15.06.2013 Views

Stamboulidis v. Licata, Disc. Pro. No. 11-0014 - Local14epa.org

Stamboulidis v. Licata, Disc. Pro. No. 11-0014 - Local14epa.org

Stamboulidis v. Licata, Disc. Pro. No. 11-0014 - Local14epa.org

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

EXHIBIT 1


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 3 of 106<br />

ANTHONY LICATA,<br />

also known as "Cheeks,"<br />

"Anthony Firehawk,"<br />

"Anthony Nighthawk,"<br />

"Nighthawk" and "Firehawk,"<br />

LANCE MOSKOWITZ,<br />

ANTHONY O'DONNELL,<br />

also known as "Tony 0,"<br />

JAMES OUTERIE,<br />

also known as "Big Guy,"<br />

''Tall Guy," "Treetop,"<br />

''Top," "Jamesie" and ''Bob, <strong>11</strong><br />

VINCENT PACELLI,<br />

also known as "Vinny<br />

Basile,n<br />

JOHN PISANO,<br />

also known as "Johnny Red<br />

Rose, <strong>11</strong><br />

TODD POLAKOFF,<br />

GUILIO POMPONIO,<br />

also known as "Gino,"<br />

RICHARD RANIERI,<br />

also known as "Fat Richie,"<br />

''Big Richie," ''Joe,"<br />

"Richie" and "Rich,"<br />

JOHN REGIS,<br />

also known as "John Reeg"<br />

and "Reeg,"<br />

JERRY ROMANO,<br />

ANGELO RUGGIERO, JR.,<br />

also known as "Ang,"<br />

''Little Ang" and ''Junior,u<br />

STEVEN SABELLA,<br />

ANTHONY SCIBELLI,<br />

AUGUSTUS SCLAFANI,<br />

also known as "Gus" and<br />

"Gus Boy, "<br />

JOSEPH SCOPO,<br />

WILLIAM SCOTTO,<br />

also known as "Billy" and<br />

"Big Billy I II<br />

EDWARD SOBOL,<br />

also known as "Eddie,"<br />

JOSEPH SPINNATO,<br />

MICHAEL URCIUOLI,<br />

also known as "Mike the Electrician,"<br />

3


Case 1:08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 6 of 106<br />

supervision and protection, the boss, underboss and consigliere<br />

received part of the illegal earnings of each crew. When a<br />

member of the administration was unable to fulfill his criminal<br />

responsibilities because of incarceration, ill health or other<br />

reason, a member of the Gambino family was often appointed to<br />

that position in an acting capacity.<br />

6. The Gambino family was part of a nationwide<br />

criminal <strong>org</strong>anization known by various names, including the<br />

"mafia" and "La Cosa <strong>No</strong>stra," which operated through entities<br />

known as "families." The ruling body of this nationwide<br />

<strong>org</strong>anization was known as the "commission," the membership of<br />

which at various times has included the bosses of the five New<br />

York City-based families, to wit: the Bonanno, Colombo, Gambino,<br />

Genovese and Luchese <strong>org</strong>anized crime families.<br />

7. From time to time, the Gambino family would<br />

propose a list of associates to be "made," that is, to become<br />

members of the Gambino family. The list would be circulated to<br />

the other families based in New York City.<br />

The Purposes, Methods and Means of the Enterprise<br />

B. The principal purpose of the Gambino family was<br />

to generate money for its members and associates. This purpose<br />

was implemented by members and associates of the Gambino family<br />

through various criminal activities, including narcotics<br />

distribution, extortion, illegal gambling, loansharking, theft,<br />

6


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 7 of 106<br />

bribery and robbery. The members and associates of the Gambino<br />

family also furthered the enterprise's criminal activities by<br />

threatening economic injury and using and threatening to use<br />

physical violence, including murder.<br />

9. Although the primary purpose of the Gambino<br />

family was to generate money for its members and associates, the<br />

members and associates at times used the resources of the Gambino<br />

family to settle personal grievances and vendettas, sometimes<br />

with the approval of higher-ranking members of the Gambino<br />

family. For those purposes, members and associates of the<br />

enterprise were asked and expected to carry out, among other<br />

crimes, acts of violence, including murder and assault.<br />

10. The members and associates of the Gambino<br />

family engaged in conduct designed to prevent government<br />

detection of their identities, their illegal activities and the<br />

location of proceeds of those activities. That conduct included<br />

a commitment to murdering persons, particularly members or<br />

associates of <strong>org</strong>anized crime families, who were perceived as<br />

potential witnesses against members and associates of the<br />

enterprise.<br />

<strong>11</strong>. Members and associates of the Gambino family<br />

often coordinated street-level criminal activity, such as<br />

extortion and fraud, with members and associates of other<br />

<strong>org</strong>anized crime families.<br />

7


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 8 of 106<br />

The Defendants<br />

12. At various times relevant to this Indictment,<br />

the defendant JOHN D'AMICO, also known as "Jackie the <strong>No</strong>se" and<br />

"Jackie," was a solider, captain and acting boss in the Gambino<br />

family.<br />

13. At various times relevant to this Indictment,<br />

the defendant DOMENICO CEFALU, also known as "Italian D.om,"<br />

"Dominic,f' ''Dom from 18th Avenue" and ''The Greasel?all, <strong>11</strong> was a<br />

soldier, captain and acting underboss in the Gambino family.<br />

14. At various times relevant to this Indictment,<br />

the defendant JOSEPH COROZZO, also known as "JoJo" and<br />

"Miserable," was a soldier, captain and consigliere in the<br />

Gambino family.<br />

15. At various times relevant to this Indictment,<br />

the defendant Nr'CHOLAS COROZZO, also known as "Nicky," "Little<br />

Nicky 1 <strong>11</strong> ''The Doctor," "The Little Guy," "Seymour, <strong>11</strong> "Grandpa <strong>11</strong> and<br />

"Grandfather," was an associate, soldier and captain in the<br />

Gambino family, as well as a member of the committee formed to<br />

assist John A. Gotti run the family when he was acting boss of<br />

the Gambino family.<br />

16. At various times relevant to this Indictment,<br />

the defendants THOMAS CACCIOPOLI, also known as "Tommy<br />

Sneakers," and LEONARD DIMARIA, also known as "Lenny," "L," "The<br />

8


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05<strong>11</strong>6/08 Page <strong>11</strong> of 106<br />

25. At various times relevant to this Indictment,<br />

the defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with others, controlled<br />

Andrews Trucking Corporation, Master Mix, Inc., Master Mix<br />

Enterprises, Inc., Dump Masters of NY, Inc. and Dumpmasters Inc.<br />

26. At various times relevant to this Indictment,<br />

the defendant ANTHONY DELVESCOVO, also known as "Anthony<br />

Delvecchio," was a <strong>Pro</strong>ject Manager and Director of Tunnel<br />

Operations for Schiavone Construction Company, Inc.<br />

27. At various times relevant to this Indictment,<br />

the defendant SARAH DAURIA was the principal of SRD Contracting<br />

Corp.<br />

28. At various times relevant to this Indictment,<br />

the defendant MICHAEL KING was a Shop Steward for the Building,<br />

Concrete, Excavating and Common Laborers' Union Local 731 of<br />

Greater New York, affiliated with the Laborers' International<br />

Union of <strong>No</strong>rth America.<br />

LIUNA Local 325<br />

29. New Jersey Laborers' Union Local 325 ("Local<br />

325") was a duly chartered local union of the Laborers'<br />

Internati.onal Union of <strong>No</strong>rth America ("LIUNA"), and a "labor<br />

<strong>org</strong>anization" for purposes of the Labor Management Reporting and<br />

<strong>Disc</strong>losure Act of 1959 ("LMRDA") governing labor unions, and as<br />

that term is defined in Title 29, United States Code, Sections<br />

4 02 ( i) and ( j) .<br />

<strong>11</strong>


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16108 Page 12 of 106<br />

30. At various times relevant to this Indictment,<br />

Louis Mosca, who is not named as a defendant in this Indictment,<br />

was a Business Manager for New Jersey Laborers' Union Local 325<br />

of the Laborers' International Union of <strong>No</strong>rth America.<br />

LIUNA Local 731<br />

31. Building, Concrete, Excavating and Common<br />

Laborers' Union 731 ("Local 731") was a duly chartered local<br />

union of the LIUNA and a "labor <strong>org</strong>anization" for purposes of the<br />

LMRDA governing labor unions, and as that term is defined at<br />

Title 29, United States Code, Sections 402(i) and (j).<br />

Fiduciaries of Local 325 and Local 731<br />

32. As Business Manager and Shop Steward of Local<br />

325 and Local 731, respectively, Louis Mosca and the defendant<br />

MICHAEL KING were subject to Section 501(a) the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C.<br />

§ 501(a), as "officers, agents, shop stewards, and other<br />

representatives" of a labor <strong>org</strong>anization as described in Section<br />

3(q) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 402(q). Pursuant to Section<br />

501(a) of the LMRDA, "officers, agents, shop stewards, and other<br />

representatives" of a labor <strong>org</strong>anization occupy positions of<br />

trust in relation to such <strong>org</strong>anization and its members as a<br />

group.<br />

33. In such capacity, Louis Mosca and the defendant<br />

MICHAEL KING occupied positions of trust in relation to Local 325<br />

and Local 731 and their respective members as a group and were<br />

12


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 051'16/08 Page 13 of 106<br />

subject to the following fiduciary duties: (1) to hold the money<br />

and property of their respective labor <strong>org</strong>anization solely for<br />

the benefit of the <strong>org</strong>anization and its members and to manage<br />

such money and property in accordance with the labor<br />

<strong>org</strong>anization's constitution, by-laws and applicable resolutions<br />

of the <strong>org</strong>anization's governing bodies; (2) to refrain from<br />

dealing with their respective labor <strong>org</strong>anization as an adverse<br />

party or in behalf of any adverse party in any matter connected<br />

with his duties; (3) to refrain from holding or acquiring any<br />

pecuniary or personal interest which conflicts with the interests<br />

of their respective labor <strong>org</strong>anization; and (4) to account to<br />

their respective labor <strong>org</strong>anization for any profit received in<br />

whatever capacity in connection with transactions conducted by<br />

them or under their direction on behalf of such <strong>org</strong>anization.<br />

34. Louis Mosca and the defendant MICHAEL KING, as<br />

an officer and representative of Local 325 and Local 731,<br />

respectively, were bound to perform their duties in accordance<br />

with the requirements of International and Uniform Local Union<br />

Constitutions of the LIUNA and the LIUNA Ethical Practices Code.<br />

The LIUNA Ethical Practices Code, which was promulgated on<br />

February 15, 1995, and incorporated into the LIUNA Constitution<br />

sets forth required practices applicable to every Local Union of<br />

LIUNA and every member, employee or officer thereof.<br />

13


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 15 of 106<br />

"Anthony Nighthawk," "Nighthawk" and "Firehawk," JAMES OUTERIE,<br />

also known as '\Big Guy," ' 1 Tall Guy, <strong>11</strong> "Treetop,u "Top," "Jamesie"<br />

and "Bob," RICHARD RANIERI, also known as "Fat Richie," "Big<br />

Richie," ''Joe," \\Richie" and "Rich_," ANGELO RUGGIERO, JR., also<br />

known as "Ang," "Little Ang" and "Junior," JOSEPH SCOPO, WILLIAM<br />

SCOTTO, also known as "Billy" and "Big Billy," and.JOSEPH<br />

SPINNATO, together with others, being persons employed by and<br />

associated with the Gambino family, an enterprise that engaged<br />

in, and the activities of which affected, interstate commerce,<br />

knowingly and intent·ionally conspired to violate Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Section 1962(c), that is, to conduct and<br />

participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the<br />

affairs of that enterprise through a pattern of racketeering<br />

activity, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Sections<br />

1961 ( 1 ) and ( 5 ) .<br />

37. The pattern of racketeering activity through<br />

which the above-named defendants agreed to conduct the affairs of<br />

the enterprise consisted of racketeering acts one through fifty­<br />

seven, set forth below in paragraphs thirty-eight through two<br />

hundred and thirty-four. Each defendant agreed that a<br />

conspirator would commit at least two acts of racketeering in the<br />

conduct of the affairs of the enterprise.<br />

15


Case I :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 16 of 106<br />

RACKETEERING ACT ONE<br />

(Murder Conspiracy/Murder)<br />

38. The defendant CHARLES CARNEGLIA committed the<br />

following acts, either one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act One:<br />

