st Cir. 1985) (Breyer, J.) (quoted

approvingly in LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 131). Indeed, § 3142 (f) (2) (B) expressly states that

the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at

bail hearings; thus, courts often base

detention decisions on hearsay evidence. Id.

United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309, 320 n.7 (2d Cir. 2004).

involvement in the charged criminal activity, with particular attention to the charged crimes of violence.

I. Overview of the Investigation

The Indictment is the most recent result of a long-term investigation by this Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies into the ongoing criminal activities of the Colombo family. The present charges are the product of the government’s use of a diverse array of investigative tools, including hundreds of hours of recordings made by cooperating witnesses over the past three years of many of the defendants discussing a variety of criminal activities, including murder. Notably, these recordings unequivocally make clear that the Colombo family is thriving and continues to engage in various crimes including, among others, robbery, narcotics trafficking, fraud, extortion and loansharking.

II. The Defendants Are Members or Associates of the Colombo Family Everyone of the charged defendants is a member or

associate of La Cosa Nostra (“LCN”) –a violent criminal enterprise responsible for numerous murders.

A. The Defendants’ positions in the Colombo Family

The government will establish the defendants’ positions within the Colombo family through consensual recordings, wiretap

intercepts’ and the testimony of cooperating witnesses, as well

as surveillance evidence and physical evidence.

As alleged in the Indictment, the defendant Andrew Russo currently serves as the street boss of the Colombo family, Benjamin Castellazzo currently serves as the acting underboss and Richard Fusco currently serves as the consigliere. Joseph Carna, Dennis Delucia, Reynold Maragni and Anthony Russo hold senior leadership positions as captains or acting captains. In addition, Daniel Capaldo, Emanuele Favuzza, Vincent Febrraro, John Maggio, Theodore Persico, Jr., Nicky Rizzo, Joseph Savarese and Ralph Scopo, Jr., are “made” members of the Colombo family. with five exceptions, the remainder of the defendants charged in the above-captioned case are associates of the Colombo family.s

B. The Induction Ceremony Scheduled for December 7, 2010

The consensual recordings also make clear that the Colombo family continues to induct new members. For example, at a secret ceremony in January 2009, defendants Capaldo, Favuzza, Maggio, Anthony Russo and Savarese -along with one other individual -were inducted into the Colombo family. The Colombo

, The government hereby provides the defendants with notice, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2518(9), of the government’s intent to rely on wiretap evidence gathered pursuant to court­authorized wiretaps in the prosecution of this matter.

S The defendant Giovanni Galluzzo is a Luchese family associate. The defendant John Dunn is a Gambino family associate. The defendant Hector Pagan is a Bonanno family associate. vito vizzi and Joseph Dimarco are LCN associates.

family intended to hold another such ceremony at defendant

Favuzza’s residence on December 7, 2010. Defendant Ilario Sessa and three others were slated to be inducted into the Colombo family on that date with the assistance of, among others, defendants Castellazzo and Anthony Russo. Much to Sessa’s chagrin, as evidenced on consensual recordings made by a cooperating witness, the induction ceremony was canceled after agents of the FBI identified the location where the ceremony was to be held and conducted surveillance.

The events leading up to the scheduled ceremony and the aftermath of its cancellation were vividly captured on consensual recordings. In a consensual recording made on December 5, 2010, Colombo family acting captain Anthony Russo and a cooperating witness (“CW-l”) drove to Sessa’s residence, where Anthony Russo engaged in a private conversation with Sessa. Following their private conversation, Anthony Russo and Sessa separately told CW-l that the ceremony at which Sessa would be inducted in the Colombo family would occur that week. CW-l also observed Sessa give Anthony Russo two plastic bags, one of which CW-l later learned contained the firearm to be used in Sessa’s induction ceremony. Anthony Russo and CW-l then departed Sessa’s residence and traveled to Favuzza’s residence, where Anthony Russo dropped off the firearm. The following day, Sessa commented to CW-l about his embarrassment at having to “bring his own” firearm to

his own induction ceremony. Sessa explained to CW-1 that he had

“three of these things . [U/I] .357 and a .38.”

On the evening of December 6, 2010, the Colombo family

canceled the ceremony due to law enforcement surveillance. In

light of the cancellation, Anthony Russo directed Sessa to

retrieve the firearm he provided for the ceremony from Favuzza

and Castellazzo. On a consensual recording, Sessa complained:

What do you think happened, the whole thing’s [the ceremony] dead . I had to back and get my thing [the firearm] the whole thing is dead, everybody. . I don’t know, it came from Anthony [Russo] Anthony comes meets me in Brooklyn, says I gotta tell you something. I figure he’s gonna tell me what time [i.e., the time of the induction ceremony], find out what time. . dead hand . that things no good go get it . pistol, you want a different one? the whole thing’s dead, no good . it’s coming from this guy [Andrew Russo] . who he met. . mumbling something about this guy. . I don’t know . [Anthony] makes me go all the way back to the place [Favuzza’s residence] to get the pistol. I didn’t want to start. . I got three felonies too . I went back there, took care of that. . didn’t say it [the ceremony] was postponed or anything, said it’s dead

. didn’t say postponed or dead said go back and get the gun . I said what’s happening . this guy [Andrew Russo] shut it down, closed down or stopped it completely.

To date, Sessa and the other men proposed for induction at the

December 2010 ceremony have not been inducted into the Colombo

family.

III. The Defendants Are Charged With Crimes of Violence

With the exception of Michael Castellano, each of the defendants for whom the government seeks pretrial detention is charged with one or more crimes of violence. The following are brief summaries of the facts underlying some of the charges against these defendants.

A. Murder of Joseph Scopo

As alleged in Count One (Racketeering Act One) of the Indictment, the defendant Anthony Russo is responsible for the 1993 murder of Joseph Scopo.’ Joseph Scopo was murdered as he got out of the passenger seat of a vehicle parked in front of his residence. in Ozone Park, Queens on October 20, 1993. Scopo was killed in connection with the Colombo family war, during which

the Colombo family split into two feuding factions, one loyal to
Victor “Vic” Orena and the other loyal to Carmine “the Snake”  
Persico. Joseph Scopo, who at the time of his murder was the  
underboss of the Colombo family and affiliated with the Orena  
faction, was the final Colombo family war casualty.  
On mUltiple consensual recordings, Anthony Russo  
admitted his participation in the Scopo murder. For example, in
                                                               

 

one recording, Anthony Russo explained to a cooperating witness,

, In November 1999, Colombo family associate John Pappa was convicted, after trial, of the scopo murder.

CW-l, that he was in a nearby vehicle while Colombo family associate John Pappa fatally shot Joseph Scopo:

Anthony Russo: I had my hat on. Hat flew off. I ain’t kidding. And my side window [U/I]
CW-l: [U/I]
Anthony Russo: It came off. It came off. BF was in the backseat. He said, “What the fuck?” Are you crazy! I jumped out of the car. I was like a fuckin’ mad hatter. I didn’t know what to do. I started beep, beep, beep, beep.
CW-l: What was [U/I] doing?
Anthony Russo: Guy’s up the block. I emptied out. You know what it is, the fucking? From behind?
CW-l: I got shot.
Anthony Russo:   Do you know what it from behind. it is to get
                   

 

Anthony Russo: He [BF] was laughing hysterical in the back. You ever see a friend laughing?

[Laughing]

CW-l: Yeah, cause his hat didn’t come off.

Anthony Russo: No, cause he [BF] was in the car behind.

B. Robbery -Staten Island Residence

As alleged in Count One (Racketeering Act Thirty-Three), Count Two (Racketeering Act Fifteen) and Count Forty of the Indictment, the defendants Scott Fappiano, Anthony Russo and

Joseph Savarese conspired to commit a violent home-invasion robbery of a legitimate businessman who was rumored to have $25 million in cash in his residence. Fappiano advised CW-1 about the potential “score” and asked CW-1 if he wanted to participate. When Savarese learned of the scheme, Savarese told another cooperating witness (“CW-2”) that he had two handguns, a .38 caliber and a .45 caliber, and could get “bigger shit” if needed. Savarese later advised that he also had bulletproof vests that they could use. Anthony Russo later suggested that they use a

“bogus” license plate to avoid detection by law enforcement.

C. Extortion

1. Conspiracy to Extort the Gambino Family

As alleged in Count One (Racketeering Act Thirty-Four), Count Two (Racketeering Act Sixteen) and Count Forty-One, the defendants Andrew Russo, Castellazzo, Delucia, Fusco and Anthony Russo conspired to extort members and associates of the Gambino family of money to pay for medical care and other expenses incurred by Colombo family associate Walter Samperi. On May 16, 2010, Samperi was stabbed by an individual affiliated with the Gambino family. To compensate, members of the Colombo family initiated a formal dispute, or “beef,” with a member of the ruling panel of the Gambino family.

After a series of meetings, or “sit-downs,” with members of the Gambino family, the Colombo family administration

members and the New York City-based captains met at a residence

in Staten Island, where they discussed, among other things, the dispute over samperi. The meeting was captured in a consensually-made recording. Andrew Russo, as the street boss of the Colombo family, presided over the meeting. At the outset, Andrew Russo admonished Anthony Russo and the others present that they should not attend a sit-down with another LCN family without first alerting the Colombo family administration. with respect to the stabbing of Samperi, Andrew Russo observed that they should have first “g[o]t even” and then initiated discussions with the Gambino family.

The administration and the captains then discussed a variety of ways to obtain compensation for Samperi. They ultimately agreed that, in exchange for their promise not to retaliate, the Colombo family would require the Gambino family to make a one-time payment of $150,000, $100,000 of which was to come from the Gambino family’s “basket” from the “feast,” a reference to an annual Italian feast held in late August on 18th Avenue in Brooklyn, the Figli di Santa Rosalia.’

7

Consensual recordings made during the course of the investigation demonstrate that the Colombo family has controlled the Figli di Santa Rosalia for several years.

2. Extortion of a Gambling Club in the Bronx

As alleged in Count Two (Racketeering Act Five) of the Indictment, the defendants Delucia and Sessa, as well as Colombo family associate “Phil,” who like Sessa was proposed to be inducted in the Colombo family, extorted a gambling club located in the Bronx. On a consensual recording, Sessa explained to CW-1 that Delucia had directed Sessa and Phil to go to a card club in the Bronx and to instruct the owners and operators of the card club that they could not operate their illegal card game such that it competed with Delucia’s card game. Sessa explained that they went to the card club, wielding baseball bats and with Sessa carrying a gun.

3. Extortion Conspiracy -Container Seller

As alleged in Count Two (Racketeering Act Six) of the Indictment, the defendant Joseph Savarese is charged with attempting to extort the right to receive payment for the sale of containers. Specifically, Savarese pistol-whipped an individual who sought payment on a set of containers that had been delivered to an associate of Savarese. On a consensual recording, Savarese explained that he assisted an individual who had purchased a “hundred-something containers,” but refused to pay the agreed­upon price for the containers. Savarese admitted that, after the seller tried to collect “his money” from the individual, Savarese pistol-whipped the seller. Savarese explained that he later heard through organized crime channels that the seller wanted to meet with Savarese, but Savarese refused to meet regarding the dispute unless a “friend,” or an inducted member of LCN, reached out to Savarese.

4. Extortion -Local 6A

As alleged in Count Two (Racketeering Act One), Count Three and Count Four of the Indictment, the defendant Ralph Scopo, Jr. (“Scopo”), extorted members of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (“LIUNA”), Local 6A, through his control of Local 6A and the construction companies at whose sites Local 6A members work. Historically, the Colombo family and more specifically the scopo family –has controlled the election of officers and delegates, and the awarding of LIUNA membership cards for friends, family and criminal associates of the Colombo family notwithstanding a lack of qualifications or completion of an apprenticeship program. As alleged in Count Two

(Racketeering Act TWo), Count Five and Count Six of the Indictment, Scopo also profited from his control of Local 6A by extorting those who obtained “coffee boy” positions, that is, the individuals who sold coffee and snacks to the union members. In exchange for the position, the coffee boy had to provide half of the profits from his total sales to Scopo.

5. Extortion -John Doe #14

As alleged in Count One (Racketeering Act Thirty-Seven) and Count Two (Racketeering Act Eighteen) of the Indictment, the defendants Anthony Russo, Joseph Savarese and Giuseppe Destefano extorted John Doe #14 to prevent him from keeping open a gambling club that Russo and Savarese deemed too close to their gambling clubs. Before the assault, Russo commented, “I don’t care if we have to hunt him all night. Crack him in the fucking mouth and give him a beat down.” Thereafter, Anthony Russo, Savarese and Destefano assaulted John Doe #14. Subsequently, in anticipation of retaliation by John Doe #14, the following Friday

(the next day John Doe #14 was scheduled to hold a competing card games), Anthony Russo proposed: “Get everybody loaded up. They corne in, we shoot the shit out of them.”

D. Loansharking

1. Loansharking Conspiracy -John Doe #11

As alleged in Count One (Racketeering Act Thirty-Two), Count Two (Racketeering Act Thirteen) and Count Thirty-Eight of the Indictment, the defendants Scott Fappiano and Reynold Maragni conspired to use extortionate means to collect a debt owed by John Doe #11. On a consensual recording made by CW-1 in March 2010, Fappiano explained:

I might need you . if I do it I’ll go to jail. . spoke to Reynold [Maragnij I want to be diplomatic . it gets to the point where he may have to get his fucking

leg broken. . I’ll make sure I’m in court

somewhere or doing a deposition. . the

last time I was in Punta Cana when they went

to get him, he called the cops. . he seen

him coming.

Fappiano later provided CW-1 with a slip of yellow paper that

listed the debtor’s name, business address, mother’s address and

other identifying information so that CW-1 could locate, assault

and collect gambling losses owed by John Doe #11.

2 . Loansharking John Doe #15 and John Doe #17

As alleged in Count One (Racketeering Acts Thirty-Nine and Forty-One), Count Two (Racketeering Acts Twenty-Two and Twenty-Four), Count Forty-Seven, Count Forty-Eight, Count Fifty and Count Fifty-One of the Indictment, the defendants Anthony Durso, Giovanni Galluzzo, Anthony Russo and Ilario Sessa variously used extortionate means to attempt to collect debts owed by John Doe #15 and John Doe #17. On a consensual recording, Anthony Russo mentioned that he had received a message from an incarcerated Colombo family soldier, who asked for Russo’s assistance in collecting outstanding loanshark debts, including debts owed by John Doe #15 and John Doe #17. Anthony Russo explained that, at his direction, Sessa and Durso, while Galluzzo stood guard, assaulted John Doe #15 when he claimed not have the money. Sessa stated that at one point during the assault, he held a knife to the face of John Doe #15. Also at the direction of Anthony Russo, Sessa confronted John Doe #17 in

an attempt to collect a debt he owed. Sessa later observed to

CW-1 that he would put John Doe #17 “in the hospital.”

3. Loansharking Conspiracy -John Doe #19

As alleged in Count One (Racketeering Act Forty-Three),

Count Two (Racketeering Act Twenty-Seven) and Count Fifty-Five of

the Indictment, the defendants Reynold Maragni and Anthony Russo

conspired to use extortionate means to collect a debt owed by

John Doe #19. On a consensual recording, Maragni explained to

CW-1:

MARAGNI: We’re gonna grab someone when

. I come up. This kid Vincent. He’s got a surveying company. When we had the conversation, everything this kid. We’re gonna kick the shit out of him.

MARAGNI: I’ll talk to Anthony [Russo] when I come up.

CW-1: You mean about your situation.

MARAGNI: There was a settlement. I settled for 20. They were supposed to live up to his end of the bargain. 13. Supposed to give me the other seven. Time share thing. 400 per month. I told him two days, I spoke to you, he gave you me word. Now I don’t want to talk to you any more. Now I want the whole 40. The time share, I want the whole fuckin’ thing. That’s another $25,000. Either you give me the money. I’m gonna abuse Stevie Mad Dog. I want to be introduced to him.

15

In a subsequent consensual recording, Maragni provided CW-l with

additional identifying information for John Doe #19 and asked

CW-l to threaten this individual and tell him he better start

paying his debt. Therafter, CW-l told Anthony Russo about

Maragni’s request, and Anthony Russo agreed to pursue the matter.

4. Loansharking -John Doe #20

As alleged in Count Two (Racketeering Act Seven) of the

Indictment, the defendants Dennis Delucia and Joseph Savarese

used extortionate means to collect a debt owed by John Doe #20.

Savarese admitted his participation in a consensual recording:

But in the summertime, we came an agreement

with this cocksucker, Louis Ganoli. I beat

him up over here, like, last year. I was

pounding him for the money, talking to him a couple times. I sent for him a couple of times. He came over here to meet me. Larry

[Sessa] was just pulling up and got out of the car. We gave him a beating right there. Larry jumped out of the car, we both beat him up. Then he left. Then the son got in touch. The son told me that I don’t want my father to get hurt again, I wanna pay. I said, alright. I told him to pay, that’s the only way he’s not going to get hurt again. The figure was 13,000. They had a guy from the West side, a goodfellow from the West side. Reached out to Dennis [Delucia]. Told Dennis that he wanted to straighten it out. Told the kid Dennis, will you take 8,000. Dennis said yeah. He says, alright; he gave the money to Dennis. Dennis gave the money to me. And I gave the money to Christina. That’s the only money that. I never sent money to the account.

E. Bribery Scheme

As alleged in Count Two (Racketeering Act Fourteen) and Count Thirty-Nine of the Indictment, the defendant Reynold Maragni engaged in a scheme to attempt to bribe a public servant in the State of Florida to cause the commutation of the sentence of a relative of a cooperating witness who had been sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment. On a consensual recording, Maragni explained that the amount of the bribe “could be anywhere from 25 to 50,” and later added that his contact “m[ight] turn around and tell me 100.” Maragni vowed, “I’m gonna do everything I can, to let him agree to take as least amount as I can.”

In September 2010, CW-l traveled to Florida to meet with Maragni, who told CW-l that during the previous day, Maragni had met his contact, whom he described as a lawyer, for three hours. Maragni said that his contact asked for $80,000 to $85,000 to help CW-l’s relative. Maragni later told CW-2 that the agreed-upon bribe was $80,000, to be paid in three installments.

In November 2010, on behalf of CW-l, CW-2 provided $25,000 to Maragni, representing the first of three planned payments. However, when Maragni subsequently advised CW-l that he would not deliver the bribe money to his contact for several weeks, CW-l requested that Maragni return the money, and Maragni agreed. In furtherance of the bribery scheme, Maragni traveled

between Florida and New York and New Jersey, in addition to using facilities in interstate commerce.

F. Fraud -MoneyGram

As alleged in Count One (Racketeering Acts Fifteen to Eighteen) and Counts Ten to Fourteen of the Indictment, the defendants Michael Castellano and John Rossano engaged in a scheme to defraud MoneyGram of more than $l.5 million. To effectuate the scheme, Castellano placed numerous calls to MoneyGram, posing as employees of MoneyGram outlets, to arrange for the transmission of MoneyGram money orders. In each of the calls, Castellano provided the outlet’s pin number. Rossano and Castellano, together with others, then traveled to MoneyGram outlets in various states to collect these money orders. To pick up the orders, the coconspirators presented fraudulent identification documents.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

A. Bail Reform Act

Under the Bail Reform Act, lB U.S.C. § 3l4l et ~., federal courts are empowered to order a defendant’s detention pending trial upon a determination that the defendant is either a danger to the community or a risk of flight. See lB U.S.C. § 3l42(e) (“no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and

the safety of any other person and the community”). A finding of dangerousness must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. See Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 542; United States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 405 (2d Cir. 1985). A finding of risk of flight must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Jackson, 823 F.2d 4, 5 (2d Cir. 1987); Chimurenga, 760 F.2d at 405.

The Bail Reform Act lists four factors to be considered in the detention analysis: (1) the nature and circumstances of the crimes charged, (2) the history and characteristics of the defendant, (3) the seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant’s release, and (4) the evidence of the defendant’s guilt. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

B. Organized crime Defendants

Courts in this circuit have routinely faced the issue of pretrial detention of organized crime defendants charged with racketeering-related offenses. See,~, United States v. Cirillo, Cr. No. 05-212 (SLT) , slip op. (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (Genovese family acting bosses Dominick Cirillo and Lawrence Dentico, as well as Genovese family captain Anthony Antico, detained as dangers to the community), aff’d, 149 Fed. Appx. 40 (2d Cir. 2005); United States v. Gotti, 219 F. Supp. 2d 296, 299-300

(E.D.N.Y. 2002) (Gambino family acting boss Peter Gotti detained as danger to the community), aff’d, United States v. Ciccone, 312

F.3d 535, 543 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Agnello, 101 F.

Supp. 2d 108, 116 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (Gambino family captain Carmine Agnello detained as danger to the community); United States v. Defede, 7 F. Supp. 2d 390, 395-96 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (Luchese family acting boss Joseph Defede detained as danger to the community) ; united States v. Salerno, 631 F. Supp. 1364, 1375 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)

(Genovese acting boss and captain detained as danger to the community), order vacated, 794 F.2d 64 (2d Cir.), order reinstated, 829 F.2d 345 (2d Cir. 1987)

Together, these cases stand, at the very least, for the following propositions: (1) leaders of a violent organized criminal enterprise are dangerous due to their position of authority in that enterprise; (2) organized crime defendants often constitute dangers to the community due to the high likelihood that they will continue to commit crimes if released on bail; and (3) elaborate bail packages involving home detention and electronic monitoring are insufficient safeguards to protect the community against dangerous organized crime defendants.

1. Organized Crime Leaders Are Dangers to the Community Pretrial detention is warranted where defendants, charged with violent crimes, are leaders or high-ranking members of a criminal organization whose activities routinely include

violence and threats of violence. See Ciccone, 312 F.3d at 543; united States v. Colombo, 777 F.2d 96, 99-100 (2d Cir. 1985);

united States v. Bellomo, 944 F. Supp. 1160, 1166 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Courts in this circuit have recognized that when organized crime depends on a pattern of violent conduct of the sort charged in this case, the risk to the community is substantial and justifies detention.

For example, in Defede, Joseph Defede was charged with extortion and extortion conspiracy. The district court ordered Defede’s pretrial detention, finding that the government had shown by clear and convincing evidence that Defede was the acting boss of the Luchese family, thus rendering him a danger to public safety: “The acting boss of the Luchese family supervises all of its far-flung criminal activities, including acts of violence. Defede’s continued liberty therefore presents a substantial danger to the public . • Defede, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 395 .

More recently, a court in this District denied bail to the acting boss of the Genovese family who “participated at the highest levels in directing an organization alleged in the indictment to be committed to acts of violence to perpetuate its activities and insulate itself from detection by law enforcement,· Cirillo, slip. op. at 7, as well as a former acting boss who “is at the highest levels of the Genovese family, participating in highly secret induction ceremonies and sit­downs, and representing the family in important meetings,· id. at

11. The Second Circuit affirmed those findings by summary order.

See 149 Fed. Appx. at 43 (2d Cir. 2005) (“This court has affirmed the detention of the leaders of organized crime enterprises on the ground that their continued liberty presents a risk to the public not only from their own violent activities but from those of subordinates whom they supervise.”) (citing Ciccone, 312 F.3d at 543) .

In addition, to be detained as a danger to the community, an organized crime defendant need not be charged in specific predicate acts of violence; it is enough that his position is at the helm of a violent organization. Ciccone, 312 F.3d at 542-43; see also Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 543 (noting that the defendant need not have committed the violence himself; he can be deemed dangerous if he directed others to commit acts of violence) (citing Colombo, 777 F.2d at 98). As one court has pointed out, an organized crime leader “is dangerous because inherent in the leadership position is the supervision of criminal activity that cannot be curtailed by any condition or combination of conditions of release.” Gotti, 219 F. Supp. 2d at 299-300 (citations omitted).

To be sure, courts’ decisions to deny bail to organized crime leaders have not been based solely on the defendants’ mere “association” with organized crime, but rather on the evidence that members of organized crime, and in particular, high-ranking members of organized crime, routinely engage in acts of violence

as a result of their position in a criminal enterprise. As the

court held in Defede:

[Ilt is well established that persons who

hold Defede’s status routinely engage in

conduct that is a menace to public safety.

The argument thus is based not on the status,

but on the inference that a person in

Defede’s position is quite likely to engage

in dangerous conduct -just as one reasonably

could infer that one holding the position of

major league baseball pitcher is entirely

likely to hurl a small white object in the

direction of horne plate.

7 F. Supp. 2d at 392 n.4.

Moreover, in enacting the Bail Reform Act, Congress

recognized that certain defendants, such as high-ranking members

of an organized crime family fall within a “‘small but

identifiable group of particularly dangerous defendants as to

whom neither the imposition of stringent release conditions nor

the prospect of revocation of release can reasonably assure the

safety of the community.'” Colombo, 777 F. 2d at 99 (quoting S.

Rep. No. 225 98th Cong., 1st Sess. at 6-7, ~ reprinted in 1984

U.S. Code Congo & Admin. News 3182 (“Senate Report”), 3188-89).

Nor is the above caselaw narrowly limited to organized crime “bosses” or “acting bosses.” In Salerno, 631 F. Supp. at 1374-75, the court held that a defendant would be a danger to the community if released on bail based on evidence that he was a captain in an organized crime family who managed the enforcement operations of the enterprise. Likewise, in Colombo, a captain of a crew in the Colombo family was ordered detained because the operation of that organization posed a risk to the public and a danger to the community by its “consistent pattern of orchestrating a series of violent criminal operations.” 777 F.2d at 99-100 (internal quotation marks omitted) .

2. Organized Crime Defendants Are Likely to Commit Crimes if Released on Bail Organized crime defendants also pose a particular threat to the community due to the continuing nature of the charged enterprise and its violent criminal activities. At bottom, because organized crime defendants are career criminals who belong to an illegal enterprise, they pose a distinct threat to commit additional crimes if released on bail. See Salerno, 631 F. Supp. at 1375 (finding that the illegal businesses of organized crime require constant attention and protection, and recognizing a strong incentive on the part of its leadership to continue business as usual). In addition, defendants pose a danger to the community not only when they commit acts of violence, but when it is likely that they will commit even non-violent crimes that are detrimental to the community. See Senate Report at 3195 (“language referring to safety of the community refers to the danger that the defendant might engage in criminal activity to

the detriment of the community . The Committee intends that the concern about safety be given a broader construction

than merely danger of harm involving physical violence.”). In

Colombo, the court held “[i]n light of Congress’ direction that

‘[w]here there is a strong probability that a person will commit

additional crimes if released, the need to protect the community

becomes sufficiently compelling that detention is, on balance,

appropriate. ‘” 777 F. 2d at 99 (quoting Senate Report at 3189) .

In Salerno, the court upheld the detention of two leaders of the

Genovese organized crime family, noting:

The activities of a criminal organization

such as the Genovese Family do not cease with

the arrest of its principals and their

release on even the most stringent of bail

conditions. The illegal businesses, in place

for many years, require constant attention

and protection, or they will fail. Under

these circumstances, this court recognizes a

strong incentive on the part of its

leadership to continue business as usual.

When business as usual involves threats,

beatings, and murder, the present danger such

people pose in the community is self evident.

631 F. Supp. at 1375.

3. Elaborate Bail Packages Are Insufficient to Protect the Community Against Violent Organized Crime Defendants

Finally, the Second Circuit repeatedly has rejected “elaborate” bail packages for dangerous defendants, including leaders of organized crime families shown to be involved in violent criminal activities. See United States v. Dono, Nos. 07­5333-cr(L), 07-5334-cr(CON), 275 Fed. Appx. 35, 2008 WL 1813237, at *2-3 (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2008) (rejecting conditions that

included, among others, home detention and electronic monitoring, and a requirement that the defendant’s father -a retired police officer -take “personal responsibility” for the defendant); Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 543-44 (rejecting $1 million bail secured by real property); United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 630-33 (2d cir. 1993) (rejecting $3 million bail secured with real property, in-home detention, restricted visitation and telephone calls, and electronic monitoring); Colombo, 777 F.2d at 97, 100 (rejecting, among other conditions of release, $500,000 bail secured by real property) .

The Second Circuit has viewed home detention and electronic monitoring as insufficient to protect the community against dangerous individuals. In United States v. Millan, the Second Circuit held that:

Home detention and electronic monitoring at best elaborately replicate a detention facility without the confidence of security such a facility instills. If the government does not provide staff to monitor compliance extensively, protection of the community would be left largely to the word of [the defendants] that [they] will obey the conditions.

4 F.3d 1039, 1049 (2d Cir. 1993) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). See also Orena, 986 F.2d at 632 (“electronic surveillance systems can be circumvented by the wonders of science and of sophisticated electronic technology”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) .

Similarly, courts in this district have denied

dangerous defendants bail in recognition of the Second Circuit’s dim view of the effectiveness of home detention and electronic monitoring. See,~, Dono, 2008 WL 1813237, at *2-3 (noting that the idea that “‘specified conditions of bail protect the public more than detention is flawed”’) (quoting Orena, 986 F.2d at 632); United States v. Cantarella, No. 02-CR-307 (NGG) , 2002 WL 31946862, at *3-4 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2002) (adopting

“principle” of “den [ying] bail to ‘dangerous’ defendants despite the availability of home detention and electronic surveillance and notwithstanding the value of a defendant’s proposed bail package”); Agnello, 101 F. Supp. 2d at 116 (Gershon, J.) (“the protection of the community provided by the proposed home detention remains inferior to that provided by confinement in a detention facility”); United States v. Masotto, 811 F. Supp. 878, 884 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) (rejecting bail because “the Second Circuit appears to be saying to us that in the case of ‘dangerous defendants’ the Bail Reform Act does not contemplate the type of

conditions suggested by this Court [including home confinement and electronic monitoring] and that, even if it did, the conditions would not protect the public or the community, given the ease with which many of them may be circumvented”).

II. The Defendants Should Be Detained

A. The Defendants Are a Danger to the Community

Defendants Andrew Russo, Castellazzo, Fusco, Delucia, Maragni, Anthony Russo, Capaldo, Favuzza, Savarese, Scopo, Sessa, Castellano, Destefano, Fappiano and Durso pose a substantial danger to the community. Each defendant is affiliated with a violent criminal enterprise and, with the exception of Castellano, has engaged in violence, planned violence, possessed firearms for the purpose of engaging in violence, or threatened violence. As discussed more specifically below, each of the relevant considerations under the Bail Reform Act strongly favors detention here.

1. Nature and Circumstances of the Crimes Charged

First, with the exception of Castellano, each of the defendants for whom the government seeks detention is charged with crimes of violence under the relevant provisions of the Bail Reform Act. See Ciccone, 312 F.3d at 542 (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 3156 (a) (4) (A), (B)) (Bail Reform Act defines a “crime of violence” as an offense that has as one of its elements the “attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another,” or “any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense”); Chimurenga, 760 F.2d at 404 (conspiracy to commit a crime of violence is a crime of violence for purposes of the Bail Reform Act) .

Furthermore, one of the charges against Castellazzo, Favuzza, Anthony Russo, Savarese and Sessa -possession of a firearm in furtherance of racketeering conspiracy (Counts Thirty, Fifty-Nine and Sixty)’ -carries a statutory presumption against bail. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). The rebuttable presumption shifts the burden of production to the defendant. See Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144. Moreover, even if the defendant satisfies this burden, the court should continue to give some weight to the presumption, “keeping in mind that Congress has found that these offenders pose special risks” and that “a strong probability arises that no form of conditional release” will adequately protect the community. Id. (applying standard with regard to the presumption of flight) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) .

2. History and Characteristics of the Defendants

The defendants’ history and characteristics also clearly favor detention.

, The Second Circuit has held that “where the government proves (1) the commission of at least two acts of racketeering and (2) at least two of those acts qualify as ‘crime[sl of violence’ under [18 U.S.C.1 § 924(c), a [18 U.S.C.1 § 1962 conviction serves as a predicate for a conviction under § 924 (c) ” United States v. Ivezaj, 568 F.3d 88, 96 (2d Cir. 2009) .

a. Andrew Russo

As noted above, defendant Andrew Russo is currently the street boss of the Colombo family, a violent criminal enterprise, and is charged with, among other crimes, racketeering conspiracy, including extortion conspiracy and loansharking as predicate acts, which constitutes a crime of violence. Notably, in his capacity as the street boss of the Colombo family, Andrew Russo has required Colombo family members to obtain approval from the Colombo family administration regarding all decisions involving the affairs of the Colombo family. Furthermore, Andrew Russo has numerous capable individuals to carry out violent crimes at his direction. For example, on one consensual recording, Anthony Russo, one of Andrew Russo’s most reliable captains, said:

Anthony Russo: I haven’t been anywhere. Every time I turn around, there’s a problem I gotta go handle. Why do I have to handle?

CW-l: Why do you gotta go all the time?

Anthony Russo: I don’t know, the guy [Andrew Russo] wants me to go. I’m gonna go to jail.

Anthony Russo also explained the requirements set by Andrew Russo to become an inducted member of the Colombo family: “First, he’s gotta be capable in here [i.e., his head]. And he’s gotta be capable to do this [i.e., murder]. They gotta be capable to do time [i.e., jail time]. They gotta be capable of everything.”

Moreover, Andrew Russo has made clear that he will not hesitate to personally engage in violence. For example, on one consensual recording, Andrew Russo commented, “I don’t hesitate, I’ve never hesitated” to hurt an individual if the individual stepped out of line. He has also made clear that he has no intention of disassociating himself from the Colombo family or La Cosa Nostra. He stated, “I can’t walk away. I can’t

rest.”

In addition, Andrew Russo has prior convictions for various felony offenses, including bribery, witness tampering and racketeering. Notably, Andrew Russo was released from a term of supervised release on or about March 22, 2010, and was shortly thereafter appointed as the street boss of the Colombo family.

b. Benjamin Castellazzo Defendant Castellazzo currently holds the position of the acting underboss of the Colombo family, is charged with extortion, loansharking, and possession of a firearm, all crimes

of violence. Additionally, Castellazzo has prior convictions for, among other crimes, extortion and loansharking.

c. Richard Fusco Defendant Fusco currently holds the position of the consigliere of the Colombo family. He is charged with extortion

conspiracy, which constitutes a crime of violence. Fusco has prior convictions for racketeering and fraud.

d. Dennis Delucia Defendant Delucia is a captain in the Colombo family. He is charged with extortion and extortion conspiracy, which

constitute crimes of violence. He has prior convictions for, among other crimes, extortion and extortion conspiracy.

e. Reynold Maragni Defendant Maragni is a captain in the Colombo family. He is charged with extortion and multiple conspiracies to use extortionate means to collect extensions of credit, which constitute crimes of violence. In addition, Maragni is charged with money laundering, a bribery scheme and a conspiracy to distribute narcotics. In addition to the crimes set forth above where Maragni has solicited coconspirators to engage in acts of violence, Maragni asked CW-1 to assault an individual who disrespected a relative of the official underboss Genarro Langella. Specifically, Maragni asked CW-1 to threaten an individual with bodily harm if the individual further disrespected the relative.

Maragni also has a prior felony conviction for racketeering.

f. Anthony Russo In January 2009, while Anthony Russo was serving a term

of supervised release, he was inducted into the Colombo family and was promoted to acting captain in June 2010. He is charged

with murder, extortion, extortion conspiracy, loansharking,

loansharking conspiracy and firearms possession, which constitute crimes of violence. Indeed, on one consensual recording, Anthony Russo told CW-1 that he was carrying “a pistol.”

As noted above, Anthony Russo is captured discussing his threats and acts of violence during numerous recorded conversations. In addition, Anthony Russo has made numerous other comments, captured on consensual recordings, evidencing his willingness to commit violence. He once stated to CW-1 that they were “the only guys willing to go to war.” On another occasion, he threatened that he was going to hit a debtor in the head with a pipe.

On consensual recordings, Anthony Russo has also made clear the harm he would inflict on any individuals determined to be cooperating witnesses. For example, on a consensual recording made by CW-1 in December 2010, Anthony Russo observed that there was a “rat real close to us” and stated that he wanted to find the individual and “chop his head off.”

Anthony Russo has a prior conviction for racketeering conspiracy.

g. Daniel Capaldo In January 2009, while Capaldo was serving a term of

supervised release, Capaldo was inducted into the Colombo family. Capaldo is charged with loansharking offenses, which are crimes

of violence. Notably, he committed at least one of the crimes charged while he was serving a term of supervised release. In addition, Capaldo recently pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy in connection with conduct he committed while on supervised release.

h. Emanuele Favuzza

In January 2009, Favuzza was inducted into the Colombo family. Favuzza is charged with racketeering conspiracy, including loansharking offenses as predicate acts, and firearms possession in connection with racketeering conspiracy. Notably, Favuzza committed one of the charged crimes while he was serving a term of probation.

i. Joseph Savarese

Joseph Savarese was inducted into the Colombo family in January 2009, while he was serving a federal sentence in a halfway house. Savarese also admitted to CW-l, during a consensually-recorded conversation, that he had wanted to participate in a robbery while he was in the halfway house, but could not in light of his curfew:’

When I was in the halfway house, Gaspar

[Marciante] came to meet me at the Post

[where Savarese was employed], telling me,

“Me [Marciante] and Carmine [Carini] are

going to do a fuckin’ score tomorrow if you

, The individuals who asked Savarese to participate were later charged in the Eastern District of New York with a series of robberies.

wanna come.” I said, “I’m in the halfway house. I can’t leave. How am I gonna get out?” I wanted to go.

Savarese is charged with, among other crimes, racketeering conspiracy, including robbery conspiracy, extortion, loansharking and narcotics distribution as predicate acts, as well as brandishing a firearm. Savarese has a prior conviction for racketeering conspiracy in connection with Savarese’s participation in the Colombo family war, and is currently serving a term of supervised release. Notably, Savarese committed all of the charged crimes while he was serving a term of supervised release.

j. Ralph Scopo, Jr.

Ralph Scopo, Jr., is an inducted member of the Colombo family and has a history of corruptly influencing the affairs of Local 6A (the very union he is charged with extorting) . Scopo also has a lengthy criminal history, including a 2006 conviction for making an extortionate extension of credit, for which he received a sentence of time served and a three-year term of supervised release. Notably, Scopo committed the charged racketeering conspiracy while he was serving this term of supervised release.

k. Ilario Sessa

Sessa is a long-time associate of the Colombo family and as detailed above was scheduled to become an inducted member

of the family in December 2010. Sessa is charged with racketeering conspiracy, including extortion and loansharking as predicate acts, and possession of a firearm in connection with racketeering conspiracy. In a consensual recording made in December 2010, Sessa advised Anthony Russo and CW-1 that he

“always· carried a knife.

As Sessa has admitted in consensual recordings, he has two prior felony convictions, both of which relate to his affiliation with the Colombo family. In December 2008, Sessa was arrested for a violation of supervised release, to which he later pleaded guilty. After serving a five-month term of incarceration, Sessa was released in July 2009 and quickly resumed committing crimes in connection with the Colombo family in the hopes of fulfilling his well-known goal of becoming a soldier in the Colombo family.

1. Michael Castellano

Castellano is an associate of the Colombo family. Castellano is charged with racketeering conspiracy, including fraud as predicate acts, and mUltiple counts of fraud. Notably, Castellano has a previous conviction for fraud. While Castellano was released on bail in connection with his previous arrest, Castellano committed another act of fraud.

m. Giuseppe Destefano

Destefano is an associate of the Colombo family. Destefano is charged with, among other crimes, racketeering conspiracy, including extortion and loansharking as predicate acts, and possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. Destefano has a prior felony conviction for loansharking.

n. Anthony Durso

Anthony Durso is an associate of the Colombo family. Durso is charged with participating in loansharking, a crime of violence. In the charged offense, Durso and Sessa, with the aid of a knife, assaulted a loanshark victim.

Sessa has described Durso as his most trusted associate and has noted that Colombo family member Savarese “loves” Durso. Among other criminal errands, Durso drove Sessa to a meeting with Favuzza and Castellazzo to retrieve the firearm that was to be used in Sessa’s induction ceremony and maintained possession of the firearm.

o. Scott Fappiano

Fappiano is an associate of the Colombo family. He is has a prior felony conviction for reckless endangerment and is currently serving a term of probation. Fappiano is charged with, among other crimes, racketeering conspiracy, including a robbery conspiracy and loansharking as predicate acts. Notably, he

committed the charged crimes while serving a term of probation. In a consensual-recorded conversation, Fappiano also admitted that he gave tips about potential robbery targets to a crew of individuals committing home invasions. He further admitted that he had stored some of the tools used in those robberies, but destroyed the evidence after those individuals were arrested.

3. Seriousness of Danger Posed by the Defendants’ Release

The seriousness of the danger posed by the defendants’ release cannot be underestimated in light of their affiliation with the Colombo family, a violent criminal enterprise, and their involvement in crimes of violence and/or possession of weapons. As noted above, courts in this circuit have recognized that when organized crime defendants, such as the defendants in this case, are charged with employing violent conduct, the risk of continued violent conduct is substantial and justifies detention. See Salerno, 631 F. Supp. at 1364.

Moreover, a defendant poses a danger to the community not only when he commits acts of violence, but when he is likely to commit non-violent crimes that harm the community. Here, beyond the crimes of violence described above, several of the defendants are charged with engaging in other crimes that are a detriment to the community, including narcotics distribution. In addition, many of the defendants are charged with crimes that they committed while serving another sentence, or while on supervised release, amply demonstrating their disregard for court orders and a high risk that they will continue to commit crimes if released pending trial.

4. Evidence of the Defendants’ Guilt

As discussed above, the evidence of the defendants’ guilt is exceedingly strong. The government intends to prove the defendants’ guilt at trial through the testimony of numerous witnesses, including cooperating witnesses, many of whom were once the defendants’ co-conspirators. In addition, the defendants were intercepted on wiretaps and hundreds of hours of consensual recordings discussing charged crimes. Physical and documentary evidence, such as phone records, and surveillance evidence underscore the defendants’ guilt.

* * *

In sum, in considering each of four relevant “detention” factors, the aforementioned defendants are a danger to the community and should be detained.

B. The Defendants Constitute a Risk of Flight

The aforementioned defendants also constitute a risk of flight. On the current charges, each defendant faces significant jail time, as detailed below:

Andrew Russo: Up to 60 years’ imprisonment Daniel Capaldo: Up to 100 years’ imprisonment Michael Castellano: up to 120 years’ imprisonment

Benjamin Castellazzo: Up to life imprisonment
Dennis Delucia: Up to 45 years’ imprisonment
Giuseppe Destefano: Up to 110 years’ imprisonment
Anthony Durso: Up to 40 years’ imprisonment
Scott Fappiano: Up to 60 years’ imprisonment
Emanuele Favuzza: Up to life imprisonment
Richard Fusco: Up to 20 years’ imprisonment
Reynold Maragni: Up to 115 years’ imprisonment
Anthony Russo: Up to life imprisonment
Joseph Savarese: Up to life imprisonment
Ralph Scopo, Jr. : Up to 100 years’ imprisonment
Ilario Sessa: Up to life imprisonment
                     

 

The significant sentences faced by these defendants give them a substantial incentive to flee. See United States v. Dodge, 846 F. Supp. 181, 184-85 (D. Conn. 1994) (possibility of a “severe sentence” heightens the risk of flight) In addition, defendants Andrew Russo, Capaldo, Castellano, Castellazzo, Delucia, Destefano, Fappiano, Favuzza, Fusco, Maragni, Anthony Russo, Savarese, Scopo and Sessa have also maintained their membership in or association with the Colombo family while serving terms of probation or supervised release. Furthermore, the defendants Capaldo, Fappiano, Favuzza, Savarese, Scopo and Sessa also committed the charged crimes while serving terms of probation or supervised release.

Moreover, defendant Castellano has a history of

committing offense involving dishonesty, including the use of false identification documents. He thus cannot be trusted to abide by release conditions. See United States v. Hollender, 162

F. Supp. 2d 261, 265-66 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (a defendant’s ability to flee, in light of involvement in “crimes the nature of which involve deception [and] that those deceptions are alleged to have included the use of false and fictitious identities,” supported a finding that the defendant was a flight risk).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the government respectfully requests that the Court enter permanent orders of detention with respect to defendants Andrew Russo, Benjamin Castellazzo, Richard Fusco, Dennis Delucia, Reynold Maragni, Anthony Russo, Daniel Capaldo, Emanuele Favuzza, Joseph Savarese,

Ralph Scopo, Jr., Ilario Sessa, Michael Castellano, Giuseppe Destefano, Anthony Durso and Scott Fappiano.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
    January 20, 2011
      Respectfully submitted,
      LORETTA E. LYNCH  
      United States Attorney
      Eastern District of New York
      271 Cadman Plaza East
      Brooklyn, New York 11201
Elizabeth A. Geddes      
James   D. Gatta      
Allon Lifshitz    
Assis t ant United States Attorneys  
  (Of Counsel)    
               

The government hereby moves for a permanent order of detention with respect to defendants Vincent Dragonetti, Anthony Licata, Joseph Lombardi, Anthony O’Donnell, Anthony Scibelli and William Scotto, each of them a member or associate of the Gambino crime family.

AB:WK/DPL F.#2009R00195

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

————–x

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

-against -Cr. No. 11-CR-0003 (DLI)

VINCENT DRAGONETTI,

also known as “VinnyI II “Skinny,” “Mike,” “Mikey” and “Marbles,”

THOMAS FRANGIAPANE, EMMANUEL GARAFOLO,

also known as “Manny,”

ANTHONY LICATA,

also known as “Cheeks,”

“Anthony Firehawk,” “Anthony Nighthawk,” “Nighthawk” and

“Firehawk,”

JOSEPH LOMBARDI, ANTHONY O’DONNELL,

also known as “Tony 0,11

ANTHONY SCIBELLI and WILLIAM SCOTTO, also known as “Billy” and

“Big BillyI”

Defendants.

—————x

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR A PERMANENT ORDER OF DETENTION

LORETTA E. LYNCH United States Attorney Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201

Whitman Knapp

Duncan Levin

Assistant United States Attorneys (Of Counsel)

Table of Contents

Preliminary Statement 1 Proffered Facts . 1

I .            Investigation and Indictment 2

A.        The Investigation 2

B.        The Indictment 4

II.        Legal Standard. 5

A.        The Bail Reform Act 5

B.         Organized Crime Defendants Are Likely to Commit Crimes if Released on Bail . 6

C.        Elaborate Bail packages Are Insufficient to Protect the Community Against Violent Organized Crime Defendants . 7

III.       The Defendants Should Be Detained 10

A.        Vincent Dragonetti 11

1.         Nature and Circumstances of the Crimes Charged 11

2.         History and Characteristics of the Defendant. 12

3.         Seriousness of Danger Posed by the Defendant’s Release 13

4.         Evidence of the Defendant’s Guilt 15

5.         Summary 16

B.        Anthony Licata 17

1.         Nature and Circumstances of the Crimes Charged 17

2.         History and Characteristics of the Defendant. 19

3.         Seriousness of Danger Posed by the Defendant’s Release 20

4.         Evidence of the Defendant’s Guilt 20

5.         Summary 20

C.        Joseph Lombardi

l.             Nature and circumstances of the Crimes Charged 21

2.            History and Characteristics of the Defendant 22

3.            Seriousness of Danger Posed by the Defendant’s Release 23

4.            Evidence of the Defendant’s Guilt 24

5.            Summary 24

D.        Anthony O’Donnell 25

l.             Nature and Circumstances of the Crimes Charged 25

2.            History and Characteristics of the Defendant 27

3.            Seriousness of Danger Posed by the Defendant’s Release 28

4.         Evidence of the Defendant’s Guilt 28

5.            Summary

E.        Anthony Scibelli

l.             Nature and Circumstances of the

2.            History and Characteristics of

28 30 Crimes Charged 30 the Defendant 32

3.            Seriousness of Danger Posed by the Defendant’s Release 33

4.            Evidence of the Defendant’s Guilt 35

5.            Summary 35

F.        William Scotto 36

l.             Nature and Circumstances of the Crimes Charged 36

2.            History and Characteristics of the Defendant 36

3.            Seriousness of Danger Posed by the Defendant’s Release 37

4. Evidence of the Defendant’s Guilt 38

5. Summary 38

IV. Conclusion . 40

Preliminary Statement

The government hereby moves for a permanent order of detention with respect to defendants Vincent Dragonetti, Anthony Licata, Joseph Lombardi, Anthony O’Donnell, Anthony Scibelli and William Scotto, each of them a member or associate of the Gambino crime family. As described in detail below, each of these defendants faces serious charges; each has a history of crimes of violence; each defendant poses a serious danger if released; and each faces a large volume of strong evidence showing his guilt. Each of these defendants additionally presents a risk of flight. Accordingly, defendants Dragonetti, Licata, Lombardi, O’Donnell, Scibelli and Scotto should be detained pending trial. ‘

Proffered Facts

The government proffers the following facts concerning the charges at issue and pretrial detention.’ See United States

v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (the government is entitled to proceed by proffer in a detention hearing); United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540, 542 (2d Cir. 1995) (same); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1145 (2d

The government makes this submission without prejudice to seeking the detention of any of the remaining defendants in the indictment, Thomas Frangiapane and Emmanuel Garafolo, who are also members or associates of the Gambino family.

The proffer of facts set forth herein does not purport to provide a complete statement of all facts and evidence of which the government is aware or that it will seek to introduce at trial.

cir. 1986) (same).3

The proffer includes a description of the following:

(1) the indictment and the government’s investigation of the Gambino family and the defendants; (2) the legal standard applicable to the Court’s determination as to the defendants’s detention; and (3) the specific factors that merit detention for each defendant.

I. Investigation and Indictment

Brief overviews of the investigation that led to this indictment, and the charges in the indictment, are set forth below:

A. The Investigation

This case is the most recent result of mUlti-year investigations in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Department of Labor have used cooperating

As the Second Circuit has explained:

[Iln the pre-trial context, few detention

hearings involve live testimony or cross

examination. Most proceed on proffers. See

United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000). This is because bail

hearings are “typically informal affairs, not

substitutes for trial or discovery.” united

States v. Acevedo-Ramos, 755 F.2d 203, 206

(1st Cir. 1985) (Breyer, J.) (quoted approvingly in LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 131) Indeed, § 3142 (f) (2) (B) expressly states that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at bail hearings; thus, courts often base detention decisions on hearsay evidence. Id.

witnesses to infiltrate the Gambino organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra (“Gambino family”). These cooperating witnesses, between 2005 and 2010, made more than one thousand hours of consensual audio and video recordings of members and associates of the Gambino family. In addition, the investigations gathered evidence from civilian witnesses, documents, and long-term surveillance operations.

The cooperating witnesses referenced above, as well as other former members and associates of the Gambino family, will testify for the government in this and other cases. They will testify that the Gambino family exists and that it is a violent criminal enterprise that engages in various crimes including murder, robbery and extortion. They will also provide the specific details of each of the charges against the defendants in this case. The witness testimony, audio and video recordings, and other evidence collected by these investigations reveal that the Gambino family is still entrenched in New York’s construction and trucking industries, and that it remains a criminal enterprise, encumbering the region’s economy and willing to engage in acts of violence in order to make illegal profits.

3

B. The Indictment

On January 5, 2011, a grand jury in this district returned a sealed ten-count indictment charging eight defendants -Vincent Dragonetti, Thomas Frangiapane, Emmanuel Garafolo, Anthony Licata, Joseph Lombardi, Anthony O’Donnell, Anthony Scibelli and William Scotto -variously with racketeering conspiracy and extortion-related charges.

The chart below summarizes the criminal counts included in the indictment:

-.”;””1 .,,;,;;,,,/. “;1;~ ‘·’·;/;,;;H:3i’J Racketeering Conspiracy ‘111..,” ~1;i’;~’;;””;’;:” Licata, O’Donnell, Scibelli
2 Extortion Conspiracy (John Doe #1) Garafolo, Licata, Scotto
3 Extortion Conspiracy (Sitt Asset Management) Dragonett i , Frangiapane, Scibelli, O’Donnell
4 Extortion (Sitt Asset Management) Dragonetti, Frangiapane, Scibelli, O’Donnell
5 Interstate Travel in-aid-of Racketeering O’Donnell
6 Extortion Conspiracy (John Does #3 and #4) Dragonetti, Scibelli
7 Extortion (John Does #3 and #4) Dragonetti, Scibelli
8 Extortion Conspiracy (John Doe #3) Licata, Lombardi
9 Extortion (John Doe #3) Lombardi
10 Attempted Extortion (John Doe #1) Garafolo, Licata, Scotto

 

4

The chart below summarizes the racketeering acts

alleged in the racketeering conspiracy_C'(i……·.. ,S’ count: “.1″4′,’;’;).; -; ,’,;,’.. ii;;Y~.”;”,
1 Extortion Conspiracy/Attempted O’Donnell    
Extortion (Construction List)      
           

 

2

Extortion Conspiracy (Cracolici

Licata

Dispute)

3

Scibelli

Extortion Conspiracy/Attempted

Extortion (Cement Manufacturing)

4

Extortion Conspiracy/Attempted

Licata

Extortion (John Doe #1)

5

Extortion Conspiracy/Attempted O’Donnell, Scibelli

Extortion (Sitt Asset Management)

Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion

Scibelli

6

(John Does #3 and 4)

7

Extortion Conspiracy (John Doe

Licata

#3)

8

Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion

Scibelli

(Cement Powder Deliveries)

II. Legal Standard

A. The Bail Reform Act

Under the Bail Reform Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3141 et §§g., federal courts are empowered to order a defendant’s detention pending trial upon a determination that the defendant is either a danger to the community or a risk of flight. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (e) (“no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the

5

community”). A finding of dangerousness must be supported by

clear and convincing evidence. A finding of risk of flight must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 405 (2d Cir. 1985).

The Bail Reform Act lists four factors to be considered in the detention analysis: (1) the nature and circumstances of the crimes charged, (2) the history and characteristics of the defendant, (3) the seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant’s release; and (4) the evidence of the defendant’s guilt. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

B.        Organized Crime Defendants Are Likely to Commit Crimes if Released on Bail

Organized crime defendants pose a particular threat to the community due to the continuing nature of the charged enterprise and its violent criminal activities. At bottom, because organized crime defendants are career criminals who belong to an illegal enterprise, they pose a distinct threat to commit additional crimes if released on bail. See united States

v. Salerno, 631 F. Supp. 1364, 1375 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (finding that the illegal businesses of organized crime require constant attention and protection, and recognizing a strong incentive on the part of its leadership to continue business as usual).

Congress noted that defendants pose a danger to the community not only when they commit acts of violence, but when it is likely that they will commit even non-violent crimes that are

6

detrimental to the community. See Senate Report at 3195

(“language referring to safety of the community refers to the

danger that the defendant might engage in criminal activity to

the detriment of the community . The Committee intends

that      the concern about safety be given a broader construction

than     merely danger of harm involving physical violence”) In

Salerno, 631 F. Supp. at 1371, the court held:

In light of Congress’ direction that’ [wlhere

there is a strong probability that a person

will commit additional crimes if released,

the need to protect the community becomes

sufficiently compelling that detention is, on

balance, appropriate’

See also United States v. Colombo, 777 F.2d 96, 99 (2d Cir.

1985). Ultimately, the court in Salerno detained two leaders of

the Genovese organized crime family, noting:

The activities of a criminal organization such as the Genovese Family do not cease with the arrest of its principals and their release on even the most stringent of bail conditions. The illegal businesses, in place for many years, require constant attention and protection, or they will fail. Under these circumstances, this court recognizes a strong incentive on the part of its leadership to continue business as usual. When business as usual involves threats, beatings, and murder, the present danger such people pose in the community is self evident.

631 F. Supp. at 1375.

C.        Elaborate Bail Packages Are Insufficient to Protect the community Against Violent Orqanized Crime Defendants

The Second Circuit repeatedly has rejected “elaborate”

7

bail packages for dangerous defendants, including leaders of organized crime families shown to be involved in violent criminal activities. See United States v. Dono, Nos. 07-5333-cr(L), 07­5334-cr(CON), 2008 WL 1813237, at *2-3 (2d Cir. April 23, 2008)

(rejecting conditions that included, among others, home detention and electronic monitoring, and a requirement that the defendant’s father -a retired police officer -take ·personal responsibility” for the defendant); Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 543-44

(rejecting $1 million bail secured by real property); United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 630-33 (2d Cir. 1993) (rejecting $3 million bail secured with real property, in-home detention, restricted visitation and telephone calls, and electronic monitoring); Colombo, 777 F.2d at 97, 100 (rejecting, among other conditions of release, $500,000 bail secured by real property)

The Second Circuit has viewed home detention and electronic monitoring as insufficient to protect the community against dangerous individuals. In United States v. Millan, the Second Circuit held that:

Home detention and electronic monitoring at best elaborately replicate a detention facility without the confidence of security such a facility instills. If the government does not provide staff to monitor compliance extensively, protection of the community would be left largely to the word of [the defendants] that [they] will obey the conditions.

4 F.3d 1039, 1049 (2d Cir. 1993) (internal citations and

8

quotation marks omitted). See also Orena, 986 F.2d at 632

(“electronic surveillance systems can be circumvented by the wonders of science and of sophisticated electronic technology”)

(internal citation and quotation marks omitted) .

Similarly, courts in this district have denied dangerous defendants bail in recognition of the Second Circuit’s dim view of the effectiveness of home detention and electronic monitoring. See,~, Dono, 2008 WL 1813237, at *2-3 (noting that the idea that “‘specified conditions of bail protect the public more than detention is flawed”’) (quoting Orena, 986 F. 2d at 632); United States v. Cantarella, No. 02-CR-307 (NGG) , 2002 WL 31946862 at *3-4 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (adopting “principle” of “den [ying] bail to ‘dangerous’ defendants despite the availability of home detention and electronic surveillance and notwithstanding the value of a defendant’s proposed bail package”); United States v. Agnello, 101 F. Supp. 2d 108, 116

(E.D.N.Y. 2000) (Gershon, J.) (“the protection of the community provided by the proposed home detention remains inferior to that provided by confinement in a detention facility”); United States

v. Masotto, 811 F. Supp. 878, 884 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) (rejecting bail because “the Second Circuit appears to be saying to us that in the case of ‘dangerous defendants’ the Bail Reform Act does not contemplate the type of conditions suggested by this Court

[including home confinement and electronic monitoring] and that,

9

even if it did, the conditions would not protect the public or the community, given the ease with which many of them may be

circumvented” )

III. The Defendants Should Be Detained

For the specific reasons detailed below, defendants Vincent Dragonetti, Anthony Licata, Joseph Lombardi, Anthony O’Donnell, Anthony Scibelli and William Scotto pose a danger to the community and a risk of flight, and accordingly should be detained pending trial.

As a preliminary matter, the government will present evidence at trial -including witness testimony, the recorded statements of defendants and their coconspirators, and surveillance photographs -that will show, among other things, that each of these defendants is a member or associate of the Gambino family; that the Gambino family is a violent criminal enterprise that engages in various crimes including murder, robbery and extortion; and that each of the defendants committed the crimes charged in furtherance of the Gambino family’s business.

Each of the sections (§§ A-F) regarding individual defendants, below, is self contained and does not require that any of the other defendants’ sections be read as a prerequisite or to provide a complete picture. Accordingly, the Court may review each section individually and in whichever order is most

convenient.

A. Vincent Dragonetti

Vincent Dragonetti is a Gambino family soldier who was captured on a consensual audio recording threatening extortion victims by informing them, “I don’t know anyone who gets hurt unless they have to get hurt.” On June 5, 2008, he pleaded guilty in this district to participating in a racketeering conspiracy, charged as the Gambino family of La Cosa Nostra, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), during the time frame of the crimes with which he is charged in this indictment. Dragonetti has enjoyed a special standing within the family as a result of his status as the son-in-law of powerful Gambino family captain, Nicholas Corozzo.

1. Nature and Circumstances of the Crimes Charged

Dragonetti has been charged in the indictment with two counts of extortion conspiracy and two counts of extortion. Extortions are crimes of violence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3156 (a) (4) (A)

(defining “crime of violence” as an offense that has as one of its elements the “attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another”).

The Sitt Asset Management extortion-related counts

(three and four), with which Dragonetti, along with Frangiapane, Scibelli and O’Donnell are charged, involved a March 2008 construction lien that a mob-controlled subcontractor, ACE, filed against a mob-controlled contractor, Duramax, at a condominium

11

development project on Avenue P in Brooklyn. The lien was based

on phony documentation indicating that ACE had preformed certain work at the site that it had not done. This scheme was designed to compel the condominium project developer, Sitt Asset Management (“Sitt”), to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to settle the lien so as not to jeopardize Sitt’s ability to obtain bank financing for the project. In the end, Sitt, unaware that the documentation connected with the lien was fraudulent, and

fearful that the lien would impede its ability to proceed with the project, paid ACE $120,000 to release the lien.

The counts related to the extortion of John Does #3 and #4 (counts six and seven), involve Dragonetti’s and Scibelli’s actions, subsequent to the successful extortion of Sitt, to make John Does #3 and #4, the principals of ACE, pay Dragonetti and Scibelli more than they and had agreed to pay -$40,000 of the $120,000 that Sitt had been induced to pay as a result of the phony lien. During the course of this extortion, Dragonetti threatened John Doe #3 and John Doe #4, as discussed below. See infra, § A.3. In the end, Dragonetti and Scibelli succeeded in extorting a payment of $30,000 from John Doe #3 and John Doe #4.

2. History and Characteristics of the Defendant

Dragonetti is a Gambino family soldier -a criminal who has sworn an oath to a violent criminal enterprise. He also is a convicted felon who has pleaded guilty in the past to the same

12

conduct he has been charged with in this indictment.

In 1997, Dragonetti was arrested in the Eastern District of New York and charged with RICO and RICO conspiracy. On November 3, 1997, he pleaded guilty, before the Honorable Frederic Block, to loansharking, conducting an illegal gambling business and tax evasion, and was sentenced principally to three years’ imprisonment and a $60,000 fine.

In 2008, less than ten years after his release from prison, Dragonetti was again arrested in the Eastern District of New York. He was charged with racketeering conspiracy, extortion, attempted extortion, extortion conspiracy, extortionate extension of credit, extortionate extension of credit conspiracy, extortionate collection of credit, extortionate collection of credit conspiracy, money laundering, money laundering conspiracy and illegal gambling. On August 8, 2008, he pleaded guilty before the Honorable Jack B. Weinstein to racketeering conspiracy, including two predicate acts of extortion, and was sentenced principally to 37 months’ imprisonment and a $25,000 fine. Dragonetti is currently incarcerated pursuant to this sentence.

3. Seriousness of Danger Posed by the Defendant’s Release

“I don’t know anyone who gets hurt unless they have to get hurt.” These were Dragonetti’s own words, uttered to extortion victims John Doe #3 and John Doe #4 at the time the men

13

were setting up their scheme to extort money from Sitt. These words reflect Dragonetti’s dangerousness.

As indicated by Federal Bureau of Investigation surveillance going back to 1993, Dragonetti has long been involved with Gambino family. His criminal history reveals his involvement in crimes of violence. His involvement in crimes of violence is further reflected in the extortions charged in this indictment against Dragonetti and his co-conspirator, Anthony Scibelli. As part of Dragonetti and Scibelli’s shake down of John Does #3 and #4, Scibelli, who functioned as Dragonetti’s sidekick and subordinate, threatened to force John Doe #3 into a “sit-down” with powerful Gambino family captain (and Dragonetti’s father-in-law) Nicholas “Nicky” Corozzo.’

Later in the shake-down, Scibelli made reference to an individual who had caused problems for Dragonetti and Scibelli by not paying workers at job sites. Scibelli again threatened violence against John Does #3 and #4 -this time by purporting to be concerned about the possibility of violence against the person who had failed to pay workers:

SCIBELLI: . between me and you, [whispers] this

kid’s [UI]. What do we do? Let everybody

beat him up and

JOHN DOE #3: I don’t want to see nothin’ happen like that

In April 2008, after pleading guilty to racketeering conspiracy, Nicholas Corozzo was sentenced to thirteen and a-half years of incarceration.

14

to nobody.

SCIBELLI: You try to make . JOHN DOE #3: I never hurt nobody or want to hurt nobody over money in my whole life. SCIBELLI: what do we do? Let him fuckin’ [UI]? First of all, if anybody hurts him, number one. Anybody could hurt anybody. You know

that and I know. Anybody could hurt anybody. Scibelli made the following additional threat to John Doe #3, touting the power of the Gambino family to inflict violence while purporting to question the wisdom of someone who had dared to cross a person associated with the Gambino family:

SCIBELLI: Did [the person who crossed us] know what the fuck we are capable of? JOHN DOE #3: Right.

SCIBELLI: Are you kidding me? You don’t see the newspapers everyday? They don’t see what-, are you kidding? What do they think, that this is make believe?

In short, the crimes charged in this indictment, in light of Dragonetti’s prior convictions, his own words, and those of his criminal co conspirator, make it clear that Dragonetti is a danger to the community.

4. Evidence of the Defendant’s Guilt

The government’s evidence of Dragonetti’s guilt on the charged crimes is strong. It includes cooperating witness testimony; consensual recordings capturing Dragonetti and his coconspirators conducting criminal activities; surveillance

lS

photographs and business records.

5. Summary

Dragonetti is a member of the Gambino family charged with crimes of violence. He has a significant criminal history, poses a danger to the community, and the evidence against him in this case is strong. In addition, Dragonetti faces a maximum of 20 years imprisonment on each count with which he is charged. Accordingly, he constitutes a risk of flight. See United States

v. Dodge, 846 F. Supp. 181, 184-85 (D. Conn. 1994) (finding the possibility of a ‘severe sentence” heightens the risk of flight)

For all the reasons set forth above, the government respectfully submits that Dragonetti should be detained, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), as a danger to the community and a risk of flight.

16

B. Anthony Licata

Anthony Licata is a Gambino family soldier with prior felony convictions for committing crimes of violence as part of the Gambino family.

1. Nature and Circumstances of the Crimes Charged

Licata has been charged in this indictment with one count of racketeering conspiracy, two counts of extortion conspiracy, and one count of attempted extortion, crimes of violence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a) (4) (A) (defining “crime of violence” as an offense that has as one of its elements the “attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another”) .

The extortion conspiracy and attempted extortion of John Doe #1 (counts two and ten) involved Licata’s efforts, along with those of co-defendants Garafolo and Scotto, to force John Doe #1, a person employed in the construction industry, on an ongoing basis, to pay the Gambino family a portion of his earnings. The government will present evidence at trial that, as a part of their efforts to extort John Doe #1, Licata and his co­conspirators menaced John Doe #l’s family home, threatened him with violence in person and on the telephone, and ultimately assaulted and beat him.

The extortion conspiracy of John Doe #3 involved Licata’s demand that a different person employed in the

17

construction industry, John Doe #3, pay him $30,000. When John Doe #3 refused to do so, in the fall and winter of 2007 -2008, Licata repeatedly contacted John Doe #3 to insist that he reach out to co-defendant and Gambino soldier Joseph Lombardi to discuss payment of the money; Licata further threatened that, if the issue were not resolved between Lombardi and John Doe #3, Licata would call in even higher members of the Gambino family hierarchy to get the money he demanded. As set forth above, and as will be shown at trial through witness testimony and consensual recordings, the involvement of Lombardi and the

intervention of Gambino family higher-ups meant the very real possibility of violence. John Doe #3 managed to avoid a show­down with Licata prior to February 2008, when Licata was arrested

(along with co-defendants Dragonetti, O’Donnell, Scibelli and Scotto) and incarcerated in this district on extortion charges. Licata is also charged with racketeering conspiracy

(count one). In addition to the extortion and extortion conspiracies referenced above, the racketeering conspiracy count contains, as an underlying predicate act, an allegation of an additional similar extortion conspiracy (racketeering act two ­the Cracolici Dispute) . On May 30, 2008, Licata pleaded guilty to this crime, in this district, which Was charged as a substantive count in united States v. Joseph Agate, et al.,

18

08-CR-76 (S-l) (JEW).5 In brief, in approximately January 2006,

when Gambino family associate Gino Cracolici claimed that John Doe #1 owed him $70,000 , he turned to Licata and co-defendant Scotto, who conspired to force John Doe #1 to pay the money upon

threat of violence.

2. History and Characteristics of the Defendant

Licata is a Gambino family soldier -a criminal who has sworn an oath to a violent criminal enterprise. He also is a convicted felon who has pled guilty in the past to the same sort of criminal conduct with which he has been charged in this indictment.

In 1993 and 1995, Licata pleaded guilty to gambling-related charges in Kings County, and sentenced principally to a conditional discharge (1993) and a fine (1995).

In 2008, Licata was arrested in the Eastern District of New York with other members of the Gambino family, and charged with racketeering conspiracy, extortion conspiracy, attempted extortion, extortionate extension of credit, theft of union benefits, mail fraud conspiracy, mail fraud and false statements. As set forth above, on May 30, 2008, Licata pleaded guilty to extortion conspiracy and was sentenced principally to a fifteen-month term of incarceration and a $6,000 fine.

5 This was a racketeering conspiracy predicate acts to which William Scotto allocuted as a part of his guilty plea in the same case.

19

3. Seriousness of Danger Posed by the Defendant’s Release

Based on the evidence proffered above, in particular Licata’s involvement in the entirely separate extortions schemes with regard to John Does #s 1, 2 and 3, his physical beating of John Doe #1, and his blood oath to the Gambino family, Licata’s release necessarily will pose a danger to the community.

4. Evidence of the Defendant’s Guilt

The government’s evidence of Licata’s guilt on the charged crimes is strong. It includes the testimony of multiple witnesses, consensual audio recordings capturing Licata and his coconspirators conducting criminal activities, as well as surveillance photographs and business records.

5. Summary

Licata is a member of the Gambino family charged with crimes of violence. He has a significant criminal history, poses a danger to the community, and the evidence against him in this case is strong. In addition Licata faces 20 years’ imprisonment on each count with which he is charged. Accordingly, he constitutes a risk of flight. See united States v. Dodge, 846 F. Supp. 181, 184-85 (D. Conn. 1994) (finding the possibility of a “severe sentence” heightens the risk of flight).

For all the reasons set forth above, the government respectfully submits that Licata should be detained, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), as a danger to the community and a risk of flight.

20

c. Joseph Lombardi

Joseph Lombardi is a Gambino family soldier who, were he to be released, would present a danger to the community and a risk of flight.

1. Nature and Circumstances of the Crimes charged

Lombardi is charged with conspiring to extort and extorting John Doe #3. When John Doe #3 refused to pay co­conspirator Anthony Licata $30,000 to satisfy an alleged debt, in the fall and winter of 2007 -2008, Licata repeatedly contacted John Doe #3 to insist that he reach out to co-defendant and Gambino soldier Joseph Lombardi to discuss payment of the money; Licata further threatened that, if the issue were not resolved between Lombardi and John Doe #3, Licata would call in even higher members of the Gambino family hierarchy to get the money he demanded. As set forth above, and as will be shown at trial through witness testimony and consensual recordings, the involvement of Lombardi and the intervention of Gambino family higher-ups meant the very real possibility of violence.

John Doe #3 managed to avoid a show-down with co defendant Licata prior to February 2008, when Licata was arrested

(along with co-defendants Dragonetti, O’Donnell, Scibelli and Scotto) and incarcerated in this district on extortion charges. Lombardi, however, did not let the matter drop. Lombardi was later captured on an audio recording complaining to John Doe #3 that John Doe #3 had not reached out to Lombardi:

LOMBARDI: The last time I wanted to see you, I got a  
  message back from Anthony [Licata] (U/I) , he  
  says [John Doe #3] is not gonna meet with  
  you. Alright, so ok, he says that he doesn’t  
  have to-, he was told he doesn’t have to meet  
  with you, he doesn’t have to acknowledge you.
  Ok, I says, well then somebody’s gotta tell
  me who the guy is so I could go see him face­
  to-face. So, is that the case? Did somebody
  tell you that?          
JOHN DOE #3: Uh .
                                                                                                             

 

LOMBARDI: ‘Cuz you’re gonna have to tell me who, ’cause I’m gonna have to, maybe I’m-, physically go see him.

Ultimately, Lombardi negotiated a $7,500 “settlement” of the $30,000 claim, payable in installments to Lombardi. John Doe #3 made payments to Lombardi amounting to $3,500 in 2009, before John Doe #3’s proactive involvement in the investigation ended.

2. History and Characteristics of the Defendant

Joseph Lombardi is a Gambino family soldier who, as reflected in this memorandum, uses threats and violence to help attain the family’s criminal objectives. Lombardi’s criminal history reflects that he was arrested on numerous occasions between 1962 and 1973, and charged with numerous state felony offenses including grand larceny; robbery in the first degree: forcible theft armed with a deadly weapon; possession of a dangerous weapon -2nd offense; and reckless endangerment in the first degree. In addition, during this period, Lombardi was charged with the misdemeanor offense of public lewdness. The

criminal history databases do not reflect the disposition of these charges, with the exception of a 1973 case which charged reckless endangerment and public lewdness, in which it appears the defendant pleaded guilty to a attempting to commit a misdemeanor and was sentenced principally to a ten-day period of incarceration and a $100 fine.

3. Seriousness of Danger Posed by the Defendant’s Release

In addition to the evidence proffered above, which includes Lombardi’s threat to ·physically go see” the person whom he believed had instructed John Doe #3 that John Doe #3 did not have to meet with Lombardi, Lombardi made it clear that he is a dangerous person. For example, in 2009, during the period that he was extorting John Doe #3, Lombardi threatened John Doe #3 by purporting to give him advice about how to handle people who don’t pay what their owed:

You gotta, you know-, it’s like this kid, this . douchebag, what are you fuckin’ doing? I’m gonna shut you out and shut you down everywhere I can and I will, and if I find out you get any more money, I’m gonna come to your house for my money, you fucked

me, ok? You says, you’re a piece of shit,

and I will fuck you back, don’t worry about that. That Lombardi would take such a course of action, and inflict harm upon John Doe #3, could be no surprise. Prior to the above-referenced threat to John Doe #3, in order to extort $30,000 from him, Lombardi loitered around the house belonging to John Doe #3

and his wife; made an appointment with a realtor to go see John Doe #3’s house, which was for sale; and then, when John Doe #3 was able to stay out of sight, provided a realtor with a false name and real telephone number, and asked that the realtor arrange to have John Doe #3 call him -all of which was conduct designed to instill fear.

4. Evidence of the Defendant’s Guilt

The government’s evidence of Lombardi’s guilt on the charged crimes is strong. It includes witness testimony, consensual audio and video recordings capturing Lombardi and his coconspirators conducting criminal activities, surveillance photographs and other documents.