A. Conspiracy to Murder Albert Gelb<br />

39. On or about and between February 10, 1975 and<br />

March <strong>11</strong>, 1976, both dates being approximate and inclusive,<br />

within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the<br />

defendant CHARLES CARNEGLIA, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally conspired to cause the death of Albert Gelb, in<br />

violation of New York Penal Law Sections 125.25(1) and 105.15.<br />

B. Murder of Albert Gelb<br />

40. On or about March <strong>11</strong>, 1976, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York, the defendant CHARLES CARNEGLIA, together<br />

with others, with intent to cause the death of Albert Gelb,<br />

caused his death, in violation of New York Penal Law sections<br />

12 5 . 2 5 ( 1) and 2 0 . 0 0 .<br />

RACKETEERING ACT TWO<br />

(Murder)<br />

41. On or about <strong>No</strong>vember 6, 1977, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York, the defendant CHARLES CARNEGLIA,<br />

with intent to cause the death of Michael Cotillo, caused his<br />

death, in violation of New York Penal Law Sections 125.25(1) and<br />

20.00.<br />

16


1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 17 of 106<br />

RACKETEERING ACT THREE<br />

(Murder)<br />

42. On or about July 29, 1983, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York, the defendant CHARLES CARNEGLIA, with<br />

intent to cause the death of Salvatore Puma, caused his death, in<br />

violation of New York Penal Law Sections 125.25(1) and 20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FOUR<br />

(Cocaine Distribution Conspiracy)<br />

43. In or about and between January 1985 and<br />

December 1997, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

JOSEPH COROZZO and VINCENT GOTTI, together with others, knowingly<br />

and intentionally conspired to distribute and possess with intent<br />

to distribute a controlled substance, which offense involved five<br />

kilograms or more of a substance containing cocaine, a Schedule<br />

II controlled substance, in violation of Title 21, United States<br />

Code, Sections 841 (a) (1) and 846.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FIVE<br />

(Marijuana Distribution Conspiracy)<br />

44. In or about and between June 1988 and December<br />

1990, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New' York and elsewhere, the defendant CHARLES<br />

CARNEGLIA, together with others, knowingly and intentionally<br />

conspired to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a<br />

17


Case 1:08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16108 Page 18 of 106<br />

controlled substance, which offense involved marijuana, a<br />

Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of Title 21, United<br />

States Code, Sections 841(a) (1) and 846.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT SIX<br />

(Murder Conspiracy/Murder)<br />

45. The defendant CHARLES CARNEGLIA committed the<br />

following acts, either one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Six:<br />

A. Conspiracy to Murder Louis DiBona<br />

46. On or about and between September 1, 1990 and<br />

October 4, 1990, both dates being approximate and inclusive,<br />

within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the<br />

defendant CHARLES CARNEGLIA, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally conspired to cause the death of Louis DiBona, in<br />

violation of New York Penal Law Sections 125.25(1) and 105.15.<br />

B. Murder of Louis DiBona<br />

47. On or about October 4, 1990, within the<br />

Southern District of New York, the defendant CHARLES CARNEGLIA,<br />

together with others, with intent to cause the death of Louis<br />

DiBona, caused his death, in violation of New York Penal Law<br />

Sections 125.25(1) and 20.00.<br />

18


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 19 of 106<br />

RACKETEERING ACT SEVEN<br />

(Robbery Conspiracy/Robbery/Felony Murder)<br />

48. The defendant CHARLES CARNEGLIA committed the<br />

following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering<br />

Act seven:<br />

A. Robbery Conspiracy<br />

49. On or about and between January 1, 1990 and<br />

December 14, 1990, both dates being approximate and inclusive,<br />

within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the<br />

defendant CHARLES CARNEGLIA, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally conspired to forcibly steal property, to wit:<br />

United States currency, from employees of an armored car company,<br />

while aided by another person actually present, in violation of<br />

New York Penal Law Sections 160.10(1) and 105.10.<br />

B. Robbery<br />

50. On or about December 14, 1990, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York, the defendant CHARLES CARNEGLIA,<br />

together with others, did knowingly, intentionally and forcibly<br />

steal property, to wit: United States currency, from employees of<br />

an armored car company, in violation of New York Penal Law<br />

Sections 160.05 and 20.00.<br />

C. Felony Murder<br />

51. On or about December 14, 1990, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant CHARLES<br />

CARNEGLIA, together with others, knowingly and intentionally<br />

19


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 20 of 106<br />

committed the robbery of employees of an armored car company and,<br />

in the course of and in furtherance of such crime, the defendant<br />

or another participant in the robbery caused the death of Jose<br />

Delgado Rivera, in violation of New York Penal Law Sections<br />

125.25(3) and 20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT EIGHT<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion - John Doe #1)<br />

52. The defendant CHARLES CARNEGLIA committed the<br />

following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering<br />

Act Eight:<br />

A. Extortion Conspiracy<br />

53. In or about and between January 1991 and<br />

January 2003, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

CHARLES CARNEGLIA, together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce,<br />

and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by<br />

extortion, in that the defendant and others agreed to obtain<br />

property, to wit: money, from John Doe #1, an individual whose<br />

identity is known to the grand jury, with the consent of John Doe<br />

#1, which consent was to be induced through wrongful use of<br />

actual and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of<br />

Title 18, United States Code, Sections 195l(a) and 2.<br />

20


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 21 of 106<br />

B. Extortion<br />

54. In or about and between January 1991 and<br />

January 2003, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

CHARLES CARNEGLIA, together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the<br />

movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion,<br />

in that the defendant and others obtained property, to wit:<br />

money, from John Doe #1, with the consent of John Doe #1, which<br />

consent was induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened<br />

force, violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, United States<br />

Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.<br />

C. New York Penal Law Extortion<br />

55. In or about and between January 1991 and<br />

January 2003, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

CHARLES CARNEGLIA, together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally steal property, to wit: money, from John Doe #1, by<br />

extortion, to wit: by compelling and inducing John Doe #1 to<br />

deliver such property to the defendant by instilling in him a<br />

fear that, if the property was not delivered, the defendant and<br />

others would (1) cause physical injury to John Doe #1 in the<br />

future, (2) cause damage to John Doe #1's property, and (3)<br />

perform an act which would not in itself materially benefit the<br />

21


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 22 of 106<br />

defendant, but which was calculated to harm John Doe #1<br />

materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling,<br />

career, financial condition, reputation and personal<br />

relationships, in violation of New York Penal Law Sections<br />

155.30 (6), 155.05 (2) (e) (i), 155.05 (2) (e) (ii), 155.05 (2) (e) (ix)<br />

and 20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT NINE<br />

(Obstruction of Justice)<br />

56. On or about and between August 6, 1992 and<br />

January 5, 1994, both dates being approximate and inclusive,<br />

within the Eastern District of New York, the defendant DOMENICO<br />

CEFALU did knowingly, intentionally and corruptly endeavor to<br />

influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice,<br />

to wit: by refusing to testify before the grand jury and at the<br />

trial of United States v. Pasquale Conte, et al., <strong>No</strong>. 93 CR 85<br />

(ILG), in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections<br />

1503(a) and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT TEN<br />

(Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy/Extortionate<br />

Collection of Credit Conspiracy - John Doe #2 and John Doe #3)<br />

57. The defendants VINCENT DECONGILIO and VINCENT<br />

GOTTI committed the following acts, either one of which alone<br />

constitutes Racketeering Act Ten:<br />

A. Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy<br />

58, In or about and between January 1993 and<br />

January 2005, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

22


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 23 of 106<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

VINCENT DECONGILIO and VINCENT GOTTI, together with others,<br />

knowingly and intentionally conspired to make extortionate<br />

extensions of credit to John Doe #2 and John Doe #3, individuals<br />

whose identities are known to the grand jury, in violation of<br />

Title 18, United States Code, Section 892(a).<br />

B. Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy<br />

59. In or about and between January 1993 and<br />

January 2005, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

VINCENT DECONGILIO and VINCENT GOTTI, together with others,<br />

knowingly and intentionally conspired to participate in the use<br />

of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect<br />

extensions of credit from John Doe #2 and John Doe #3, in<br />

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a) (1).<br />

RACKETEERING ACT ELEVEN<br />

(Securities Fraud Conspiracy)<br />

60. The defendants CHARLES CARNEGLIA and LEONARD<br />

DIMARIA committed the following acts, either one of which alone<br />

constitutes Racketeering Act Eleven:<br />

A. Securities Fraud Conspiracy<br />

61. In or about and between January 1995 and<br />

December 1996, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

CHARLES CARNEGLIA and LEONARD DIMARIA, together with others, did<br />

23


Case ·1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 24 of 106<br />

knowingly and willfully conspire to use and employ manipulative<br />

and deceptive devices and contrivances, directly and indirectly,<br />

in violation of Rule lOb-5 of the Rules and Regulations of the<br />

Securities and Exchange Commission (Title 17, Code of Federal<br />

Regulations, Section 240.10b-5), and, directly and indirectly, to<br />

(a) employ devices, schemes and artifices to defraud; (b) make<br />

untrue statements of material fact and omit to state material<br />

facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of<br />

the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and<br />

(c) engage in acts, practices and courses of business which would<br />

and did operate as a fraud and deceit upon the investing public,<br />

in connection with purchases and sales of certain securities, and<br />

by use of means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce and<br />

the mails, in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Sections<br />

78j (b) and 78ff, all in violation of Title 18, United States<br />

Code, Section 371.<br />

62. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect<br />

its objectives, within the Eastern District of New York and<br />

elsewhere, the defendants CHARLES CARNEGLIA and LEONARD DIMARIA,<br />

and their coconspirators, committed and caused to be committed,<br />

among others, the following:<br />

OVERT ACTS<br />

a. In or about and between <strong>No</strong>vember 1995 and<br />

March 1996, CHARLES CARNEGLIA attended a meeting with other<br />

24


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 25 of 106<br />

coconspirators, whose identities are known to the grand jury, to<br />

convince a broker not to sell securities pertaining to Ashton<br />

Technology Group, Inc. ("Ashton") .<br />

b. In or about and between <strong>No</strong>vember 1995 and<br />

March 1996, LEONARD DIMARIA had a meeting with a co-conspirator<br />

regarding the sale of securities of Ashton and National Medical<br />

Financial Corporation.<br />

c. In or about and between <strong>No</strong>vember 1996 and<br />

March 1996, CHARLES CARNEGLIA attended a meeting with other<br />

coconspirators, whose identities are known to the grand jury,<br />

concerning the sale of securities of Mama Tish's Italian<br />

Specialties, Inc.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT TWELVE<br />