5. Summary

Lombardi is a member of the Gambino family charged with crimes of violence. He poses a danger to the community and the evidence against him in this case is strong. In addition he faces 20 years’ imprisonment on each count with which he is charged. Accordingly, Lombardi constitutes a risk of flight. See United States v. Dodge, 846 F. Supp. 181, 184-85 (D. Conn. 1994) (finding the possibility of a ·severe sentence” heightens the risk of flight) .

For all the reasons set forth above, the government respectfully submits that Lombardi should be detained, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), as a danger to the community and a risk of flight.

D. Anthony O’Donnell

O’Donnell is a Gambino family associate. At one time, he served as the right hand man to Edward Garafola, a Gambino soldier who was a member of the Gambino family’s “construction panel,” a body which oversees the Gambino family’s construction rackets. As set forth below, O’Donnell later served as a special resource for Gambino captain Ernest Grillo.

1. Nature and Circumstances of the Crimes Charged

O’Donnell is charged with racketeering conspiracy, extortion conspiracy, extortion and interstate travel in-aid-of racketeering, all connected with the extortion of Sitt Asset Management. In addition, one of the racketeering acts underlying the racketeering conspiracy charge alleges extortion conspiracy and attempted extortion, in connection with Gambino family efforts to extort large numbers of persons and companies in the New York City area construction industry.

The Sitt Asset Management extortion-related counts

(three and four), with which O’Donnell is charged, along with Dragonetti, Frangiapane and Scibelli, involved a March 2008 construction lien that a mob-controlled subcontractor, ACE, filed against a mob-controlled contractor, Duramax, at a condominium development project on Avenue P in Brooklyn. The lien was based on phony documentation, prepared by O’Donnell at his home in New Jersey, indicating that ACE had preformed certain work at the

site that it had not done.’ This scheme was designed to compel the condominium project developer, Bitt Asset Management

(“Bitt”), to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to settle the lien so as not to jeopardize Bitt’s ability to obtain bank financing for the project. In the end, Bitt, unaware that the documentation connected with the lien was fraudulent, and fearful that the lien would impede its ability to proceed with the project, paid ACE $120,000 to release the lien.

In addition to the charges referenced above, which form one of the racketeering acts (number five) underlying the racketeering conspiracy count (count one) against him, O’Donnell also is charged with a racketeering act (number one) alleging extortion conspiracy in connection with a construction list. O’Donnell has already pleaded guilty to this crime, which was charged as a sUbstantive count in United Btates v. Joseph Agate, et al., 08-CR-76 (B-1) (JEW) (E.D.N.Y.). In short, this charge is the result of efforts that O’Donnell and the Gambino family made, between 2004 and 2008, to reconstitute a list of construction companies that had been making extortion payments to then-jailed Gambino family soldier Edward Garafola prior to his incarceration. As referenced above, Garafola had been a member

O’Donnell’s travel between New York and New Jersey, transporting the data and documentation necessary to make the Bitt extortion a success, forms the basis of count five of the indictment, alleging interstate travel in-aid-of racketeering, and a subpredicate of racketeeting act five, underlying count

one.

of the Gambino family’s “construction panel,” a body which oversees the Gambino family’s construction rackets. In this capacity, with the assistance of O’Donnell, Edward Garafola had exacted extortionate payments from scores of construction companies in the New York City area. Garafola did not share the identity of all those companies with his Gambino family superiors, however, either before or after his incarceration. Because Anthony O’Donnell had been Garafola’s right hand in conducting the extortions, he became a critical resource for Gambino family captain Ernest Grillo when Grillo attempted, after Garafola’s incarceration, to reconstitute the list of companies that had previously been forced to make extortion payments to the Gambino family, and then to recommence the extortions.

2. History and Characteristics of the Defendant

O’Donnell is a an associate within the Gambino family who has pled guilty in the past to crimes involving violence and an association with the Gambino family.

In 1993, he was arrested and charged, in the Southern District of New York, with crimes associated with the armed robbery of a United Parcel Service truck en route from New York to New Jersey. On August 8, 1994, O’Donnell pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act Robbery charges. He was sentenced principally to a term of imprisonment of 41 months, $10,000 restitution and 200 hours of community service.

In 2008, O’Donnell was arrested and charged, in this

district, with extortion conspiracy and attempted extortion, in connection with his role in the Gambino family effort to reconstitute the extortion list previously maintained by Edward Garafola.’ As referenced above, O’Donnell pleaded guilty, on November 26, 2008, to extortion conspiracy, and was sentenced principally to term of imprisonment of a year and a day.

3. Seriousness of Danger Posed by the Defendant’s Release

Eased on the evidence proffered above, outlining O’Donnell’s involvement in multiple, separate extortion schemes, and his history of involvement in violent crime dating back nearly two decades, his release necessarily will pose a danger to the community.

4. Evidence of the Defendant’s Guilt

The government’s evidence of O’Donnell’s guilt on the charged crimes is strong. It includes the testimony of witnesses, scores of hours of audio and video recordings capturing O’Donnell and his coconspirators conducting criminal activities. In addition, the government anticipates presenting at trial surveillance evidence, business records and other documentary evidence in support of the charges.

5. Summary O’Donnell is an associate within the Gambino family

United States v. Joseph Agate, et al., 08-CR-76 (S-l)

(JEW) 28

charged with crimes of violence. He has a significant criminal history, poses a danger to the community, and the evidence against him in this case is strong. In addition O’Donnell faces a maximum term of 20 years’ imprisonment on the racketeering and extortion-related charges he faces, and an additional five-year

term in connection with the interstate travel in-aid-of racketeering charge. Accordingly, he constitutes a risk of flight. See United States v. Dodge, 846 F. Supp. 181, 184-85 (D. Conn. 1994) (finding the possibility of a “severe sentence” heightens the risk of flight) .

For all the reasons set forth above, the government respectfully submits that O’Donnell should be detained, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), as a danger to the community and a risk of flight.

E. Anthony Scibelli

Scibelli is associated with the Gambino family and served as the sidekick and subordinate of Gambino soldier Vincent Dragonetti. He has previously been convicted of extortion in connection with the Gambino family, and has been captured on tape boasting about his connections to powerful members of the Gambino family and threatening violence.

1. Nature and Circumstances of the Crimes Charged

Anthony Scibelli is charged in this indictment with racketeering conspiracy, two counts of extortion conspiracy, and two counts of extortion.

The Sitt Asset Management extortion-related counts

(three and four), with which Scibelli, along with Dragonetti, Frangiapane, and O’Donnell are charged, involved a March 2008 construction lien that a mob-controlled subcontractor, ACE, filed against a mob-controlled contractor, Duramax, at a condominium development project on Avenue P in Brooklyn. The lien was based on phony documentation indicating that ACE had preformed certain work at the site that it had not done. This scheme was designed to compel the condominium project developer, Sitt Asset Management (“Sitt”), to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to settle the lien so as not to jeopardize Sitt’s ability to obtain bank financing for the project. In the end, Sitt, unaware that the documentation connected with the lien was fraudulent, and fearful that the lien would impede its ability to proceed with

the project, paid ACE $120,000 to release the lien.

The counts related to the extortion of John Does #3 and #4 (counts six and seven), involve Dragonetti’s and Scibelli’s actions, subsequent to the successful extortion of Sitt, to make John Does #3 and #4, the principals of ACE, pay Dragonetti and Scibelli more than they and had agreed to pay -$40,000 of the $120,000 that sitt had been induced to pay as a result of the phony lien. In the end, Dragonetti and Scibelli succeeded in extorting a payment of $30,000 from John Doe #3 and John Doe #4.

In addition to the extortion-related crimes described above,’ Scibelli faces additional extortion allegations charged as predicate acts underlying the racketeering conspiracy charge

(count one). These additional extortions involved cement manufacturing (racketeering act three) and cement powder deliveries (racketeering act eight) the Liberty View Harbor construction site. In 2008, Scibelli pleaded guilty to the cement manufacturing extortion.

The Liberty View Harbor site extortions began in April 2006, when John Doe #2 started a company which erected a portable cement plant at the site. VMS, a company owned by Scibelli, served as general contractor.

John Doe #2 obtained the work at the Liberty View

These crimes are charged as substantive counts three, four, six and seven in the indictment; they are correspondingly charged in racketeering acts five and six.

Harbor site after Gambino family captain Nicholas Corozzo, co­

defendant Dragonetti’s father-in-law, granted John Doe #2 permission in return for the payment of 60% of the portable cement plant’s profits to Corozzo, Gambino family captain Leonard DiMaria and Dragonetti. In addition, Scibelli and Dragonetti demanded that John Doe #2 make an additional extortion payment of

$6 or $7 per yard of cement produced, among other things. Over the course of the extortion, John Doe #2 made extortion payments

to the Gambino family of more than $200,000. Despite these payments, during the summer of 2007, with the backing of Corozzo, DiMaria and Dragonetti, Scibelli took possession of the portable cement plant without remuneration to John Doe #2.

In October 2007, following Scibelli’s takeover of John Doe #2’s portable cement plant, Gambino family captains DiMaria and Corozzo approved a plan by which John Doe #2 would supply Scibelli’s plant with the powder used to make cement. For this privilege, John Doe #2 was instructed to provide extortion payments to the Gambino family comprising 60% of his profits relating to the cement powder deliveries. John Doe #2 provided a total of $6,000 in extortion payments.

As referenced above, on June 4, 2008, Scibelli pleaded guilty in this district to extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), in connection with the extortion of cement plant profits from John Doe #2 between April 2006 and June 2007.

2. History and Characteristics of the Defendant

As noted, Scibelli is associated with the Gambino

family and served as the sidekick and subordinate of Gambino soldier Vincent Dragonetti. He also is a convicted felon who has pleaded guilty in the past, in this district, to the type of conduct he has been charged with in this indictment.

In 1991, the defendant was arrested in Suffolk County, and charged with resisting arrest, and was sentenced principally to a 90 day term of incarceration.

In 2008, Scibelli was arrested and charged, in this district, with extortion conspiracy and extortion, in connection with his role in the Gambino family extortion of John Doe #2 at the Liberty View Harbor construction site. As set forth above, he pleaded guilty to extortion (racketeering act two in this indictment), for which he was sentenced principally to 5 years of probation and fined $250,000.

3. Seriousness of Danger Posed by the Defendant’s Release

Scibelli’s involvement in acts of violence is reflected in the extortions charged in this indictment. The risk of violence to persons who caused problems for the Gambino family construction industry operations, and specifically those overseen by Scibelli and Dragonetti, was made clear by Scibelli to John Doe #3, on June 4, 2007. On that date, when John Doe #3 initially refused to give in to Dragonetti and Scibelli’s demands, Scibelli threatened to force John Doe #3 into a “sit­

down” with powerful Gambino family captain (and Dragonetti’s father-in-law) Nicholas “Nicky” Corozzo.’

Later in the shake-down, Scibelli made reference to an individual who had caused problems for Scibelli and Dragonetti by not paying workers at job sites. Scibelli again threatened violence against John Does #3 and #4 -this time by commenting on his purported concern about the possibility of violence against the person who had failed to pay workers:

SCIBELLI: between me and you, [whispers] this kid’s [UI]. What do we do? Let everybody beat him up and

JOHN DOE #3: I don’t want to see nothin’ happen like that to nobody. SCIBELLI: You try to make . JOHN DOE #3: I never hurt nobody or want to hurt nobody over money in my whole life.

SCIBELLI: what do we do? Let him fuckin’ [UI]? First of all, if anybody hurts him, number one. Anybody could hurt anybody. You know that and I know. Anybody could hurt anybody.

Scibelli made the following additional threat to John Doe #3, touting the power of the Gambino family to inflict violence while purporting to question the wisdom of someone who had dared to cross a person associated with the Gambino family:

SCIBELLI: Did [the person who crossed us] know what the fuck we are capable of?

In April 2008, after pleading guilty to racketeering conspiracy, Nicholas Corozzo was sentenced to a thirteen and a­half year sentence of incarceration.

JOHN DOE #3: Right.

SCIBELLI: Are you kidding me? You don’t see the

newspapers everyday? They don’t see what-,

are you kidding? What do they think, that

this is make believe?

In short, the crimes charged in this indictment, the threats Scibelli has been recorded issuing, as well as his prior convictions, make it clear that Scibelli is a danger to the community.

4. Evidence of the Defendant’s Guilt

Evidence of Scibelli’s guilt is strong. It includes the testimony of witnesses, consensual audio recordings capturing Scibelli and his coconspirators conducting criminal activities, surveillance photographs, and documentary evidence.

5. Summary

Scibelli is associated with the Gambino family and is charged with crimes of violence. He has a significant criminal history, poses a danger to the community, and the evidence against him in this case is strong. In addition, Scibelli faces a maximum of 20 years imprisonment on each count with which he is charged. Accordingly, he constitutes a risk of flight. See united States v. Dodge, 846 F. Supp. 181, 184-85 (D. Conn. 1994)

(finding the possibility of a “severe sentence” heightens the risk of flight) .

For all the reasons set forth above, the government respectfully submits that Scibelli should be detained, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), as a danger to the community and a risk of flight.

35

F. william Scotto

William Scotto is a Gambino family soldier with prior felony convictions for committing crimes of violence as part of the Gambino family.

1. Nature and circumstances of the Crimes Charged

Scotto has been charged in this indictment with crimes of violence -one count of extortion conspiracy, and one count of attempted extortion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3156 (a) (4) (A) (defining “crime of violence” as an offense that has as one of its elements the “attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another”).

The extortion conspiracy and attempted extortion of John Doe #1 (counts two and ten) involved Scotto’s efforts, along with those of co-defendants Licata and Garafolo, to force John Doe #1, a person employed in the construction industry, to pay the Gambino family a portion of his earnings. The government will present evidence at trial that, as a part of their efforts to extort John Doe #1, Scotto and his co-conspirators menaced John Doe #l’s family home, threatened him with violence in person and on the telephone, and ultimately assaulted and beat him.

2. History and Characteristics of the Defendant

On August 30, 2007, Scotto pleaded guilty to a superseding information in this district, charging him, as a member of the Gambino family, with racketeering, from January 1995 through December 1995, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

1962(c) .’0 The predicate acts underlying the charge were

extortion and extortion conspiracy. On December 20, 2008, Scotto was sentenced principally to three years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine, and was ordered to surrender on April 7, 2008, for the execution of his prison sentence .

Later in 2008, Scotto was again indicted in this district. He was charged, as a member of the Gambino family, with Racketeering conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d) .’1 Scotto pleaded guilty to participating in the charged conspiracy between February 1996 and February 2008, and allocuted to 2005 and 2006 predicate acts of extortion and extortion conspiracy.

3. Seriousness of Danger Posed by the Defendant’s Release

On December 12, 2006, the day after his arrest in the above-referenced 2006 Case, Scotto was released from detention pursuant to a $1,000,000 bond, secured by seven suretors and three properties. Despite this notable bail package, while on release Scotto nonetheless participated in the extortion of John Doe #1, alleged in this indictment, including participating in the beating of John Doe #1 in or about December 2007. In his May 29, 2008 allocution in the 2008 Case, Scotto admitted that he

10

United States v, Gammarano, et al., 06 -CR-0072 (CPS) (the “2006 Case”) .

11

United States v. Joseph Agate, et al., 08-CR-76 (S-l) (JBW) (the “2008 Case”).

engaged in a racketeering conspiracy throughout the approximately

14 months he was free on bail in the 2006 Case. In short, even with all that was at stake for Scotto, and seven others who put their own assets and livelihoods at risk on his behalf, the severe bail conditions set in the 2006 case were insufficient to keep Scotto from engaging in violent crime. His continued crimes while on bail demonstrate that Scotto cannot be trusted to comply with the orders of this Court.

Based on the evidence proffered above, in particular the defendant’s involvement in extortion, violence, and racketeering conspiracy, despite being on pretrial release pursuant to a significant bond, Scotto’s release would pose a danger to the community.

4. Evidence of the Defendant’s Guilt

The government’s evidence of Scotto’s guilt on the charged crimes is strong. It includes witness testimony, consensual audio recordings capturing Scotto and his coconspirators conducting criminal activities, as well as surveillance photographs and business records.

5. Summary

Scotto is a member of the Gambino family charged with crimes of violence. He has a significant criminal history, poses a danger to the community, and the evidence against him in this case is strong. In addition, he has demonstrated previously that even significant bail is inadequate to deter him from continuing

to participate in criminal activity. In addition Scotto faces 20 years’ imprisonment on each count with which he is charged. Accordingly, he constitutes a risk of flight. See United States

v. Dodge, 846 F. Supp. 181, 184-85 (D. Conn. 1994) (finding the possibility of a ·severe sentence” heightens the risk of flight)

For all the reasons set forth above, the government respectfully sUbmits that Scotto should be detained, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), as a danger to the community and a risk of flight.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons cited above, the government hereby

moves for a permanent order of detention as to defendants Vincent

Dragonetti, Anthony Licata, Anthony O’Donnell and Anthony

Scibelli .

Dated: Brooklyn, New York January 20, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

LORETTA E. LYNCH United States Attorney Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201

WHITMAN KNAPP DUNCAN LEVIN Assistant United States Attorneys

(Of Counsel)

Depiro is a soldier in the Genovese organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra . . . and . . . has managed and controlled the crime family’s waterfront rackets through corrupt International Longshoreman’s Association (“ILA”) union officials.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Hon. Susan D. Wigenton

v. 10 Cr. 851

STEPHEN DEPIRO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 894(a),
a/k/a “Beach,” 1084(a), 1951(a),    
ALBERT CERNADAS, 1955(a), 1962(d)   and 1963
a/k/a “The Bull,”          
NUNZIO LAGRASSO,          
RICHARD DEHMER,          
a/k/a “Dickie,”          
EDWARD AULISI,          
a/k/a “Eddie,”          
VINCENT AULISI,          
a/k/a “The Vet,”          
THOMAS LEONARDIS,          
a/k/a “Tommy,”          
ROBERT RUIZ,          
a/k/a “Bobby,”          
MICHAEL TRUEBA,          
a/k/a “Mikey,”          
RAMIRO QUINTANS,          
a/k/a “Romo,”          
SALVATORE LAGRASSO,          
ANTHONY ALFANO,          
a/k/a “Brooklyn,”          
TONINO COLANTONIO,          
a/k/a “Tony,”          
JOHN HARTMANN,          
a/k/a “Lumpy,” “Fatty” and        
“Fats,” and          
GIUSEPPE PUGLIESE,          
a/k/a “Pepe”          
               

 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 3142

PAUL J. FISHMAN United States Attorney District of New Jersey 970 Broad Street Newark, New Jersey 07102

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The government respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3142, for an order detaining lead defendant Stephen Depiro pretrial and releasing the remaining defendants conditioned on the satisfaction of stringent conditions, enumerated below, including large secured bonds, house arrest, and prohibitions pertaining to employment and union activities.

Depiro is a soldier in the Genovese organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra (“the Genovese crime family”) and, since at least 2005, has managed and controlled the crime family’s waterfront rackets through corrupt International Longshoreman’s Association (“ILA”) union officials. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3142(e), there is no condition or combination of conditions which “will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” Accordingly, the entry of an order detaining Depiro pretrial is warranted.

As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, the Genovese crime family has preyed for years upon ILA members employed in various positions on the New Jersey docks through a pattern of racketeering activity. That pattern is predicated, in part, on the systematic use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, to force dockworkers to make tribute payments -amounts

ranging up to thousands of dollars each year -to the Genovese

crime family at Christmastime. The extortions typically coincided

with certain ILA members’ receipt of “Container Royalty Fund”

checks, a form of year-end compensation. The breadth and scope of

the extortion scheme at issue is stunning: It dates back nearly

three decades; implicates the last three Presidents of ILA Local

1235 (defendants Albert Cernadas, Vincent Aulisi and Thomas

Leonardis), a long-standing Vice-President of ILA Local 1235

(defendant Michael Trueba) and the long-standing Vice-President of

ILA Local 1478 (defendant Nunzio LaGrasso); and illuminates the

victimization of countless ILA members -including members of ILA

Local I, ILA Local 1235 and ILA Local 1478 -a number of whom are

identified in the Superseding Indictment as John Does #1-11, by

the Genovese crime family.l

1 An indictment was also unsealed today in the Eastern District of New York charging three ILA members -Patrick Cicalese, Robert Moreno and Manuel Salgado -with obstruction of justice and perjury. Specifically, Patrick Cicalese, a Genovese crime family associate and the Chief Planning Clerk at Maher Terminals in Newark, New Jersey, is charged with attempting to obstruct justice and perjury in relation to his appearance before a grand jury in the Eastern District of New York in January 2010, during which appearance he testified falsely regarding a meeting he had arranged between himself and Stephen Depiro so that he

(Cicalese) could “run things by” Depiro. Moreno, an ILA Local 1478 Shop Steward, is charged with attempting to obstruct justice and perjury in relation to his federal grand jury appearance in Brooklyn, New York in November 2009, during which appearance he testified falsely that Nunzio LaGrasso had not previously asked Moreno to cover up for an ILA worker who was not at work. Salgado, a Gang Boss at Port Newark Container Terminal (“PNCT”), is charged with attempting to obstruct justice and perjury in relation to his grand jury appearance in April 2010, during which

Depiro’s criminal enterprise was not limited to criminal

conduct on the port, and extended to illegal gambling operations, in which defendant Richard Dehmer threatened physical harm against individuals to collect outstanding debts. For example, in a telephone conversation intercepted pursuant to court-authorized wiretapping, Dehmer discussed his plans for a victim (identified as John Doe #12 in the Superseding Indictment) who had failed to pay a gambling debt in a timely manner: “I guarantee you, he needs his hands to work. He ain’t working no more for a while.” 2

The fact that high-ranking union officials and others were willing to, and did, perpetrate such crimes, including crimes of violence, on Depiro’s behalf constitutes compelling evidence that he poses a danger to the community; Depiro should be detained on that basis alone. Moreover, Depiro previously has exhibited a complete disregard of the law by repeatedly violating prior conditions of pretrial release, supervised release and probation, demonstrating that he cannot be trusted to abide by the conditions of release and act in a lawful manner.

appearance Salgado testified falsely that he had never had a conversation with anyone about paying money around Christmastime on the ports. Cicalese, Moreno and Salgado will be arraigned on the charges in the indictment this afternoon in Brooklyn, New York.

2 The government hereby provides the defendants with notice pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2518(9), of the government’s intent to rely on evidence gathered pursuant to court-authorized wiretaps in the prosecution of this matter.

In addition, Depiro committed additional crimes while on

release, and went so far as to conceal the flight from justice of fellow Genovese crime family member Michael Coppola, who was then the subject of a warrant related to a murder investigation. Depiro was convicted in the District of New Jersey of that conduct in 2002, but nonetheless, obviously undeterred, continued to aid Coppola, including facilitating Coppola’s involvement in the Genovese crime family’s control of the New Jersey piers. Depiro was indicted for that conduct on April 28, 2010, in the Eastern District of New York, which case is pending.

Finally, Depiro, now 55 years old, faces severe penalties if convicted of the instant charges; the prospect that he will spend his remaining days incarcerated provides compelling incentive to flee. Hence, the Court should enter an order detaining Depiro pending trial.

Second, the Court should condition the release of defendant Nunzio LaGrasso on the posting of a $1,000,000 bond, at least 70% secured. As Depiro’s cousin and Vice-President of lLA Local 1478, LaGrasso served as one of the Genovese crime family’s conduits at the ports, using his official union position to collect tribute payments from dockworkers each holiday season for more than 20 years, and funneling that cash to Depiro and the Genovese crime family. The charges against both LaGrasso and fellow Genovese crime family associate Albert Cernadas are

similar, as both served for extended periods as union officials

and conduits for extortion payments to the Genovese crime family. In this regard, on December 13, 2010, defendant Albert Cernadas was arraigned on the charges contained in the first indictment in this case, at which time Magistrate Judge Esther Salas imposed bail in the amount of a $1,000,000 bond, secured by multiple properties with equity of approximately $700,000, i.e., 70% fully secured. In short, since LaGrasso and Cernadas share relatively the same level of culpability in the extortion scheme at issue, their bail packages should be substantially similar.

Third, the Court should release defendant Richard Dehmer only conditioned on a secured bond and home detention. Dehmer served as a Genovese crime family associate who, along with Depiro and others, managed an illegal overseas sports betting operation and collected gambling debts. Despite his age, Dehmer was able to force individuals to pay debts by virtue of his criminal association: People paid Dehmer because they feared Depiro. In addition, Dehmer resorted to threats of violence against gambling debtors, stating in recorded telephone conversations that he intended to use a “bat” and “break every bone” to collect outstanding debts. Dehmer also operated an illegal gambling establishment in Kenilworth, New Jersey, which gamblers frequented for regular poker games. Finally, Dehmer faces up to 20 years in prison on each of the racketeering counts contained in the Superseding Indictment. Because Dehmer constitutes a danger to the community and a flight risk given the severe penalties he is facing, release on a secured bond with a requirement of home detention is appropriate.

Fourth, pretrial release conditions comprising significant, secured bonds are necessary and appropriate with respect to defendants Edward Aulisi, Vincent Aulisi, Thomas Leonardis, Robert Ruiz, Michael Trueba, Ramiro Quintans and Salvatore LaGrasso. These defendants, nearly all of whom were union or port supervisors, abused their lLA positions to extort port workers entrusted to their stewardship. These defendants extracted tribute payments from their co-workers at Christmastime each year, and did so through the threat of physical violence and the infliction of psychological harm. Simply put, these defendants preyed upon their co-workers’ vulnerability and fear for their physical safety and job security. That these defendants went so far as to shake-down the same individuals they worked alongside of each day speaks volumes regarding their criminal proclivities and the danger to the community and potential witnesses posed by pretrial release. Moreover, the defendants pose flight risks because they will be removed from their jobs and face severe penalties if convicted.

OVERVIEW OF DEFENDANTS & CHARGES3

A. RICO DEFENDANTS

1. RICO Charges (Counts 1 and 2)

Defendants Stephen Depiro, Albert Cernadas, Nunzio LaGrasso and Richard Dehmer (collectively, the “RICO Defendants”) are charged with violations of the Racketeer Influenced and corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et~, as members and associates of the Genovese crime family. As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, the Genovese crime family’s primary purpose is to generate money for its members and associates through various criminal activities, including extortion, loansharking and gambling; among the methods and means by which the Genovese crime family furthers those criminal goals are the use and threatened use of violence and threats of economic harm.

Indeed, the charges against Depiro, Cernadas and Nunzio LaGrasso arise from a multi-decade conspiracy to extort ILA union workers on the New Jersey waterfront by threat of force, violence and fear. Similarly, Depiro and Dehmer are charged with a racketeering conspiracy predicated on the extortionate collection of unlawful debt (“CUD RICO”), which conduct involved prospective force and violence. The maximum penalty on both RICO Counts 1 and 2 is a 20-year period of incarceration.

3 The charges and racketeering acts contained in the Superseding Indictment are summarized at “Appendix A” hereto.

2.          Substantive Extortion Charges (Counts 3-4; 9; 14­25; 43-44)

RICO Defendants Depiro, Cernadas and Nunzio LaGrasso are also charged with conspiring to commit Hobbs Act extortion and numerous substantive extortion counts. RICO Defendants Depiro and Dehmer are charged with conspiring to make extortionate collections of credit and Dehmer is charged with a substantive violation regarding same. Each substantive extortion violation carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ incarceration.

3.         Substantive Illegal Gambling Charges (Counts 41-42; 45-53) RICO Defendants Depiro and Dehmer are also charged with illegal gambling offenses relating to bookmaking and conspiracy to commit same, which carry a maximum penalty of five years’ incarceration. Additionally, Dehmer is charged with offenses relating to an illegal gambling club, which carry a maximum penalty of five years’ incarceration, and the transmission of

wagering information, for which the maximum penalty is 2 years’ incarceration. 4

4 Defendant John Hartmann is charged with conspiring to commit, and the commission of, bookmaking. Similarly, defendants Giuseppe Pugliese, Anthony Alfano and Tonino Colantonio are charged in relation to their participation in illegal poker games. These defendants, Hartmann, Pugliese, Alfano and Colantonio (collectively, the “Gambling Defendants”), are not charged with crimes of violence and will not be addressed separately herein.

B. EXTORTION DEFENDANTS

Defendants Albert Cernadas, Nunzio LaGrasso, Edward Aulisi, Vincent Aulisi, Thomas Leonardis, Robert Ruiz, Michael Trueba, Ramiro Quintans and Salvatore LaGrasso are separately charged with conspiring to commit Hobbs Act extortion and numerous substantive extortion violations (collectively, the “Extortion Defendants”). Each of violation charged carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ incarceration. As summarized below, these defendants used their lucrative positions in the ILA to perpetuate a long-term extortion scheme of ILA dockworkers on the New Jersey piers:

Defendant Position(s) Compensation (Year)
CERNADAS ILA Local 1235 President; ILA Executive Vice-President $532,719 (2004)
N. LAGRASSO ILA Local 1478 Vice-President; ILA Representative $255,916 (2010)
E. AULISI ILA Local 1 Checker $99,090 (2007)
V. AULISI ILA Local 1235 President $181,432 (2007)
LEONARDIS ILA Local 1235 President; ILA Representative $256,063 (2010)
RUIZ ILA Local 1235 Delegate; ILA Representative $230,512 (2010)
TRUEBA ILA Local 1235 Vice-President; Maher Terminals Shop Steward $403,756 (2010)
QUINTANS ILA Local 1235 Stevedore Foreman $269,035 (2010)
S. LAGRASSO ILA Local 1235 Head General Foreman $274,790 (2010)

 

BACKGROUND

The Superseding Indictment unsealed today is the latest in a succession of cases targeting the Genovese crime family’s control over the New Jersey waterfront through corrupt ILA union officials. Stephen Depiro, a “made” member in the Genovese crime family, is the most recent successor from the violent crew that has controlled the crime family’s port-related rackets for decades.

A. XLA Union Corruption

On February 11, 2005, a superseding indictment was filed in the Eastern District of New York against four defendants, Arthur Coffey, Harold Daggett, Albert Cernadas and Lawrence Ricci. Among other positions they held in the ILA, Coffey was the President of ILA Locals 1922, 1922-1 and 2062, Daggett was the President of ILA Local 1804-1, and Cernadas was the President of ILA Local 1235. The indictment alleged that Coffey and Daggett were associates of Genovese crime family crews based in New York, Ricci was a captain in a crew based in Northern New Jersey ­reportedly under Tino Fiumara -and that Cernadas was a Genovese crime family associate connected to Ricci’s crew.

Count Two of the indictment charged the defendants with a wire/mail fraud conspiracy between 1996 and October 2004 relating to various union benefit funds which provided health care benefits to members of the ILA in different regions of the United

States. As part of the conspiracy, it was alleged that Coffey, Daggett and Cernadas secretly agreed to award contracts relating to the provision of fund benefits to two different companies, one of which paid an associate of organized crime.and the other of which was associated with organized crime. By awarding contracts to these companies, Coffey, Daggett and Cernadas allegedly intended to earn money for organized crime and ensure the assistance of organized crime in maintaining their positions and salaries as officers of the ILA.

On September 12, 2005, Cernadas pled guilty to Count Two of the indictment and received a sentence of probation. In addition, Cernadas entered into a consent decree which, among other things, barred him from further employment with the ILA. On September 19, 2005, the remaining defendants proceeded to trial, which resulted in their acquittal. While the trial was underway, however, defendant Ricci failed to attend court and could not be located. Weeks later, on or about November 30, 2005, Ricci’s body was found in the trunk of a car behind the Huck Finn Diner in Union, New Jersey. The investigation into Ricci’s murder is ongoing, and court documents have been filed in the Eastern District of New York concerning suspected targets Tino Fiumara and Michael Coppola, among others.

B. RICO Prosecution of Michael Coppola

Michael Coppola, a Genovese captain, was a fugitive from a New Jersey state murder beginning in 1996, when he was served with a summons to provide DNA, until March 2007, when he was captured on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. On July 21, 2009, in the Eastern District of New York, Coppola was convicted after trial of racketeering and racketeering conspiracy, including a predicate act involving extortion and wire fraud in regard to lLA Local 1235.

At Coppola’s trial, witnesses testified regarding the existence of a long-standing agreement between the Gambino and Genovese crime families to divide control over the New York/New Jersey waterfront, pursuant to which the ports in Brooklyn and Staten Island are controlled by the Gambino crime family, and the Manhattan and New Jersey ports are controlled by the Genovese crime family. Witness testimony and other evidence further established that the Genovese crime family crew that has controlled the New Jersey waterfront consisted of, among others, Tino Fiumara, Michael Coppola, Albert Cernadas, Vincent Aulisi and Edward Aulisi.

For example, on March 6, 2007, Coppola had a telephone conversation with defendant Edward Aulisi, a Genovese crime family associate, that directly pertained to the crime family’s three­decade conspiracy to control the leadership of lLA Local 1235. At

the time, Edward Aulisi’s father, Vincent Aulisi, also a Genovese

crime family associate, was the President of Local 1235, after

Cernadas had pled guilty and agreed to a life-time bar from

participating in the lLA. During the conversation, Coppola and

Aulisi discussed several topics, including payments from Local

1235 to the mafia, as well as Coppola’s crew’s historical control

over the union. A pertinent excerpt of the conversation follows:

Aulisi:                            On that note. Ohh, and the VET told me to pass it on. Umm. What the hell did he say to me? Ohh, that, ah, he was glad that, ah, the other, the Cuban, that RICKY RICARDO, was there when this guy made mention hey, once I’m outta, once I’m gone from here this thing stops. So, MIKE, the VET said, this thing stops? The beat goes on, whether you’re here or not. But, RICKY RICARDO was there when he said, he said it.

Coppola:                        Who, who.

Aulisi:                            He said I, want you to relay that.

Coppola:                        Which guy? Who said that?

Aulisi:                            The BULL. You know when this is gone, when I’m gone, he says this thing is gonna end. Meaning, meaning ahh, the month, you know, the the christmases, and everything else, he says what you talking about?

Coppola:                        Yeah, yeah.

Aulisi:                            This gonna, thing’s gonna go on. He wanted me to mention this thing almost, almost doubled.

Coppola:                        (ur)

Aulisi:                            (Ur)

Coppola: Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi:

Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola: Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola: Aulisi:

Yeah we we ­

(UI)

We don’t want him, we don’t want him to be aware of that. We don’t want him to be aware of anything.

No, no, he doesn’t go into them lines with him, but he just want, he wanted me to make mention, you know. I’m glad that the RICKY was there to hear, cause after the guy left he said RICKY came up to me, and says you mention that that this guy wants this thing, this ain’t gonna go no more, he’s got that idea so.

Well, you heard the thing, you heard the thing, what he asked for with his kid didn’t you?

Yeah, yeah, I was laughing (UI)

(UI) fucking (UI)

He’s nuts.

Are they freaking insane? First of all ­

(UI) He was the first one, he was the first

one, when, when the CONG (ph.) you know who that is? Ahh, urn I think so. Just the, with the same name as ahh as

ahhh POP, the guy that was there before. Right. In the beginning. Yeah, yeah.

14

Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi:

Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola:

OK, ok, alright when he left he wanted to leave his wife there. We said under no circumstances, he, he -­

Right.

You know, and, and, we were right next to him all the time during this whole thing, and he said under no circumstances. I said, we, you know, I said, the other guy said, we had to learn from the past.

Right right.

You see the guys that where over with, the ahh, with the truck drivers, when he put his ­

Yes, yes.

Daughter there. When he put his daughter there that time. It created nothing but problems with the men, because the men resent it. Because, in other words, what about the guys that work all their lives through the rank and file, and, and they’re coming up the hard way. Don’t they get a shot? So, you think somebody

It should be a natural common sense thing, that’s right.

And, and, you get, you know, you get a kid out of left field. Where’s the respect gonna come from and where’s everything else gonna come from? So,

sent -­

It ain’t.

word back, under no circumstance, under no, what you call and what does he have, ahh, a short memory? He was the first one to bitch about when the CONG wanted to do it, and then I said, well, we know, and, tell him to remember what happened to these guys when he wanted to put his

lS

daughter there. You know, you have everybody else there. They’re all making a living, Everybody —
Aulisi: Right.
Coppola: It’s time, it’s time for everybody to move on and turn the page.
Aulisi: Right.
Coppola: We don’t want no part of that kid.
Aulisi: I hear ya. Well, you know, its funny and ironic when when he had said you know, this guy made mention to me -­[operator: thirty seconds] -that the kid wasn’t gonna, the kid wasn’t gonna listen to anybody, anyway, now all of sudden he can talk to him, you know, so —
Coppola: Yeah, well he can’t talk to him.
Aulisi: Yeah.    
Coppola: He can’t talk. It’s, it’s, not gonna happen to, you relay that to, to, POP that’s all.
Aulisi: Ok.
             

 

In this conversation, Aulisi told Coppola that Cernadas, a/k/a “The Bull,” had discussed with the then-current President of Local 1235, Vincent Aulisi, whether “the month” and “the christmases” (payments) were going to end when Cernadas left the union. In the recording, Edward Aulisi told Coppola that Vincent Aulisi had instructed Edward (the speaker) to tell Coppola that the “month” and “christmases” were going to continue and in fact had “almost doubled.” Coppola responded by telling Edward that they do not want Cernadas “to be aware of anything.”