(Robbery Conspiracy/Robbery)<br />

63. The defendant CHARLES CARNEGLIA committed the<br />

following acts, either one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Twelve:<br />

A. Robbery Conspiracy<br />

64. On or about and between October 1, 1995 and<br />

<strong>No</strong>vember 5, 1995, both dates being approximate and inclusive,<br />

within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the<br />

defendant CHARLES CARNEGLIA, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally conspired to forcibly steal property, to wit:<br />

25


Case 1:08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 26 of 106<br />

United States currency, from an employee of Papavero Funeral<br />

Home, while aided by another person actually present, in<br />

violation of New York Penal Law Sections 160.10(1) and 105.10.<br />

B. Robbery<br />

65. On or about <strong>No</strong>vember 5, 1995, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York, the defendant CHARLES CARNEGLIA,<br />

together with others, did knowingly, intentionally and forcibly<br />

steal property, to wit: United States currency, from an employee<br />

of Papavero Funeral Home, in violation of New York Penal Law<br />

Sections 160.05 and 20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTEEN<br />

(Murder Conspiracy/Murder)<br />

66. The defendant NICHOLAS COROZZO committed the<br />

following acts, either one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Thirteen:<br />

A. Conspiracy to Murder Robert Arena and Thomas Maranga<br />

67. On or about and between January 1, 1996 and<br />

January 26, 1996, both dates being approximate and inclusive,<br />

within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the<br />

defendant NICHOLAS COROZZO, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally conspired to cause the death of Robert Arena and<br />

Thomas Maranga, in violation of New York Penal Law Sections<br />

125.25(1) and 105.15.<br />

26


Case 1:08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 27 of 106<br />

B. Murder of Robert Arena<br />

68. On or about January 26, 1996, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York, the defendant NICHOLAS COROZZO,<br />

together with others, with intent to cause the death of Robert<br />

Arena, caused his death, in violation of New York Penal Law<br />

sections 125.25(1) and 20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FOURTEEN<br />

(Murder)<br />

69. On or about January 26, 1996, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York, the defendant NICHOLAS COROZZO,<br />

together with others, with intent to cause the death of Thomas<br />

Maranga, caused his death, in violation of New York Penal Law<br />

Sections 125.25(1) and 20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FIFTEEN<br />

(Marijuana Distribution Conspiracy)<br />

70. In or about and between January 1997 and<br />

December 1998, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

VINCENT DECONGILIO, RICHARD G. GOTTI and VINCENT GOTTI, together<br />

with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to<br />

distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled<br />

substance containing marijuana, a Schedule I controlled<br />

substance, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections<br />

841 (a) (l) and 846.<br />

27


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 28 of 106<br />

RACKETEERING ACT SIXTEEN<br />

(Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy/Extortionate<br />

Extension of Credit/Extortionate Collection of Credit<br />

Conspiracy/Extortionate Collection of Credit - John Doe #1)<br />

71. The defendants VINCENT DRAGONETTI and STEVEN<br />

IARIA named below committed the following acts, any one of which<br />

alone constitutes Racketeering Act Sixteen:<br />

A. Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy<br />

72. In or about August 1998, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants VINCENT<br />

DRAGONETTI and STEVEN IARIA, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally conspired to make an extortionate extension of<br />

credit to John Doe #1, in violation of Title 18, United States<br />

Code, Section 892(a).<br />

B. Extortionate Extension of Credit<br />

73. In or about August 1998, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants VINCENT<br />

DRAGONETTI and STEVEN IARIA, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally made an extortionate extension of credit to John<br />

Doe #1, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections<br />

892(a) and 2.<br />

C. Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy<br />

74. In or about and between August 1998 and<br />

December 1998, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

VINCENT DRAGONETTI and STEVEN IARIA, together with others,<br />

28


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 29 of 106<br />

knowingly and intentionally conspired to use extortionate means<br />

to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #1, in violation<br />

of Title 18, United States Code, Section 894 (a) (1).<br />

D. Extortionate Collection of Credit<br />

75. In or about and between August 1998 and<br />

December 1998, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

VINCENT DRAGONETTI and STEVEN IARIA, together with others,<br />

knowingly and intentionally participated in the use of<br />

extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension<br />

of credit from John Doe #1, in violation of Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Sections 894(a) (1) and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT SEVENTEEN<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion - Trucking)<br />

76. The defendants THOMAS CACCIOPOLI, ROBERT<br />

EPIFANIA and JOSEPH SCOPO committed the following acts, any one<br />

of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Seventeen:<br />

A. Extortion Conspiracy<br />

77. In or about and between December 1999 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

THOMAS CACCIOPOLI, ROBERT EPIFANIA and JOSEPH SCOPO, together<br />

with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to<br />

obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles<br />

and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants<br />

29


Case 1:08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 30 of 106<br />

and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: cash payments<br />

relating to John Doe #4's trucking concerns, from John Doe #4, an<br />

individual whose identity is known to the grand jury, with the<br />

consent of John Doe #4, which consent was to be induced through<br />

wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear,<br />

in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a)<br />

and 2.<br />

B. Extortion<br />

78. In or about and between December 1999 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

THOMAS CACCIOPOLI, ROBERT EPIFANIA and JOSEPH SCOPO, together<br />

with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and<br />

affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in<br />

commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and others<br />

obtained property, to wit: cash payments relating to John Doe<br />

#4's trucking concerns, f-rom John Doe #4, with the consent of<br />

John Doe #4, which consent was induced through wrongful use of<br />

actual and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of<br />

Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.<br />

C. New York Penal Law Extortion<br />

79. In or about and between December 1999 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

30


Case i :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 31 of 106<br />

THOMAS CACCIOPOLI, ROBERT EPIFANIA and JOSEPH SCOPO, together<br />

with others, did knowingly and intentionally steal property, to<br />

wit: cash payments relating to John Doe #4's trucking concerns,<br />

from John Doe #4, by extortion, to wit: by compelling and<br />

inducing John Doe #4 to deliver such property to one or more of<br />

the defendants by instilling in him a fear that, if the property<br />

was not delivered, the defendants and others would (a) cause<br />

physical injury to John Doe #4 in the future, (b) cause damage to<br />

John Doe #4's property, and (c) perform an act which would not in<br />

itself materially benefit the defendants, but which was<br />

calculated to harm John Doe #4 materially with respect to his<br />

health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition,<br />

reputation and personal relationships, in violation of New York<br />

Penal Law Sections 155.30(6), 155.05(2) (e) (i), 155.05(2) (e) (ii),<br />

155.05(2) (e) (ix) and 20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT EIGHTEEN<br />

(Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy/Extortionate<br />

Extension of Credit/Extortionate Collection of Credit<br />

Conspiracy/Extortionate Collection of Credit - John Doe #1)<br />

80. The defendants VINCENT DRAGONETTI and STEVEN<br />

IARIA committed the following acts, any one of which alone<br />

constitutes Racketeering Act Eighteen:<br />

A. Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy<br />

81. In or about August 2000, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants VINCENT<br />

DRAGONETTI and STEVEN IARIA, together with others, knowingly and<br />

31


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 32 of 106<br />

intentionally conspired to make an extortionate extension of<br />

credit to John Doe #1, in violation of Title 18, United States<br />

Code, Section 892(a).<br />

B. Extortionate Extension of Credit<br />

82. In or about August 2000, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants VINCENT<br />

DRAGONETTI and STEVEN IARIA, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally made an extortionate extension of credit to John<br />

Doe #1, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections<br />

892(a) and 2.<br />

C. Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy<br />

83. In or about and between August 2000 and<br />

December 2000, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

VINCENT DRAGONETTI and STEVEN IARIA, together with others,<br />

knowingly and intentionally conspired to use extortionate means<br />

to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #1, in violation<br />

of Title 18, United States Code, Section 894 (a) (1).<br />

D. Extortionate Collection of Credit<br />

84. In or about and between August 2000 and<br />

December 2000, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

VINCENT DRAGONETTI and STEVEN IARIA, together with others,<br />

knowingly and intentionally participated in the use of<br />

32


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 33 of 106<br />

extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension<br />

of credit from John Doe #1, in violation of Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Sections 894 (a) (1) and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT NINETEEN<br />

(Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy/Extortionate<br />

Extension of Credit/Extortionate Collection of Credit<br />

Conspiracy/Extortionate Collection of Credit - John Doe #1)<br />

85. The defendants VINCENT DRAGONETTI and STEVEN<br />

IARIA committed the following acts, any one of which alone<br />

constitutes Racketeering Act Nineteen:<br />

A. Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy<br />

86. In or about January 2001, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants VINCENT<br />

DRAGONETTI and STEVEN IARIA, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally conspired to make an extortionate extension of<br />

credit to John Doe #1, in violation of Title 18, United States<br />

Code, Section 892(a).<br />

B. Extortionate Extension of Credit<br />

87. In or about January 2001, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants VINCENT<br />

DRAGONETTI and STEVEN IARIA, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally made an extortionate extension of credit to John<br />

Doe #1, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections<br />

892(a) and 2.<br />

33


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 34 of 106<br />

C. Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy<br />

88. In or about and between January 2001 and April<br />

2001, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

VINCENT DRAGONETTI and STEVEN IARIA, together with others,<br />

knowingly and intentionally conspired to use extortionate means<br />

to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #1, in violation<br />

of Title 18, United States Code, section 894 (a) (1).<br />

D. Extortionate Collection of Credit<br />

89. In or about and between January 2001 and April<br />

2001, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

VINCENT DRAGONETTI and STEVEN IARIA, together with others,<br />

knowingly and intentionally participated in the use of<br />

extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension<br />

of credit from John Doe #1, in violation of Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Sections 894(a) (1) and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY<br />

(Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy)<br />

90. In or about and between May 2001 and June 2002,<br />

both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants VINCENT<br />

DRAGONETTI and STEVEN IARIA, together with others, knowingly and<br />

34


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 35 of 106<br />

intentionally conspired to make extortionate extensions of<br />

credit, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section<br />

892 (a) •<br />

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-ONE<br />

(Theft of Union Benefits/Mail Fraud)<br />

91. The defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO committed the<br />

following acts, either one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Twenty-One:<br />

A. Theft of Union Benefits<br />

92. In or about and between June 2002 and December<br />

2002, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JOSEPH<br />

SPINNATO, together with others, did embezzle, steal and<br />

unlawfully and willfully abstract and convert to his own use,<br />

moneys, funds, securities, premiums, credits, property and other<br />

assets of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282<br />

Health and Welfare Benefit Fund, an employee welfare benefit plan<br />

subject to Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act<br />

of 1974 ("ERISA"), and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters<br />

Local 282 Pension Fund, an employee pension benefit plan subject<br />

to Title I of ERISA, and of funds connected with such employee<br />

benefit plans, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Sections 664 and 2.<br />

35


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 36 of 106<br />

B. Mail Fraud<br />

93. In or about and between June 2002 and December<br />

2002, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JOSEPH<br />

SPINNATO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the International<br />

Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282 Health and Welfare Benefit<br />

Fund and Pension Fund (the "Local 282 Funds") and employees<br />

covered by labor contracts with the International Brotherhood of<br />

Teamsters Local 282 ("Local 282") who were participants in the<br />

Local 282 Funds and to obtain money and property, to which the<br />

Local 282 Funds and participants were entitled, by means of false<br />

and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, to wit:<br />

contributions to the Local 282 Funds and the contractual right to<br />

have such contributions made on behalf of such employees.<br />

94. It was part of the scheme and artifice that the<br />

defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with others, would and did<br />

submit and cause to be submitted false information to the Local<br />

282 Funds regarding hours worked by employees covered by labor<br />

contracts with Local 282, claiming that certain hours had been<br />

worked by such employees who had, in fact, worked more hours,<br />

thereby under reporting and under paying contributions to the<br />

Local 282 Funds which were owed to the funds and required to be<br />

made on behalf of the employees.<br />

36


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 37 of 106<br />

95. For the purpose of executing the scheme and<br />

artifice, the defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO and others did place and<br />

cause to be placed. in authorized depositories for mail matter to<br />

be delivered by the United States Postal Service items of mail<br />

matter, to wit: remittance reports and checks payable to the<br />

Local 282 Funds, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Sections 1341 and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-TWO<br />

(Theft of Union Benefits/Mail Fraud)<br />

96. The defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO committed the<br />

following acts, either one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Twenty-Two:<br />

A. Theft of Union Benefits<br />

97. In or about and between January 2003 and<br />

Decernber 2003, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with others, did embezzle, steal and<br />

unlawfully and willfully abstract and convert to his own use,<br />

moneys, funds, securities, premiums, credits, property and other<br />

assets of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282<br />

Health and Welfare Benefit Fund, an employee welfare benefit plan<br />

subject to Title I of ERISA, and the International Brotherhood of<br />

Teamsters Local 282 Pension Fund, an employee pension benefit<br />

37


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05<strong>11</strong>6108 Page 38 of 106<br />

plan subject to Title I of ERISA, and of funds connected with<br />

such employee benefit plans, in violation of Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Sections 664 and 2.<br />

B. Mail Fraud<br />

98. In or about and between January 2003 and<br />

December 2003, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the Local<br />

282 Funds and employees covered by labor contracts with Local 282<br />

who were participants in the Local 282 Funds and to obtain money<br />

and property, to which the Local 282 Funds and participants were<br />

entitled, by means of false and fraudulent pretenses,<br />

representations and promises, to wit: contributions to the Local<br />

282 Funds and the contractual right to have such contributions<br />

made on behalf of such employees.<br />

99. It was part of the scheme and artifice that the<br />

defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with others, would and did<br />

submit and cause to be submitted false information to the Local<br />

282 Funds regarding hours worked by employees covered by labor<br />

contracts with Local 282, claiming that certain hours had been<br />

worked by such employees who had, in fact, worked more hours,<br />

thereby under reporting and under paying contributions to the<br />

38


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 39 of 106<br />

Local 282 Funds which were owed to the funds and required to be<br />

made on behalf of the employees.<br />

100. For the purpose of executing the scheme and<br />

artifice, the defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO and others did place and<br />

cause to be placed in authorized depositories for mail matter to<br />

be delivered by the United States Postal Service items of mail<br />

matter, to wit: remittance reports and checks payable to the<br />

Local 282 Funds, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Sections 1341 and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-THREE<br />

(Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy)<br />

101. In or about and between January 2003 and<br />

October 2004, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

VINCENT DRAGONETTI and STEVEN IARIA, together with others,<br />

knowingly and intentionally conspired to make extortionate<br />

extensions of credit, in violation of Title 18, United States<br />

Code, Section 892(a).<br />

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-FOUR<br />

(Murder Conspiracy/Attempted Murder)<br />

102. The defendants RICHARD G. GOTTI, VINCENT GOTTI<br />

and ANGELO RUGGIERO, JR. committed the following acts, either one<br />

of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Twenty-Four:<br />

39


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 40 of 106<br />

A. Conspiracy to Murder John Doe #5<br />

103. On or about and between April 1, 2003 and May<br />

4, 2003, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

RICHARD G. GOTTI, VINCENT GOTTI and ANGELO RUGGIERO, JR.,<br />

together with others, knowingly and intentionally conspired to<br />

cause the death of John Doe #5, in violation of New York Penal<br />

Law Sections 125.25(1) and 105.15.<br />

B. Attempted Murder of John Doe #5<br />

104. On or about May 4, 2003, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York, the defendants RICHARD G. GOTTI, VINCENT<br />

GOTTI and ANGELO RUGGIERO, JR., together with others, with intent<br />

to cause the death of John Doe #5, attempted to cause his death,<br />

in violation of New York Penal Law Sections 125.25(1), <strong>11</strong>0.00 and<br />

20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-FIVE<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion -<br />

Staten Island Cement Company)<br />

105. The defendants THOMAS CACCIOPOLI, MARIO<br />

CASSARINO, DOMENICO CEFALU, JOSEPH COROZZO, NICHOLAS COROZZO,<br />

JOHN D'AMICO, LEONARD DIMARIA, ROBERT EPIFANIA and ERNEST GRILLO,<br />

committed the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Twenty-Five:<br />

40


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 41 of 106<br />

A. Extortion Conspiracy<br />

106. In or about and between December 2003 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

THOMAS CACCIOPOLI, MARIO CASSARINO, DOMENICO CEFALU, JOSEPH<br />

COROZZO, NICHOLAS COROZZO, JOHN D'AMICO, LEONARD DIMARIA, ROBERT<br />

EPIFANIA and ERNEST GRILLO, together with others, did knowingly<br />

and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect<br />

commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in<br />

commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed<br />

to obtain property, to wit: cash and check payments relating to<br />

the operation of John Doe #4's Staten Island cement company, from<br />

John Doe #4, with the consent of John Doe #4, which consent was<br />

to be induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened<br />

force, violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, United States<br />

Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.<br />

B. Extortion<br />

107. In or about and between December 2003 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

THOMAS CACCIOPOLI, MARIO CASSARINO, DOMENICO CEFALU, JOSEPH<br />

COROZZO, NICHOLAS COROZZO, JOHN D'AMICO, LEONARD DIMARIA, ROBERT<br />

EPIFANIA and ERNEST GRILLO, together with others, did knowingly<br />

and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the<br />

41


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 42 of 106<br />

movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion,<br />

in that the defendants and others obtained property, to wit: cash<br />

and check payments relating to the operation of John Doe #4's<br />

Staten Island cement company, from John Doe #4, with the consent<br />

of John Doe #4, which consent was induced through wrongful use of<br />

actual and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of<br />

Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.<br />

C. New York Penal Law Extortion<br />

108. In or about and between December 2003 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

THOMAS CACCIOPOLI, MARIO CASSARINO, DOMENICO CEFALU, JOSEPH<br />

COROZZO, NICHOLAS COROZZO, JOHN D'AMICO, LEONARD DIMARIA, ROBERT<br />

EPIFANIA and ERNEST GRILLO, together with others, did knowingly<br />

and intentionally steal property, to wit: cash and check payments<br />

relating to the operation of John Doe #4's Staten Island cement<br />

company, from John Doe #4, by extortion, to wit: by compelling<br />

and inducing John Doe #4 to deliver such property to one or more<br />

of the defendants by instilling in him a fear that, if the<br />

property was not delivered, the defendants and others would (1)<br />

cause physical injury to John Doe #4 in the future, (2) cause<br />

damage to John Doe #4's property, and (3) perform an act which<br />

would not in itself materially benefit the defendants, but which<br />

was calculated to harm John Doe #4 materially with respect to his<br />

42


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 43 of 106<br />

health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition,<br />

reputation and personal relationships, in violation of New York<br />

Penal Law Sections 155.30(6), 155.05(2) (e) (i), 155.05(2) (e) (ii),<br />

155.05(2) (e) (ix) and 20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-SIX<br />

(Theft of Union Benefits/Mail Fraud)<br />

109. The defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO committed the<br />

following acts, either one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Twenty-Six:<br />

A. Theft of Union Benefits<br />

<strong>11</strong>0. In or about and between January 2004 and<br />

December 2004, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with others, did embezzle, steal and<br />

unlawfully and willfully abstract and convert to his own use,<br />

moneys, funds, securities, premiums, credits, property and other<br />

assets of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282<br />

Health and Welfare Benefit Fund, an employee welfare benefit plan<br />

subject to Title I of ERISA, and the International Brotherhood of<br />

Teamsters Local 282 Pension Fund, an employee pension benefit<br />

plan subject to Title I of ERISA, and of funds connected with<br />

such employee benefit plans, in violation of Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Sections 664 and 2.<br />

43


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 44 of 106<br />

B. Mail Fraud<br />

<strong>11</strong>1. In or about and between January 2004 and<br />

December 2004, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the Local<br />

282 Funds and employees covered by labor contracts with Local 282<br />

who were participants in the Local 282 Funds and to obtain money<br />

and property, to which the Local 282 Funds and participants were<br />

entitled, by means of false and fraudulent pretenses,<br />

representations and promises, to wit: contributions to the Local<br />

282 Funds and the contractual right to have such contributions<br />

made on behalf of such employees.<br />

<strong>11</strong>2. It was part of the scheme and artifice that<br />

the defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with others, would and<br />

did submit and cause to be submitted false information to the<br />

Local 282 Funds regarding hours worked by employees covered by<br />

labor contracts with Local 282, claiming that certain hours had<br />

been worked by such employees who had, in fact, worked more<br />

hours, thereby under reporting and under paying contributions to<br />

the Local 282 Funds which were owed to the funds and required to<br />

be made on behalf of the employees.<br />

<strong>11</strong>3. For the purpose of executing the scheme and<br />

artifice, the defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO and others did place and<br />

44


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 45 of 106<br />

cause to be placed in,authorized depositories for mail matter to<br />

be delivered by the United States Postal Service items of mail<br />

matter, to wit: remittance reports and checks payable to the<br />

Local 282 Funds, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Sections 1341 and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-SEVEN<br />

(Theft of Union,Benefits/Mail Fraud)<br />

<strong>11</strong>4. The defendant MARIO CASSARINO committed the<br />

following acts, either one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Twenty-Seven:<br />

A. Theft of Union Benefits<br />

<strong>11</strong>5. In or about and between <strong>No</strong>vember 2004 and<br />

December 2005, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

MARIO CASSARINO, together with others, did embezzle, steal and<br />

unlawfully and willfully abstract and convert to his own use,<br />

moneys, funds, securities, premiums, credits, property and other<br />

assets of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282<br />

Health and Welfare Benefit Fund, an employee welfare benefit plan<br />

subject to Title I of ERISA, and the International Brotherhood of<br />

Teamsters Local 282 Pension Fund, an employee pension benefit<br />

plan subject to Title I of ERISA, and of funds connected with<br />

such employee benefit plans, in violation of Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Sections 664 and 2.<br />

45


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 46 of 106<br />

B. Mail Fraud<br />

<strong>11</strong>6. In or about and between <strong>No</strong>vember 2004 and<br />

December 2005, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

MARIO CASSARINO, together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the Local<br />

282 Funds and employees covered by labor contracts with Local 282<br />

who were participants in the Local 282 Funds and to obtain money<br />

and property, to which the Local 282 Funds and participants were<br />

entitled, by means of false and fraudulent pretenses,<br />

representations and promises, to wit: contributions to the Local<br />

282 Funds and the contractual right to have such contributions<br />

made on behalf of such employees.<br />

<strong>11</strong>7. It was part of the scheme and artifice that<br />

the defendant MARIO CASSARINO, together with others, would and<br />

did submit and cause to be submitted false information to the<br />

Local 282 Funds regarding hours worked by employees covered by<br />

labor contracts with Local 282, claiming that certain hours had<br />

been worked by such employees who had, in fact, worked more<br />

hours, thereby under reporting and under paying contributions to<br />

the Local 282 Funds which were owed to the funds and required to<br />

be made on behalf of the employees.<br />

<strong>11</strong>8. For the purpose of executing the scheme and<br />

artifice, the defendant MARIO CASSARINO and others did place and<br />

46


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 47 of 106<br />

cause to be placed in authorized depositories for mail matter to<br />

be delivered by the United States Postal Service items of mail<br />

matter, to wit: remittance reports and checks payable to the<br />

Local 282 Funds, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Sections 1341 and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-EIGHT<br />