16

Coppola and Edward Aulisi also discussed the fact that Cernadas had asked for something for his “kid,” but that Coppola had “sent word back” denying Cernadas’s request. During this portion of the conversation, Coppola related to Aulisi the story of what happened when the former president of Local 1235 wanted to leave his wife in place at the union after leaving himself. Coppola refers to the former president as “Cong” and “[the guy] with the same name as ahh as ahhh POP, the guy that was there before.” The former president of lLA Local 1235 was Vincent Colucci, who shares a first name with Vincent Aulisi (Edward Aulisi’s “Pop”), and was nicknamed “Cong.”s

With Coppola’s co-conspirator statements evidencing that his relationship with the union dates to the time that Vincent Colucci was president, including the time period in which Cernadas was president, and acknowledging the continued flow of payments made by the union membership to the Genovese crime family at Christmastime, Coppola clearly admitted his crew’s -and Cernadas’s -involvement in a long-term conspiracy to extort the members of Local 1235 of money. With the statement, “we were

S Former New Jersey state detective Robert Delaney served in an undercover capacity in an investigation into Fiumara and Coppola in the 1970s. He testified during the Coppola trial in 2009 that “Cong” or “Viet Cong” was a nickname for Vincent Colucci and that Fiumara and Coppola often used nicknames that reflected the real initials of the person being described. He also testified, in substance, that Lawrence Ricci was closely associated with Fiumara and Coppola and that he participated in the Genovese crime family’s control of the New Jersey waterfront.

right next to him all the time during this whole thing,” Coppola explained to co-conspirator Edward Aulisi that Coppola and his crew were involved in directing Cernadas for the duration of Cernadas’s control of the union, including directing Cernadas to extort union members at Christmastime. Notably, Cernadas became President of Local 1235 in the early 1980s, after Colucci was convicted of racketeering. In the conversation, Coppola also described “Cong” as the individual who was “there” (at the union) “in the beginning.” Official records from the Department of Labor show that Colucci was President of Local 1235 during the 1970s, from at least 1974.

In short, at trial in 2009, the evidence showed, among other things, that Coppola had participated in a wire fraud and extortion scheme involving the Genovese crime family’s control of a succession of Presidents of ILA Local 1235 -including RICO Defendant Albert Cernadas and Extortion Defendant Vincent Aulisi. 6

6 In convicting Coppola of racketeering conspiracy and racketeering, the jury concluded that Coppola’s involvement in the 1977 murder of fellow Genovese crime family member, Giovanni Larducci, also known as “John Lardiere,” “Coca Cola” and “Johnny Cokes,” was not proved. At trial, however, the government offered testimony to establish that Coppola had admitted to a cooperating witness that he had been the individual who shot Lardiere. Specifically, Coppola told others, “some you do with tears in your eyes,” and went on to describe how he shot Lardiere but that his gun jammed. Lardiere then stated, “What’re you gonna do now, tough guy?” Coppola described how he then drew a second pistol from his ankle holster. Coppola then shot Lardiere in the stomach, and “finished him off” by standing over Lardiere and shooting him again. Coppola further related that “[Lardiere] was a tough guy, he died like a man.” Crime scene

Following his conviction, Coppola was sentenced on December 18, 2009, to a term of incarceration of 16 years.

c. The Instant Prosecution

Prosecution witnesses are expected to testify that Depiro, first as a member of the Genovese crime family crew that controlled the New Jersey ports and then, after Ricci’s death, as the Genovese crime family member responsible for overseeing the crime family’s rackets at the ports on behalf of Fiumara and Coppola (who was a fugitive at the time), exercised influence over lLA officials. The evidence is expected to show that Depiro rose to such prominence, in part, due to Michael Coppola’s absence. As part of his control over union officials, Depiro conspired to extort members of the ILA and received proceeds from that extortion racket. Indeed, as discussed further below, in September 1998 Depiro was captured pursuant to a court-authorized wiretap discussing with Fiumara the extortion scheme at issue, with Depiro claiming that he was going to double the amount of the tribute payments due from extortion victims.

evidence and the testimony of a medical examiner strongly corroborated Coppola’s admissions as to how the murder was committed.

19

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to the Bail Reform Act (“the Act”), a defendant’s pretrial detention is warranted “upon proof of a likelihood of flight, a threatened obstruction of justice or a danger of recidivism in one or more of the crimes” specified in the statute. United States v. Himler, 797 F.2d 156, 160 (3d Cir. 1986); 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e}. The Third Circuit has held that the Act was designed to address “the growing problem of crimes committed by persons on release and the recognition that ‘there is a small but identifiable group of particularly dangerous defendants as to whom neither the imposition of stringent release conditions nor the prospect of revocation of release can reasonably assure the safety of the community or other persons.'” United States v. Accetturo, 783 F.2d 382, 383-84 (3d Cir. 1986).

The Act enumerates four factors for consideration:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the crime charged, including whether the offense is a “crime of violence;” (2) the nature and seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant’s release;

(3) the history and characteristics of the defendant; and (4) the weight of the evidence against the defendant. See ide § 3142(g). Given the generalized nature of these factors, however, it is necessary to consult case law for the particularized, context­specific analysis applicable here.

A. The Crimes Charged Are Crimes of Violence

“The Act operates only on individuals who have been arrested for a specific category of extremely serious offenses. Congress specifically found that these individuals are far more likely to be responsible for dangerous acts in the community after arrest.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 750 (1987). As the U.s. Supreme Court held in Salerno, “crimes of violence” fall within that narrow category of extremely serious offenses for which detention is warranted.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 3156(a) (4) defines the term “crime of violence” as “(A) an offense that has [as] an element of the offense the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another;

(B) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”

It is well established that extortion is a crime of violence. Indeed, the Superseding Indictment specifically alleges that the extortion of ILA dockworkers was carried out through “actual and threatened force, violence and fear.” See also United States v. Ciccone, 312 F.3d 535, 542 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Certainly, it cannot be gainsaid that extortion is a ‘crime of violence’ as that term is defined by the [Bail Reform Act] .”); United States v.

Santora, No. 07-1103, 2007 WL 1533839, at *2 (2d Cir. May 25,

2007) (finding that defendant “had committed a crime of violence, specifically conspiracy to commit extortion”) i United States v. Defede, 7 F. Supp. 2d 390, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (“The offense, extortion, is a crime of violence both because it is so defined by statute and because its completion often involves the threat of physical harm.”) .

Similarly, conspiring to use and the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect extensions of credit in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 894(a) (1) are “crimes of violence.” The Superseding Indictment alleges that defendants Depiro and Dehmer engaged in this conduct with respect to an identified victim, who was threatened with serious bodily harm. See also united States

v. Quintina, 845 F. Supp. 38, 39 (D. Mass. 1994) (holding conspiracy to use extortionate means to collect extension of credit and the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect extensions of credit “meet the statutory definitions of ‘crimes of violence'”).

B. Considerations Specific to Organized Crime Defendants

An additional factor that militates against release in cases involving crimes of violence is whether the defendant is associated with a criminal organization, the activities of which routinely include violence and threats of violence. Specifically, with respect to an individual’s association with organized crime, in United States v. Leonetti, Cr. No. 88-00003, 1988 WL 61738

(E.D. Pa. June 9, 1988), Judge Antwerpen held:

The individual criminal acts allegedly committed by each defendant will be examined, but these individual acts must always be viewed in the context of each defendant’s alleged membership in La Cosa Nostra and what that membership and organization represents.

A willingness to kill people who testify against them and to enforce Omerta, the code of silence, through murder, are rules that each defendant adopts and agrees to adhere to through his membership in La Cosa Nostra. By these rules, each of the six defendants seeking bail presents a very real danger to potential witnesses in this case.

Id. at *3 (emphasis in original); accord United States v.

Martorano, Cr. No. 92-26-J, 1992 WL 73558, at *7 (D. Mass. Mar.

23, 1992) (holding that “it is appropriate to consider the nature

of the La Cosa Nostra organizations in making the detention

calculation. In particular, courts have noted the oath taken by

members of these organizations . . . of vowing to kill any

individual posing a threat to the organization. The testimony

before the Court indicates that membership in these organizations

is highly probative of both danger and flight. Past cases also

demonstrate a danger of obstruction of justice.”) .

Consequently, where, as here, there has been a probable cause finding that a member or associate of organized crime committed crimes of violence, courts routinely find that the risk of continued criminal conduct is substantial and detention is appropriate. The rationale for detention in such cases is clear:

The activities of a criminal organization such as the Genovese Family do not cease with the arrest of its principals and their release on even the most stringent of bail conditions. The illegal businesses, in place for many years, require constant attention and protection, or they will fail. Under these circumstances, this court recognizes a strong incentive on the part of its leadership to continue business as usual. When business as usual involves threats, beatings, and murder, the present danger such people pose in the community is self evident.

united States v. Salerno, 631 F. Supp. 1364, 1375 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), order vacated, 794 F.2d 64 (2d Cir.), order reinstated, 829 F.2d 345 (2d Cir. 1987).

For example, in Ciccone, 312 F.3d at 537-38, the Second Circuit affirmed the pre-trial detention of Gambino family boss Peter Gotti, where he was alleged to have “directed the activities of his codefendants,” who committed various exortions, including extortions of the lLA. The Second Circuit ordered Gotti detained irrespective of the fact that he “was not charged with having committed the extortions alleged in the indictment.”

Id.; accord Defede, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 391, 395 (ordering detention of defendant charged with extortion and extortion conspiracy, and holding that ” [g]iven Defede’s position of leadership in a notorious and violent criminal organization, his ability to plan, order and supervise criminal activity is of paramount importance. Defede is a danger at least as much for what he might direct or assist others in doing as for what he might do himself”) .

Similarly, in United States v. Colombo, 777 F.2d 96

(2d Cir. 1985), the captain of an organized crime family crew was ordered detained because the operation of that organization posed a “risk to the public” and a “danger to the community” by its “consistent pattern of orchestrating a series of violent criminal operations.” The Second Circuit affirmed the result despite a finding by the lower court that there was “virtually no evidence of Colombo’s direct participation in the crimes charged.” Id. at

99. Finally, the Third Circuit in United States v. Provenzano, 605 F.2d 85, 89 (3d eire 1979), affirmed the district court’s order of detention pending appeal where defendant had convictions for extortion and labor racketeering, raising the potential that defendant “would continue to exercise his influence within the union corruptly and in violation of criminal law.”

c. Obstruction of Justice

Pretrial detention also is warranted in cases in which there exists “a serious risk that such person will obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) (2) (B). Although the underlying rationale for the rule is based to some degree on the need to protect potential witnesses from harm, detention is nonetheless authorized by statute absent the prospect of violence. See, e.g., United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 135 (2d Cir. 2000) (affirming lower court’s revocation of defendant’s bail based on evidence that LaFontaine had sought to influence witnesses while released on bond, and reiterating “that a record of violence or dangerousness [in the sense of violence or threats aimed against witnesses] is not necessary to support pre-trial detention”) .

Moreover, the statute is not limited to witness tampering, and instead sweeps broadly to protect any perversion of the justice process. As the Second Circuit observed in LaFontaine, “pre-trial detention was even more justified in cases of violations related to the trial process (such as witness tampering) than in cases where the defendant’s past criminality was said to support a finding of general dangerousness.” Id. at

134. Thus, conduct involving the harboring of a fugitive, for example, constitutes obstruction of justice within the reach of the statute. See, e.g., United States v. Beckstead, Cr. No. 04­

5103, 2006 WL 1112853 (4th Cir. Apr. 26, 2006) (holding that conviction for harboring fugitive warranted upward sentencing adjustment for obstruction of justice) .

D. Elaborate Bail Packages

It is well established that even the most elaborate conditions of home detention cannot substitute for incarceration where the defendant is violent or cannot be trusted to comply with the conditions of release. For example, in United States v. Bergrin, Cr. No. 09-369, 2009 WL 1560039, at *9 (D.N.J. May 29, 2009), Magistrate Judge Madeline Cox Arleo ordered the defendant detained where he had advanced his criminal enterprise “through conversations and meetings” in which he directed others to commit crimes because “even the most stringent house arrest does not address this harm and does not minimize the very real possibility that further similar criminal conduct could be carried out from home.”

Courts have consistently held, particularly with respect to prohibiting criminal association, that elaborate bail conditions

have an Achilles’ heel: if there is a unifying theme in this intricate set of restrictions, it is that virtually all of them hinge on the defendant’s good faith compliance. To illustrate, electronic monitoring, while valuable in pretrial release cases

. . . cannot be expected to prevent a defendant from committing crimes or deter him from participating in felonious activity within the monitoring radius. Second, by allowing outside visits to doctors and lawyers, the conditions open up a sizeable loophole; there is no feasible way of assuring that [the

defendant], while en route to and from such

appointments, will not make stops and take detours with

a view toward continuing his criminal life. House

arrest poses much the same problem; limiting visitors

can only work, for example, if the appellee submits the

names of potential guests for clearance… which,

itself, is honor-dependent.

United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880, 886-87 (1st Cir. 1990);

see also United States v. Bellomo, 944 F. Supp. 1160, 1167

(S.D.N.Y. 1996) (“As in Colombo and Orena, the nature and extent of the danger that Bellomo presents arises not only from the threat of violent acts on his part, but from his position of leadership in a criminal organization and his ability to plan, order, and supervise criminal activity arising from that position as well. He is a danger at least as much for what he might direct or assist others in doing as for what he might do himself. Keeping him under house arrest would not defuse this danger.”); United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 632 (2d Cir. 1993) (“horne detention and electronic monitoring at best ‘elaborately replicate a detention facility without the confidence of security such a facility instills'”).

A. R:J:CO DEFENDANTS

ARGUMENT

1. Genovese Crime Family Soldier Stephen Depiro

a. Depiro’s Lengthy Criminal Record

As a threshold matter, Depiro is a repeat felon with several convictions dating back 20 years. Specifically, on or about May 11, 1990, Depiro pled guilty to possession of gambling Records in the Second Degree (Bookmaking) in Richmond County, New York criminal court, and received a conditional discharge. On June 9, 1993, Depiro was again charged with promoting gambling, conspiracy and possession of gambling records, in New Jersey Superior Court, Somerset County, and received pretrial intervention, pursuant to which the charges subsequently were dismissed.

On or about April 14, 1998, Depiro was charged with violations of the federal RICO laws, pursuant to which then­Magistrate Judge Stanley R. Chesler set bail for Depiro in the amount of a $250,000 bond with standard bail conditions. During the relevant time period, Depiro worked as a longshoreman at Maher Terminal in Port Newark, where he allegedly oversaw loansharking and gambling rackets under Joseph Queli, another member of the Genovese crime family. On or about April 16, 1999, Depiro pled guilty to racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962@, for which he was sentenced to 30 months of incarceration

and three years’ supervised release, which terminated on July 17, 2004.

On April 26, 2002, Depiro was charged with conspiring with Tino Fiumara regarding then-fugitive Michael Coppola. On March 21, 2003, Depiro pled guilty to misprision of a felony for concealing Coppola’s unlawful flight to avoid prosecution between August 1996 and April 1999. The Superseding Information to which Depiro pled guilty charged that he “was an associate of . . . the Genovese Crime Family.” Depiro subsequently was sentenced to probation and a four-year term of supervised release, which ended on November 24, 2007.

On April 28, 2010, Depiro was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of New York on charges related to Depiro’s harboring and otherwise assisting fugitive Michael Coppola between May 2004 and March 2007. See United States v. Stephen Depiro, 10 Cr. 341 (ILG) (E.D.N.Y.). These charges against Depiro are still pending.

Depiro’s past criminal record and persistent recidivism is indicative of an inability or unwillingness to comply with the rule of law. In either event, Depiro’s release poses a danger to the community and his detention is warranted on this ground alone. See, e.g., Provenzano, 605 F.2d at 95 (“The trial judge’s study of decisions interpreting the Act’s ‘danger to the community’ provision, however, convinces him that courts are not confined in such cases to considering only harms involving an aura of violence. We agree and hold that a defendant’s propensity to commit crime generally, even if the resulting harm would be not solely physical, may constitute a sufficient risk of danger to come within the contemplation of the Act.”).

b.       Depiro’s Repeated Violations of Pretrial Release, Supervised Release and Probation

An analysis of Depiro’s criminal history illustrates that Depiro has been undeterred from the commission of additional crimes by previously imposed conditions of release. There is, therefore, no reason to believe that Depiro will comply with even the most stringent conditions of release imposed by this Court. In summary, as a result of his 1998 racketeering arrest and conviction, Depiro was on pretrial release from April 1998 through April 1999, and, following his 30-month incarceration, on supervised release through July 2004. Nonetheless, Depiro admittedly violated the conditions of pretrial release set by Magistrate Judge Chesler, and in 2003 pled guilty to a felony involving conduct between August 1996 and April 1999, relating to Coppola’s flight. Depiro’s 2003 conviction resulted in probation and a four-year term of supervised release through November 2007. Subsequently, a grand jury indicted Depiro for again assisting Coppola’s flight between May 2004 and March 2007, in violation of the foregoing conditions. Moreover, in January 2006, Depiro again admittedly violated parole and supervised release by

associating with a known, violent felon. Finally, as set forth

further below, a grand jury has found probable cause that Depiro yet again violated the foregoing conditions of release by engaging in the conduct at issue here.

Specifically, beginning in April 1998, Depiro was on pretrial release on conditions set by Magistrate Judge Chesler relating to his arrest for racketeering. It cannot be gainsaid that those pretrial release conditions clearly were inadequate to protect the community, as Depiro admitted that he continued to violate criminal law with respect to concealing the flight from justice of Coppola from August 1996 through April 1999. Indeed, the final Pre-Sentence Report prepared in that case documented numerous intercepted telephone conversations between Depiro and Fiumara relating to the offense conduct in September 1998. 7 Depiro’s admitted violations of pretrial release in this regard end the inquiry as to whether he should be released here -he should not.

Similarly, Depiro was on probation and supervised release from his March 2003 felony conviction relating to the foregoing conduct when he once again violated the conditions imposed by Judge John W. Bissell. Specifically, on or about

7 The Government has not filed the October 2003 Pre­Sentence Report electronically, but will make the Report available for inspection by the Court and Depiro at the detention hearing.

January 3, 2006, Depiro admitted to a violation for associating

with Daniel Dellisanti, another “made” member of the Genovese crime family.

Depiro’s violations of Judge Bissell’s judgment, however, did not end there: an Eastern District of New York grand jury recently indicted Depiro, finding probable cause to believe that he violated federal law by harboring and otherwise aiding Coppola between May 2004 and March 2007. Indeed, the evidence in that case includes, among other things, an intercepted telephone call between Depiro and Coppola in March 2007, well before the supervision imposed by Judge Bissell terminated in November 2007.

Finally, with respect to the instant charges, a federal grand jury in Newark, New Jersey has found probable cause to believe that Depiro conspired to violate the federal RICO laws from at least December 1982 through January 2011. Moreover, the evidence at trial will include the September 14, 1998 recorded telephone call between Depiro and Fiumara discussed below, in which Depiro stated that he intended to double the amount extorted from ILA members. Of course, Depiro’s conversation with Fiumara in this regard occurred while he was on pretrial release pursuant to conditions imposed by Magistrate Judge Chesler only five months earlier, in April 1998.

In short, there can be no real question that any

conditions of pretrial release set by this Court would be flouted by Depiro, just as he previously did with respect to Magistrate Judge Chesler’s and Judge Bissell’s conditions through persistent violations of pretrial release, supervised release and probation. See, e.g., Bergrin, 2009 WL 1560039, at *9, *11 (“Plainly, he did not abide by his conditions of release. The court has no assurance that he will refrain from criminal conduct if released.

The serious nature of the charges, allegedly committed while defendant was on bail, militates strongly in favor of detention.”) i United States v. Dees, 467 F.3d 847, 852 (3d Cir. 2006) i United States v. Terpening, 902 F.2d 42 (9th Cir. 1990)

(“Violation of conditional release following a parole violation is similar to violation of a pretrial conditional release: in both instances the defendant was given his liberty on the understanding that he act lawfully, and in both cases the defendant violated this trust. Such a violation is indicative of recidivist tendencies. Moreover, like violation of pretrial conditional release, violation of conditional release following a parole violation is not otherwise reflected in a defendant’s criminal history. Thus, Terpening’s violation of conditional release . . . is an indication that his criminal history significantly under-represents the likelihood that he will commit further crimes ….”).

c. Nature of the Instant Charges

The present charges against Depiro involve crimes of violence and evince increasing criminality. Notably, the instant charges demonstrate Depiro’s continued criminal involvement with the New Jersey waterfront and victimization of port workers. Depiro is also charged with conspiracy to make extortionate collections of credit, pursuant to which Richard Dehmer threatened violence against individuals to compel them to pay debts owed to Depiro.

Depiro is charged with conspiracy to extort money from ILA union members which, as discussed above, is a crime of violence because it involves the actual and threatened use of force, violence and fear. Moreover, Depiro’s extortion scheme was successful over an extended period of time due to the reputation of the Genovese crime family crew of which he is a member. Indeed, as part of the investigation, the United States Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of New York and the District of New Jersey conducted numerous interviews of ILA union members, regarding, among other topics, the Christmastime tribute payments. Many of the witnesses stated that, based on what they heard on the docks and otherwise, they feared the consequences of refusing to make the extortionate payments at issue given the reputation of the individuals involved.

Just as significantly, the instant charges establish

that Depiro has been undeterred from continued criminal involvement on the New Jersey waterfront. Indeed, Depiro previously pled guilty in 1999 to RICO charges relating to the waterfront, for which he received a substantial term of incarceration and supervised release. Notwithstanding that sentence -and while on supervised release -Depiro continued to victimize dockworkers through crimes of violence and increasingly sophisticated schemes to control and influence corrupt lLA union officials. Hence, the instant charges are even more serious when considered in conjunction with Depiro’s similar past conduct. See, e.g., Provenzano, 605 F.2d at 89 (“Concluding that he would continue to exercise his influence within the union corruptly and in violation of the criminal law, the trial judge found that Provenzano’s freedom pending appeal would constitute a danger to the community.”) .

Finally, Depiro and those acting on his behalf have demonstrated a willingness to resort to threats of violence in furtherance of their criminal enterprise. For instance, in a July 17, 2009 intercepted telephone call between Depiro and a sports bettor, Depiro threatened: “Don’t be fuckin’ doin’ that, what you’re doin’. I’m telling you that right now. I mean you got something in tonight and that’s not right.” In context, and based on witness testimony, in this statement, Depiro was referring to the fact that the bettor had placed additional bets despite not having paid his outstanding sports betting losses. Due to Depiro’s formidable reputation and the bettor’s fear of Depiro, he called Dehmer less than an hour later, stating, “I got 1300 of my own money on me, I’ll just drop that off.”

Similarly, Dehmer repeatedly threatened violence and harm on Depiro’s behalf against individuals who failed to timely pay sports-betting losses. For example, in intercepted telephone calls, Dehmer sent word to another bettor “that some people are really mad at him,” and “somebody is furious at him.” Likewise, Dehmer told a bettor “you better be here before 2:00 because somebody is going to be fucking furious” and, when the bettor suggested that he would not be able to pay, Dehmer further stated, “this guy is going to be so fucking mad.” Finally, in another intercepted telephone call, Dehmer told an individual, “this guy is fucking mad. You know you get paid on a certain fucking day, he wants to get paid.” In context and based on additional intercepted calls, it is apparent that Dehmer is referring to Depiro in these calls.

In sum, the current charges involve not only crimes of violence, but also actual threats of force, violence and fear directed at numerous, identified victims. Furthermore, the charges are indicative of Depiro’s long-term victimization of New Jersey port workers, undaunted by a prior period of incarceration, and represent a heightened degree of danger and sophistication in comparison to his prior crimes. Finally, the instant charges illustrate Depiro’s far-ranging control and influence over criminal associates, from corrupt lLA union officials to bookmakers. Consequently, the nature of the charges at issue here weighs heavily in favor of Depiro’s detention.

d. Weight of the Evidence

The weight of the evidence against Depiro is overwhelming, and includes countless recordings, cooperating witnesses, physical surveillance and Depiro’s own admissions. A partial summary of the evidence against Depiro follows.

Government witnesses, themselves members and associates of the Genovese crime family and other crime families, are expected to testify that Depiro is a “made” member of the Genovese crime family who controls the crime family’s port­related rackets, a capacity in which he supervises and exercises influence over others, including corrupt lLA union officials.

Additionally, wiretap intercepts further evidence Depiro’s role in the Genovese crime family’s rackets on the New Jersey piers. For example, Depiro was captured, pursuant to court-authorized wiretapping, in a telephone calIon September 14, 1998 speaking to Fiumara regarding the lLA extortion scheme. The recorded call was described as follows in Depiro’s October

2003 Pre-Sentence Report, Paragraph 21(e), to which he and his counsel raised no objection: DePiro told Fiumara that at Christmas time he is going to demand double the amount of money from people. Fiumara responded: “Yeah. Definitely.” DePiro told Fiumara about someone at the Port who he tried to collect from last Christmas who claimed “you took all my money” and that he was broke. DePiro explained to Fiumara that this person made $220,000 -$250,000 a year. DePiro told Fiumara that he does not want “Brief [Lawrence Ricci] to say he wants two percent” and Fiumara said that Brief [Ricci] should “mind his own business.” DePiro told Fiumara that Brief [Ricci] has “all the guys that he works there, bring us double and that’s that and we’ll go from there.” Fiumara responded: “Without a doubt.”

Cooperating witness testimony and wiretap intercepts regarding the waterfront extortion conspiracy are corroborated by observations made by law enforcement agents during the course of this investigation. From approximately September 2009 to January 2010, Depiro was observed meeting with Fiumara on multiple occasions in Manhattan and on Long Island (where Fiumara resided before his death in September 2010) .

For example, on January II, 2010, law enforcement agents conducted surveillance of Depiro and Fiumara at Bryant & Cooper steakhouse, located at 2 Middleneck Road, Roslyn, New York. Inside the restaurant, law enforcement agents observed Fiumara, Depiro and an attorney meeting at a small tabletop in the bar area. Law enforcement agents overheard portions of the attorney, Depiro and Fiumara’s conversation, including, among other things, the following statement: “Christmas is long gone.”

In context, this overheard comment evidences Depiro’s and Fiumara’s concerns about the future of the extortion scheme discussed above, by which members of the ILA are required to provide tribute payments to ILA union officials around Christmas, which payments are in turn transmitted to the Genovese crime family.

With respect to Depiro’s involvement in illegal gambling, in addition to the intercepted telephone calls described above, law enforcement has captured additional conversations that evidence Depiro’s control over and management of an illegal gambling operation. Those recorded conversations are also corroborated by documentary evidence recovered upon the execution of a search warrant at Dehmer’s illegal gambling club in Kenilworth, New Jersey, on or about January 20, 2010. Finally, Depiro’s own admissions establish his guilt. Specifically, in December 2006, Depiro was interviewed by law enforcement agents. During the interview, Depiro admitted that he was a gambler and a bookmaker and was arrested in the mid­1990s in an illegal gambling ring. In addition, Depiro acknowledged that he was arrested in the late 1990s along with Tino Fiumara.

In short, the evidence in this case establishes that Depiro committed the crimes at issue, and that he did so by virtue of his membership in the Genovese crime family. As set

forth above, courts routinely consider the heightened danger posed by a defendant’s membership in an organized, criminal enterprise when evaluating whether pretrial release is appropriate. Here, no condition of release could ensure that Depiro would renounce his status in the Genovese crime family, control over and involvement in the crime family’s port-related rackets, which have thrived for decades. Depiro’s leadership position within the Genovese crime family and the likelihood that he will continue to direct the activities of criminal associates is, therefore, a danger to the community that cannot be mitigated barring Depiro’s detention. See, e.g., Salerno, 631 F. Supp. at 1375.

e. Severity of Penalties Faced

Depiro, age 55, faces severe penalties, including a maximum prison sentence of 90 years, if convicted of the instant charges. Thus, there is a possibility that Depiro will spend the remainder of his days incarcerated. Accordingly, despite his ties to New Jersey and the apparent willingness of others to post property on his behalf, Depiro poses a serious risk of flight. See, e.g., Bergrin, 2009 WL 1560039, at *8 (balancing defendant’s “significant and long-standing ties to the community” against defendant’s criminal history and ordering detention); United

States v. Townsend, 897 F.2d 989, 995 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Consideration of the nature of the offenses charged involves

consideration of the penalties. The defendants are charged with

multiple counts, and it is reasonable, from their perspective, to look at the potential maximum sentences they face if they were found guilty on each count and sentenced consecutively on each count. Whyte faces a potential sentence of 35 years, Mohan and Townsend a potential sentence of 70 years. … Facing the much graver penalties possible under the present indictment, the defendants have an even greater incentive to consider flight.”) .

* * *

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Government respectfully submits that the Court should enter a permanent order of detention as to RICO Defendant Stephen Depiro based on danger to the community and risk of flight.

2. Genovese Crime Family Associate Nunzio LaGrasso As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, RICO

Defendant Nunzio LaGrasso, like Cernadas, utilized his high­ranking and influential union position to force dockworkers to make tribute payments of money at Christmastime for more than 20

years. Although he served as the Vice-President of ILA Local 1478, LaGrasso exercised such influence and control over the New Jersey waterfront that he was able to compel dockworkers from other ILA Locals to relinquish money to the mob. As a Genovese crime family associate, LaGrasso acted on behalf of the crime family and, more specifically, his cousin, Stephen Depiro, to

commit the foregoing crimes of violence and victimize those ILA

members whose interests he was supposed to serve. Thus, given the nature of the crimes at issue and his criminal associations, LaGrasso poses a danger to the community.

In addition, LaGrasso, age 60, faces a substantial prison sentence. Furthermore, following his arrest on New Jersey state charges in April 2010, LaGrasso was suspended from employment on the New Jersey waterfront and stands to lose his position permanently. Hence, LaGrasso constitutes a flight risk because he is facing a severe jail term and the loss of long­term, meaningful employment.

For these reasons, LaGrasso is similarly situated to fellow RICO Defendant and former ILA union official Albert Cernadas, for whom bail was set on December 13, 2010, by Magistrate Judge Salas. Indeed, given the nature of the charges and potential flight risk, Magistrate Judge Salas determined that a significant bail package was appropriate and, among other conditions, required that Cernadas post a $1,000,000 bond secured by multiple properties with equity of approximately $700,000, i.e., at least 70% secured. Since LaGrasso and Cernadas face similar penalties and share similar levels of culpability in the RICO extortion scheme, their bail packages should be substantially similar.

3. Genovese Crime Family Associate Richard Dehmer

RICO Defendant Dehmer, as a Genovese crime family associate, operated and managed with Depiro and others an illegal gambling operation involving bookmaking, and managed an illegal poker club. In this regard, Dehmer exercised direction and oversight over numerous other individuals associated with the sports betting and gambling club operations, including but not limited to the Gambling Defendants charged in the Superseding Indictment. For example, Dehmer conducted regular poker tournaments at the gambling club in Kenilworth, New Jersey, which required him to arrange card dealers, such as Anthony Alfano and Giuseppe Pugliese, another Genovese crime family associate, and to organize players.

Another of Dehmer’s responsibilities was to ensure that bettors timely paid gambling losses. In so doing, Dehmer resorted to threats of violence against others. For examale, pursuant to court-authorized wiretapping, Dehmer was captured in a recorded telephone call discussing a bettor’s outstanding debt with defendant Giuseppe Pugliese, stating that, “I am going over there tonight. I am going over there with a fucking bat, I really am.” Referencing the same bettor in a subsequent telephone call, Dehmer said, “It is costing me money. I got to borrow money to pay but I guarantee you, I guarantee you, he needs his hands to work. He ain’t working no more for a while.”

Finally, referencing the same bettor, Dehmer said that he had told another individual to “tell him [the bettor] that I am coming over there, and I will break every bone in his fucking hands so he can’t work.”

Given the nature of the charges, Dehmer’s demonstrated willingness to use violence to further his and Depiro’s interests, and Dehmer’s criminal association with the Genovese crime family, Dehmer should not be released in the absence of a secured bond with a condition of house arrest, enforced by electronic monitoring. In addition, house arrest is appropriate to mitigate the risk of flight that exists given that Dehmer, age 75, faces a maximum penalty of 20 years’ incarceration on certain charges.

B. EXTORTION DEFENDANTS

Defendants Edward Aulisi, Vincent Aulisi, Thomas Leonardis, Robert Ruiz, Michael Trueba, Ramiro Quintans, and Salvatore LaGrasso are ILA union members who -not unlike the foregoing Genovese crime family members and associates -extorted ILA dockworkers at Christmastime. These defendants, most of whom were entrusted to act in the interests of those they supervised or represented, utilized their positions to victimize those in their ward. It cannot be gainsaid that, if these defendants were so brazen as to perpetrate crimes of violence against individuals in their very workplace, there can be no assurance that they

would act lawfully were they to be released into the community

without substantial bail conditions.

In this regard, given the nature of the charges and the need to protect witnesses, both with respect to those who have already come forward and are identified in the Superseding Indictment as well as prospective victims in the scheme, it is necessary to bar the Extortion Defendants (and RICO Defendants Stephen Depiro, Albert Cernadas, Nunzio LaGrasso) from further association in any manner, means or capacity, with the ILA and/or New Jersey waterfront.s See, e.g., United States v. Traitz, 807 F.2d 322, 325-26 (3d Cir. 1986) (affirming district court’s pretrial release order based on house arrest and “removal of the defendants from union activities,” because “the district court did not err in determining that house arrest combined with the other conditions of release, including in particular the requirement that defendants cease all connection with the Roofer’s Union through which and on whose behalf many of the crimes of violence were allegedly committed, would provide the reasonable assurance required by the statute of the safety of the community”) .

S

It is the government’s understanding that, based on the defendants’ indictment, their passes to enter the New Jersey and New York waterfront will be suspended, effective immediately, by the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor. The defendants, however, apparently will retain their ILA memberships pending further review.

Furthermore, each Extortion Defendant faces severe

maximum penalties upon conviction: (1) Edward Aulisi, age 51, 20 years’ incarceration; (2) Vincent Aulisi, age 78, 100 years’ incarceration; (3) Thomas Leonardis, age 53, 60 years’ incarceration; (4) Robert Ruiz, age 52, 100 years’ incarceration;

(5) Michael Trueba, age 75, 160 years’ incarceration; (6) Ramiro Quintans, age 52, 140 years’ incarceration; and (7) Salvatore LaGrasso, age 54, 40 years’ incarceration. In addition, upon arrest, each defendant likely will be suspended from further employment on the New Jersey waterfront, further severing their ties to this District. Accordingly, each of the Extortion Defendants poses a risk of flight.

Thus, bail packages consisting of significant secured bonds are appropriate. For years, these defendants held lucrative positions with the ILA and received substantial remuneration, some for decades. Given the defendants’ means, there will little deterrent to flight absent bail conditions comprising large secured bonds. For example, a criminal complaint against Robert Ruiz charging him with conspiring to commit Hobbs Act extortions in 2008 and 2009 was filed in the Eastern District of New York on December 6, 2010. The Ruiz complaint, which was dismissed on January 6, 2011 in anticipation of the instant prosecution, alleged, among other things, that the government had recovered $51,900 in cash buried in a longshoreman’s backyard, and that the longshoreman, who was himself a victim of the extortion scheme, had been asked by Ruiz to hold the money. There, Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azrack released Ruiz on a $500,000 bond secured by property with equity of approximately $350,000, i.e., at least 70% fully secured. That charge has now been converted from a complaint in the Eastern District of New York to an indictment based on a probable cause finding by a grand jury sitting in Newark, New Jersey, that Ruiz committed the offenses in question, including additional extortions, pursuant to which he now faces a 100-year sentence.

In other words, the full nature and scope of the extensive criminal conspiracy involving numerous other ILA members indicted here was not before Magistrate Judge Azrack at the time of her decision. Moreover, this case involves New Jersey victims and a need to protect the New Jersey community from further crimes of these defendants, all of whom are New Jersey residents. Accordingly, while Magistrate Judge Azrack’s decision regarding Ruiz’s pretrial release establishes a “floor” pursuant to which this Court should evaluate bail, it fails to redress adequately the serious danger to the community and flight risk posed by each of the Extortion Defendants, a number of whom

have heightened relative levels of culpability and criminal

responsibility in the scheme. 9

9 For many of these same reasons, Depiro’s current conditions of pretrial release are insufficient. On March 30, 2010, Depiro was charged via criminal complaint in the Eastern District of New York with racketeering and racketeering conspiracy, including predicate acts involving conspiring to extort ILA members and officials, conspiring to use extortionate means to collect extensions of credit and illegal gambling. Depiro also was charged with conspiring to harbor fugitive Michael Coppola. There, Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy released Depiro conditioned on a significant, secured bond and home detention, with exceptions for daily religious services and as approved by Pretrial Services. On or about April 28, 2010, Depiro was indicted by a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of New York for various offenses relating to his harboring of Coppola, which charges are currently pending, and the foregoing complaint was dismissed.