(Theft of Union Benefits/Mail Fraud)<br />

<strong>11</strong>9. The defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO committed the<br />

following acts, either one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Twenty-Eight:<br />

A. Theft of Union Benefits<br />

120. In or about and between January 2005 and<br />

December 2005, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with others, did embezzle, steal and<br />

unlawfully and willfully abstract and convert to his own use,<br />

moneys, funds, securities, premiums, credits, property and other<br />

assets of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282<br />

Health and Welfare Benefit Fund, an employee welfare benefit plan<br />

subject to Title I of ERISA, and the International Brotherhood of<br />

Teamsters Local 282 Pension Fund, an employee pension benefit<br />

plan subject to Title I of ERISA, and of funds connected with<br />

such employee benefit plans, in violation of Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Sections 664 and 2.<br />

47


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 48 of 106<br />

B. Mail Fraud<br />

121. In or about and between January 2005 and<br />

December 2005, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the Local<br />

282 Funds and employees covered by labor contracts with Local 282<br />

who were participants in the Local 2.82 Funds and to obtain money<br />

and property, to which the Local 282 Funds and participants were<br />

entitled, by means of false and fraudulent pretenses,<br />

representations and promises, to wit: contributions to Local 282<br />

Funds.<br />

122. It was part of the scheme and artifice that<br />

the defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with others, would and<br />

did submit and cause to be submitted false information to the<br />

Local 282 Funds regarding hours worked by employees covered by<br />

labor contracts with Local 282, claiming that certain hours had<br />

been worked by such employees who had, in fact, worked more<br />

hours, thereby under reporting and under paying contributions to<br />

the Local 282 Funds which were owed to the funds and required to<br />

be made on behalf of the employees.<br />

123. For the purpose of executing the scheme and<br />

artifice, the defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO and others did place and<br />

cause to be placed in authorized depositories for mail matter to<br />

48


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 49 of 106<br />

be delivered by the United States Postal Service items of mail<br />

matter, to wit: remittance reports and checks payable to the<br />

Local 282 Funds, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Sections 1341 and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT TWENTY-NINE<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion - Mayrich Construction Site)<br />

124. The defendant GINO CRACOLICI committed the<br />

following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering<br />

Act Twenty-Nine:<br />

A. Extortion Conspiracy<br />

125. On or about and between April 1, 2005 and June<br />

28, 2005, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant GINO<br />

CRACOLICI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement<br />

of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that<br />

the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: cash<br />

and check payments relating to John Doe #4's work at a Mayrich<br />

Construction Site, from John Doe #4, with the consent of John Doe<br />

#4, which consent was to be induced through wrongful use of<br />

actual and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of<br />

Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.<br />

B. Extortion<br />

126. On or about and between April 1, 2005 and June<br />

28, 2005, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

49


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 50 of 106<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant GINO<br />

CRACOLICI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles<br />

and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant<br />

and others obtained property, to wit: cash and check payments<br />

relating to John Doe #4's work at a Mayrich Construction site,<br />

from John Doe #4, with the consent of John Doe #4, which consent<br />

was induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force,<br />

violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Sections 1951(a) and 2.<br />

C. New York Penal Law Extortion<br />

127. On or about and between April 1, 2005 and June<br />

28, 2005, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant GINO<br />

CRACOLICI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

steal property, to wit: cash and check payments relating to John<br />

Doe #4's work at a Mayrich Construction site, from John Doe #4,<br />

by extortion, to wit: by compelling and inducing John Doe #4 to<br />

deliver such property to the defendant by instilling in him a<br />

fear that, if the property was not delivered, the defendant and<br />

others would (1) cause physical injury to John Doe #4 in the<br />

future, (2) cause damage to John Doe #4's property, and (3)<br />

perform an act which would not in itself materially benefit the<br />

defendants, but which was calculated to harm John Doe #4<br />

50


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 51 of 106<br />

materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling,<br />

career, financial condition, reputation and personal<br />

relationships, in violation of New York Penal Law Sections<br />

155.30(6), 155.05(2) (e) (i), 155.05(2) (e) (ii), 155.05(2) (e) (ix)<br />

and 20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY<br />

(Extortion/Extortionate Collection of Credit - ADCO Electrical<br />

Corporation Debt)<br />

128. The defendant WILLIAM SCOTTO committed the<br />

following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering<br />

Act Thirty:<br />

A. Extortion<br />

129. On or about April 29, 2005, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant WILLIAM SCOTTO,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct,<br />

delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and<br />

commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and<br />

others obtained property, to wit: a check payment relating to an<br />

alleged debt owed by John Doe #4 to ADCO Electrical Corporation,<br />

from John Doe #4, with the consent of John Doe #4, which consent<br />

was induced through wrongful use of actual force, violence and<br />

fear, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections<br />

1951(a) and 2.<br />

51


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05<strong>11</strong>6/08 Page 52 of 106<br />

B. New York Penal Law Extortion<br />

130. On or about April 29, 2005, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant WILLIAM SCOTTO,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally steal<br />

property, to wit: a check payment relating to an alleged debt<br />

owed by John Doe #4 to ADCO Electrical Corporation, from John Doe<br />

#4, by extortion, to wit: by compelling and inducing John Doe #4<br />

to deliver such property to the defendant by instilling in him a<br />

fear that, if the property was not delivered, the defendant and<br />

others would (1) cause physical injury to John Doe #4 in the<br />

future, (2) cause damage to John Doe #4's property, and (3)<br />

perform an act which would not in itself materially benefit the<br />

defendant, but which was calculated to harm John Doe #4<br />

materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling,<br />

career, financial condition, reputation and personal<br />

relationships, in violation of New York Penal Law Sections<br />

15 5 . 3 0 ( 6 ) , 15 5 . 0 5 ( 2) (e) ( i ) , 15 5 . 0 5 ( 2 ) (e) ( i i) , 15 5 . 0 5 ( 2) (e) ( ix)<br />

and 20.00.<br />

C. Extortionate Collection of Credit<br />

131. On or about April 29, 2005, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant WILLIAM SCOTTO,<br />

together with others, knowingly and intentionally participated in<br />

the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect<br />

52


Case 1:08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 54 of 106<br />

knowingly and intentionally attempt to obstruct, delay and affect<br />

commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in<br />

commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and others<br />

attempted to obtain property, to wit: money relating to John Doe<br />

#4's pump truck business, from John Doe #4, with the consent of<br />

John Doe #4, which consent was to be induced through wrongful use<br />

of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation<br />

of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 195l(a) and 2.<br />

c. New York Penal Law Attempted Extortion<br />

135. In or about and between June 2005 and July<br />

2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO and LEONARD DIMARIA, together with others, did<br />

knowingly and intentionally attempt to steal property, to wit:<br />

cash and check payments relating to John Doe #4's work for the<br />

pump truck business, from John Doe #4, by extortion, to wit: by<br />

compelling and inducing John Doe #4 to deliver such property to<br />

the defendant by instilling in him a fear that, if the property<br />

was not delivered, the defendants and others would (1) cause<br />

physical injury to John Doe #4 in the future, (2) cause damage to<br />

John Doe #4's property, and (3) perform an act which would not in<br />

itself materially benefit the defendants, but which was<br />

calculated to harm John Doe #4 materially with respect to his<br />

health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition,<br />

54


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 55 of 106<br />

reputation and personal relationships, in violation of New York<br />

Penal Law Sections 155.30 (6), 155.05 (2) (e) (i), 155.05 (2) (e) (ii),<br />

15 5 . 0 5 ( 2 ) (e) ( ix) , <strong>11</strong> 0 . 0 0 and 2 0 . o 0 .<br />

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY-TWO<br />

(Extortion/Extortionate Collection of Credit -<br />

El Camino Trucking Debt)<br />

136. The defendant WILLIAM SCOTTO committed the<br />

following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering<br />

Act Thirty-Two:<br />

A. Extortion<br />

137. On or about June 8, 2005, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant WILLIAM SCOTTO,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct,<br />

delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and<br />

commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and<br />

others obtained property, to wit: money relating to an alleged<br />

debt owed by John Doe #4 to El Camino Trucking Corporation, from<br />

John Doe #4, with the consent of John Doe #4, which consent was<br />

induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force,<br />

violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Sections 195l(a) and 2.<br />

B. New York Penal Law Extortion<br />

138. On or about June 8, 2005, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant WILLIAM SCOTTO,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally steal<br />

55


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 56 of 106<br />

property, to wit: money relating to an alleged debt owed by John<br />

Doe #4 to El Camino Trucking Corporation, from John Doe #4, by<br />

extortion, to wit: by compelling and inducing John Doe #4 to<br />

deliver such property to the defendant by instilling in him a<br />

fear that, if the property was not delivered, the defendant and<br />

others would (1) cause physical injury to John Doe #4 in the<br />

future, (2) cause damage to John Doe #4's property, and (3)<br />

perform an act which would not in itself materially benefit the<br />

defendant, but which was calculated to harm John Doe #4<br />

materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling,<br />

career, financial condition, reputation and personal<br />

relationships, in violation of New York Penal Law Sections<br />

155.30(6), 155.05(2) (e) (i), 155.05(2) (e) (ii), 155.05(2) (e) (ix)<br />

and 20.00.<br />

C. Extortionate Collection of Credit<br />

139. On or about June 8, 2005, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant WILLIAM SCOTTO,<br />

together with others, knowingly and intentionally participated in<br />

the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect<br />

an extension of credit from John Doe #4, in violation of Title<br />

18, United States Code, Sections 894(a) (1) and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY-THREE<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Attempted Extortion - Construction List)<br />

140. The defendants NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD<br />

DIMARIA, ERNEST GRILLO and ANGELO RUGGIERO, JR. committed the<br />

56


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 57 of 106<br />

following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering<br />

Act Thirty-Three:<br />

A. Extortion Conspiracy<br />

141. In or about and between July 2005 and January<br />

2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD DIMARIA, ERNEST GRILLO and ANGELO<br />

RUGGIERO, JR., together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce,<br />

and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by<br />

extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain<br />

property, to wit: money, from a number of individuals and<br />

companies in the construction industry, whose identities are<br />

known to the grand jury, with the consent of those individuals,<br />

which consent was to be induced through wrongful use of actual<br />

and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of Title<br />

18, United States Code, Sections 195l(a) and 2.<br />

B. Attempted Extortion<br />

142. In or about and between July 2005 and January<br />

2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD DIMARIA, ERNEST GRILLO and ANGELO<br />

RUGGIERO, JR., together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally attempt to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and<br />

57


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16108 Page 58 of 106<br />

the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by<br />

extortion, in that the defendant and others attempted to obtain<br />

property, to wit: money, from a number of individuals and<br />

companies in the construction industry, whose identities are<br />

known to the grand jury, with the consent of those individuals,<br />

which consent was to be induced through wrongful use of actual<br />

and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of Title<br />

18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.<br />

C. New York Penal Law Attempted Extortion<br />

143. In or about and between July 2005 and January<br />

2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD DIMARIA, ERNEST GRILLO and ANGELO<br />