In contrast to the prior complaint, Depiro has now been indicted by a federal grand jury sitting in Newark, New Jersey. Significantly, the Superseding Indictment represents a finding by the grand jury, based on the evidence presented, that probable cause exists that Depiro committed the crimes in question. The instant prosecution, moreover, is based on a far more extensive and wide-ranging conspiracy, involving many more victims and participants, than that alleged in the prior complaint. Indeed, there are 15 defendants named in the Superseding Indictment, and many victims of Depiro’s crimes are specifically identified. In comparison, in the complaint, Depiro was the sole defendant and no victims were identified. Thus, there are additional, unaddressed concerns here relating to potential obstruction of justice, which Depiro has committed previously, and witness/victim interference. Finally, given the status of the ongoing investigation, the evidence presented to Magistrate Judge Levy was far more limited than that documented herein; the evidence now before the Court paints a compelling portrait of an individual who has continued to commit crimes on behalf of the Genovese crime family against New Jersey victims despite a substantial period of incarceration and repeated violations of release conditions, none of which has deterred Depiro from the commission of further crimes endangering this community. Depiro’s danger to the community and risk of flight, therefore, can only be adequately and appropriately addressed through detention.

CONCLUSION

For each of the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully submits that the Court should enter an order detaining lead defendant Stephen Depiro pretrial and releasing the remaining defendants on the above-described conditions. The government reserves its right to supplement its position with respect to each defendant.

Respectfully submitted,

PAUL J. FISHMAN United States Attorney

By: Anthony J. Mahajan Jacquelyn M. Rasulo Taryn A. Merkl Assistant U.S. Attorneys

APPENDIX A

A. RICO DEFENDANTS

RICO Charges (Counts 1 and 2)

Substantive Extortion Charges (Counts 3-4; 9; 14­25; 43-44)

COUNT/RA Defendant Offense/Statute Date
Count 1 DEPIRO CERNADAS N. LAGRASSO DEHMER RICO Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d} December 1982 -January 2011
RA1 DEPIRO CERNADAS N. LAGRASSO Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a} December 1982 -January 2011
RA2 – CERNADAS Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 December
RA33   U.S.C. § 1951(a} i N.J. Statute 2C:20-5(g} 1982 -January 2006
RA34 – N. LAGRASSO Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 December
RA70   U.S.C. § 1951(a) i N.J. Statute 2C:20-5(g) 1989 -January 2010
RA71 DEPIRO DEHMER Illegal Gambling -Sports Betting, 18 U.S.C. § 1955 /N.J. Statute 2C:37-2i Use of Interstate Facility to Transmit Wagering Information, 18 U.S.C. § 1084 July 2009 -January 2010
RA72 DEPIRO DEHMER Conspiracy to Use Extortionate Means to Collect Extensions of Credit/Use of Extortionate Means to Collect Extensions of Credit, 18 U.S.C. § 894(a} July 2009 -January 2010
RA73 DEHMER Illegal Gambling -Poker, 18 U.S.C. § 1955 July 2009 -January 2010

 

COONT/RA Defendant Offense/Statute Date
Count 2 DEPIRO DEHMER CUD RICO Conspiracy, U.S.C. § 1962 (d) 18 July 2009 -January 2010
           

 

Count

Defendant

Offense/Statut$

Date

Count 3

DEPIRO

Hobbs Act Extortion

December CERNADAS Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C.

1982 ­

N. LAGRASSO § 1951(a)

January 2011

Counts 4 CERNADAS Hobbs Act Extortion, 18

December & 9

U.S.C. § 1951(a)

2005 ­January 2006

Counts

N. LAGRASSO Hobbs Act Extortion, 18

December 14 -25

U.S.C. § 1951(a)

2006 ­January 2010

Count 43 DEPIRO Extortionate Collection of January DEHMER Credit Conspiracy, 18

2009 ­

U.S.C. § 894(a) (1)

January 2010

Count 44 DEHMER Extortionate Collection of October Credit, 18 U.S.C. 2009 ­§ 894(a) (1) January 2010

3. Substantive Illegal Gambling Charges (Counts 41­42; 45-53)

Count Defendant Offense/Statute Date
Count 41 DEPIRO DEHMER Illegal Gambling Conspiracy -Bookmaking, 18 U.S.C. § 371 July 2009 -January 2010
Count 42 DEPIRO DEHMER Illegal Gambling -Bookmaking, 18 U.S.C. § 1955(a) July 2009 -January 2010

 

Count Defendant Offense/Statute Date
Counts 45 -51 DEHMER Transmission of Wagering Information, 18 U.S.C. § 1084 Various dates in 2009 & 2010
Count 52 DEHMER Illegal Gambling Conspiracy -Poker, 18 U.S.C. § 371 July 2009 -January 2010
Count 53 DEHMER Illegal Gambling -Poker, 18 U.S.C. § 1955(a) July 2009 -January 2010

 

B. EXTORTION DEFENDANTS

Count Defendant Offense/Statute Date  
Count 3 S. DEPIRO A. CERNADAS N. LAGRASSO E. AULISI V. AULISI S. LAGRASSO LEONARDIS QUINTANS RUIZ TRUEBA Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 1982 January 2011
Counts 5-6 V. AULISI Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2006 January 2008
Counts 7-8 RUIZ Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2008 January 2010
Counts 10­11 V. AULISI Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2006 January 2008
Counts 12­13 RUIZ Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2008 January 2010
Count 26 QUINTANS Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2008 January 2009

 

Count Defendant .. Offense/Statute Date  
Count 27 S. LAGRASSO Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951{a) December 2009 January 2010
Counts 28­29 QUINTANS Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951{a) December 2008 January 2010
Count 30 TRUEBA Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951{a) December 2007 January 2008
Count 31 LEONARDIS TRUEBA Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2008 January 2009
Count 32 LEONARDIS Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2009 March 2010
Counts 33­36 TRUEBA Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951{a) December 2006 January 2010
Count 37 TRUEBA Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951{a) December 2007 January 2008
Counts 38­40 QUINTANS Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951{a) December 2007 January 2010

Daniel Cilenti, Glenn Mazzella, and Peter Pace, Jr. stand charged with, inter alia, racketeering conspiracy involving the extortion of two individuals

U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney Eastern District a/New Yark

AB:SEF                                                                        2il Cadman Pla=a East

F.#2011R00013                                                             Brook(vl/, New York 11201

January 20, 2011

By ECF and Hand

The Honorable Andrew L. Carter, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge

Eastern District of New York

271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201

Re:       United States v. Dominic Caramanica, et al. Criminal Docket No. 11-0026 (JG)

Dear     Judge Carter:

The government respectfully submits this letter in support of its position regarding pretrial detention in the above-captioned matter.

Three of the four defendants -Daniel Cilenti, Glenn Mazzella, and Peter Pace, Jr. -stand charged with, inter alia, racketeering conspiracy involving the extortion of two individuals, identified in the indictment as John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, over a period of several years. The fourth, Dominic Caramanica, is a former member of the New York City Police Department who is charged with conspiring to extort, and extorting, John Doe #2.

Defendant Cilenti has been an inducted member of the Genovese organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra (the “Genovese crime family”) for more than six decades. Cilenti has an arrest record that dates to at least 1961. As set forth below, Cilenti’s involvement in the charged crimes includes the period he was on bail pending sentencing, as well as the two years he was on probation, following his 2006 conviction, in the Southern District of New York, for obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512. See United States v. Cilenti, 05-CR-774 (KBW)

(S.D.N.Y.). Indeed, the evidence against Cilenti includes consensual recordings in which Cilenti describes his scheme to extort kickbacks on construction projects from the government’s cooperating witness just two months after his sentence was imposed in that case, in October 2007.

Defendant Peter Pace, Jr. is an associate of the Genovese family who likewise has a violent criminal record spanning at least two decades. As with Cilenti, the evidence against Pace includes numerous consensual recordings, including recordings in which Pace speaks openly about committing acts of violence, such as an attempt to throw his mother-in-law off a roof in 1988.

The government respectfully submits that, for these reasons and the reasons set forth below, Cilenti and Pace each represent a danger to the community and a risk of flight and should be detained pending trial.

The other two defendants -Glenn Mazzella and Dominic Caramanica -are Genovese crime family associates in Cilenti’s crew. The government respectfully submits that Mazzella and Caramanica also pose a danger to the community and a risk of flight that can only be mitigated, if at all, through substantial bail packages and restrictive conditions of release.

Background

On January 10, 2011, a grand jury in the Eastern District of New York returned a sealed indictment charging Cilenti and two of his closest associates, Mazzella and Pace, with racketeering conspiracy, including predicate acts of extortion and extortion conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Caramanica is also charged with extortion and extortion conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). The charges stem from a long-term investigation involving a proactive cooperating witness (“CW”), identified in the indictment as John Doe #1, who made consensual recordings over a period of close to four years.

As part of one of the charged extortion conspiracies, Cilenti and his associates demanded cash kickbacks from John Doe #1, who was active in the construction industry in New York and New Jersey, in exchange for providing him with opportunities to work on construction projects in the New York area. In addition to John Doe #1, Cilenti and his associates also extorted another individual, identified in the indictment as John Doe #2, who owed John Doe #1 a legitimate business debt. Cilenti’s associates, Mazzella, Pace and Caramanica, conspired to use and used intimidation to collect on the debt owed by John Doe #2 to John Doe #1, and Cilenti and Mazzella then demanded a percentage of the repaid debt from John Doe #1 as payment for their illegal collection efforts.

In light of the nature of these charges and the other reasons set forth below, all four defendants pose a danger to the community and a risk of flight.

Legal Standard

A. Bail Reform Act

Under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq., federal courts are empowered to order a defendant’s detention pending trial upon a determination that the defendant is either a danger to the community or a risk of flight. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) (“no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community”). A finding of dangerousness must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. See United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540, 542 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 405 (2d Cir. 1985). A finding of risk of flight must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Jackson, 823 F.2d 4, 5 (2d Cir. 1987); Chimurenga, 760 F.2d at 405.

The Bail Reform Act lists four factors to be considered in the detention analysis: (1) the nature and circumstances of the crimes charged, (2) the history and characteristics of the defendant, (3) the seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant’s release and (4) the evidence of the defendant’s guilt. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

The Bail Reform Act makes clear that evidentiary rules do not apply at detention hearings and the government is entitled to present evidence by way of proffer, among other means. See 18

U.S.C. § 3142(f) (2); ~also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (government entitled to proceed by proffer in detention hearings); Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 542

(same); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1145 (2d Cir. 1986) (same). As the Second Circuit has explained:

[Iln the pre-trial context, few detention hearings involve live testimony or cross examination. Most proceed on proffers. See United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000). This is because bail hearings are “typically informal affairs, not substitutes for trial or discovery.” United States v. Acevedo-Ramos, 755 F.2d 203, 206

(1st Cir. 1985) (Breyer, J.) (quoted approvingly in LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 131).

Indeed, § 3142(f) (2) (B) expressly states that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at bail hearings; thus, courts often base detention decisions on hearsay evidence. Id.

United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309, 320 n.7 (2d Cir. 2004).

B.         Organized Crime Defendants

Courts in this circuit routinely have faced the issue of pretrial detention of organized crime defendants charged with racketeering-related offenses. See,~, United States v. Cirillo, Cr. No. 05-212 (SLT) , slip op. (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (Genovese family members detained as dangers to the community), aff’d, 149 Fed. Appx. 40 (2d Cir. 2005); United States v. Gotti, 219 F. Supp. 2d 296, 299-300 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (Gambino family acting boss Peter Gotti detained as danger to the community), aff’d, United States v. Ciccone, 312 F.3d 535, 543 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Defede, 7 F. Supp. 2d 390, 395 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (Luchese family acting boss detained as danger to the community); United States v. Agnello, 101 F. Supp. 2d 108, 116 (E.D.N.Y. 2000)

(Gambino family captain detained as danger to the community); United States v. Salerno, 631 F. Supp. 1364, 1375 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)

(Genovese family acting boss detained as danger to the community), order vacated, 794 F.2d 64 (2d Cir.), order reinstated, 829 F.2d 345 (2d Cir. 1987).

Together, these cases stand for at least the following propositions: (1) organized crime defendants often constitute dangers to the community due to the high likelihood that they will continue to commit crimes if released on bail; and (2) elaborate bail packages involving home detention and electronic monitoring are often insufficient to protect the community from dangerous organized crime defendants.

1.         Organized Crime Defendants Are Likely to Commit Crimes if Released on Bail

Organized crime defendants pose a particular threat to the community due to the continuing nature of the charged enterprise and its violent criminal activities. Because organized crime defendants are career criminals who belong to an illegal enterprise, they pose a distinct threat to commit additional crimes if released on bail. See Salerno, 631 F. Supp. at 1375 (finding that the illegal businesses of organized crime require constant attention and protection, and recognizing a strong incentive on the part of its leadership to continue business as usual) .

Congress noted that defendants pose a danger to the community not only when they commit acts of violence, but when it is likely that they will commit even non-violent crimes that are detrimental to the community. See S. Rep. No. 225 98th Cong., 1st Sess. at 6-7, ~ reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code Congo & Admin. News 3182 (“Senate Report”), 3195 (“language referring to safety of the community refers to the danger that the defendant might engage in criminal activity to the detriment of the community

The Committee intends that the concern about safety be given a broader construction than merely danger of harm involving physical violence”). In Salerno, the court held:

In light of Congress’ direction that “[w]here there is a strong probability that a person will commit additional crimes if released, the need to protect the community becomes sufficiently compelling that detention is, on balance, appropriate”

631 F. Supp. at 1371 (quoting Senate Report at 3189). See also United States v. Colombo, 777 F.2d 96, 99 (2d Cir. 1985).

2.         Elaborate Bail Packages Are Insufficient to Protect the Community Against Violent Organized Crime Defendants

The Second Circuit repeatedly has rejected “elaborate” bail packages for dangerous defendants, and has viewed home detention and electronic monitoring as insufficient to protect the community against dangerous individuals. See,~, Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 543-44 (rejecting $1 million bail package secured by real property); United States V. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 630-33 (2d Cir. 1993) (rejecting $3 million bail package secured with real property, home detention, restricted visitation and telephone calls, and electronic monitoring); Colombo, 777 F.2d at 97, 100 (rejecting $500,000 bail package secured by real property) In United States V. Millan, the Second Circuit held that:

Home detention and electronic monitoring at best elaborately replicate a detention facility without the confidence of security such a facility instills. If the government does not provide staff to monitor compliance extensively, protection of the community would be left largely to the word of [the defendants] that [they] will obey the conditions.

4 F.3d 1039, 1048-49 (2d Cir. 1993) (citations and internal quotations omitted). See also Orena, 986 F.2d at 632 (“electronic surveillance systems can be circumvented by the wonders of science and of sophisticated electronic technology”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Similarly, courts in this district have denied dangerous defendants bail in recognition of the Second Circuit’s dim view of the effectiveness of home detention and electronic monitoring. See, e.g., United States v. Cantarella, 2002 WL 31946862, *3-4 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (Garaufis, J.) (adopting “principle” of “den [ying] bail to ‘dangerous’ defendants despite the availability of home detention and electronic surveillance and notwithstanding the value of a defendant’s proposed bail package”); Agnello, 101 F. Supp. 2d at 116 (Gershon, J.) (“the protection of the community provided by the proposed home detention remains inferior to that provided by confinement in a detention facility”); United States v. Masotto, 811 F. Supp. 878, 884 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) (rejecting bail because “the Second Circuit appears to be saying to us that in the case of ‘dangerous defendants’ the Bail Reform Act does not contemplate the type of conditions suggested by this Court [including home confinement and electronic monitoring] and that, even if it did, the conditions would not protect the public or the community, given the ease with which many of them may be circumvented”).

Argument

Detailed below is a proffer of the relevant facts in support of the government’s position with respect to the four defendants.

A. Daniel Cilenti

As noted above, Cilenti is charged with racketeering conspiracy, including predicate acts of extortion and extortion conspiracy -both crimes of violence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a) (4) (A) (defining “crime of violence” as an offense that has as one of its elements the “attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another”). Cilenti is also charged with those extortions as substantive crimes. The evidence against Cilenti and his associates is strong, and is expected to include, inter alia, victim testimony and numerous consensual recordings in which Cilenti and his associates can be heard conspiring to commit, and then committing, the charged crimes. If convicted, Cilenti faces a sentence of up to 20 years in prison on each of five counts. The government seeks entry of a permanent order of detention against

Cilenti on the ground that he is a danger to the community and a risk of flight.

During the course of the government’s investigation, Cilenti advised the government’s cooperating witness that he had been inducted into the Genovese crime family in 1947. Cilenti has thus, by his own account, been a member of this notoriously violent and dangerous criminal enterprise for more than six decades. Cilenti boasted to John Doe #1 that, during that time, he had participated in numerous acts of violence, including several murders. Indeed, on one occasion during the mid-1990s, John Doe #1 personally witnessed Cilenti and several associates preparing for an expected confrontation with several individuals with whom Cilenti was involved in a dispute over an alleged debt. On that occasion, as one of Cilenti’s associates loaded a .25 caliber semiautomatic handgun, Cilenti advised John Doe #1 to leave for his own safety.

Cilenti’s arrest record dates to at least 1961, and he has repeatedly been convicted of crimes related to his involvement with the Genovese crime family. In October 1961, Cilenti was convicted in Bronx County Criminal Court of possession of bookmaking records. Less than two years later, in April 1963, and again less than two years after that, in February 1965, Cilenti was arrested and charged with the same crime, although both those cases were ultimately dismissed. In January 1975, Cilenti was again arrested and charged with involvement in a gambling conspiracy, but the government filed a nolle prosequi in September 1976.

In 1988, Cilenti was convicted, upon his plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, of one count of travel in-aid-of racketeering in connection with a scheme to extort $450,000 from a victim. In that case, Cilenti was initially sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment of 18 months and three years’ probation. However, his probationary term was subsequently extended by two years after he violated the conditions of his probation by associating with known criminals, and he was ultimately incarcerated after violating his probation a second time by committing a new federal offense. In September 1994, Cilenti was convicted, upon his plea of guilty in the united States District Court for the Southern District of New York, to conspiring with other members of the Genovese crime family to make and collect extortionate extensions of credit, and conspiring to collect unlawful debts. He was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.

In July 2005, Cilenti was arrested along with senior leaders of the Genovese crime family -including the acting boss of the family, Matthew Ianniello, also known as “Matty the Horse” -and charged with multiple counts of conspiring and attempting to obstruct and impede a federal grand jury investigation in the Southern District of New York. Cilenti later pled guilty to participating in that conspiracy by, inter alia, facilitating communications between an officer of Local 1181 of the Amalgamated Transit Union and other members of the Genovese crime family, in connection with an effort to obstruct the government’s investigation of the Genovese family’s involvement with the union.

In that case, Cilenti was initially released pending trial on a $250,000 personal recognizance bond co-signed by two financially responsible suretors and secured by $50,000 in cash or property. His travel was limited to the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and he was ordered to surrender his travel documents. Following his guilty plea, Cilenti was sentenced in October 2007 by the Honorable Kimba M. Wood to two years’ probation, with a special condition of six months’ home confinement with electronic monitoring. According to a status report prepared by the Probation Department, on November 15, 2007 -approximately two hours after Cilenti was fitted with an ankle bracelet in connection with the electronic monitoring -he complained of pain, swelling and bruising around his ankle. The Probation Department further reported that due to Cilenti’s raspy voice, he was not a candidate for a voice-recognition monitoring system. Accordingly, on December 17, 2007, the court ordered the ankle bracelet to be removed and directed that Cilenti perform four hours per week of community service for a period of six months, in lieu of the home confinement and electronic monitoring portion of his sentence.

On the same day that Chief Judge Wood ordered the ankle bracelet removed, Cilenti met with John Doe #1 at his home and discussed the extortion scheme whereby John Doe #1 would be assigned trucking work by Cilenti’s associate, Pace, and required to pay a kickback to Pace and Cilenti. The following is an excerpt from a draft transcript of the consensual recording made by John Doe #1:

CILENTI:                     Anyway, what I gotta know is prices. Did you do prices yet?

John Doe #1:                Yes.

CILENTI:   Good. Because, I call it? Peter’s gotta [PACE] a lUI] What do you minority guy. lUI]
John Doe #1: Yes. Right. I met his partner too, the guy Paul.
CILENTI:   [UI]. . He’s looking to get rid of him. lUI]
John Doe #1: Really? Paul. Some guy, Rotundi was his name. Paul?
CILENTI:   lUI] I don’t know the guy.
John Doe #1: ‘Cause I met him. I met his father. I met Peter Sr. Your guy. Peter [PACE]. And this guy.
CILENTI:   Yeah, Peter. Peter’s my guy over there. lUI] And over here [UI]. . I got a guy. lUI] He’s got all kinds of trucking responsibility [UI]. You understand? But I lUI] . I want everything to go to you. But this other stuff that we can’t handle . because this other job we do. I don’t know. You got all the trucks, right?
John Doe #1: Yeah. I got a lot of . . I hire them all now.
CILENTI:   lUI] . . I mean I care about him, but you’re the one I want to do it. lUI] I want to see what he says. There are going to be jobs that will come up [UI]. . But I don’t want to use nobody but you. If I don’t have to use him, I don’t want to use him.
John Doe #1: OK, thanks Unc.
CILENTI:   I don’t yours. doing. care, even if his prices are lower than Understand? But we gotta know what we’re
John Doe #1: Right.  
CILENTI:   First, he says he’s going to talk to him. lUI] And don’t forget, ’cause not many people know, ’cause I understand there might be a wise guy on top. There may be a wise guy in there. [UI]
John Doe #1: Oh yeah? Well I’ll leave that to Peter and I’ll just stay in the background. That’s all.
                                                                             

 

CILENTI:

John Doe #1:

CILENTI: John Doe #1:

CILENTI:

That’s right. Cover your mouth. You talk to the ~y. lUI] . His name’s Joe or something? From Brooklyn? You speak to the guy. He told me you know him lUI] He’s the guy that’s giving you the job.

I don’t know him. I introduced Peter to a guy.

lUI] He used to be . This is the guy that gave Peter the job.

Yes.

But I didn’t know that when Peter called me. And he’s actually friends with my dispatcher.

lUI] In other words I have no obligation to this guy. But here’s what I did. Big John is the guy’s name, that I introduced him to Peter, because he can help Peter on the job. He runs the safety. He’s like the director of safety for the company, for not Angelites, sounds like that name.

lUI] The guy Peter’s [UI]. And he used to be around Sammy and Peter and Bobby Zaza [UI]. He’s with 282, the guy. I met him through Tony 0, who’s with that family also. You know, Gotti’s family. My arrangement with them is that we just get along. . So what I did. lUI] There’s nobody. Here’s what I said to John. lUI] I stay away from that. Here’s what I did, I said John I want you to meet a guy that’s like my kid brother or my nephew. OK? And I said to John in front of Peter, this guy is like blood to me, I said, and his uncle is my uncle out of the Bronx. I said very, very close. He said beautiful. He said don’t worry, he said, you’re not going to have a problem on this job. No matter what. So then he told Peter, he told Peter to go inside and tell them, to the owners, gee what do you, you got that safety director is picking on me already, like, in other words, so they don’t know they’re close. So this way, Peter don’t have nobody busting his balls. All I did was share a contact with Peter.

Alright, good. lUI] Somewhere down the line, something comes up. lUI] They’re not going to bother us. You know how people are. I’m sure there’s somebody behind the whole thing. There’s

no question in my happen. mind. But that’s not going to
John Doe #1: I don’t need to know that, I don’t need that, ’cause I got you to know that to know
CILENTI:   That’s right. I don’t know you. I don’t know you. I know Peter, but I don’t know you. You understand? Not that I don’t know you, but …
John Doe #1: Of course.
                   

 

The December 17 recording, among others, together with the testimony of the CW, makes clear that even as Ci1enti was petitioning the court to have the conditions of his probation relaxed due to an alleged medical condition, he was engaging in acts of racketeering in furtherance of the affairs of the Genovese crime family. Moreover, as Cilenti’s lengthy criminal history demonstrates, this is not the first time that he has refused to abide by the conditions of his release. These facts make clear that Cilenti has no regard for the authority of the court and will not cease his criminal activity if released on bail. Bail should be denied on this ground alone.

Recently, Magistrate Judge Levy rejected the offer of a substantial bail package made by a member of the Gambino crime family on precisely this ground. In March 2008, Vincent Gotti, a Gambino soldier charged with RICO conspiracy, proposed a $10 million bail package. Though the package Gotti proposed was secured by over $5 million in real property and included conditions such as home detention and electronic monitoring, Judge Levy found it insufficient in light of the evidence the government proffered that Gotti had been under some form of court supervision at the same time he was engaging in narcotics dealing and loansharking:

[Tlhe key factors are what the Government has proffered happened during the time that Mr. Gotti was either on parole or in prison or under indictment in the past[,l and that gives me serious concern because it has to do with whether or not an order of the Court can be evaded.

United States v. Gotti, Cr. No. 08-76, Hearing Transcript, Docket Entry No. 440 at 34 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2008). Gotti appealed Magistrate Judge Levy’s decision, offering to improve the bail package by agreeing to “a Consensual Wire Tap on all phones in the home [and] any other reasonable condition imposed.” Id., Docket Entry No. 443 at 1. After hearing oral argument, the Honorable Jack B. Weinstein, United States District Judge, affirmed Magistrate Judge Levy’s decision. See id., Docket Entry No. 582. Gotti clearly counsels in favor of detention here.

Indeed, all of the relevant factors favor pretrial detention in this case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). First, the crimes of violence with which Cilenti is charged are serious, could result in Cilenti being imprisoned for the remainder of his life, and were committed, in part, while he was on a sentence of probation. Second, Cilenti’s lengthy criminal history, his decades-long involvement with the Genovese crime family, his history of violence, including murder, and the fact that he has Genovese crime family members and associates at his disposal who are willing to commit acts of violence on his behalf, all militate in favor of detention. Third, Cilenti poses a danger to the community through his demonstrated refusal to comply with court orders his repeated commission of new crimes while under court supervision. Fourth, the evidence of Cilenti’s guilt is strong. Accordingly, the government respectfully requests that the court issue a permanent order of detention pending trial.

B. Peter Pace, Jr.

Cilenti’s close associate, Peter Pace, Jr., is charged, together with Cilenti, with racketeering conspiracy, including predicate acts of extortion and extortion conspiracy. As with Cilenti, the evidence of Pace’s guilt is strong, and includes cooperating witness testimony and extensive consensual recordings. Like Cilenti, Pace has a lengthy criminal history, including acts of violence, dating back some two decades. If convicted, Pace also faces a sentence of up to 20 years in prison on each of the five counts with which he is charged. Accordingly, the government seeks entry of a permanent order of detention against Pace on the ground that, like Cilenti, he is a danger to the community and a risk of flight.

In 1980, Pace was arrested by the New Rochelle City Police Department on a felony charge of criminal mischief. His criminal history does not indicate how the charges were resolved. Thereafter, in 1991, Pace was convicted after trial in Westchester County Court, of multiple counts of assault with intent to cause serious injury with a weapon and related charges. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 18 months to 54 months, and one to three years in prison.

The government’s investigation makes clear that Pace has used, and remains prepared to use, violence in furtherance of his criminal aims. Pace repeatedly boasted to John Doe #1 of his willingness to use violence, including the fact that he shot someone on at least one occasion, and sustained several gunshot wounds himself. In addition, John Doe #1 personally witnessed Pace remove a baseball bat from his car after it was vandalized on Arthur Avenue in the Bronx and walk off in search of the vandals with the stated intention of assaulting them.

Pace also boasted of his willingness to use violence in numerous consensual recordings made over the course of the government’s investigation. For example, during a conversation on January 21, 2008, Pace spoke of having allegedly assaulted his own mother-in-law. Pace said, “I tried to throw her off the roof on Viewmont Avenue back in 1988. She was a fucking junkie, right? So now. . she’s fucking telling everybody that I’m gonna come rob everybody, set me up with the neighborhood, right? So I brought her up to the fucking roof about six stories, it was fucking, I hung her off the fucking side of the roof.”

Pace also spoke openly of his willingness to use violence in connection with the extortion of John Doe #2. For example, during a consensually recorded conversation on December 8, 2009, Pace said, “I would have fucking been there last week cracking this guy in the fucking head. I swear to God.”

During the same conversation, Pace had the following exchange with Mazzella:

PACE:                         Give, give me his fucking office [UI] , gimme where he lives .

MAZZELLA:               Yeah, I’ll go [UI].

PACE:                                        And I’ll go there.

PACE:                         I’ll go myself. Give me his home address.

MAZZELLA:               Then what you need me for?

PACE:                         I don’t need you.

MAZZELLA:               OK, go ahead. Go to fucking jail.

PACE:                         Give me the guy’s. give me his fucking home address.

Accordingly, as with Cilenti, all four applicable factors favor the entry of a permanent order of detention against Pace: (1) the crimes of violence with which Pace is charged are serious, (2) Pace has a lengthy history of violence, (3) Pace’s willingness to use violence against others poses a danger to the community, and (4) the evidence of Pace’s guilt is strong.

C. Glenn Mazzella and Dominic Caramanica

Mazzella and Caramanica are both Genovese family associates. Like Cilenti and Pace, Mazzella faces a sentence of up to 20 years in prison on each of the five counts with which he is charged. caramanica, a retired member of the New York City Police Department, is charged with two crimes of violence ­extortion and extortion conspiracy -each of which also carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The evidence against both defendants is strong, and includes witness testimony and consensual recordings, including video recordings. Those recordings demonstrate the defendants’ willingness to use intimidation and violence in connection with their extortion scheme. For example, in the December 8, 2009 recording reference above, Mazzella noted that he had sent Caramanica to visit John Doe #2, and explained that “even if he’s not there, the message will be sent. The guy better get a hold of you. Alright, so we’ll get somebody over there right away and he’ll go as many times as necessary.” In a subsequent conversation, Mazzella told John Doe #1, “If there’s ever any place where we can squeeze· somebody else for bread. . let’s do that too.”

For the foregoing reasons -and given their close association with Cilenti and Pace -Mazzella and Caramanica each pose a danger to the community and a risk of flight. Accordingly, pretrial release is only appropriate in the event the defendants present substantial bail packages and are subject to restrictive release conditions, such as home detention and electronic monitoring.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully submits that the defendants Daniel Cilenti and Peter Pace, Jr. should be detained pending trial, and that the defendants Glenn Mazzella and Dominic Caramanica should not be released unless they present substantial bail packages and are subject to restrictive conditions of release. In addition, the government respectfully requests that the Court direct each of the

defendants to refrain from contacting, directly or indirectly, any of their co-defendants, any other members or associates of the Genovese crime family (outside the presence of counsel), and any victims and witnesses in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

LORETTA E. LYNCH United States Attorney

By: lsi Stephen E. Frank Assistant U.S. Attorney

(718) 254-6143

cc:        The Honorable John Gleeson (by hand) Defense counsel to be assigned (by hand) Clerk of Court (JG) (by ECF)

WALTER SAMPERI was an associate within the Colombo crime family.

            JDB:EAG/JDG/AL F.#20llROOOll

                UNITED      STATES DISTRICT COURT

JAN         0 7 2011;,

            EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

—x

                UNITED      STATES OF AMERICA I N D I C T MEN T against ­

                                                                                         WALTER SAMPERI, 196], 196] (a), 1963 (mT ar’ill ]551 et seq.) Defendant.

——x

                                                             THE GRAND JURy CHARGES: INTRODUCTION At all times relevant to this Indictment, unless otherwise indicated: The Enterprise

1. The members and associates of the Colombo organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra constituted an “enterprise,” as defined in Title lB, United States Code, Section 1961(4), that is, a group of individuals associated in fact

(hereinafter, the. “colombo crime family” and the “enterprise”). The enterprise constituted an ongoing organization whose members functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the enterprise. The Colombo crime family engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce. The Colombo crime family was an organized criminal

group that operated in the Eastern District of New York and

else\-lhere.

La Cosa Nostra operated through organized crime families. Five of these crime families -the Bonanno, Colombo, Gambino, Genovese and Luchese crime families -were headquartered in New Ycrk City, and supervised criminal activity in New York, in other areas of the United States and, in some instances, in other countries. Another crime family, the Decalvacante crime family, operated principally in New Jersey, but from time to time also in New York city.

The ruling body of La Cosa Nostra, known as the “Commission,” consisted of leaders from each of the crime families. The Commission convened from time to time to decide certain issues affecting all ·of the crime families, such as rules governing crime family membership.

40. The Colombo crime family had a hierarchy and structure. The head of the Colombo crime family was known as the “boss.” The Colombo crime family boss was assisted by an

“underbossll a,nd a counselor known as a \\consigliere. 11 Together r

the boss, underboss ·and consigliere were the crime family’s

“administration.” With the assistance of the underboss and consigliere, the boss was responsible for, among other things, setting policy and resolving disputes within and between La Cosa Nostra crime families and other criminal groups. The

administration further supervised, supported, protected and

disciplined the lower-ranking participants in the crime family. In return for their supervision and protection, the administration received part of the illegal earnings generated by the crime family. Members of the Colombo ·crime family served in an “acting” rather than “official” capacity in the administration on occasion due to another administration member’s incarceration or ill health, or for the purpose of seeking to insulate another administration member from law enforcement scrutiny. Further, On occasion, the Colombo crime family was overseen by a “panel” of crime family members that did not include the boss, underboss and/or consigliere.

5. Below the administration of the Colombo crime

family were numerous “crews,” also known as “regimes” and

“decinas.” Each cre\~ \~as headed by a “captain,” also known as a

“skipper,” “caporegimeU and “capodecina. 11 Each captain’s crew

consisted of “soldiers” and “associates.” The captain “,as responsible for supervising the criminal activities of his crew and providing the crew “,ith support and protection. In return, the captain often received a share of the crew’s earnings.

6. Only.members of the Colombo crime family could serve as a boss,underboss, consigliere, captain or soldier. Members of the crime family were referred to on occasion as “goodfellas” or “wiseguys,” or as persons who had been “straightened out” or who had their “button.” Associates were individuals who ~Iere not members of the crime family, but who nonetheless engaged in criminal activity for, and under the protection of, the crime family.

7. Many requirements existed before an associate could become a member of the Colombo crime family. The Commission of La Cosa Nostra from time to time limited the number of new members that could be added to a crime family. An associate was also r~quired to be proposed for membership by an existing crime family member. When the crime family’s administration considered the associate worthy of membership, the administration then circulated the proposed associate’s name on a list given to other La Cosa Nostra crime families, which the other crime families reviewed and either approved or disapproved. Unless there was an objection to the associate’s membership, the crime family then “inducted,” or “straightened out,” the associate as a member of the crime family in a secret ceremony. During the ceremony,’ the associate, among other things: swore allegiance for life to the crime family above all else, eVen the associate’s own family; swore, on penalty of death, never to reveal the crime family’s existence, criminal activities and other secrets; and s.wore to follow all orders issued by the crime family boss, including swearing to commit murder if the boss directed it.

4

Methods and Means of the Enterprise

The principal purpose of the Colombo crime family was to generate money for its members and associates: This purpose was implemented by members and associates of the colombo crime family through various criminal activities, including drug trafficking, robbery, extortion, fraud, illegal gambling and loansharking. The members and associates of the colombo crime family also furthered the enterprise’s criminal activities by threatening economic injury and using and threatening to use physical violence, including murder.

Although the primary purpose of the colombo crime family was to generate money for its members and associates, the members and associates at times used the resources of the family to settle personal grievances and vendettas, sometimes with the approval of higher-ranking members of the family. For those purposes, members and associates of the enterprise were asked and expected to carry out, among other crimes, acts of violence, including murder and assault.

The members and associates of the Colombo crime family engaged in conduct designed to prevent government detection of their identities, their illegal activities and the location of proceeds of those activities. That conduct included a commitment to murdering persons, including members or associates of organized crime families, who were perceived as

potential witnesses against members and associates of the enterprise.

11. Members and associates of the Colombo crime family often coordinated criminal activity with members and associates of other organized crime families. The Defendant

12. At various times relevant to this Indictment, the defendant WALTER SAMPERI was an associate within the Colombo crime family. RACKETEERING CONSPIRACY

13. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through twelve are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

1~. In or about and between 200~ and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant WALTER SAMPERI, together with others, being a person employed by and associated with the Colombo crime family, an enterprise that engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(c), that is, to conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of that enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, sections

1961(1) and 1961(5), consisting of the racketeering acts set forth below. The defendant agreed that a conspirator would commit at least two acts of racketeering activity in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise.

RACKETEERING ACT ONE (Extortion Conspiracy/Extortionate Collection Conspiracy)

15. The defendant agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act One:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit ConsDiracy

16. In or about 2004, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant WALTER SAMPERI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894 (a) (1) .

B. State Extortion ConsDiracy

17. In or about 2004, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant WALTER S~~PERI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others

7

would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and

(2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), ·155.05(2) (e) (i), 155.05(2) (e) (ii) and 105.10. RACKETEERING ACT TWO (Marijuana Distribution Conspiracy)

lB. In or about 2005, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendant WALTER SAMPERI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, which offense involved a substance containing marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, contrary to Title 21, United States Code, Sections B41 (a) (1) and B46.

(TitlelB, United States Code, Sections 1962(d), 1963 and 3551 et seq.) FORFEITURE ~~LEGATION

19. The United States hereby gives notice to the defendant that, upon conviction, the government will seek forfeiture, in accordance with Title IB, United States Code, Section 1963, which requires any person convicted of such offense to forfeit: (a) any interest the person acquired or maintained in violation of Title IB, United States Code, Section 1962; (b) any interest in, security of, claims against, or p~operty or contractual right of any kind affording a source of influence over any enterprise which the person has established, operated, controlled, conducted or participated in the conduct of, in

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962; and

(c) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962 ..

20. If any of the above-described forfeitable
property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant:
    (a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due
diligence;  
    (b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited
                                   

 

with, a third party;

(c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

(d) has been substantially diminished in value; or

(e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; it is the intent of ·the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963(m), to seek forfeiture of any

other property of the defendant up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1953(a) and 1953 (m) )

A TRUE BILL

·’FOREPERSON

LORETTi>. iii. LYNCH “‘” (j UNITED STATES ATTORNEY E.l\.STERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

0 0 /I.:;UI tltUIJUf I mRMDDD·3<1 JUNo 85 No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN District of NEW YORK CRIMINAL DIVISION

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

Walter Samperi,

Defendant.

IND I CTMENT

(T. IS, U.S.C., §§ 1962(d), 1963, 1963(a), 1963(m) and 355] et ~.)

A IrUI! billo

Forl!}Jlt1l/

O ‘

Filed ill open COW this ___________ ..:. _____ day,

of___ ._________ A.D. 20 ____ _

Clerk

Bail, $ __________ _

Elizabeth A. Geddes / AI/oil Lifshitz, Assistallt U.S. Atto/”JIeys (718-254-6430/6164)

BARTOLOMEO VERNACE, VITO CORTESIANO, MICHAEL DOLPHIN, ANTHONY VAGLICA, ROBERT WEHNERT

TM:EMN/SEF F.#2008R01634

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

—X

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I N D I C T M EN T

ag2inst –Cr. No.

(T. 18, U.S.C., §§ BARTOLOMEO VERNACE, 924 (c) (1) (A) (i),

also known as “Pepe,” “Bobby,” 924 (c) (1) (A) (ii),

“Bobby Glasses” and “Robert,tI 924 (c) (1) (A) (iii), 924 (d) , VITO CORTESIANO, 1962(d), 1963, 2 and 3551

also known as “Vito Love,” et seq.; T. 21, U.S.C., MICHAEL DOLPHIN, § 853 (p); T. 28, U.S.C., ANTHONY VAGLICA, §2461(c))

also known as \’Bosch, II and

ROBERT WEHNERT,

also known as “Bobby Werner/If

Defendants.

—————-X

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES: INTRODUCTION TO ALL COUNTS

At all times relevant to this Indictment unless otherwise indicated: The Enterprise

1. The .members and associates of the Gambino organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra constituted an “enterprise,” as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(4), that is, a group of individuals associated in fact

(hereinafter the “Gambino crime family” and the “enterprise”). The enterprise constituted an ongoing organization whose members functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the enterprise. The Gambino crime family engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce. The Gambino crime family was an organized criminal group that operated in the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere.

La Cosa Nostra operated through organized crime families. Five of these crime families -the Bonanno, Colombo, Gambino, Genovese and Luchese crime families -were headquartered in New York City, and supervised criminal activity in New York, in other areas of the United States and, in some instances, in other countries. Another crime family, the Decalvacante crime family, operated principally in New Jersey but from time to time also in New York City.

The ruling body of La Cosa Nostra, known as the “Commission,” consisted of leaders from each of the crime families. The CommisSion convened from time to time to decide certain issues affecting all of the crime families, such as rules governing crime family membership.

The Gambino crime family had a hierarchy and structure. The head qf the Gambino crime family was known as the “boss.” The Gambino crime family boss was assisted by an

\\underbosslf and a counselor known as a \\consigliere.” Together, the boss, underboss and consigliere were the crime family’s “administration.” With the assistance of the underboss and

2

consigliere, the boss’was responsible for, among other things, setting policy and resolving disputes within and between La Cosa Nostra crime families and other criminal’ groups. The administration further supervised, supported, protected and disciplined the lower~ranking participants in the crime family. In return for their supervision and protection, the administration received part of the illegal earnings generated by the crime family. Members of the Gambino crime family served in

an “acting” rather than \\officialll capacity in the administration on occasion due to .another administration member’s incarceration

or ill health, or for the purpose of seeking to insulate another administration member from law enforcement scrutiny. Further, on occasion, the Gambino crime family was overseen by a “panel” of crime family members that did not include the boss, underboss and/or consigliere.

5. Below the administration of the Gambino crime

family were numerous “crews,” also known as “regimes” and “decinas. 1I Each crew’was headed by a “captain,” also known as a “skipper, f/ \\caporegimelf and \\capodecina.~’ Each captain’s crew consisted of “soldiersfl and “associates.” The captain was responsible for supervising the criminal activities of his crew and providing the cre~ with support and protection. In return, the captain often received a share of the crew’s earnings.

o. Only members of the Gambino crime family could

serve as a boss, underboss, consigliere, captain or soldier. Members of the Gambino crime family were referred to on occasion

as “goodfellas” or “wiseguys, If or as persons who had been

“straightened out” or who had their “button.” Associates were individuals who were not members of the Gambino crime family, but who nonetheless engaged in criminal activity for, and under the protection of, the Gambino crime family.

7. Many requirements existed before an associate could become a member of the Gambino crime family. The Commission of La Cosa Nostra from time to time limited the number of new members that could be added to a crime family. An associate was also required to be proposed for membership by an existing crime family member. When the crime family’s administration considered the associate worthy of membership, the administration then circulated the proposed associate’s name on a list given to other La Cosa Nostra crime families, which the other crime families reviewed and either approved or disapproved. Unless there was an objection to the associate’s membership, the

crime family then “”inducted, II or “straightened out I the

fI

associate as a member of the crime family in a secret ceremony. During the ceremony, the associate, among other things: swore allegiance for life to the crime family above all else, even the associate’s own family; swore, on penalty of death, never to

4

reveal the crime family’s existence, criminal activities and other secrets; and swore to follow all orders issued by the crime family boss, including swearing to commit murder if the boss directed it. Methods and Means of the Enterprise

The principal purpose of the Gambino crime family was to generate money for its members and associates. This purpose was implemented by members and associates of the Gambino crime family through various criminal activities, including drug trafficking, robbery, extortion, illegai” gambling and loansharking. The members and associates of the Gambino crime family also furthered ,the enterprise’s criminal activities by threatening economic injury and using and threatening to use physical violence, including murder.

Although the primary purpose of the Gambino crime family was to generate money for its members and associates, the members and associates at times used the resources of the Gambino crime family to settle personal grievances and vendettas, sometimes with the approval of higher-ranking members of the family. For those purposes, members and associates of the enterprise were asked ‘and expected to carry out, among other crimes, acts of violence, including murder and assault.

The members and associates of the Gambino crime family engaged in conduct designed to prevent government

5

detection of their identities, their illegal activities and the

location of proceeds of those activities. That conduct included a commitment to murdering persons, particularly members or associates of organized crime families, who were perceived as potential witnesses against members and associates of the enterprise.

Members and associates of the Gambino crime family often coordinated criminal activity with members and associates of other organized crime families. The Defendants

At various times relevant to this Indictment, the defendant BARTOLOMEO VERNACE, also known as “Pepe,” “Bobby,”

“Bobby Glassesll and “Robert,1f was an associate, soldier and

captain in the Gambinq crime family, as well as a member of the ruling panel formed to oversee the Gambino crime family in approximately 2008.

13. At various times relevant to this Indictment, the defendants VITO CORTESIANO, also known as “Vito Love,” MICHAEL DOLPHIN, ANTHONY VAGLICA, also known as “Bosch,” and ROBERT WERNERT, also known as “Bobby Werner,” were associates in the Gambino crime family.

COUNT ONE (Racketeering Conspiracy)

The allegations contained in paragraphs one through thirteen are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

In or about and between April 1981 and December 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants BARTOLOMEO VERNACE, also known as “Pepe,” “Bobby,” “Bobby Glasses” and “Robert,” VITO CORTESIANO, also known as “Vito Love,” MICHAEL DOLPHIN, ANTHONY VAGLICA, also known as “Bosch,” and ROBERT WEHNERT, also known as “Bobby Werner,” together with others, being persons employed by and associated with the Gambino crime family, an enterprise that engaged in, and the activities of which affected, in~erstate and foreign commerce, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(c), that is, to conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of that enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961(1) and (5).

The pattern of racketeering activity through which the defendants, together with others, agreed to conduct the affairs of the enterprise consisted of Racketeering Acts One through Seven, set forth below. The defendants agreed that a

7

conspirator would commit at least two acts of racketeering in the

conduct of the affairs of the enterprise.

. RACKETEERING ACT ONE (Conspiracy to Murder and Murder -John D’Agnese)

17. The defendant BARTOLOMEO VERNACE agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act One:

A. Conspiracy to Murder John D’Agnese

18. On or about April 11, 1981, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendant BARTOLOMEO VERNACE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to cause the death of John D’Agnese, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 12S.2S(1) and 10S.lS.

B. Murder of John D’Agnese

19. On or about April 11, 1981, within the Eastern’ District of New York, the defendant BARTOLOMEO VEP~ACE, together with others, with intent to cause the death of John D’Agnese, did knowingly and intentionally cause his death, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 12S.2S(1) and 20.00.

RACKETEERING ACT TWO (Conspiracy to. Murder and Murder -Richard Godkin)

20. The defendant BARTOLOMEO VERNACE agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Two:

A. Conspiracy to Murder Richard Godkin

21. On or about April 11, 1981, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendant BARTOLOMEO VERNACE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to cause the death of Richard Godkin, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 125.25(1) and 105.15.

B. Murder of Richard Godkin

22. On or about April 11, 1981, within the Eastern District of New York, ·the defendant BARTOLOMEO VERNACE, together with others, with intent to cause the death of Richard Godkin, did knowingly and intentionally cause his death, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 125.25(1) and 20.00.

RACKETEERING ACT THREE (Iliegal Gambling -Baccarat)

23. In or about and between October 1990 and January 2003, both dates being approximate and inclusive; within the Eastern District of New York, the defendants BARTOLOMEO VEP~ACE, VITO CORTESIANO, ANTHONY VAGLICA and ROBERT WEHNERT, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, to wit: a seasonal baccarat game, which operated in violation of the laws of the State of New York, to wit: New York Penal-Law Sections 225.05 and 20.00, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and

which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days and had a gross revenue of at least $2,000 in any single day, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955 and 2.

RACKETEERING ACT FOUR (Extortionate Extension of Credit conspiracy)

24. In Or about and between October 1990 and January 2003, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendants BARTOLOMEO VERNACE, ANTHONY VAGLICA and ROBERT WEHNERT, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to make extortionate extensions of credit to participants in the seasonal baccarat game identified in Racketeering Act Three, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 892(a).

RACKETEERING ACT FIVE (Illegal Gambling -Joker Poker)

25. In or about and between January 1993 and December 2002, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendants BARTOLOMEO VEP~ACE, VITO CORTESIANO and MICHAEL DOLPHIN, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, to wit: a gambling business in a cafe located at Cooper and Myrtle Avenues in Queens, New York, involving the use of joker poker-type gambling machines, which operated in violation of the

laws of the State of New York, to wit: New York Penal Law

sections 225.30(a) (2) and 20.00, which involved five or more persons who conducted; financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days and had a gross revenue of at least $2,000 in any single day, contrary ~o Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955 and 2.

RACKETEERING ACT SIX (Extortionate Extension of Credit conspiracy/ Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy)

26. The defendant MICHAEL DOLPHIN agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act six:

A. Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy

27. In or about and between January 1994 and March 2001, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant MICHAEL DOLPHIN, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to make extortionate extensions of credit, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 892(a).

B. Extortionate Collection of Credit conspiracy

28. In or about and between January 1994 and March 2001, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant MICHAEL

DOLPHIN, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect extensions of credit, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a) (1)

RACKETEERING ACT SEVEN (Extortionate Extension of Credit/ Extortionate Collection of Credit)

29. The defendants BARTOLOMEO VERNACE and MICHAEL DOLPHIN agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Seven:

A. Extortionate Extension of Credit

30. In or about and between April 1999 and March 2001, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants BARTOLOMEO VERNACE and MICHAEL DOLPHIN, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally make an extortionate extension of credit to John Doe, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, contra~y to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 892(a) and 2.

B. . Extortionate Collection of Credit

31. In or about and between April 1999 and March 2001, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York ~nd elsewhere, the defendants BARTOLOMEO VERNACE and MICHAEL DOLPHIN, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to

collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe, contrary to Title’ 18, United States Code, Sections 892 (a) (1) and 2,

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1962(d), 1963 and 3551 et ~.) COUNT TWO (Using, Carrying and Possessing a Firearm)

32. In or about and between April 1981 and December 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New Yor.k and elsewhere, the defendant BJI-RTOLOMEO VERNACE, al’so known as “Pepe,” “Bobby,” “Bobby Glasses” and “Robert,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally use and carry a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, to wit: the crime charged in Count One, and did knowingly and inteptionally possess said firearm in furtherance of that crime of violence, which firearm was brandished and discharged.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 924 (c) (1) (A) (i), 924 (c) (1) (A) (ii), 924 (c) (1) (A) (iii), 2 and 3551 et ~.) CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNT ONE

33, The allegations contained in Count One of this Indictment are hereby repeated, realleged and incorporated by reference herein as though fully set forth at length for the purpose of alleging forfeiture pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963 and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(C). Pursuant to Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, notice is hereby given to the defendants that the United States will seek forfeiture as part of any sentence in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963, for which each defendant is jointly and severally liable, in the event of any defendant’s conviction under Count One of this Indictment.

34. The defendants, BARTOLOMEO VERNACE, VITO CORTESIANO, MICHAEL DOLPHIN, ANTHONY VAGLICA and ROBERT WEHNERT,

a. have acquired and maintained interests in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962, which interests are Subject ·to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963 (a) (1);

b. have an interest in, security of, claims against, and property and contractual rights which afford a source of influence over, the enterprise named and described herein which the defendants established, operated, controlled, conducted and participated in the conduct of, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962, which interests, securities, claims and rights are subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963 (a) (2); and

c. have property constituting and derived from proceeds obtained, directly and indirectly, from racketeering

activity, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962, which property is subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963 (a) (3) .

The interests of the defendants subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963 (a) (1), (a) (2), and (a) (3), include but are not limited to, at least $3,177,600.

If any of the property described in paragraphs 34 and 35 above, as a .result of any act or omission of a defendant:

a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;

c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

d. has been substantially diminished in value; or

e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty;

the court shall order the forfeiture of any other property of the defendants up to the value of any property set forth in paragraphs 34 and 35 above.

(Title IS, United States Code, Section 1963; Title 2S, united States Code, Section 2461(c)) CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNT TWO

37. The United States hereby gives notice to the defendant charged in Count Two, BARTOLOMEO VERNACE, that, upon his conviction, the government will seek forfeiture in accordance with Title IS, United.States Code, Section 924(d) and Title 2S, United States Code, Section 2461(C), which require the forfeiture of any firearm or ammunition involved in or used in any knowing violation of Title IS, United States Code, Section 924.

3S. If any of the property described in paragraph 37

above, as a result .of any act or omission of the defendant:
    a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due
diligence;      
    b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited
                                   

 

with, a third party;

c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

d. has been substantially diminished in value; or

e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty;· it is the intent of t~e United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code,· Section 853 (p),. as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), to seek forfeiture of any other property of defendant VERNACE up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation.

16

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(d); Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p); Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c))

A TRUE BILL

FOREPERSON

LYNCH U UNITED STATES ATTORNEY EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ANDREW RUSSO, also known as “Mush,” was a street boss, captain, soldier and associate within the Colombo crime family.

 

 TM:EAG F.#2010R00153

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -X

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

– against ­

ANDREW RUSSO,

also known as “Mush,”RALPH ARPAIO,JOHN AZZARELLI,

also known as “Johnny Cash,”DANIEL BOGAN,ANTHONY CALABRO,

also known as “Nooch,”ROGER CALIFANO,DANIEL CAPALDO,JOSEPH CARNA,

also known as “Junior Lollipops,”MICHAEL CASTELLANO,also known as “Big Mike,”

BENJAMIN CASTELLAZZO,also known as “Benji,”“The Claw” and “the Fang,”

DENNIS DELUCIA,also known as “Fat Dennis,”“Little Dennis” and “the Beard,”

GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO,

also known as “Pooch,”JOSEPH DIMARCO,JOHN DUNN,

also known as “Johnny Five,”

ANTHONY DURSO,also known as “Baby FatLarry” and “BFL,”

SCOTT FAPPIANO,EMANUELE FAVUZZA,also known as “Manny,”VINCENT FEBBRARO,also known as “Jimmy Gooch,”RICHARD FUSCO,also known as “Richie,”

I N D I C T M E N T Cr. No.

(T. 18, U.S.C., §§ 371,892(a), 893, 894(a)(1),922(g)(1), 924(a)(2),924(c)(1)(A)(i),924(c)(1)(A)(ii), 924(d),981(a)(1)(C), 982,982(a)(2)(A), 1343, 1349,1951(a), 1952(a)(3)(A),1955(a), 1955(d), 1956(h),1962(d), 1963, 1963(a),1963(m), 2342(a), 2344(a),2 and 3551 et seq.; T. 21,U.S.C., §§ 841(a)(1),841(b)(1)(D), 846, 853(a),853(p); T. 28, U.S.C.,§ 2461(c))

GAETANO GALLO,also known as “Tommy,”GIOVANNI GALLUZZO,

also known as “John,”ALI JUSEINOSKI,JOHN MAGGIO,REYNOLD MARAGNI,

also known as “Ren” and “Reynolds,”HECTOR PAGAN,also known as “Junior,”

THEODORE PERSICO, JR.,also known as “Teddy” and “thekid,”

FRANK PONTILLO,

also known as “Frankie Steel,”NICKY RIZZO,JACK RIZZOCASCIO,

also known as “Jack the Whack,”JOHN ROSSANO,ANTHONY RUSSO,

also known as “Big Anthony,”JOSEPH SAVARESE,RALPH SCOPO, JR.,FRANK SENATORE,

also known as “Buzz,”

ILARIO SESSA,also known as “Larry,” “FatLarry” and “FL,”

ANGELO SPATA,also known as “Little Angelo,”LOUIS VENTURELLI,

also known as “Louie Ices,”JOSEPH VIRZI and VITO VIZZI,

Defendants.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -X

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

INTRODUCTION TO ALL COUNTS

At all times relevant to this Indictment, unless

otherwise indicated:

The Enterprise

1. The members and associates of the Colombo organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra constituted an “enterprise,” as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(4), that is, a group of individuals associated in fact (hereinafter, the “Colombo crime family” and the “enterprise”). The enterprise constituted an ongoing organization whose members functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the enterprise. The Colombo crime family engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce. The Colombo crime family was an organized criminal group that operated in the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere.

2. La Cosa Nostra operated through organized crime families. Five of these crime families – the Bonanno, Colombo, Gambino, Genovese and Luchese crime families – were headquartered in New York City and supervised criminal activity in New York, in other areas of the United States and, in some instances, in other countries. Another crime family, the Decavalcante crime family, operated principally in New Jersey, but from time to time also in New York City.

3. The ruling body of La Cosa Nostra, known as the “Commission,” consisted of leaders from each of the crime families. The Commission convened from time to time to decide

certain issues affecting all of the crime families, such as rules governing crime family membership.

4. The Colombo crime family had a hierarchy and structure. The head of the Colombo crime family was known as the “boss.” The Colombo crime family boss was assisted by an “underboss” and a counselor known as a “consigliere.” Together, the boss, underboss and consigliere were the crime family’s “administration.” With the assistance of the underboss and consigliere, the boss was responsible for, among other things, setting policy and resolving disputes within and between La Cosa Nostra crime families and other criminal groups. The administration further supervised, supported, protected and disciplined the lower-ranking participants in the crime family. In return for their supervision and protection, the administration received part of the illegal earnings generated by the crime family. Members of the Colombo crime family served in an “acting” rather than “official” capacity in the administration on occasion due to another administration member’s incarceration or ill health, or for the purpose of seeking to insulate another administration member from law enforcement scrutiny. Further, on occasion, the Colombo crime family was overseen by a “panel” of crime family members that did not include the boss, underboss and/or consigliere.

5. Below the administration of the Colombo crime

family were numerous “crews,” also known as “regimes” and “decinas.” Each crew was headed by a “captain,” also known as a “skipper,” “caporegime” and “capodecina.” Each captain’s crew consisted of “soldiers” and “associates.” The captain was responsible for supervising the criminal activities of his crew and providing the crew with support and protection. In return, the captain often received a share of the crew’s earnings.

Only members of the Colombo crime family could serve as a boss, underboss, consigliere, captain or soldier. Members of the crime family were referred to on occasion as “goodfellas” or “wiseguys,” or as persons who had been “straightened out” or who had their “button.” Associates were individuals who were not members of the crime family, but who nonetheless engaged in criminal activity for, and under the protection of, the crime family.

Many requirements existed before an associate could become a member of the Colombo crime family. The Commission of La Cosa Nostra from time to time limited the number of new members that could be added to a crime family. An associate was also required to be proposed for membership by an existing crime family member. When the crime family’s administration considered the associate worthy of membership, the administration then circulated the proposed associate’s name on a

list given to other La Cosa Nostra crime families, which the other crime families reviewed and either approved or disapproved. Unless there was an objection to the associate’s membership, the crime family then “inducted,” or “straightened out,” the associate as a member of the crime family in a secret ceremony. During the ceremony, the associate, among other things: swore allegiance for life to the crime family above all else, even the associate’s own family; swore, on penalty of death, never to reveal the crime family’s existence, criminal activities and other secrets; and swore to follow all orders issued by the crime family boss, including swearing to commit murder if the boss directed it.

Methods and Means of the Enterprise

8. The principal purpose of the Colombo crime family was to generate money for its members and associates. This purpose was implemented by members and associates of the Colombo crime family through various criminal activities, including drug trafficking, robbery, extortion, fraud, illegal gambling and loansharking. The members and associates of the Colombo crime family also furthered the enterprise’s criminal activities by threatening economic injury and using and threatening to use physical violence, including murder.

9. Although the primary purpose of the Colombo crime family was to generate money for its members and associates, the

members and associates at times used the resources of the family to settle personal grievances and vendettas, sometimes with the approval of higher-ranking members of the family. For those purposes, members and associates of the enterprise were asked and expected to carry out, among other crimes, acts of violence, including murder and assault.

10. The members and associates of the Colombo crime family engaged in conduct designed to prevent government detection of their identities, their illegal activities and the location of proceeds of those activities. That conduct included a commitment to murdering persons, particularly members or associates of the crime families, who were perceived as potential witnesses against members and associates of the enterprise.

11. Members and associates of the Colombo crime family often coordinated criminal activity with members and associates of other organized crime families. The Defendants

12. At various times relevant to this Indictment, the defendant ANDREW RUSSO, also known as “Mush,” was a street boss, captain, soldier and associate within the Colombo crime family.

13. At various times relevant to this Indictment, the defendant BENJAMIN CASTELLAZZO, also known as “Benji,” “the Claw” and “the Fang,” was an underboss, captain, soldier and associate within the Colombo crime family.

14. At various times relevant to this Indictment, the defendants JOSEPH CARNA, also known as “Junior Lollipops,” DENNIS DELUCIA, also known as “Fat Dennis,” “Little Dennis” and “the Beard,” REYNOLD MARAGNI, also known as “Ren” and “Reynolds,” and ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” were captains, soldiers and associates within the Colombo crime family.

15. At various times relevant to this Indictment, the defendants EMANUELE FAVUZZA, also known as “Manny,” VINCENT FEBBRARO, also known as “Jimmy Gooch,” NICKY RIZZO, JOSEPH SAVARESE and RALPH SCOPO, JR. were soldiers and associates within the Colombo crime family.

16. At various times relevant to this Indictment, the defendants DANIEL BOGAN, ANTHONY CALABRO, also known as “Nooch,” ROGER CALIFANO, MICHAEL CASTELLANO, also known as “Big Mike,” GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO, also known as “Pooch,” SCOTT FAPPIANO, ALI JUSEINOSKI, JACK RIZZOCASCIO, also known as “Jack the Whack,” FRANK SENATORE, also known as “Buzz,” ILARIO SESSA, also known as “Larry,” “Fat Larry” and “FL,” and ANGELO SPATA, also known as “Little Angelo,” were associates within the Colombo crime family.

COUNT ONE (Racketeering Conspiracy)

17. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 16 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

18. In or about and between June 1991 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants DANIEL BOGAN, ANTHONY CALABRO, also known as “Nooch,” ROGER CALIFANO, JOSEPH CARNA, also known as “Junior Lollipops,” MICHAEL CASTELLANO, also known as “Big Mike,” BENJAMIN CASTELLAZZO, also known as “Benji,” “the Claw” and “the Fang,” GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO, also known as “Pooch,” SCOTT FAPPIANO, EMANUELE FAVUZZA, also known as “Manny,” VINCENT FEBBRARO, also known as “Jimmy Gooch,” ALI JUSEINOSKI, NICKY RIZZO, JACK RIZZOCASCIO, also known as “Jack the Whack,” ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” FRANK SENATORE, also known as “Buzz,” and ANGELO SPATA, also known as “Little Angelo,” together with others, being persons employed by and associated with the Colombo crime family, an enterprise that engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(c), that is, to conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of that enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961(1) and 1961(5), consisting of the racketeering acts set forth below. Each defendant agreed that a conspirator would commit at least two acts of racketeering activity in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise.

RACKETEERING ACT ONE (Murder/Murder Conspiracy – Joseph Scopo)

19. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act One:

A. Conspiracy to Murder Joseph Scopo

20. On or about and between June 20, 1991 and October 20, 1993, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to cause the death of Joseph Scopo, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 125.25(1) and 105.15.

B. Murder of Joseph Scopo

21. On or about October 20, 1993, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendant ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, with intent to cause the death of Joseph Scopo, did cause his death, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 125.25(1) and

20.00.

RACKETEERING ACT TWO (Receipt of Stolen Property – Video Games)

22. On or about and between October 20, 1994 and October 27, 1994, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally receive, possess, conceal, store, barter, sell and

dispose of goods, wares and merchandise, to wit: video games of a value of $5,000 or more, which goods, wares and merchandise had crossed a State boundary after being stolen, unlawfully converted and taken, knowing the same to have been stolen, unlawfully converted and taken, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2315 and 2.

RACKETEERING ACT THREE (Wire Fraud – Personal Loans)

In or about and between 1995 and 2000, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY CALABRO, MICHAEL CASTELLANO and FRANK SENATORE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, and for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, did transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds, to wit: telephone calls in which the conspirators made false promises to fund personal loans and faxes of confirmation letters, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.

It was a part of the scheme that the defendant MICHAEL CASTELLANO, together with others, placed advertisements in newspapers, falsely promising to loan money to individuals

with poor credit histories in exchange for an up-front payment. It was a further part of the scheme that the defendants MICHAEL CASTELLANO and ANTHONY CALABRO, together with others, faxed confirmation letters, containing the terms of the purported loan, including the amount of the up-front payment required to obtain the purported loan. It was a further part of the scheme that the conspirators arranged for the customers to transmit by Western Union the up-front payment, which the defendants MICHAEL CASTELLANO and FRANK SENATORE, together with others, then collected.

RACKETEERING ACT FOUR (Extortion – John Doe #1)

25. On or about and between April 8, 1996 and February 7, 1997, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant NICKY RIZZO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others obtained property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #1, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, a person would testify and provide information with respect to another’s legal claim and defense, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.30(6), 155.05(2)(e)(vii) and 20.00.

RACKETEERING ACT FIVE (Extortion – John Doe #2)

26. In or about and between September 1997 and May 1999, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant EMANUELE FAVUZZA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others obtained property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #2, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to John Doe #2 in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 20.00.

RACKETEERING ACT SIX (Extortionate Extension/Collection of Credit – John Doe #3)

27. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Six:

A. Extortionate Extension of Credit

28. In or about and between September 1998 and February 2002, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant BENJAMIN CASTELLAZZO, together with others, did knowingly and

intentionally make an extortionate extension of credit to John Doe #3, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 892(a).

B. Extortionate Collection of Credit

29. In or about and between September 1998 and February 2002, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant BENJAMIN CASTELLAZZO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #3, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and 2.

RACKETEERING ACT SEVEN (Extortion Conspiracy – John Doe #4)

30. In or about 1999, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant NICKY RIZZO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #4, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, other persons would cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT EIGHT (Extortionate Extension/Collection of Credit – John Doe #5)

31. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Eight:

A. Extortionate Extension of Credit

32. In or about and between February 1999 and May 1999, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant EMANUELE FAVUZZA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally make an extortionate extension of credit to John Doe #5, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 892(a).

B. Extortionate Collection of Credit

33. In or about and between February 1999 and May 1999, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant EMANUELE FAVUZZA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #5, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

RACKETEERING ACT NINE

(Extortionate Collection of Credit/

Extortion Conspiracy – John Doe #6)

34. The defendants named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Nine:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

35. In or about and between February 1999 and September 2000, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants EMANUELE FAVUZZA and GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #6, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. State Extortion Conspiracy

36. In or about and between February 1999 and September 2000, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants EMANUELE FAVUZZA and GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #6 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear

that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendants and others would (1) cause physical injury to John Doe #6 in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT TEN (Extortion/Extortion Conspiracy – John Doe #7)

37. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Ten:

A. Federal Extortion Conspiracy

38. In or about and between 2001 and 2004, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant BENJAMIN CASTELLAZZO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: the property of a commercial business, from John Doe #7, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, with his consent, which consent was to be induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).

B. Federal Extortion

39. In or about and between 2001 and 2004, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant BENJAMIN CASTELLAZZO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and others obtained property, to wit: the property of a commercial business, from John Doe #7, with his consent, which consent was induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

C. State Extortion Conspiracy

40. In or about and between 2001 and 2004, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant BENJAMIN CASTELLAZZO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: the property of a commercial business, by compelling and inducing John Doe #7 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage

to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

D. State Extortion

41. In or about and between 2001 and 2004, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant BENJAMIN CASTELLAZZO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others obtained property, to wit: the property of a commercial business, by compelling and inducing John Doe #7 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 20.00.

RACKETEERING ACT ELEVEN (Money Laundering Conspiracy –JOHN AZZARELLI’s Illegal Gambling Business)

42. In or about and between 2003 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant BENJAMIN CASTELLAZZO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to conduct financial transactions affecting interstate commerce, to wit: the transfer and delivery of United States currency, which transactions in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful

activity, to wit: proceeds from JOHN AZZARELLI’s illegal gambling business, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 225.05 and 20.00, knowing that the property involved in the transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, with the intent to promote the carrying on of the specified unlawful activity, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(h) and 1956(a)(1)(A)(i).

RACKETEERING ACT TWELVE (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/Extortionate Collection of Credit/Extortion Conspiracy -Gambino Individual #1)

43. The defendants named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Twelve:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

44. In or about and between December 2004 and April 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants DANIEL BOGAN and VINCENT FEBBRARO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from an individual affiliated with the Gambino crime family (“Gambino Individual #1”), contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit

45. In or about and between December 2004 and April

2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant DANIEL BOGAN, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from Gambino Individual #1, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

C. State Extortion Conspiracy

46. In or about and between December 2004 and April 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants DANIEL BOGAN and VINCENT FEBBRARO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing Gambino Individual #1 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendants and others would

(1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and

(2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law

Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTEEN (Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy/Extortionate Extension of Credit)

47. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Thirteen:

A. Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy

48. In or about and between 2005 and 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant DANIEL BOGAN, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to make one or more extortionate extensions of credit, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 892(a).

B. Extortionate Extension of Credit

49. In or about and between 2005 and 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant DANIEL BOGAN, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally make one or more extortionate extensions of credit, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 892(a) and 2.

RACKETEERING ACT FOURTEEN (Marijuana Distribution Conspiracy/Marijuana Distribution)

50. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Fourteen:

A. Marijuana Distribution Conspiracy

51. In or about 2006, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JACK RIZZOCASCIO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, which offense involved a substance containing

marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, contrary to Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and 846.

B. Marijuana Distribution

52. In or about 2006, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JACK RIZZOCASCIO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, which offense involved a substance containing marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, contrary to Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.

RACKETEERING ACTS FIFTEEN TO EIGHTEEN (Wire Fraud – MoneyGram)

53. In or about and between January 2007 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant MICHAEL CASTELLANO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, and for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, did transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds, as set forth below, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.

54. It was a part of the scheme that the defendant MICHAEL CASTELLANO, together with others, fraudulently obtained the identification numbers for various MoneyGram outlets. It was a further part of the scheme that the defendant MICHAEL CASTELLANO placed telephone calls, in which he identified himself using the fraudulently-obtained identification numbers for MoneyGram outlets and arranged for money orders to be collected at other MoneyGram outlets. It was a further part of the scheme that the defendant MICHAEL CASTELLANO, together with JOHN ROSSANO and others, traveled to those other MoneyGram outlets to collect the fraudulently-obtained money orders.

RACKETEERING ACT NINETEEN (Money Laundering Conspiracy –ROGER CALIFANO’s Illegal Gambling Business)

55. In or about and between 2008 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ROGER CALIFANO, BENJAMIN CASTELLAZZO, JOSEPH CARNA and NICKY RIZZO, together with others,

RacketeeringAct Date Description of Communication
FIFTEEN August 9, 2007 Telephone call to MoneyGram toarrange fraudulent transaction
SIXTEEN October 8, 2008 Telephone call to MoneyGram toarrange fraudulent transaction
SEVENTEEN October 21, 2008 Telephone call to MoneyGram toarrange fraudulent transaction
EIGHTEEN December 1, 2008 Telephone call to MoneyGram toarrange fraudulent transaction

 

did knowingly and intentionally conspire to conduct financial transactions affecting interstate commerce, to wit: the transfer and delivery of United States currency, which transactions in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit: proceeds from ROGER CALIFANO’s illegal gambling business, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 225.05 and 20.00, knowing that the property involved in the transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, with the intent to promote the carrying on of the specified unlawful activity, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(h) and 1956(a)(1)(A)(i).

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY (Money Laundering Conspiracy – John Doe #8)

56. In or about and between 2008 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JOSEPH CARNA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to conduct financial transactions affecting interstate commerce, to wit: the transfer and delivery of United States currency, which transactions in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit: proceeds from the illegal gambling business of a cousin of John Doe #8, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 225.05 and 20.00, knowing that the property involved in the transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, with

the intent to promote the carrying on of the specified unlawful

activity, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections

1956(h) and 1956(a)(1)(A)(i).

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-ONE (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/Extortionate Collection of Credit/Extortion Conspiracy -Gambino Individual #2)

57. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Twenty-one:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

58. In or about and between February 2008 and June 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from an individual affiliated with the Gambino crime family (“Gambino Individual #2”), contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit

59. In or about and between February 2008 and June 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to

collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from Gambino Individual #2, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and 2.

C. State Extortion Conspiracy

60. In or about and between February 2008 and June 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing Gambino Individual #2 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would

(1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and

(2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law

Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-TWO (Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy/Extortionate Extension of Credit)

61. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Twenty-two:

A. Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy

62. In or about and between February 2008 and June 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to make one or more extortionate extensions of credit, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 892(a).

B. Extortionate Extension of Credit

63. In or about and between February 2008 and June 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally make one or more extortionate extensions of credit, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 892(a) and 2.

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-THREE (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/ExtortionateCollection of Credit/Extortion Conspiracy – John Doe #9)

64. The defendants named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Twenty-three:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

65. In or about and between May 2008 and June 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants DANIEL BOGAN and VINCENT FEBBRARO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit

from John Doe #9, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit

66. In or about and between May 2008 and June 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants DANIEL BOGAN and VINCENT FEBBRARO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #9, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and 2.

C. State Extortion Conspiracy

67. In or about and between May 2008 and June 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants DANIEL BOGAN and VINCENT FEBBRARO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #9 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendants and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage

to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10. RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-FOUR (Extortionate Extension/Collection of Credit)

68. The defendants named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Twenty-four:

A. Federal Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy

69. In or about and between June 2008 and September 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY CALABRO, JACK RIZZOCASCIO and ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to make one or more extortionate extensions of credit, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 892(a).

B. Federal Extortionate Extension of Credit

70. In or about and between June 2008 and September 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY CALABRO, JACK RIZZOCASCIO and ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally make one or more extortionate extensions of credit, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 892(a) and 2.

C. Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

71. In or about and between June 2008 and September 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY CALABRO, JACK RIZZOCASCIO and ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect one or more extensions of credit, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

D. Extortionate Collection of Credit

72. In or about and between June 2008 and September 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY CALABRO, JACK RIZZOCASCIO and ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect one or more extensions of credit, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and 2.

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-FIVE (Extortionate Extension/Collection of Credit – John Doe #10)

73. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Twenty-five:

A. Extortionate Extension of Credit

74. In or about and between August 2008 and August 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant NICKY RIZZO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally make an extortionate extension of credit to John Doe #10, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 892(a) and 2.

B. Extortionate Collection of Credit

75. In or about and between August 2008 and August 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant NICKY RIZZO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #10, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and

2.

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-SIX (Illegal Gambling – Poker Games and Joker-Poker Machines)

76. In or about and between June 2009 and January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ROGER CALIFANO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, to wit: a gambling business

involving poker games and joker-poker machines, which operated in violation of the laws of New York State, to wit: New York Penal Law Sections 225.05 and 20.00, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days and had a gross revenue of at least $2,000 in any single day, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955(a) and 2.