RUGGIERO, JR., together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally attempt to steal property, to wit: money relating<br />

to a number of individuals and companies in the construction<br />

industry, whose identities are known to the grand jury, by<br />

extortion, to wit: by compelling and inducing the individuals to<br />

deliver such property to the defendants by instilling in them a<br />

fear that, if the property was not delivered, the defendants and<br />

others would (1) cause physical injury to those individuals in<br />

the future, (2) cause damage to those individuals's property, and<br />

(3) perform an act which would not in itself materially benefit<br />

the defendants, but which was calculated to harm those<br />

58


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 59 of 106<br />

individuals materially with respect to their health, safety,<br />

business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation and<br />

personal relationships, in violation of New York Penal Law<br />

Sections 155.30 (6), 155.05 (2) (e) (i), 155.05 (2) (e) (ii),<br />

155.05(2) (e) (ix), <strong>11</strong>0.00 and 20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY-FOUR<br />

(Illegal Gambling - Bookmaking)<br />

144. The defendants NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD<br />

DIMARIA, VINCENT DRAGONETTI, STEVEN IARIA, JAMES OUTERIE and<br />

RICHARD RANIERI committed the following acts, either one of which<br />

alone constitutes Racketeering Act Thirty-Four:<br />

A. Illegal Gambling<br />

145. In or about and between September 2005 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD DIMARIA, VINCENT DRAGONETTI, STEVEN<br />

IARIA, JAMES OUTERIE and RICHARD RANIERI, together with others,<br />

knowingly and intentionally conducted, financed, managed,<br />

supervised, directed and owned all or part of an illegal gambling<br />

business, to wit: a gambling business involving bookmaking, which<br />

operated in violation of the laws of the State of New York, to<br />

wit: New York Penal Law Sections 225.05, 225.10(1) and 20.00,<br />

which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed,<br />

managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such<br />

business and which remained in substantially continuous operation<br />

59


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 60 of 106<br />

for a period in excess of 30 days and had a gross revenue of at<br />

least $2,000 in any single day, in violation of Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Sections 1955 and 2.<br />

B. New York Penal Law Illegal Gambling<br />

146. In or about and between September 2005 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD DIMARIA, VINCENT DRAGONETTI, STEVEN<br />

IARIA, JAMES OUTERIE and RICHARD RANIERI, together with others,<br />

knowingly and intentionally advanced and profited from unlawful<br />

gambling activity by engaging in bookmaking, in that they<br />

received and accepted in any one day more than five bets totaling<br />

more than five thousand dollars, in violation of New York Penal<br />

Law Sections 225.10(1) and 20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY-FIVE<br />

(Bribery of a Labor Official/Honest Services Mail Fraud/<br />

Embezzlement of Union Assets - Laborers' Local 325)<br />

147. The defendant LEONARD DIMARIA committed the<br />

following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering<br />

Act Thirty-Five:<br />

A. Bribery of a Labor Official<br />

148. On or about and between September 16, 2005 and<br />

July 14, 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York, the defendant LEONARD DIMARIA,<br />

together with others, knowingly and intentionally conferred and<br />

60


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 61 of 106<br />

offered benefits to a labor official, that is, Louis Mosca, with<br />

the intent to influence him in respect to his acts, decisions and<br />

duties as a labor official, in violation of New York Penal Law<br />

Section 180.15.<br />

B. Honest Services Mail Fraud<br />

149. On or about and between September 16, 2005 and<br />

July 14, 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

LEONARD DIMARIA, together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally devise a scheme and artifice to defraud Local 325<br />

and its members and to obtain property, to wit: a LIUNA<br />

membership card issued to a person not entitled to journeyworker<br />

membership in the union, by means of false and fraudulent<br />

pretenses, relationships and promises and to deprive them of the<br />

intangible right to the honest services of Louis Mosca, including<br />

the honest services Mosca owed to Local 325 and its members<br />

pursuant to Section 501(a) of the LMRDA, the LIUNA Ethical<br />

Practices Code and the Uniform Local Union Constitution of the<br />

LIUNA.<br />

150. It was part of the scheme and artifice to<br />

defraud that Louis Mosca agreed to accept and accepted a thing of<br />

value from John Doe #4 with the intent to be influenced in his<br />

decisions regarding the admission of an individual to membership<br />

in Local 325 and the placement of the individual in a job.<br />

61


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 63 of 106<br />

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY-SIX<br />

(Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/<br />

Extortionate Collection of Credit - John Doe #6)<br />

153. The defendants JAMES OUTERIE and RICHARD<br />

RANIERI committed the following acts, either one of which alone<br />

constitutes Racketeering Act Thirty-Six:<br />

A. Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy<br />

154. In or about and between <strong>No</strong>vember 2005 and May<br />

2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants JAMES<br />

OUTERIE and RICHARD RANIERI, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally conspired to use extortionate means to collect an<br />

extension of credit from John Doe #6, an individual whose<br />

identity is known to the grand jury, in violation of Title 18,<br />

United States Code, Section 894 (a) (1).<br />

B. Extortionate Collection of Credit<br />

155. In or about and between <strong>No</strong>vember 2005 and May<br />

2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants JAMES<br />

OUTERIE and RICHARD RANIERI, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally participated in the use of extortionate means to<br />

collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John<br />

Doe #6, in violation of 'I'itle l8, United States Code, Sections<br />

894(a)(l) and2.<br />

63


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 62 of 106<br />

151. For the purpose of executing the scheme and<br />

artifice, the defendant LEONARD DIMARIA and others did place and<br />

cause to be placed in authorized depositories for mail matter to<br />

be delivered by the United States Postal Service items of mail<br />

matter, to wit: written information pertaining to an individual<br />

proposed for membership in the LIUNA and a LIUNA membership card,<br />

in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341, 1346<br />

and 2.<br />

c. Embezzlement of Union Assets<br />

152. on or about and between September 16, 2005 and<br />

July 14, 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant LEONARD<br />

DIMARIA, together with others, did embezzle, steal and unlawfully<br />

and willfully abstract and convert to his own use the moneys,<br />

funds, securities, property, and other assets of Local 325, to<br />

wit: an application document pertaining to an individual proposed<br />

for membership in the LIUNA and a LIUNA membership card, in<br />

exchange for approximately $2,000, in violation of Title 29,<br />

United States Code, Section 501(c) and Title 18, United States<br />

Code, Section 2.<br />

62


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 64 of 106<br />

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY-SEVEN<br />

(Theft of Union Benefits/Mail Fraud)<br />

156. The defendant ANTHONY LICATA committed the<br />

following acts, either one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Thirty-Seven:<br />

A. Theft of Union Benefits<br />

157. In or about and between January 2006 and<br />

December 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

ANTHONY LICATA, together with others, did embezzle, steal and<br />

unlawfully and willfully abstract and convert to his own use,<br />

moneys, funds, securities, premiums, credits, property and other<br />

assets of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282<br />

Health and Welfare Benefit Fund, an employee welfare benefit plan<br />

subject to Title I of ERISA, and the International Brotherhood of<br />

Teamsters Local 282 Pension Fund, an employee pension benefit<br />

plan subject to Title I of ERISA, and of funds connected with<br />

such employee benefit plans, in violation of Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Sections 664 and 2.<br />

B. Mail Fraud<br />

158. In or about and between January 2006 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

ANTHONY LICATA, together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the Local<br />

64


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 65 of 106<br />

282 Funds and employees covered by labor contracts with Local 282<br />

who were participants in the Local 282 Funds and to obtain money<br />

and property, to which the Local 282 Funds and participants were<br />

entitled, by means of false and fraudulent pretenses,<br />

representations and promises, to wit: contributions to the Local<br />

282 Funds and the contractual right to have such contributions<br />

made on behalf of such employees.<br />

159. It was part of the scheme and artifice that<br />

the defendant ANTHONY LICATA, together with others, would and did<br />

submit and cause to be submitted false information to the Local<br />

282 Funds regarding hours worked by employees covered by labor<br />

contracts with Local 282, claiming that certain hours had been<br />

worked by such employees who had, in fact, worked more hours,<br />

thereby under reporting and under paying contributions to the<br />

Local 282 Funds which were owed to the funds and required to be<br />

made on behalf of the employees.<br />

160. For the purpose of executing the scheme and<br />

artifice, the defendant ANTHONY LICATA and others did place and<br />

cause to be placed in authorized depositories for mail matter to<br />

be delivered by the United States Postal Service items of mail<br />

matter, to wit: remittance reports and checks payable to the<br />

Local 282 Funds, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Sections 1341 and 2.<br />

65


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 66 of 106<br />

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY EIGHT<br />

(Theft of Union Benefits/Mail Fraud)<br />

161. The defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO committed the<br />

following acts, either one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Thirty-Eight:<br />

A. Theft of Union Benefits<br />

162. In or about and between January 2006 and<br />

December 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with others, did embezzle, steal and<br />

unlawfully and willfully abstract and convert to his own use,<br />

moneys, funds, securities, premiums, credits, property and other<br />

assets of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282<br />

Health and Welfare Benefit Fund, an employee welfare benefit plan<br />

subject to Title I of ERISA, and the International Brotherhood of<br />

Teamsters Local 282 Pension Fund, an employee pension benefit<br />

plan subject to Title I of ERISA, and of funds connected with<br />

such employee benefit plans, in violation of Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Sections 664 and 2.<br />

B. Mail Fraud<br />

163. In or about and between January 2006 and<br />

December 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with others, did knowingly and<br />

66


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 67 of 106<br />

intentionally devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the Local<br />

282 Funds and employees covered by labor contracts with Local 282<br />

who were participants in the Local 282 Funds and to obtain money<br />

and property, to which the Local 282 Funds and participants were<br />

entitled, by means of false and fraudulent pretenses,<br />

representations and promises, to wit: contributions to the Local<br />

282 Funds and the contractual right to have such contributions<br />

made on behalf of such employees.<br />

164. It was part of the scheme and artifice that<br />

the defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with others, would and<br />

did submit and cause to be submitted false information to the<br />

Local 282 Funds regarding hours worked by employees covered by<br />

labor contracts with Local 282, claiming that certain hours had<br />

been worked by such employees who had, in fact, worked more<br />

hours, thereby under reporting and under paying contributions to<br />

the Local 282 Funds which were owed to the funds and required to<br />

be made on behalf of the employees.<br />

165. For the purpose of executing the scheme and<br />

artifice, the defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO and others did place and<br />

cause to be placed in authorized depositories for mail matter to<br />

be delivered by the United States Postal Service items of mail<br />

matter, to wit: remittance reports and checks payable to the<br />

Local 282 Funds, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Sections 1341 and 2.<br />

67


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 68 of 106<br />

RACKETEERING ACT THIRTY-NINE<br />

(Extortion .Conspiracy/Extortion - NASCAR Construction Site)<br />

166. The defendants MARIO CASSARINO, DOMENICO<br />

CEFALU, NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD DIMARIA, VINCENT DRAGONETTI and<br />

ERNEST GRILLO committed the following acts, any one of which<br />

alone constitutes Racketeering Act Thirty-Nine:<br />

A. Extortion Conspiracy<br />

167. In or about and between January 2006 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

MARIO CASSARINO, DOMENICO CEFALU, NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD<br />