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-SEVEN (Illegal Gambling – Sports Betting)

77. In or about and between September 2009 and February 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY RUSSO and FRANK SENATORE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, to wit: a gambling business involving sports betting, which operated in violation of the laws of New York State, to wit: New York Penal Law Sections 225.05 and 20.00, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days and had a gross revenue of at least $2,000 in any

single day, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955(a) and 2. RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-EIGHT (Extortion Conspiracy)

78. In or about October 2009, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO and ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing an individual to deliver such property by instilling in such individual a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendants and others would

(1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and

(2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-NINE (Marijuana Distribution Conspiracy)

79. In or about and between October 2009 and May 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendants ALI JUSEINOSKI and ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, which offense involved a substance containing marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, contrary to Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and 846.

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY (Wire Fraud – Figli di Santa Rosalia)

80. On or about and between December 16, 2009 and November 18, 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANGELO SPATA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, and for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, did transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds, to wit: emails and faxes concerning an application for a permit for the annual Figli di Santa Rosalia, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.

81. It was a part of the scheme that, on or about May 27, 2010, a “Preliminary Income Summary Statement” was submitted on behalf of the Figli di Santa Rosalia, in which the defendant ANGELO SPATA falsely stated that the estimated gross income from vendors’ fees at the 2010 Feast of Santa Rosalia (“Gross Income”) was $51,000, and thus the estimated payment to the City of New York, at 20 percent of the Gross Income, was $10,200, significantly understating the estimated gross income and the estimated payment due. It was a further part of the scheme that following the 2010 Feast of Santa Rosalia, a “Final Income

Summary Sheet” was submitted on behalf of Figli di Santa Rosalia, in which a conspirator falsely stated that the Gross Income was $43,000 and the total payment to the City of New York was $8,600, significantly understating the actual Gross Income and the total payment due.

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY-ONE (Illegal Gambling – Poker Games and Joker-Poker Machines)

82. In or about and between March 2010 and July 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ROGER CALIFANO and ANGELO SPATA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, to wit: a gambling business involving poker games and joker-poker machines, which operated in violation of the laws of New York State, to wit: New York Penal Law Sections 225.05 and 20.00, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days and had a gross revenue of at least $2,000 in any single day, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955(a) and 2.

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY-TWO (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/Extortion Conspiracy – John Doe #11)

83. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Thirty-two:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

84. In or about and between March 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant SCOTT FAPPIANO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #11, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. State Extortion Conspiracy

85. In or about and between March 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant SCOTT FAPPIANO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #11 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical

injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY-THREE (Robbery Conspiracy)

86. The defendants named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Thirty-three:

A. Federal Robbery Conspiracy

87. In or about and between May 2010 and June 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendants SCOTT FAPPIANO and ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by robbery, to wit: the robbery of one or more persons at a residence in Staten Island, New York of the proceeds of the sale of a heating oil company, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).

B. State Robbery Conspiracy

88. In or about and between May 2010 and June 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendants SCOTT FAPPIANO and ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to forcibly steal property from one or more persons at a residence in Staten Island, New York, by threatening the

immediate use of physical force upon said persons and, in the course of such robbery, displaying what appeared to be a firearm, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 160.10 and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY-FOUR (Extortion/Extortion Conspiracy – Gambino Crime Family)

89. The defendants named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Thirty-four:

A. Federal Extortion Conspiracy

90. In or about and between May 2010 and August 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants BENJAMIN CASTELLAZZO and ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money belonging to the Gambino crime family, from members of the Gambino crime family, with their consent, which consent was to be induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).

B. State Extortion Conspiracy

91. In or about and between May 2010 and August 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants BENJAMIN

CASTELLAZZO and ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing members of the Gambino crime family to deliver such property by instilling in them a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendants and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY-FIVE (Extortionate Collection of Credit – John Doe #12)

92. In or about and between June 2010 and August 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ALI JUSEINOSKI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #12, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY-SIX (Extortion/Extortion Conspiracy – John Doe #13)

93. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Thirty-six:

A. State Extortion Conspiracy

94. In or about and between July 2010 and August 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant BENJAMIN CASTELLAZZO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #13, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

B. State Extortion

95. In or about and between July 2010 and August 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant BENJAMIN CASTELLAZZO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others obtained property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #13 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some

person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 20.00.

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY-SEVEN (Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion Attempt – John Doe #14)

96. The defendants named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Thirty-seven:

A. State Extortion Conspiracy

97. In or about and between July 2010 and August 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO and ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: the right to operate an illegal gambling business, by compelling and inducing John Doe #14, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendants and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

B. State Extortion Attempt

98. In or about and between July 2010 and August 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO and ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally attempt to steal property by extortion, in that the defendants and others attempted to obtain property, to wit: the right to operate an illegal gambling business, by compelling and inducing John Doe #14 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendants and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii), 110.00 and 20.00.

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY-EIGHT (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/Extortionate Collection of Credit/Extortion Conspiracy -Gambino Individual #3)

99. The defendants named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Thirty-eight:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

100. In or about August 2010, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ROGER CALIFANO and ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate

means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from an individual affiliated with the Gambino crime family (“Gambino Individual #3”), contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit

101. In or about August 2010, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ROGER CALIFANO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from Gambino Individual #3, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

C. State Extortion Conspiracy

102. In or about August 2010, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ROGER CALIFANO and ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing Gambino Individual #3 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendants and others would

(1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and

(2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY-NINE (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/ExtortionateCollection of Credit/Extortion Conspiracy – John Doe #15)

103. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Thirty-nine:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

104. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #15, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit

105. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #15, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and

2.

C. State Extortion Conspiracy

106. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #15 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT FORTY (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/Extortion Conspiracy – John Doe #16)

107. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Forty:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

108. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to

collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #16, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. State Extortion Conspiracy

109. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #16 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT FORTY-ONE (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/ExtortionateCollection of Credit/Extortion Conspiracy – John Doe #17)

110. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Forty-one:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

111. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #17, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit

112. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #17, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and

2.

C. State Extortion Conspiracy

113. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #17 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so

delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT FORTY-TWO (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/ExtortionateCollection of Credit/Extortion Conspiracy – John Doe #18)

114. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Forty-two:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

115. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #18, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit

116. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and

attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #18, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and

2.

C. State Extortion Conspiracy

117. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #18 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT FORTY-THREE (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/Extortion Conspiracy – John Doe #19)

118. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Forty-three:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

119. In or about and between November 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY

RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #19, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. State Extortion Conspiracy

120. In or about and between November 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #19 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1962(d), 1963 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT TWO (Racketeering Conspiracy)

121. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 16 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

122. In or about and between January 2002 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANDREW RUSSO, also known as “Mush,” DENNIS DELUCIA, also known as “Fat Dennis,” “Little Dennis” and “the Beard,” REYNOLD MARAGNI, also known as “Ren” and “Reynolds,” JOSEPH SAVARESE, RALPH SCOPO, JR., and ILARIO SESSA, also known as “Larry,” “Fat Larry” and “FL,” together with others, being persons employed by and associated with the Colombo crime family, an enterprise that engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(c), that is, to conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of that enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961(1) and 1961(5), consisting of the racketeering acts set forth below. Each defendant agreed that a conspirator would commit at least two acts of racketeering activity in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise.

RACKETEERING ACT ONE (Extortion/Extortion Conspiracy – Local 6A)

123. The defendants named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act One:

A. Federal Extortion Conspiracy

124. In or about and between 2001 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants REYNOLD MARAGNI and RALPH SCOPO, JR., together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain property, to wit:

(1) labor union positions, money paid as wages, employee benefits and other economic benefits that members of Cement and Concrete Workers Union Local 6A (“Local 6A union”) would have obtained but for the defendants’ corrupt influence over such union; (2) the right of Local 6A union members to free speech and democratic process in the affairs of their labor organization as guaranteed by Title 29, United States Code, Sections 411 and 481; and

(3) the right of Local 6A union members to have the officers, agents, delegates, employees and other representatives of their labor organization manage the money, property and financial affairs of the organization in accordance with Title 29, United States Code, Section 501(a), from Local 6A union members, with their consent, which consent was to be induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).

B. Federal Extortion

125. In or about and between 2001 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant RALPH SCOPO, JR., together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, and attempt so to do, in that the defendant and others obtained and attempted to obtain property, to wit: (1) labor union positions, money paid as wages, employee benefits and other economic benefits that Local 6A union members would have obtained but for the defendant’s corrupt influence over such union; (2) the right of Local 6A union members to free speech and democratic process in the affairs of their labor organization as guaranteed by Title 29, United States Code, Sections 411 and 481; and (3) the right of Local 6A union members to have the officers, agents, delegates, employees and other representatives of their labor organization manage the money, property and financial affairs of the organization in accordance with Title 29, United States Code, Section 501(a), from Local 6A union members, with their consent, which consent was induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

C. State Extortion Conspiracy

126. In or about and between 2001 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants REYNOLD MARAGNI and RALPH SCOPO, JR., together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: (1) labor union positions, money paid as wages, employee benefits and other economic benefits that Local 6A union members would have obtained but for the defendants’ corrupt influence over such union;

(2) the right of Local 6A union members to free speech and democratic process in the affairs of their labor organization as guaranteed by Title 29, United States Code, Sections 411 and 481; and (3) the right of Local 6A union members to have the officers, agents, delegates, employees and other representatives of their labor organization manage the money, property and financial affairs of the organization in accordance with Title 29, United States Code, Section 501(a), by compelling and inducing Local 6A union members to deliver such property by instilling in them a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendants and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

D. State Extortion

127. In or about and between 2001 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant RALPH SCOPO, JR., together with others, did knowingly and intentionally steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others obtained property, to wit: (1) labor union positions, money paid as wages, employee benefits and other economic benefits that Local 6A union members would have obtained but for the defendant’s corrupt influence over such union; (2) the right of Local 6A union members to free speech and democratic process in the affairs of their labor organization as guaranteed by Title 29, United States Code, Sections 411 and 481; and (3) the right of Local 6A union members to have the officers, agents, delegates, employees and other representatives of their labor organization manage the money, property and financial affairs of the organization in accordance with Title 29, United States Code, Section 501(a), by compelling and inducing Local 6A union members to deliver such property by instilling in them a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future, (2) cause damage to property and (3) perform an act which would not in itself materially benefit the defendant and others but which was calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his health, safety,

business, calling, career, financial condition, reputations and personal relationships, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.30(6), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii), 155.05(2)(e)(ix) and 20.00.

RACKETEERING ACT TWO (Extortion/Extortion Conspiracy – Local 6A Coffee Boys)

128. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Two:

A. Federal Extortion Conspiracy

129. In or about and between 2001 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant RALPH SCOPO, JR., together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, from Local 6A union members who worked as coffee boys, with their consent, which consent was to be induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).

B. Federal Extortion

130. In or about and between 2001 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant RALPH SCOPO, JR., together

with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, and attempt so to do, in that the defendant and others obtained and attempted to obtain property, to wit: money, from Local 6A union members who worked as coffee boys, with their consent, which consent was induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

C. State Extortion Conspiracy

131. In or about and between 2001 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant RALPH SCOPO, JR., together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing Local 6A union members who worked as coffee boys to deliver such property by instilling in them a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

D. State Extortion

132. In or about and between 2001 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of

New York and elsewhere, the defendant RALPH SCOPO, JR., together with others, did knowingly and intentionally steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others obtained property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing Local 6A union members who worked as coffee boys to deliver such property by instilling in them a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 20.00.

RACKETEERING ACT THREE (Money Laundering Conspiracy – John Doe #8)

133. In or about and between 2008 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant REYNOLD MARAGNI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to conduct financial transactions affecting interstate commerce, to wit: the transfer and delivery of United States currency, which transactions in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit: proceeds from the illegal gambling business of a cousin of John Doe #8, contrary to New York Pernal Law Sections

225.05 and 20.00, knowing that the property involved in the transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, with the intent to promote the carrying on of the

specified unlawful activity, contrary to Title 18, United States

Code, Sections 1956(h) and 1956(a)(1)(A)(i).

RACKETEERING ACT FOUR (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/ExtortionateCollection of Credit/Extortion Conspiracy -Gambino Individual #2)

134. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Four:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

135. In or about and between February 2008 and June 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ILARIO SESSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from Gambino Individual #2, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit

136. In or about and between February 2008 and June 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ILARIO SESSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from Gambino Individual

#2, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and 2.

C. State Extortion Conspiracy

137. In or about and between February 2008 and June 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ILARIO SESSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing Gambino Individual #2 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT FIVE (Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion Attempt – Bronx Gambling Club)

138. The defendants named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Five:

A. State Extortion Conspiracy

139. In or about and between 2009 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants DENNIS DELUCIA and ILARIO SESSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally

conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: the right to operate an illegal gambling business in the Bronx, New York, by compelling and inducing one or more owners of the illegal gambling business to deliver such property by instilling in them a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendants and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

B. State Extortion Attempt

140. In or about and between 2009 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants DENNIS DELUCIA and ILARIO SESSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally attempt to steal property by extortion, in that the defendants and others attempted to obtain property, to wit: the right to operate an illegal gambling business in the Bronx, New York, by compelling and inducing one or more owners of such illegal gambling business to deliver such property by instilling in them a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendants and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary

to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii), 110.00 and 20.00. RACKETEERING ACT SIX (Attempted Extortion – Container Seller)

141. In or about and between May 2009 and June 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JOSEPH SAVARESE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally attempt to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others attempted to obtain property, to wit: the right to receive payment for containers sold, by compelling and inducing an individual who sold containers to deliver such property by instilling in the individual a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii), 110.00 and 20.00.

RACKETEERING ACT SEVEN (Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion – John Doe #20)

142. The defendants named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Seven:

A. State Extortion Conspiracy

143. In or about and between June 2009 and November 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants DENNIS DELUCIA and JOSEPH SAVARESE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #20, an individual whose identity is known by the Grand Jury, to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendants and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

B. State Extortion

144. In or about and between June 2009 and November 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants DENNIS DELUCIA and JOSEPH SAVARESE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally steal property by extortion, in that the defendants and others obtained property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #20 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendants and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 20.00.

RACKETEERING ACT EIGHT (Illegal Gambling – Sports Betting)

145. In or about and between September 2009 and February 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JOSEPH SAVARESE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, to wit: a gambling business involving sports betting, which operated in violation of the laws of New York State, to wit: New York Penal Law Sections

225.05 and 20.00, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days and had a gross revenue of at least $2,000 in any single day, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955(a) and 2.

RACKETEERING ACT NINE (Marijuana Distribution Conspiracy)

146. In or about and between October 2009 and May 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendant JOSEPH SAVARESE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, which offense involved a substance containing

marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, contrary to Title

21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and 846.

RACKETEERING ACT TEN (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/Extortion Conspiracy – John Doe #21)

147. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Ten:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

148. In or about and between December 2009 and March 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JOSEPH SAVARESE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #21, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. State Extortion Conspiracy

149. In or about and between December 2009 and March 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JOSEPH SAVARESE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #21 to deliver such property by

instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT ELEVEN (Illegal Gambling – Sports Betting)

150. In or about and between March 2010 and April 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants JOSEPH SAVARESE and ILARIO SESSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally advance and profit from unlawful gambling activity by engaging in bookmaking to the extent that the defendants received and accepted in any one day more than five bets totaling more than five thousand dollars, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 225.10(1) and 20.00.

RACKETEERING ACT TWELVE (Illegal Gambling – Poker Games and Joker-Poker Machines)

151. In or about and between March 2010 and July 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant DENNIS DELUCIA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, to wit: a gambling business involving poker games and joker-poker machines, which operated in violation

of the laws of New York State, to wit: New York Penal Law Sections 225.05 and 20.00, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days and had a gross revenue of at least $2,000 in any single day, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955(a) and 2.

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTEEN (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/Extortion Conspiracy – John Doe #11)

152. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Thirteen:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

153. In or about and between March 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant REYNOLD MARAGNI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #11, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. State Extortion Conspiracy

154. In or about and between March 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant REYNOLD MARAGNI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #11 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendants and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT FOURTEEN (Interstate Travel in-aid-of Racketeering)

155. On or about and between March 12, 2010 and November 9, 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant REYNOLD MARAGNI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally travel in interstate commerce, and use the mail and one or more facilities in interstate commerce, with intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, to wit: the bribery of a public servant, in violation of Florida Statute Section 838.015, and thereafter did perform and attempt to perform such promotion, management, establishment, carrying on and facilitation of the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of such unlawful

activity, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952(a)(3)(A). RACKETEERING ACT FIFTEEN (Robbery Conspiracy)

156. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Fifteen:

A. Federal Robbery Conspiracy

157. In or about and between May 2010 and June 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendant JOSEPH SAVARESE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by robbery, to wit: the robbery of one or more persons at a residence in Staten Island, New York of the proceeds of the sale of a heating oil company, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).

B. State Robbery Conspiracy

158. In or about and between May 2010 and June 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendant JOSEPH SAVARESE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to forcibly steal property from one or more persons at a residence in Staten Island, New York, by threatening the immediate use of physical force upon said persons and, in the course of such robbery,

displaying what appeared to be a firearm, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 160.10 and 105.10. RACKETEERING ACT SIXTEEN (Extortion/Extortion Conspiracy – Gambino Crime Family)

159. The defendants named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Sixteen:

A. Federal Extortion Conspiracy

160. In or about and between May 2010 and August 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANDREW RUSSO and DENNIS DELUCIA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money belonging to the Gambino crime family, from members of the Gambino crime family, with their consent, which consent was to be induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).

B. State Extortion Conspiracy

161. In or about and between May 2010 and August 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANDREW RUSSO and DENNIS DELUCIA, together with others, did knowingly and

intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing members of the Gambino crime family to deliver such property by instilling in them a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendants and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT SEVENTEEN (Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion

-John Doe #13)

162. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Seventeen:

A. State Extortion Conspiracy

163. In or about and between July 2010 and August 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JOSEPH SAVARESE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #13 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical

injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

B. State Extortion

164. In or about and between July 2010 and August 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JOSEPH SAVARESE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others obtained property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #13 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i) and 155.05(2)(e)(ii).

RACKETEERING ACT EIGHTEEN (Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion Attempt – John Doe #14)

165. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Eighteen:

A. State Extortion Conspiracy

166. In or about and between July 2010 and August 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JOSEPH

SAVARESE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: the right to operate an illegal gambling business, by compelling and inducing John Doe #14 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

B. State Extortion Attempt

167. In or about and between July 2010 and August 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JOSEPH SAVARESE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally attempt to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others attempted to obtain property, to wit: the right to operate an illegal gambling business, by compelling and inducing John Doe #14 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and

(2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii), 110.00 and

20.00.

RACKETEERING ACT NINETEEN (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/Extortion Conspiracy – Gambino Individual #3)

168. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Nineteen:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

169. In or about August 2010, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ILARIO SESSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from Gambino Individual #3, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. State Extortion Conspiracy

170. In or about August 2010, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ILARIO SESSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing Gambino Individual #3 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY (Possession of Contraband Cigarettes)

171. In or about and between August 2010 and September 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant REYNOLD MARAGNI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally ship, transport, receive, possess, sell, distribute and purchase contraband cigarettes, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2342(a), 2344(a) and 2.

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-ONE (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/Extortion Conspiracy – Individual in North Carolina)

172. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Twenty-one:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

173. In or about September 2010, within the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant REYNOLD MARAGNI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from an individual in North Carolina, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. State Extortion Conspiracy

174. In or about September 2010, within the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant REYNOLD MARAGNI,

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to maliciously threaten, verbally and by a written and printed communication, an injury to an individual in North Carolina, with intent to thereby extort money, contrary to Florida Statute Sections 836.05 and 777.04(3).

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-TWO (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/Extortionate Collection of Credit/Extortion Conspiracy -John Doe #15)

175. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Twenty-two:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

176. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ILARIO SESSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #15, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit

177. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ILARIO SESSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally

participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #15, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and

2.

C. State Extortion Conspiracy

178. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ILARIO SESSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #15 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-THREE (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/Extortion Conspiracy – John Doe #16)

179. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Twenty-three:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

180. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANDREW RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #16, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. State Extortion Conspiracy

181. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANDREW RUSSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #16 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-FOUR (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/Extortionate Collection of Credit/Extortion Conspiracy -John Doe #17)

182. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Twenty-four:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

183. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ILARIO SESSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #17, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and 2.

B. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit

184. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ILARIO SESSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #17, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and

2.

C. State Extortion Conspiracy

185. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ILARIO SESSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #17 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-FIVE (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/ExtortionateCollection of Credit/Extortion Conspiracy – John Doe #18)

186. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Twenty-five:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

187. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ILARIO SESSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to

collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #18, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit

188. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ILARIO SESSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #18, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and

2.

C. State Extortion Conspiracy

189. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ILARIO SESSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #18 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-SIX (Marijuana Distribution Conspiracy)

190. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendant REYNOLD MARAGNI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, which offense involved a substance containing marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, contrary to Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and 846.

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-SEVEN (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/Extortion Conspiracy – John Doe #19)

191. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Twenty-seven:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

192. In or about and between November 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant REYNOLD MARAGNI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #19, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a)(1).

B. State Extortion Conspiracy

193. In or about and between November 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant REYNOLD MARAGNI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing John Doe #19 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, the defendant and others would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii) and 105.10.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1962(d), 1963 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT THREE (Extortion Conspiracy – Local 6A)

194. In or about and between 2001 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants REYNOLD MARAGNI, also known as “Ren” and “Reynolds,” and RALPH SCOPO, JR., together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: (1) labor union

positions, money paid as wages, employee benefits and other economic benefits that Local 6A union members would have obtained but for the defendants’ corrupt influence over such union;

(2) the right of Local 6A union members to free speech and democratic process in the affairs of their labor organization as guaranteed by Title 29, United States Code, Sections 411 and 481; and (3) the right of Local 6A union members to have the officers, agents, delegates, employees and other representatives of their labor organization manage the money, property and financial affairs of the organization in accordance with Title 29, United States Code, Section 501(a), from Local 6A union members, with their consent, which consent was to be induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FOUR (Extortion – Local 6A)

195. In or about and between 2001 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant RALPH SCOPO, JR., together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, and attempt so to do, in that the defendant and others obtained and attempted to obtain property, to wit: (1) labor union positions, money paid as wages, employee

benefits and other economic benefits that Local 6A union members would have obtained but for the defendant’s corrupt influence over such union; (2) the right of Local 6A union members to free speech and democratic process in the affairs of their labor organization as guaranteed by Title 29, United States Code, Sections 411 and 481; and (3) the right of Local 6A union members to have the officers, agents, delegates, employees and other representatives of their labor organization manage the money, property and financial affairs of the organization in accordance with Title 29, United States Code, Section 501(a), from Local 6A union members, with their consent, which consent was induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FIVE (Extortion Conspiracy – Local 6A Coffee Boys)

196. In or about and between 2001 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant RALPH SCOPO, JR., together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, from Local 6A union members who worked as coffee boys, with their consent,

which consent was to be induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 3551 et seq.) COUNT SIX (Extortion – Local 6A Coffee Boys)

197. In or about and between 2001 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant RALPH SCOPO, JR., together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, and attempt so to do, in that the defendant and others obtained and attempted to obtain property, to wit: money, from Local 6A union members who worked as coffee boys, with their consent, which consent was induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT SEVEN (Money Laundering Conspiracy –JOHN AZZARELLI’s Gambling Business)

198. In or about and between 2003 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants BENJAMIN CASTELLAZZO, also known as “Benji,” “the Claw” and “the Fang,” and JOHN AZZARELLI, also known as “Johnny Cash,” together with others, did knowingly

and intentionally conspire to conduct financial transactions affecting interstate commerce, to wit: the transfer and delivery of United States currency, which transactions in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit: proceeds from JOHN AZZARELLI’s illegal gambling business, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 225.05 and 20.00, knowing that the property involved in the transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, with the intent to promote the carrying on of the specified unlawful activity, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(a)(1)(A)(i).

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(h) and 3551 et seq.) COUNT EIGHT (Marijuana Distribution Conspiracy)

199. In or about 2006, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JACK RIZZOCASCIO, also known as “Jack the Whack,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to distribute and possess with intent

to distribute a controlled substance, which offense involved a substance containing marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, contrary to Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1).

(Title 21, United States Code, Sections 846 and 841(b)(1)(D); Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3551 et seq.)

COUNT NINE (Marijuana Distribution)

200. In or about 2006, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JACK RIZZOCASCIO, also known as “Jack the Whack,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, which offense involved a substance containing marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance.

(Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(D); Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 and 3551 et seq.)

COUNT TEN (Wire Fraud Conspiracy – MoneyGram)

201. In or about and between January 2007 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants MICHAEL CASTELLANO, also known as “Big Mike,” and JOHN ROSSANO,

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, and for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds, to wit: telephone calls to MoneyGram, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.

202. The allegations contained in paragraph 54 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1349 and 3551 et seq.) COUNTS ELEVEN TO FOURTEEN (Wire Fraud – MoneyGram)

203. In or about and between January 2007 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants MICHAEL CASTELLANO, also known as “Big Mike,” and JOHN ROSSANO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, and for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, did transmit and cause to be

transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds, as set forth below.

204. The allegations contained in paragraph 54 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FIFTEEN (Money Laundering Conspiracy -ROGER CALIFANO’s Gambling Business)

205. In or about and between 2008 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ROGER CALIFANO, BENJAMIN CASTELLAZZO, also known as “Benji,” “the Claw” and “the Fang,” JOSEPH CARNA, also known as “Junior Lollipops,” and NICKY RIZZO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to conduct financial transactions affecting interstate commerce, to wit: the transfer and delivery of United States currency, which

Count Date Description of Communication
ELEVEN August 9, 2007 Telephone call to MoneyGram toarrange fraudulent transaction
TWELVE October 8, 2008 Telephone call to MoneyGram toarrange fraudulent transaction
THIRTEEN October 21, 2008 Telephone call to MoneyGram toarrange fraudulent transaction
FOURTEEN December 1, 2008 Telephone call to MoneyGram toarrange fraudulent transaction

 

91

transactions in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit: proceeds from ROGER CALIFANO’s illegal gambling business, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 225.05 and 20.00, knowing that the property involved in the transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, with the intent to promote the carrying on of the specified unlawful activity, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(A)(i).

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(h) and 3551 et seq.) COUNT SIXTEEN (Money Laundering Conspiracy – John Doe #8)

206. In or about and between 2008 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants JOSEPH CARNA, also known as “Junior Lollipops,” and REYNOLD MARAGNI, also known as “Ren” and “Reynolds,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to conduct financial transactions affecting interstate commerce, to wit: the transfer and delivery of United States currency, which transactions in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit: proceeds from the illegal gambling business of a cousin of John Doe #8, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 225.05 and 20.00, knowing that the property involved in the transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, with the intent to

promote the carrying on of the specified unlawful activity, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(A)(i).

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(h) and 3551 et seq.) COUNT SEVENTEEN (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy -Gambino Individual #2)

207. In or about and between February 2008 and June 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants DANIEL CAPALDO, GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO, also known as “Pooch,” and ILARIO SESSA, also known as “Larry,” “Fat Larry” and “FL,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from Gambino Individual #2.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and 3551 et seq.) COUNT EIGHTEEN (Extortionate Collection of Credit -Gambino Individual #2)

208. In or about and between February 2008 and June 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants DANIEL CAPALDO, GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO, also known as “Pooch,” and ILARIO SESSA, also known as “Larry,” “Fat Larry” and “FL,” together with

others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from Gambino Individual #2.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT NINETEEN (Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy)

209. In or about and between February 2008 and June 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants DANIEL CAPALDO and GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO, also known as “Pooch,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to make one or more extortionate extensions of credit.

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 892(a) and 3551 et seq.) COUNT TWENTY (Extortionate Extension of Credit)

210. In or about and between February 2008 and June 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants DANIEL CAPALDO and GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO, also known as “Pooch,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally make one or more extortionate extensions of credit.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 892(a), 2 and 3551 et seq.)

COUNT TWENTY-ONE (Financing Extortionate Extension of Credit)

211. In or about and between February 2008 and June 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant DANIEL CAPALDO, together with others, did knowingly and willfully advance money and property, as a loan, an investment and pursuant to a partnership and profit-sharing agreement, to a person, to wit: GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO, with reasonable grounds to believe that it was the intention of DESTEFANO to use the money and property so advanced directly and indirectly for the purpose of making extortionate extensions of credit.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 893, 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT TWENTY-TWO (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy – John Doe #9)

212. In or about and between May 2008 and June 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants DANIEL BOGAN and VINCENT FEBBRARO, also known as “Jimmy Gooch,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #9.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and 3551 et seq.)

COUNT TWENTY-THREE (Extortionate Collection of Credit – John Doe #9)

213. In or about and between May 2008 and June 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants DANIEL BOGAN and VINCENT FEBRARRO, also known as “Jimmy Gooch,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #9.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT TWENTY-FOUR (Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy)

214. In or about and between June 2008 and September 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY CALABRO, also known as “Nooch,” GAETANO GALLO, also known as “Tommy,” THEODORE PERSICO, JR., also known as “Teddy,” and “the kid,” JACK RIZZOCASCIO, also known as “Jack the Whack,” and ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to make one or more extortionate extensions of credit.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 892(a) and 3551 et seq.)

COUNT TWENTY-FIVE (Extortionate Extension of Credit)

215. In or about and between June 2008 and September 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY CALABRO, also known as “Nooch,” GAETANO GALLO, also known as “Tommy,” THEODORE PERSICO, JR., also known as “Teddy” and “the kid,” JACK RIZZOCASCIO, also known as “Jack the Whack,” and ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally make one or more extortionate extensions of credit.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 892(a), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT TWENTY-SIX (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy)

216. In or about and between June 2008 and September 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY CALABRO, also known as “Nooch,” GAETANO GALLO, also known as “Tommy,” THEODORE PERSICO, JR., also known as “Teddy” and “the kid,” JACK RIZZOCASCIO, also known as “Jack the Whack,” and ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” and together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate

in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect one or more extensions of credit. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and 3551 et seq.) COUNT TWENTY-SEVEN (Extortionate Collection of Credit)

217. In or about and between June 2008 and September 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY CALABRO, also known as “Nooch,” GAETANO GALLO, also known as “Tommy,” THEODORE PERSICO, JR., also known as “Teddy” and “the kid,” JACK RIZZOCASCIO, also known as “Jack the Whack,” and ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect one or more extensions of credit.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT TWENTY-EIGHT (Extortionate Extension of Credit – John Doe #10)

218. In or about and between August 2008 and August 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant NICKY

RIZZO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally make an extortionate extension of credit to John Doe #10. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 892(a), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT TWENTY-NINE (Extortionate Collection of Credit – John Doe #10)

219. In or about and between August 2008 and August 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant NICKY RIZZO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #10.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT THIRTY (Using, Carrying and Possessing a Firearm)

220. In or about and between May 2009 and June 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JOSEPH SAVARESE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally use and carry a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, to wit: the crime charged in Count Two, and did

knowingly and intentionally possess said firearm in furtherance of such crime of violence, which firearm was brandished. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT THIRTY-ONE (Illegal Gambling – Poker Games and Joker-Poker Machines)

221. In or about and between June 2009 and January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ROGER CALIFANO, JOHN DUNN, also known as “Johnny Five,” and GIOVANNI GALLUZZO, also known as “John,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, to wit: a gambling business involving poker games and joker-poker machines, which operated in violation of the laws of New York State, to wit: New York Penal Law Sections 225.05 and 20.00, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days and had a gross revenue of at least $2,000 in any single day.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955(a), 2 and 3551 et seq.)

COUNT THIRTY-TWO (Illegal Gambling – Sports Betting)

222. In or about and between September 2009 and February 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” JOSEPH SAVARESE, FRANK SENATORE, also known as “Buzz,” and JOSEPH VIRZI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, to wit: a gambling business involving sports betting, which operated in violation of the laws of New York State, to wit: New York Penal Law Sections 225.05 and 20.00, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days and had a gross revenue of at least $2,000 in any single day.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955(a), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT THIRTY-THREE (Marijuana Distribution Conspiracy)

223. In or about and between October 2009 and May 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendants ALI JUSEINOSKI, ANTHONY RUSSO also known as “Big Anthony,” and JOSEPH SAVARESE, together

with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, which offense involved a substance containing marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, contrary to Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1).

(Title 21, United States Code, Sections 846 and 841(b)(1)(D); Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3551 et seq.)

COUNT THIRTY-FOUR (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy -John Doe #21)

224. In or about and between December 2009 and March 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JOSEPH SAVARESE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #21.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and 3551 et seq.) COUNT THIRTY-FIVE (Wire Fraud Conspiracy – Figli di Santa Rosalia)

225. On or about and between December 16, 2009 and November 18, 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANGELO SPATA, also known as “Little Angelo,” together

with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, and for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds, to wit: emails and faxes concerning an application for a permit for the annual Figli di Santa Rosalia, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.

226. The allegations contained in paragraph 81 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1349 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT THIRTY-SIX (Wire Fraud – Figli di Santa Rosalia)

227. On or about and between December 16, 2009 and November 18, 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANGELO SPATA, also known as “Little Angelo,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, and for the purpose of executing such scheme and

artifice, did transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds, to wit: emails and faxes concerning an application for a permit for the annual Figli di Santa Rosalia.

228. The allegations contained in paragraph 81 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT THIRTY-SEVEN (Illegal Gambling – Poker Games and Joker-Poker Machines)

229. In or about and between March 2010 and July 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ROGER CALIFANO, DENNIS DELUCIA, also known as “Fat Dennis,” “Little Dennis” and “the Beard,” GIOVANNI GALLUZZO, also known as “John,” ANGELO SPATA, also known as “Little Angelo,” and LOUIS VENTURELLI, also known as “Louie Ices,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, to wit: a gambling business involving poker games and joker-poker machines, which operated in violation of the laws of New York State, to wit: New York Penal Law Sections 225.05 and 20.00, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed,

managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days and had a gross revenue of at least $2,000 in any single day.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955(a), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT THIRTY-EIGHT (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy -John Doe #11)

230. In or about and between March 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants SCOTT FAPPIANO and REYNOLD MARAGNI, also known as “Ren” and “Reynolds,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #11.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and 3551 et seq.) COUNT THIRTY-NINE (Interstate Travel in-aid-of Racketeering)

231. On or about and between March 12, 2010 and November 9, 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant REYNOLD MARAGNI, also known as “Ren” and “Reynolds,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally travel in interstate commerce, and use the mail and one or more facilities

in interstate commerce, with intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of unlawful activity, to wit: the bribery of a public servant, in violation of Florida Statute Section 838.015, and thereafter did perform and attempt to perform such promotion, management, establishment and carrying on, and facilitation of the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of such unlawful activity.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1952(a)(3)(A), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FORTY (Robbery Conspiracy)

232. In or about and between May 2010 and June 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendants SCOTT FAPPIANO, ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” and JOSEPH SAVARESE, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce by robbery, to wit: the robbery of one or more persons at a residence in Staten Island, New York of the proceeds of the sale of a heating oil company.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 3551 et seq.)

COUNT FORTY-ONE (Extortion Conspiracy – Gambino Crime Family)

233. In or about and between May 2010 and August 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANDREW RUSSO, also known as “Mush,” BENJAMIN CASTELLAZZO, also known as “Benji,” “the Claw” and “the Fang,” DENNIS DELUCIA, also known as “Fat Dennis,” “Little Dennis” and “the Beard,” RICHARD FUSCO, also known as “Richie,” and ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money belonging to the Gambino crime family, from members of the Gambino crime family, with their consent, which consent was to be induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FORTY-TWO (Felon in Possession of a Firearm)

234. On or about May 5, 2010, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendant GIUSEPPE DESTEFANO, also known as “Pooch,” having previously been convicted in a court of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year,

did knowingly and intentionally possess in and affecting commerce a firearm, to wit: a .44 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FORTY-THREE (Extortionate Collection of Credit – John Doe #12)

235. In or about and between June 2010 and August 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ALI JUSEINOSKI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #12.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FORTY-FOUR (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy -Gambino Individual #3)

236. In or about August 2010, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ROGER CALIFANO, ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” and ILARIO SESSA, also known as “Larry,” “Fat Larry” and “FL,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from Gambino Individual #3.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and 3551 et seq.)

COUNT FORTY-FIVE (Extortionate Collection of Credit -Gambino Individual #3)

237. In or about August 2010, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ROGER CALIFANO and ILARIO SESSA, also known as “Larry,” “Fat Larry” and “FL,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from Gambino Individual #3.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FORTY-SIX (Possession of Contraband Cigarettes)

238. In or about and between August 2010 and September 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant REYNOLD MARAGNI, also known as “Ren” and “Reynolds,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally ship, transport, receive, possess, sell, distribute and purchase contraband cigarettes.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2342(a), 2344(a), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FORTY-SEVEN (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy – John Doe #15)

239. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants

ANTHONY DURSO, also known as “Baby Fat Larry” and “BFL,” GIOVANNI GALLUZZO, also known as “John,” ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” and ILARIO SESSA, also known as “Larry,” “Fat Larry” and “FL,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #15.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FORTY-EIGHT (Extortionate Collection of Credit – John Doe #15)

240. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY DURSO, also known as “Baby Fat Larry” and “BFL,” GIOVANNI GALLUZZO, also known as “John,” ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” and ILARIO SESSA, also known as “Larry,” “Fat Larry” and “FL,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #15.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1), 2 and 3551 et seq.)

COUNT FORTY-NINE (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy- John Doe #16)

241. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANDREW RUSSO, also known as “Mush,” and ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #16.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FIFTY (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy – John Doe #17)

242. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” and ILARIO SESSA, also known as “Larry,” “Fat Larry” and “FL,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #17.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and 3551 et seq.)

COUNT FIFTY-ONE (Extortionate Collection of Credit – John Doe #17)

243. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” and ILARIO SESSA, also known as “Larry,” “Fat Larry” and “FL,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #17.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FIFTY-TWO (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy – John Doe #18)

244. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” and ILARIO SESSA, also known as “Larry,” “Fat Larry” and “FL,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #18.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and 3551 et seq.)

COUNT FIFTY-THREE (Extortionate Collection of Credit – John Doe #18)

245. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” and ILARIO SESSA, also known as “Larry,” “Fat Larry” and “FL,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #18.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FIFTY-FOUR (Marijuana Distribution Conspiracy)

246. In or about and between September 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendants JOSEPH DIMARCO, REYNOLD MARAGNI, also known as “Ren” and “Reynolds,” and VITO VIZZI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, which offense involved a substance

containing marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, contrary to Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1).

(Title 21, United States Code, Sections 846 and 841(b)(1)(D); Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3551 et seq.)

COUNT FIFTY-FIVE (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy – John Doe #19)

247. In or about and between November 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants REYNOLD MARAGNI, also known as “Ren” and “Reynolds,” and ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #19.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a)(1) and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FIFTY-SIX (Receipt of Stolen Property Conspiracy)

248. In or about June 2010, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant FRANK PONTILLO, also known as “Frankie Steel,” together with others, did knowingly and willfully conspire to (1) receive, possess, conceal, store, barter, sell and dispose of goods, wares and merchandise, of a value of $5,000 or more, which goods, wares and merchandise had

crossed a State boundary after being stolen, unlawfully converted and taken, knowing the same to have been stolen, unlawfully converted and taken, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2315, and (2) transport, transmit and transfer in interstate and foreign commerce goods, wares and merchandise, of a value of $5,000 or more, knowing the same to have been stolen, unlawfully converted and taken by fraud, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2314.

249. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its objects, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant FRANK PONTILLO, also known as “Frankie Steel,” together with others, committed and caused the commission of, among others, the following:

OVERT ACTS

(a) On or about June 9, 2010, the defendant FRANK PONTILLO, also known as “Frankie Steel,” together with others, met John Doe #22, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, in New Jersey.

(b) At the June 9, 2010 meeting in New Jersey, the defendant FRANK PONTILLO, also known as “Frankie Steel,” together with others, took possession of purportedly stolen electronics and loaded the electronics into a vehicle.

(c) At the June 9, 2010 meeting in New Jersey, the defendant FRANK PONTILLO, also known as “Frankie Steel,”

together with others, transported the purportedly stolen electronics from New Jersey to Staten Island, New York. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FIFTY-SEVEN (Illegal Gambling – Sports Betting)

250. In or about September 2010, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants JOSEPH SAVARESE and HECTOR PAGAN, also known as “Junior,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, to wit: a gambling business involving bookmaking, which operated in violation of the laws of New York State, to wit: New York Penal Law Sections 225.05 and 20.00, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days and had a gross revenue of at least $2,000 in any single day.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955(a), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FIFTY-EIGHT (Possession of Contraband Cigarettes)

251. In or about and between October 2010 and December 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants JOHN MAGGIO and RALPH ARPAIO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally ship, transport, receive, possess, sell, distribute and purchase contraband cigarettes.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2342(a), 2344(a), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FIFTY-NINE (Using, Carrying and Possessing a Firearm)

252. On or about and between December 5, 2010 and December 7, 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants BENJAMIN CASTELLAZZO, also known as “Benji,” “the Claw” and “the Fang,” EMANUELE FAVUZZA, also known as “Manny,” and ANTHONY RUSSO, also known as “Big Anthony,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally use and carry a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, to wit: the crime charged in Count One, and did knowingly and intentionally possess said firearm in furtherance of such crime of violence, which firearm was brandished.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), 2 and 3551 et seq.)

COUNT SIXTY (Using, Carrying and Possessing a Firearm)

253. On or about and between December 5, 2010 and December 7, 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ILARIO SESSA, also known as “Larry,” “Fat Larry” and “FL,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally use and carry a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, to wit: the crime charged in Count Two, and did knowingly and intentionally possess said firearm in furtherance of such crime of violence, which firearm was brandished.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), 2 and 3551 et seq.) FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNTS ONE AND TWO

254. The United States hereby gives notice to the defendants charged in Counts One and Two that, upon conviction of any such offense, the government will seek forfeiture, in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963(a), which requires any person convicted of such offenses to forfeit:

(a) any interest the person acquired or maintained in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962; (b) any interest in, security of, claims against or property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of influence over any enterprise which the person has established, operated, controlled, conducted or participated in the conduct of, in violation of Title 18,

United States Code, Section 1962; and (c) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962.

255. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants:

(a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

(b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;

(c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

(d) has been substantially diminished in value; or

(e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963(m), to seek forfeiture of any other property of such defendants up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1963(a) and 1963(m))

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNTS THREE THROUGH SIX, SEVENTEENTHROUGH TWENTY-NINE, THIRTY-FOUR THROUGH THIRTY-SIX, THIRTY-EIGHTTHROUGH FORTY-ONE, FORTY-THREE THROUGH FIFTY-THREE, FIFTY-FIVETHROUGH FIFTY-SIX AND FIFTY-EIGHT

256. The United States hereby gives notice to the defendants charged in Counts Three through Six, Seventeen through Twenty-nine, Thirty-four through Thirty-six, Thirty-eight through Forty-one, Forty-three through Fifty-three, Fifty-five through Fifty-six and Fifty-eight that, upon conviction of any such offense, the government will seek forfeiture, in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), which require any person convicted of such offenses to forfeit any property constituting or derived from proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of such offenses.

257. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants:

((a)  cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

(b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;

(c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

(d) has been substantially diminished in value; or

(e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), to seek forfeiture of any other property of such defendants up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation.

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C); Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p); Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c))

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNTS SEVEN, FIFTEEN AND SIXTEEN

The United States hereby gives notice to the defendants charged in Counts Seven, Fifteen and Sixteen that, upon conviction of any such offense, the government will seek forfeiture, in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a), of all property involved in each offense of conviction in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956, or conspiracy to commit such offenses, and all property traceable to such property.

If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants:

(a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

(b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;

(c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

(d) has been substantially diminished in value; or

(e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b), to seek forfeiture of any other property of such defendants up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation.

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 982) FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNTS EIGHT, NINE,THIRTY-THREE AND FIFTY-FOUR

260. The United States hereby gives notice to the defendants charged in Counts Eight, Nine, Thirty-three and Fifty-four that, upon conviction of any such offense, the government will seek forfeiture in accordance with Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(a), which requires any person convicted of such offenses to forfeit any property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such offenses, and any property used, or intended to be used, in any

manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of such offenses.

261. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants:

(a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

(b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;

(c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

(d) has been substantially diminished in value; or

(e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any other property of such defendants up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation.

(Title 21, United States Code, Sections 853(a) and 853(p)) FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNTS TEN THROUGH FOURTEEN

262. The United States hereby gives notice to the defendants charged in Counts Ten through Fourteen that, upon conviction of any such offense, the government will seek

forfeiture in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2)(A), which requires any person convicted of such offenses to forfeit any property constituting or derived from proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of such offenses.

263. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants:

(a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

(b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;

(c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

(d) has been substantially diminished in value; or

(e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b)(1), to seek forfeiture of any other property of such defendants up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation.

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2)(A); Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p))

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNTS THIRTY,FORTY-TWO, FIFTY-NINE AND SIXTY

264. The United States hereby gives notice to the defendants charged in Counts Thirty, Forty-two, Fifty-nine and Sixty that, upon conviction of any such offense, the government will seek forfeiture in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(d) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), which require the forfeiture of any firearm or ammunition involved in or used in any knowing violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 922(g) or Section 924.

265. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants:

(a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

(b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;

(c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

(d) has been substantially diminished in value; or

(e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), to seek forfeiture of any

other property of such defendants up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation.

(Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c); Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(d); Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p))

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNTS THIRTY-ONE, THIRTY-TWO,THIRTY-SEVEN AND FIFTY-SEVEN

266. The United States hereby gives notice to the defendants charged in Counts Thirty-one, Thirty-two, Thirty-seven and Fifty-seven that, upon conviction of any such offense, the government will seek forfeiture in accordance with: (a) Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), which require any person convicted of such offenses to forfeit any property constituting or derived from proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of such offenses; and (b) Title 18, United States Code, Section 1955(d), which requires any person convicted of such offense to forfeit any property, including money, used in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1955.

267. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants:

(a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

(b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;

NEIL MESSINA, BENITO VALENTI, NICOLO VALENTI, JOHN PORCELLO

 

 AB:EAG/JDG/Jl…L

F.#2011R00006 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

—X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I N D I C T MEN T -against -Cr. No. \ \-OC’S \ (<;..\..-1) ( R \.. V'(‘i)

(T. 18, U.S.C., §§ 892(a), NEIL MESSINA, 894 (a) (1), 981(a) (1) (C), JOHN PORCELLO, 1084 (a), 1952 (a) (2) (A),

also known as “Johnny Pizza,” 1962 (d), 1963, 1963 (a) , NICOLO VALENTI, 1963(m), 2 and 3551 et also known as “Nick,” and seq.; T. 21, U.S.C., BENITO VALENTI, § 853 (p); T. 28, U.S.C., also known as “Benny,” § 2461 (c))

Defendants.

—-X

THE G~~ JURY CHARGES:

INTRODUCTION TO ALL COUNTS

At all times relevant to this Indictment, unless

otherwise indicated:

The Enterprise

1. The members and associates of La Cosa Nostra constituted an “enterprise,” as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(4), that is, a group of individuals associated in fact. The enterprise constituted an ongoing organization whose members functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the enterprise. La Cosa Nostra engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce. La Cosa Nostra was an organized criminal group that operated in the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere.

La Cosa Nostra operated through organized crime families. Five of these crime families -the Bonanno, Colombo, Gambino, Genovese and Luchese crime families -were headquartered in New York City, and supervised criminal activity in New York, in other areas of the United States and, in some instances, in other countries. Another crime family, the Decalvacante organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra, operated principally in New Jersey, but from time to time also in New York City.

The ruling body of La Cosa Nostra, known as the “Commission,” consisted of leaders from each of the crime families. The Commission convened from time to time to decide certain issues affecting all of the crime families, such as rules governing crime family membership.

Each La Cosa Nostra crime family had a hierarchy and structure. The head of each crime family was known as the “boss.” The crime family boss was assisted by an “underboss” and a counselor known as a “consigliere.” Together, the boss, underboss and consigliere were the crime family’s “administration.” With the assistance of the underboss and consigliere, the boss was responsible for, among other things, setting policy and resolving disputes within and between La Cosa Nostra crime families and other criminal groups. The

administration further supervised, supported, protected and

disciplined the lower-ranking participants in the crime family. In return for their supervision and protection, the administration received part of the illegal earnings generated by the crime family. Members of the crime family served in an “acting” rather than “official” capacity in the administration on occasion due to another administration member’s incarceration or ill health, or for the purpose of seeking to insulate another administration member from law enforcement scrutiny. Further, on occasion, a La Cosa Nostra crime family would be overseen by a

“panel” of crime family members that did not include the boss, underboss and/or consigliere.

5. Below the administration of each crime family were numerous \’crews I II also known as “regimesll and “decinas. If Each

crew was headed by a “captain,” also known as a “skipper,” “caporegime” and “capodecina.” Each captain’s crew consisted of “soldiers” and “associates.” The captain was responsible for supervising the criminal activities of his crew and providing the crew with support and protection. In return, the captain often received a share of the crew’s earnings.

6. Only members of a La Cosa Nostra crime family could serve as a boss, underboss, consigliere, captain or soldier. Members of a La Cosa Nostra crime family were referred to on occasion as “goodfellas” or “wiseguys,” or as persons who

had been “straightened out” or who had their “button.” Associates were individuals who were not members of a La Cosa Nostra crime family, but who nonetheless engaged in criminal ac·tivity for, and under the protection of, a crime family.

7. Many requirements existed before an associate could become a member of a La Cosa Nostra crime family. The Commission of La Cosa Nostra from time to time limited the number of new members that could be added to a crime family. ~~ associate was also required to be proposed for membership by an existing crime family member. When the crime family’s administration considered the associate worthy of membership, the administration then circulated the proposed associate’s name on a list given to other La Cosa Nostra crime families, which the other crime families reviewed and either approved or disapproved. Unless there was an objection to the associate’s membership, the crime family then “inducted,” or “straightened out,” the associate as a member of the crime family in a secret ceremony. During the ceremony, the associate, among other things: swore allegiance for life to the crime family above all else, even the associate’s own family; swore, on penalty of death, never to reveal the crime family’s existence, criminal activities and other secrets; and swore to follow all orders issued by the crime family boss, including swearing to commit murder if the boss directed it.

Methods and Means of the Enterprise

The principal purpose of La Cosa Nostra and each of its crime families was to generate money for its members and associates. This purpose was implemented by members and associates of the crimes families through various criminal activities, including drug trafficking, robbery, extortion, illegal gambling and loansharking. The members and associates of the crime families also furthered the enterprise’s criminal activities by threatening economic injury and using and threatening to use physical violence, including murder.

Although the primary purpose of La Cosa Nostra was to generate money for its members and associates, the members and associates at times used the resources of the organized crime families to settle personal grievances and vendettas, sometimes with the approval of higher-ranking members of the families. For those purposes, members and associates of the enterprise were asked and expected to carry out, among other crimes, acts of violence, including murder and assault.

The members and associates of La Cosa Nostra engaged in conduct designed to prevent government detection of their identities, their illegal activities and the location of proceeds of those activities. That conduct included a commitment to murdering persons, particularly members or associates of

organized crime families, who were perceived as potential

witnesses against members and associates of the enterprise.

11. Members and associates of La Cosa Nostra often coordinated criminal activity with members and associates of other organi?ed crime families. The Defendants

12. At various times relevant to this Indictment, the defendants NEIL MESSINA, BENITO VALENTI, also known as “Benny,” and NICOLO VALENTI, also known as “Nick,” were associates within the Bonanno organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra.

13. At various times relevant to this Indictment, the defendant JOHN PORCELLO, also known as “Johnny Pizza,” was an associate within the Genovese organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra.

COUNT ONE (Racketeering Conspiracy)

14. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 13 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

15. In or about and between January 1992 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants NEIL MESSINA and JOHN PORCELLO, also known as “Johnny pizza,” together with others, being persons employed by and associated with La Cosa Nostra, an enterprise that engaged in, and the activities of

which affected, interstate and foreign commerce, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962 (c), that is, to conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of that enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961(1) and 1961(5), consisting of the racketeering acts set forth below. Each defendant agreed that a conspirator would commit at least two acts of racketeering activity in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise.

RACKETEERING ACT ONE (Murder/Robbery Conspiracy -Joseph Pistone)

16. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act One:

A. Conspiracy to Rob Joseph Pistone

17. On or about August 17, 1992, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendant NEIL MESSINA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to forcibly steal property, to wit: money from Joseph pistone, while armed with a deadly weapon, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 160.15(2) and 105.10.

B. Murder of Joseph Pistone

18. On or about August 17, 1992, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendant NEIL MESSINA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally attempt to commit robbery, and, in the course of and in furtherance of such crime, the defendant and other participants did cause the death of Joseph Pistone, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 125.25(3) and 20.00.

RACKETEERING ACT TWO (Extortion Collection -John Doe #1)

19. The defendant named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Two:

A. Federal Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracv

20. In or about and between December 2009 and March 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant NEIL MESSINA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #1, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, contrary to Title 18, united States Code, Section 894(a) (1).

B. State Extortion Conspiracy

21. In or about and between December 2009 and March 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant NEIL MESSINA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to .steal property by extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by compelling and inducing JohD Doe #1 to deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the property were not so delivered, one or more persons would (1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2) cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2) (e) (i), 155.05(2) (e) (H) and 105.10.

RACKETEERING ACT THREE (Illegal Gambling -Sports Betting)

22. The defendants named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Three:

A. Transmission of Wagering Information

23. In or about and between April 2010 and December 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants NEIL MESSINA and JOHN PORCELLO, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use one or more wire communication facilities for

the transmission in interstate commerce of information assisting

in the placing of bets and wagers on one or more sporting events and contests, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1084(a) and 2.

B. Interstate Travel in-aid-of Racketeering

24. In or about and between April 2010 and December 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, t.he defendants NEIL MESSINA and JOHN PORCELLO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally travel in interstate commerce, and use the mail and one or more facilities in interstate commerce, with intent to promote, manage, establish, carryon and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, to wit: an illegal gambling business, in violation of New York Penal Law Section 225.05, and thereafter did perform and attempt to perform such promotion, management, establishment, carrying on and facilitation of the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of such unlawful activity, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1952(a) (2) (A) and 2.

RACKETEERING ACT FOUR (Extortionate Extension and Extortionate Collection -Jo~~ Doe #2)

25. The defendants named below agreed to the commission of the following acts, anyone of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Four:

A. Extortionate Extension of Credit conspiracy

26. In or about and between April 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants NEIL MESSINA and JOHN PORCELLO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to make an extortionate extension of credit to John Doe #2, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 892(a) .

B. Extortionate Extension of Credit

27. In or about and between April 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants NEIL MESSINA and JOHN PORCELLO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally make an extortionate extension of credit to John Doe #2, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, sections 892(a) and 2.

C. Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

28. In or about and between April 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants NEIL MESSINA and JOHN PORCELLO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension

of credit from John Doe #2, contrary to Title 18, United states

Code, Section 894 (a) (1) .

D. Extortionate Collection of Credit

29. In or about and between April 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants NEIL MESSINA and JOHN PORCELLO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #2, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894 (a) (1) and 2.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1962(d), 1963 and 3551 et §gg.) COUNT TWO (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy -John Doe #1)

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 13 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

In or about and between December 2009 and March 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants NEIL MESSINA, NICOLO VALENTI, also known as “Nick,” and BENITO VALENTI, also known as “Benny,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of

extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #1. (Title lB, United States Code, Sections B94~a) (1) and 3551 et §£g.) COUNT THREE (Transmission of Wagering Information)

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 13 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

In or about and between April 2010 and December 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants NEIL MESSINA and JOHN PORCELLO, also known as “Johnny Pizza,” together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use one or more wire communication facilities for the transmission in interstate commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on one or more sporting events and contests.

(Title 1B, United States Code, Sections 10B4(a), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FOUR (Interstate Travel in-aid-of Racketeering)

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 13 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

In or about and between April 2010 and December 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants NEIL MESSINA and JOHN PORCELLO, also known as “Johnny pizza,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally travel in interstate commerce, and use the mail and one or more facilities in interstate commerce, with intent to promote, manage, establish, carryon and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, to wit: an illegal gambling business, in violation of New York Penal Law Section 225.05, and thereafter did perform and attempt to perform such promotion, management, establishment, carrying on and facilitation of the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of such unlawful activity.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1952 (a) (2) (A), 2 and 3551 et ~.) COUNT FIVE (Extortionate Extension of Credit -Conspiracy -John Doe #2)

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 13 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

In or about and between April 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants NEIL MESSINA and JOHN PORCELLO, also known as “Johnny Pizza,” together

with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to make an

extortionate extension of credit to John Doe #2. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 892(.a) and 3551

COUNT SIX (Extortionate .Extension of Credit -John Doe #2)

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 13 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

In or about and between April 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District pf New York and elsewhere, the defendants NEIL MESSINA and JOHN PORCELLO, also known as “Johnny Pizza,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally make an extortionate extension of credit to John Doe #2.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 892(a), 2 and 3551 et ~.) COUNT SEVEN (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy -John Doe #2)

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 13 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

In or about and between April 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants NEIL

MESSINA and JOHN PORCELLO, also known as “Johnny Pizza,” together

with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #2.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894 (a) (1) and 3551 et seq.) COUNT EIGHT (Extortionate Collection of Credit -John Doe #2)

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 13 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

In or about and between April 2010 and January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere,· the defendants NEIL MESSINA and JOHN PORCELLO, also known as “Johnny Pizza,” together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #2.

(Title 18, United States code, Sections 894(a) (1),2 and 3551 et ~.) FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNT ONE

44. The United States hereby gives notice to the defendants charged in Count One that, upon conviction of that offense, the government will seek forfeiture, in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963, which requires any person convicted of such offenses to forfeit: (a) any interest the person acquired or maintained in violation of Title 18, United States Code, section 1962; (b) any interest in,’ security of, claims against, or property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of influence over any enterprise which the person has established, operated, controlled, conducted or participated in the conduct of, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962; and (c) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, section 1962.

45. If any of the above-described forfeitable
property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants:
    (a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due
diligence;  
    (b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited
                                   

 

with, a third party;

(c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of

the court;

(d) has been substantially diminished in value;

or

(e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty;

it is the intent of the United states, pursuant to Title 18,

United States Code, Section 1963(m), to seek forfeiture of any other property of such defendants up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1963(a) and 1963 (m) ) FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNTS TWO THROUGH EIGHT

46. The united States hereby gives notice to the defendants charged in Counts Two through Eight that, upon conviction of any such offenses, the government will seek

forfeiture, in accordance with Title 18, united States Code, Section 981(a) (1) (C) and Title 28, United States Code, section 2461(c), which require any person convicted of such offenses to forfeit any property constituting or derived from proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of such offenses.

47. If any of the above-described forfeitable
property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants:
    (a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due
diligence;  
    (b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited
                                     

 

with, a third party;

(c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

(d) has been substantially diminished in value; or 18

(e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; it is the intent of the united States, pursuant to Tit’le 21, united States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 28, united States Code, Section 2461(c), to seek forfeiture of any other property of such defendants up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation.

(Title 18, united States Code, Section 981 (a) (1) (C) ; Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p); Title 28, united States Code, Section 2461(c))

A TRUE BILL

FOREPERSON

r I

C2’Yr’tm. ( .. c’iv-r.l,-”

LORETTA E. LYNCH

0

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

The NELCN . . . relied on the use of intimidation . . . to induce owners and operators of . . . topless nightclubs . . to provide monthly “protection” payments in cash, . . .

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

004 -tJ S

CR11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

) Criminal to.,

v. ) ) Violation:     FILED
LUIGI “Louie” MANOCCHIO., )       JAN 7 2011
a/k/a “Baby Shacks”, a/k/a “The Old Man,” ) ) 18 U.S.C. § 1951 & 2 us. DISTRIcT CO\.frr DISTRIcT OF RHODE ltLANo
a/k/a “The Professor”, )        
  )        
and )        
  )        
THOMAS IAFRATE, )        
  )        
Defendants.          
                           

 

INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury charges:

Background: At all times relevant to this Indictment, unless otherwise stated:

1. The defendants were members and associates of the New

England organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra (the “New England LCN”, or “NELCN”). The NELCN was a

criminal organization engaged in, amongst other things, extortion.

The NELCN operated

in the city of Providence, within the Distr1ct of Rhode Island, and elsewhere.

2. The head of the NELCN was known aE¥ the “Boss”, whose

I

leadership was to be respected by all membeis and associates. The Boss supervised, supported, protected aid disciplined members and associates of the NELCN, and received re10rts regarding the

activities of the members and associates of tihe NELCN. The Boss

I

was also responsible for resolving any disputles among members and associates of the NELCN, and for approving aJl significant

I

actions taken by members and associates of the NELCN.

3. The NELCN and its members and associates relied on the use of intimidation and implied threats of force, violence and fear, and their reputation for same, to indu~e owners and operators of adult bookstores and topless nightclubs, or “strip clubs” in Providence, Rhode Island (hereinafter also referenced collectively as “adult entertainment businesses”) to provide monthly “protection” payments in cash, and to exert and preserve the NELCN’s control over these businesses. These businesses were engaged in “commerce” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b) (3).

The Defendants

At various times relevant to this Indictment:

4. LUIGI “Louie” MANOCCHIO, a/k/a “Baby Shacks”, a/k/a “The Professor”, a/k/a “The Old Man”, was a member, Underboss, and the Boss of the NELCN. MANOCCHIO received monthly protection payments, paid in cash from the owner and operator of certain adult entertainment businesses in Providence, Rhode Island, including the strip clubs known as the Satin Doll and the Cadillac Lounge.

5. THOMAS IAFRATE was an associate of the NELCN employed

-2­

as a bookkeeper for certain adult entertainment businesses in

Providence, Rhode Island, including the Satin Doll and the

Cadillac Lounge. IAFRATE was responsible for setting aside,

collecting and delivering extorted “protection” payments to

MANOCCHIO on behalf of the Satin Doll, the Cadillac Lounge, and

other adult entertainment businesses.

COUNT ONE (Extortion Conspiracy)

6. Beginning on or about a date unknown to the Grand Jury, but at least as early as 1993, and continuing thereafter through and including on or about the date of this Indictment, in the District of Rhode Island and elsewhere, the defendants

LUIGI “Louie” MANOCCHIO, a/k/a “Baby Shacks”, a/k/a “The Professor”, a/k/a “The Old Man,

and

THOMAS IAFRATE,

did conspire and agree together, and with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to obstruct, delay, and affect

commerce and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce by extortion, as those terms are defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951, that is, the defendants conspired to obtain u.S. currency, the property of the owner and operator of certain adult entertainment businesses in Providence, Rhode

-3­

Island, including the strip clubs known as the Satin Doll and the Cadillac Lounge, with the owner and operator’s consent induced by the wrongful use of force, violence, and fear.

All in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Sections 1951 and 2.

COUNT TWO

(Extortion)

7. On or about November 6, 2008, in the District of Rhode Island and elsewhere, the defendants

LUIGI “Louie” MANOCCHIO, a/k/a “Baby Shacks”, a/k/a “The Professor”, a/k/a “The Old Man,”

and

THOMAS IAFRATE,

did obstruct, delay, and affect commerce and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce by extortion, as those terms are defined in Title 18, United States Code, section 1951, that is, the defendants obtained U.S. currency in the amount of approximately $2,900.00, the property of the owner and operator of certain adult entertainment businesses in Providence, Rhode Island, including the strip clubs known as the Satin Doll and the Cadillac Lounge, with the owner and operator’s consent induced by

-4­

the wrongful use of force, violence, and fear. All in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Sections 1951 and 2.

GRAND JURY FOREPERSON

4//.,,1!

PETER F. NERONHA United States Attorney

&..f:4~MI

BRUCE G. OHR Chief Organized Crime & Racketeering Section Criminal Division

U.S. Department of Justice

~J;£J-/

WILUAM FERLAND

Attorney

Trial Attorney Organized Crime & Racketeering Section Criminal Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Dated: January 2011.

-5­

PER 18 U.S.C. 3170

DEFENDANT INFORMATION RELATIVE TO A CRIMINAL ACTION -IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT

BY: 0 INFORMATION ~ INDICTMENT 0 COMPLAIN

Matter Sealed: o Juvenile o Other than Juvenile

o Pre-Indictment Plea D Superseding o Defendant Added

o Indictment o Charges/Counts Added D Information

Name of District Court, andlor JudgelMagistrate Location (City)

UNITED STATj::S DISTRICT COURT RHODE ISLAND DISTRICT OF Divisional Office

PETER F. NERONHA

Name and Office of Person Furnishing Information on Q9U.S. Ally DOther U.S. Agency THIS FORM

Phone No. Name of Asst.

U.S. Attomey William J. Ferland (if assigned)

PROCEEDING

Name of Complainant Agency. or Person (& Title, if any)

Federal Bureau of Investigations

person is awaiting trial in another Federal or State Court

(give name of court)

this personlproceeding transferred from another district per (circle one) FRCrP 20, 21 or 40. Show District

this is a reprosecution of charges previously dismissed which were dismissed on motion of:

D U.S. Ally D Defense SHOW

this prosecution relates to a DOCKET NO.

pending case involving this same defendant. (Notice of Related Case must still be filed with the Clerk.)

MAG. JUDGE 0  prior proceedings or appearance(s) CASE NO.

before U.S. Magistrate Judge regarding this defendant were recorded under

Place of IRHODE ISLAND

Countyoffense

CASE NO.

USA VS. Luigi “Louie” Manocchio, aka “Baby Shacks,”

Defendant:

aka “The Old Man,” aka “The Professor” Address:

331 Atwells Avenue Providence, RI

D Interpreter Required Dialect:

Birth GZl Male o Alien

6/23/1927

Date 0 Female (if applicable)

037 -16-2875

Social Security Number

DEFENDANT

Issue: [Z] Warrant o Summons

Location Status:

Arrest Date or Date Transferred to Federal Custody

0 Currently in Federal Custody D Currently in State Custody D Writ Required D Currently on bond 0 Fugitive

Defense Counsel (if any):

o FPD D CJA D RET’D D Appointed on Target Letter

D This report amends AO 257 previously submitted

OFFENSE CHARGED -U.S.C. CITATION -STATUTORY MAXIMUM PENALTIES -ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS

Total # of Counts 2

Set Title & SectionlOffense Level [PettY = 1 I Misdemeanor = 31 Felony = 4) Description of Offense Charged Felony/Misd.
1 18 U.S.C. § §1951(a) and 2 Extortion Conspiracy x Felony Misdemeanor
Max Penalty: 20 yrs. imprisonment; $250,000 fine; 3 yrs. SIR; & $100 assessment. _Felony Misdemeanor
2 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) and 2 Extortion !Felony Misdemeanor
Max Penalty: 20 yrs. imprisonment; $250,000 fine; 3 yrs. SIR; & $100 assessment. _Felony Misdemeanor
    Estimated Trial Days: 5 Felony = Misdemeanor
         

 

PER 18 U.S.C. 3170

DEFENDANT INFORMATION RELATIVE TO A CRIMINAL ACTION -IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT

BY: D INFORMATION [gj INDICTMENT D COMPLAIN

Matter Sealed: D Juvenile o Other than Juvenile

o Pre-Indictment Plea o Superseding D Defendant Added

o Indictment o Charges/Counts AddedD Information

Name of District Court, andlor Judge/Magistrate Location (City)

RHODE ISLAND DISTRICT OF Divisional Office

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PETER F. NERONHA

Name and Office of Person Furnishing Information on I29U.S. Ally OOther U.S. Agency THIS FORM

Phone No. Name of Asst.

U.S. Attorney William J. Ferland (if assigned)

PROCEEDING

Name of Complainant Agency, or Person (& Title, if any)

Federal Bureau of Investigations

person is awaiting trial in another Federal or State Court

D

(give name of court)

this person/proceeding transferred from another districtD per (circle one) FRCrP 20, 21 or 40. Show District

this is a reprosecution of charges D previously dismissed which were dismissed on motion of:

o u.s. Atty 0 Defense

SHOW 0 this prosecution relates to a

DOCKET NO. pending case involving this same defendant. (Notice of Related Case must still be filed with the Clerk.)

MAG. JUDGE

0  prior proceedings or appearance(s) CASE NO.

before U.S. Magistrate Judge regarding this defendant were recorded under

Place ofi RHODE ISLAND

Countyoffense

CASE NO.

USA vs.

Thomas Iafrate

Defendant: 37 Susan Circle

Johnston, RIAddress:

D Interpreter Required Dialect:

Birth IZl Male 4/9/1949Date 0 Female o Alien (if applicable)
037-26-4685Social Security Number  
DEFENDANT  
[l] Warrant D SummonsIssue:  
Location Status:  

 

or Date Transferred to Federal CustodyArrest Date

0 Currently in Federal Custody D Currently in State Custody

o Writ Required

D Currently on bond

0 Fugitive Defense Counsel (if any):

o FPD D CJA D RET’D

D Appointed on Target Letter

D This report amends AO 257 previously submitted

OFFENSE CHARGED -U.S.C. CITATION -STATUTORY MAXIMUM PENALTIES -ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS

Total # of Counts 2

Title & Section/Offense Level

Felony/Misd.

Set Description of Offense Charged

(Pettv =1 / Misdemeanor = 3/ Felonv = 4) ~Felony1 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2

Extortion Conspiracy

Misdemeanor Felony

Penalty: 20 yrs. imprisonment; $250,000 fine; 3 yrs. SIR; & $100 assessment.

Max

~

Misdemeanor ~ Felony

18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2 Extortion

2

Misdemeanor Felony

Max Penalty: 20 yrs. imprisonment; $250,000 fine; 3 yrs. SIR; & $100 assessment.

~ Misdemeanor 1= Felony

Estimated Trial Days: 5

Misdemeanor

ANTHONY GIOIA and SALVATORE LAROSA

AB:RJN

F.#2010R02321

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DI9TRICT OF NEW YORK
    X  
              SUP E R SED I N G
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I N D I C T MEN T
                               

 

-against –                                                     Cr. No. 10-993 (S-l) (SLT)

(T. 18, U.S.C., §§ ANTHONY GIOIA and 924 (c) (1) (A) (H), SALVATORE LAROSA, 924 (c) (1) (A) (iii),

981 (a) (1) (C) ,

Defendants.                               1951(a), 2 and 3551 et seq; T. 21, U.S.C., § 853(p); T. 28, U.S.C., § 2461 (c))

———-                                    —X

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

COUNT ONE (Hobbs Act Robbery Conspiracy)

1. On or about and between November 1, 2007 and December 1, 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY GIOIA and SALVATORE LAROSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by robbery, to wit: the robbery of John Doe # 1, a jewelry store owner whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, of jewelry available for commercial sale.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 3551 et seq.)

COUNT’ TWO (Hobbs Act Robbery)

2. On or about November 29, 2007, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendants ANTHONY GIOIA and SALVATORE LAROSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by robbery, to wit: the robbery of John Doe # 1 of jewelry available for commercial sale.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a), 2 and 3551 et ~.) COUNT THREE (Hobbs Act Robbery Conspiracy)

3. On or about and between June 1, 2008 and June 30, 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendant SALVATORE LAROSA, together with others, did knowingly and inte’ntionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by robbery, to wit: the robbery of John Doe # 2 and John Doe # 3, individuals whose identities are known to the Grand Jury, of proceeds of a pizzeria in Staten Island, New York.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 3551 et seq.)

2

COUNT FOUR (Attempted Hobbs Act Robbery)

4. On or about June 3D, 2008, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendant SALVATORE LAROSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally attempt to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by robbery, to wit: the robbery of John Doe # 2 and John Doe # 3 of proceeds of a pizzeria in Staten Island, New York.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a), 2 and 3551 et seq.) COUNT FIVE (Unlawful Use of a Firearm)

5. On or about June 3D, 2008, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendant SALVATORE LAROSA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally use and carry a firearm during and in relation to one or more crimes of violence, to wit: the crimes charged in Counts Three and Four, and did

3

knowingly and intentionally possess said firearm in furtherance of such crimes of violence, which firearm was brandished and discharged.

(Title 18, United states Code, sections 924 (c) (1) (A) (ii), 924 (c) (1) (A) (iii), 2 and 3551 et ~.) CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION (Counts One and Two)

6. The United States hereby gives notice to the defendants charged in Counts One and Two that upon conviction of any such offenses, the government will seek forfeiture in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Section 981 (a) (1) (C), and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461 (c), which require any person convicted of s~ch offense to forfeit any property, real or personal, constituting or derived from proceeds traceable tb such offense, including but not limited to a sum of money equal to the amount of proceeds obtained as a result of such offense, for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable.

7. If any of the forfeitable property, as a result of

any act or omission of the defendants:
      a. cannot be located upon t he exercise   of due
diligence;                  
      b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited
                             

 

with, a third party;

4

c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the

courti

d. has been substantially diminished in value; or

e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), to seek forfeiture of any other property of such defendant(s) up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation.

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 981 (a) (1) (C) ; Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p); Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c))

A TRUE BILL

FOREPERSON

(bq L chtiJ

‘i:ORETTA E. LYNCH V UNITED STATES ATTORNEY EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

5

F.1I2010R02437 FORlvt DBD·3,1

JUN. 85 No. 10-993 (S-I) (SL T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN District of NEW YORK CRIMINAL DIVISION

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

liS.

Anthony Gioia and Salvatore LaRosa,

Defendants.

SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT

T. 18, u.s.c., §§ 924(c)(l)(A)(ii), 924(c)(l)(A)(iii), 1951(a), 2 and 3551 et~; T. 21 U.S.c. § 853(p); T. 28, U.S.C. § 2461(c)

A trIle bill.

Foreman

Filed in open court this _________________ day. oj___ ._________ AD. 20 ___ _

Clerk

Bail, $ __________ _

Rachel J. Nash, Assistallt U.S. Attome), (718-254-6072)

The five New York City Organized Crime Families: Bonanno, Colombo, Gambino, Genovese and Luchese

About | Contact | Great Jersey City Stories | Mafia at Hudson County Facts | Mafia Stories from the Tunnel Bar | NJ Mafia | Return to the Main Menu | Send this Page