DIMARIA, VINCENT DRAGONETTI and ERNEST GRILLO, together with<br />

others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct,<br />

delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and<br />

commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and<br />

others agreed to obtain property, to wit: cash payments relating<br />

to John Doe #4's work at a Staten Island NASCAR construction<br />

site, from John Doe #4, with the consent of John Doe #4, which<br />

consent was to be induced through wrongful use of actual and<br />

threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of Title 18,<br />

United States Code, Sections 195l(a) and 2.<br />

B. Extortion<br />

168. In or about and between January 2006 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

68


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 69 of 106<br />

MARIO CASSARINO, DOMENICO CEFALU, NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD<br />

DIMARIA, VINCENT DRAGONETTI and ERNEST GRILLO, together with<br />

others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and<br />

affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in<br />

commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and others<br />

obtained property, to wit: cash payments relating to John Doe<br />

#4's work at a Staten Island NASCAR construction site, from John<br />

Doe #4, with the consent of John Doe #4, which consent was<br />

induced through wrongful use of actual force, violence and fear,<br />

in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 195l(a)<br />

and 2.<br />

C. New York Penal Law Extortion<br />

169. In or about and between January 2006 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

MARIO CASSARINO, DOMENICO CEFALU, NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD<br />

DIMARIA, VINCENT DRAGONETTI and ERNEST GRILLO, together with<br />

others, did knowingly and intentionally steal property, to wit:<br />

cash payments relating to John Doe #4's work at a Staten Island<br />

NASCAR construction site, from John Doe #4, by extortion, to wit:<br />

by compelling and inducing John Doe #4 to deliver such property<br />

to one or more of the defendants by instilling in him a fear<br />

that, if the property was not delivered, the defendants and<br />

others would (1) cause physical injury to John Doe #4 in the<br />

69


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 70 of 106<br />

future, (2) cause damage to John Doe #4's property, and (3)<br />

perform an act which would not in itself materially benefit the<br />

defendants, but which was calculated to harm John Doe #4<br />

materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling,<br />

career, financial condition, reputation and personal<br />

relationships, in violation of New York Penal Law Sections<br />

155.30(6), 155.05(2) (e) (i), 155.05(2) (e) (ii), 155.05(2) (e) (ix)<br />

and 20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FORTY<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion - Excavation Company)<br />

170. The defendants NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD<br />

DIMARIA and VINCENT DRAGONETTI committed the following acts, any<br />

one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Forty:<br />

A. Extortion Conspiracy<br />

171. In or about and between January 2006 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD DIMARIA and VINCENT DRAGONETTI,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to<br />

obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles<br />

and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants<br />

and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: check payments<br />

relating to John Doe #4's excavation company, from John Doe #4,<br />

with the consent of John Doe #4, which consent was to be induced<br />

through wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and<br />

70


case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 71 of 106<br />

fear, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections<br />

1951 (a) and 2.<br />

B. Extortion<br />

172. In or about and between January 2006 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD DIMARIA and VINCENT DRAGONETTI,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct,<br />

delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and<br />

commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and<br />

others obtained property, to wit: check payments relating to John<br />

Doe #4's excavation company, from John Doe #4, with the consent<br />

of John Doe #4, which consent was induced through wrongful use of<br />

actual force, violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Sections 195l(a) and 2.<br />

C. New York Penal Law Extortion<br />

173. In or about and between January 2006 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD DIMARIA and VINCENT DRAGONETTI,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally steal<br />

property, to wit: check payments relating to John Doe #4's<br />

excavation company, from John Doe #4, by extortion, to wit: by<br />

compelling and inducing John Doe #4 to deliver such property to<br />

71


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05<strong>11</strong>6108 Page 72 of 106<br />

one or more of the defendants by instilling in him a fear that,<br />

if the property was not delivered, the defendants and others<br />

would (1) cause physical injury to John Doe #4 in the future, (2)<br />

cause damage to John Doe #4's property, and (3) perform an act<br />

which would not in itself materially benefit the defendants, but<br />

which was calculated to harm John Doe #4 materially with respect<br />

to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial<br />

condition, reputation and personal relationships, in violation of<br />

New York Penal Law Sections 155.30(6), 155.05(2) (e) (i),<br />

155.05 (2) (e) (ii), 155.05 (2) (e) (ix) and 20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FORTY-ONE<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Extortionate Extension of Credit<br />

Conspiracy/Extortionate Extension of Credit - Cracolici Dispute)<br />

174. The defendants GINO CRACOLICI, ANTHONY LICATA<br />

and WILLIAM SCOTTO committed the following acts, any one of which<br />

alone constitutes Racketeering Act Forty-One:<br />

A. Extortion Conspiracy<br />

175. On or about and between January 1, 2006 and<br />

March 17, 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive,<br />

within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the<br />

defendants GINO CRACOLICI, ANTHONY LICATA and WILLIAM SCOTTO,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to<br />

obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles<br />

and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that ·the defendants<br />

and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money from John Doe<br />

72


case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05i16i08 Page 73 of 106<br />

#4, with the consent of John Doe #4, which consent was to be<br />

induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force,<br />

violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Sections 1951(a) and 2.<br />

B. Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy<br />

176. On or about and between January 1, 2006 and<br />

March 17, 2006, within the Eastern District of New York and<br />

elsewhere, the defendants GINO CRACOLICI, ANTHONY LICATA and<br />

WILLIAM SCOTTO, together with others, knowingly and intentionally<br />

conspired to make an extortionate extension of credit to John Doe<br />

#4, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 892(a).<br />

C. Extortionate Extension of Credit<br />

177. On or about and between January 1, 2006 and<br />

March 17, 2006, within the Eastern District of New York and<br />

elsewhere, the defendants GINO CRACOLICI, ANTHONY LICATA and<br />

WILLIAM SCOTTO, together with others, knowingly and intentionally<br />

made an extortionate extension of credit to John Doe #4, in<br />

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 892(a) and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FORTY-TWO<br />

(Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/<br />

Extortionate Collection of Credit - John Doe #7)<br />

178. The defendants JAMES OUTERIE and RICHARD<br />

RANIERI committed the following acts, either one of which alone<br />

constitutes Racketeering Act Forty-Two:<br />

73


Case 1 :08,cr,Q0076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05<strong>11</strong>6108 Page 74 of 106<br />

A. Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy<br />

179. In or about and between March 2006 and June<br />

2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants JAMES<br />

OUTERIE and RICHARD RANIERI, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally conspired to use extortionate means to collect an<br />

extension of credit from John Doe #7, an individual whose<br />

identity is known to the grand jury, in violation of Title 18,<br />

United States Code, Section 894 (a) (1).<br />

B. Extortionate Collection of Credit<br />

180. In or about and between March 2006 and June<br />

2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants JAMES<br />

OUTERIE and RICHARD RANIERI, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally participated in the use of extortionate means to<br />

collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John<br />

Doe #7, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections<br />

894 (a) (1) and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FORTY-THREE<br />

(Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/<br />

Extortionate Collection of Credit - John Doe #B)<br />

181. The defendants JAMES OUTERIE and RICHARD<br />

RANIERI committed the following acts, either one of which alone<br />

constitutes Racketeering Act Forty-Three:<br />

74


case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 75 of 106<br />

A. Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy<br />

182. In or about and between March 2006 and May<br />

2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants JAMES<br />

OUTERIE and RICHARD RANIERI, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally conspired to use extortionate means to collect an<br />

extension of credit from John Doe #8, an individual whose<br />

identity is known to the grand jury, in violation of Title 18,<br />

United States Code, Section 894 (a) (1).<br />

B. Extortionate Collection of Credit<br />

183. In or about and between March 2006 and May<br />

2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants JAMES<br />

OUTERIE and RICHARD RANIERI, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally participated in the use of extortionate means to<br />

collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John<br />

Doe #8, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections<br />

894(a) (1) and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FORTY-FOUR<br />

(Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/<br />

Extortionate Collection of Credit - John Doe #9)<br />

184. The defendants JAMES OUTERIE and RICHARD<br />

RANIERI committed the following acts, either one of which alone<br />

constitutes Racketeering Act Forty-Four:<br />

75


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 76 of i 06<br />

A. Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy<br />

185. In or about and between April 2006 and May<br />

2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants JAMES<br />

OUTERIE and RICHARD RANIERI, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally conspired to use extortionate means to collect an<br />

extension of credit from John Doe #9, an individual whose<br />

identity is known to the grand jury, in violation of Title 18,<br />

United States Code, Section 894 (a) (1).<br />

B. Extortionate Collection of Credit<br />

186. In or about and between April 2006 and May<br />

2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants JAMES<br />

OUTERIE and RICHARD RANIERI, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally participated in the use of extortionate means to<br />

collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John<br />

Doe #9, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections<br />

894 (a) (1) and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FORTY-FIVE<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion -<br />

Liberty View Harbor Construction Site)<br />

187. The defendants NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD<br />

DIMARIA and VINCENT DRAGONETTI committed the following acts, any<br />

one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Forty-Five:<br />

76


Case ·1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05<strong>11</strong>6108 Page 78 of 106<br />

business assets relating to John Doe #4's work at the Liberty<br />

View Harbor construction site, from John Doe #4, with the consent<br />

of John Doe #4, which consent was induced through wrongful use of<br />

actual and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of<br />

Title 18, United States Code, Sections 195l(a) and 2.<br />

C. New York Penal Law Extortion<br />

190. In or about and between April 2006 and June<br />

2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD DIMARIA and VINCENT DRAGONETTI,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally steal<br />

property, to wit: cash and check payments and business assets<br />

relating to John Doe #4's work at the Liberty View Harbor<br />

construction site, from John Doe #4, by extortion, to wit: by<br />

compelling and inducing John Doe #4 to deliver such property to<br />

one or more of the defendants by instilling in him a fear that,<br />

if the property was not delivered, the defendants and others<br />

would (1) cause physical injury to John Doe #4 in the future, (2)<br />

cause damage to John Doe #4's property, and (3) perform an act<br />

which would not in itself materially benefit the defendants, but<br />

which was calculated to harm John Doe #4 materially with respect<br />

to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial<br />

condition, reputation and personal relationships, in violation of<br />

78


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 79 of 106<br />

New York Penal Law Sections 155.30(6), 155.05(2) (e) (i),<br />

155.05 (2) (e) (ii), 155.05 (2) (e) (ix) and 20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FORTY-SIX<br />

(Money Laundering Conspiracy/Money Laundering)<br />

191. The defendants NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD<br />

DIMARIA and VINCENT DRAGONETTI committed the following acts,<br />

either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Forty-Six:<br />

A. Money Laundering Conspiracy<br />

192. In or about and between May 2006 and June<br />

2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD DIMARIA and VINCENT DRAGONETTI,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to<br />

conduct financial transactions, in and affecting interstate<br />

commerce, which in fact involved the proceeds of specified<br />

unlawful activity, to wit: monies taken by extortion, in<br />

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951, knowing<br />

that the property involved in the financial transactions, to wit:<br />

proceeds of the extortion of John Doe #4 with respect to his<br />

excavation company and his work at the Liberty View Harbor<br />

construction site, represented the proceeds of some form of<br />

unlawful activity, knowing that the financial transactions were<br />

designed in whole and in pare to conceal and disguise the nature,<br />

location, source, ownership and control of the proceeds of the<br />

specified unlawful activity, in violation of Title 18, United<br />

79


Case 1 :OS·cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 80 of 106<br />

States Code, Section 1956 (a) (1) (B) (i), all in violation of Title<br />

18, United States Code, Section 1956(h).<br />

B. Money Laundering<br />

193. In or about and between May 2006 and June<br />

2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD DIMARIA and VINCENT DRAGONETTI,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct<br />

financial transactions, in and affecting interstate commerce,<br />

which in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful<br />

activity, to wit: monies taken by extortion, in violation of<br />

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951, knowing that the<br />

property involved in the financial transactions, to wit: proceeds<br />

of the extortion of John Doe #4 with respect to his excavation<br />

company and his work at the Liberty View Harbor construction<br />

site, represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity,<br />

knowing that the financial transactions were designed in whole<br />

and in part to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source,<br />

ownership and control of the proceeds of the specified unlawful<br />

activity, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections<br />

1956 (a) (1) (B) (i) and 2.<br />

80


Case 1:08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 81 of 106<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FORTY-SEVEN<br />

(Extortionate Collection of credit Conspiracy/<br />

Extortionate Collection of Credit - John Doe #10)<br />

194. The defendant RICHARD RANIERI committed the<br />

following acts, either one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Forty-Seven:<br />

A. Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy<br />

195. In or about and between May 2006 and September<br />

2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant RICHARD<br />

RANIERI, together with others, knowingly and intentionally<br />

conspired to use extortionate means to collect an extension of<br />

credit from John Doe #10, an individual whose identity is known<br />

to the grand jury, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Section 894 (a) (1) .<br />

B. Extortionate Collection of Credit<br />

196. In or about and between May 2006 and September<br />

2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant RICHARD<br />

RANIERI, together with others, knowingly and intentionally<br />

participated in the use of extortionate means to collect and<br />

attempt to collect an extension of credit from John Doe #10, in<br />

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a) (1) and<br />

2 .<br />

81


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 82 of 106<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FORTY-EIGHT<br />

(Extortionate Collection of Credit - John Doe #<strong>11</strong>)<br />

197. In or about and between June 2006 and<br />

September 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive,<br />

within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the.<br />

defendant RICHARD RANIERI, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally participated in the use of extortionate means to<br />

collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit from John<br />

Doe #<strong>11</strong>, an individual whose identity is known to the grand jury,<br />

in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a) (1)<br />

and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FORTY-NINE<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Attempted Extortion -<br />

Staten Island Recycling Facility)<br />

198. The defendants NICHOLAS COROZZO and LEONARD<br />

DIMARIA committed the following acts, either one of which alone<br />

constitutes Racketeering Act Forty-Nine:<br />

A. Extortion Conspiracy<br />

199. In or about and between June 2006 and January<br />

2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO and LEONARD DIMARIA, together with others, did<br />

knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and<br />

affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in<br />

commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed<br />

to obtain property, to wit: money, from the principals of a<br />

Staten Island recycling facility, the identity of which is known<br />

82


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05<strong>11</strong>6108 Page 84 of 106<br />

money from the principals of a Staten Island recycling facility,<br />

the identities of which are known to the grand jury, by<br />

extortion, to wit: by compelling and inducing the principals of<br />

the recycling facility to deliver such property to the defendants<br />

by instilling in them a fear that, if the property was not<br />

delivered, the defendants and others would (1) cause physical<br />

injury to those individuals in the future, (2) cause damage to<br />

those individuals's property, and (3) perform an act which would<br />

not in itself materially benefit the defendants, but which was<br />

calculated to harm those individuals materially with respect to<br />

their health, safety, business, calling, career, financial<br />

condition, reputation and personal relationships, in violation of<br />

New York Penal Law Sections 155.30(6), 155.05(2) (e) (i),<br />

155.05(2) (e) (ii), 155.05(2) (e) (ix), <strong>11</strong>0.00 and 20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FIFTY<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion<br />

John Doe #4 and John Doe #12)<br />

202. The defendants NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD<br />

DIMARIA and VINCENT DRAGONETTI, committed the following acts, any<br />

one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Fifty:<br />

A. Extortion Conspiracy<br />

203. In or about and between July 2006 and January<br />

2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD DIMARIA and VINCENT DRAGONETTI,<br />

84


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 85 of 106<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to<br />

obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles<br />

and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants<br />

and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money relating to<br />

John Doe #12, from John Doe #4, with the consent of John Doe #4,<br />

which consent was to be induced through wrongful use of actual<br />

and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of Title<br />

18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.<br />

B. Extortion<br />

204. In or about and between July 2006 and January<br />

2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD DIMARIA and VINCENT DRAGONETTI,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct,<br />

delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and<br />

commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and<br />

others obtained property, to wit: money relating to John Doe #12,<br />

from John Doe #4, with the consent of John Doe. #4, which consent<br />

was induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force,<br />

violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Sections 195l(a) and 2.<br />

C. New York Penal Law Extortion<br />

205. In or about and between July 2006 and January<br />

2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

85


case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 86 of 106<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD DIMARIA and VINCENT DRAGONETTI,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally steal<br />

property, to wit: money relating to John Doe #12, from John Doe<br />

#4, by extortion, to wit: by compelling and inducing John Doe #4<br />

to deliver such property to one or more of the defendants by<br />

instilling in him a fear that, if the property was not delivered,<br />

the defendants and others would (1) cause physical injury to John<br />

Doe #4 in the future, (2) cause damage to John Doe #4's property,<br />

and (3) perform an act which would not in itself materially<br />

benefit the defendants, but which was calculated to harm John Doe<br />

#4 materially with respect to his health, safety, business,<br />

calling, career, financial condition, reputation and personal<br />

relationships, in violation of New York Penal Law Sections<br />

155.30(6), 155.05(2)(e)(i), 155.05(2)(e)(ii), 155.05(2)(e)(ix)<br />

and 20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FIFTY-ONE<br />

(Bribery of a Labor Official/Honest Services Mail Fraud/<br />

Embezzlement of Union Assets - Laborers' Local 731)<br />

206. The defendant LEONARD DIMARIA committed the<br />

following acts, any one of which alone constitutes Racketeering<br />

Act Fifty-One:<br />

A. Bribery of a Labor Official<br />

207. On or about and between July 5, 2006 and<br />

<strong>No</strong>vember 27, 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive,<br />

86


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 87 of 106<br />

within the Eastern District of New York, the defendant LEONARD<br />

DIMARIA, together with others, knowingly and intentionally<br />

conferred and offered benefits to a labor official, that is<br />

Michael King, who is not named as a defendant in this<br />

Racketeering Act, with the intent to influence him in respect to<br />

his acts, decisions and duties as a labor official, in violation<br />

of New York Penal Law Section 180.15.<br />

B. Honest Services Mail Fraud<br />

208. On or about and between July 5, 2006 and<br />

<strong>No</strong>vember 27, 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive,<br />

within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the<br />

defendant LEONARD DIMARIA and Michael King, together with others,<br />

did knowingly and intentionally devise a scheme and artifice to<br />

defraud Local 731 and its members and to obtain property, to wit:<br />

a LIUNA membership card issued to a person not entitled to<br />

journeyworker membership in the union, by means of false and<br />

fraudulent pretenses, relationships and promises and to deprive<br />

them of the intangible right to the honest services of Michael<br />

King, including the honest services King owed to Local 731 and<br />

its members pursuant to Section 50l(a) of the LMRDA, the LIUNA<br />

Ethical Practices Code and the Uniform Local Union Constitution<br />

of the LIUNA.<br />

209. It was part of the scheme and artifice to<br />

defraud that Michael King agreed to accept and accepted a thing<br />

87


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 88 of 106<br />

of value from John Doe #4 with the intent to be influenced in his<br />

decisions regarding the admission of an individual to membership<br />

in Local 731 and the placement of the individual in a job.<br />

210. For the purpose of executing the scheme and<br />

artifice, the defendant LEONARD DIMARIA and Michael King and<br />

others did place and cause to be placed in authorized<br />

depositories for mail matter to be delivered by the United States<br />

Postal Service items of mail matter, to wit: written information<br />

pertaining to an individual proposed for membership in the LIUNA<br />

and a LIUNA membership card, in violation of Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Sections 1341, 1346 and 2.<br />

C. Embezzlement of Union Assets<br />

2<strong>11</strong>. On or about and between July 5, 2006 and<br />

<strong>No</strong>vember 27, 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

LEONARD DIMARIA, together with others including Michael King,<br />

while King was a person employed by Local 731, did embezzle,<br />

steal and unlawfully and willfully abstract and convert to their<br />

own use the moneys, funds, securities, property, and other assets<br />

of Local 731, to wit: an application document pertaining to an<br />

individual proposed for membership in the LIUNA and a LIUNA<br />

membership card, in exchange for approximately $4,000, in<br />

violation of Title 29, United States Code, Section 50l(c) and<br />

Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.<br />

88


case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16108 Page 89 of 106<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FIFTY-TWO<br />

(Illegal Gambling - Joker/Poker Machines)<br />

212. In or about and between <strong>No</strong>vember 2006 and<br />

February 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

VINCENT DRAGONETTI, together with others, knowingly and<br />

intentionally conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed<br />

and owned all or part of an illegal gambling business, to wit: a<br />

gambling business involving the use of joker/poker type gambling<br />

machines, which operated in violation of the laws of the State of<br />

New York, to wit: New York Penal Law Sections 225.30(a) (2) and<br />

20.00, which involved five or more persons who conducted,<br />

financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of<br />

such business and which remained in substantially continuous<br />

operation for a period in excess of 30 days and had a gross<br />

revenue of at least $2,000 in any single day, in violation of<br />

Title 18, United States Code, sections 1955 and 2.<br />

213.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FIFTY-THREE<br />

(Theft of Union Benefits/Mail Fraud)<br />

The defendant ANTHONY LICATA committed the<br />

following acts, either one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Fifty-Three:<br />

A. Theft of Union Benefits<br />

214. In or about and between January 2007 and<br />

December 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

89


case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 90 of 106<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

ANTHONY LICATA, together with others, did embezzle, steal and<br />

unlawfully and willfully abstract and convert to his own use,<br />

moneys, funds, securities, premiums, credits, property and other<br />

assets of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282<br />

Health and Welfare Benefit Fund, an employee welfare benefit plan<br />

subject to Title I of ERISA, and the International Brotherhood of<br />

Teamsters Local 282 Pension Fund, an employee pension benefit<br />

plan subject to Title I of ERISA, and of funds connected with<br />

such employee benefit plans, in violation of Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Sections 664 and 2.<br />

B. Mail Fraud<br />

215. In or about and between January 2007 and<br />

December 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

ANTHONY LICATA, together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the Local<br />

282 Funds and employees covered by labor contracts with Local 282<br />

who were participants in the Local 282 Funds and to obtain money<br />

and property, to which the Local 282 Funds and participants were<br />

entitled, by means of false and fraudulent pretenses,<br />

representations and promises, to wit: contributions to the Local<br />

282 Funds and the contractual right to have such contributions<br />

made on behalf of such employees.<br />

90


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 91 of 106<br />

216. It was part of the scheme and artifice that<br />

the defendant ANTHONY LICATA, together with others, would and did<br />

submit and cause to be submitted false information to the Local<br />

282 Funds regarding hours worked by employees covered by labor<br />

contracts with Local 282, claiming that certain hours had been<br />

worked by such employees who had, in fact, worked more hours,<br />

thereby under reporting and under paying contributions to the<br />

Local 282 Funds which were owed to the funds and required to be<br />

made on behalf of the employees.<br />

217. For the purpose of executing the scheme and<br />

artifice, the defendant ANTHONY LICATA and others did place and<br />

cause to be placed in authorized depositories for mail matter to<br />

be delivered by the United States Postal Service items of mail<br />

matter, to wit: remittance reports and checks payable to the<br />

Local 282 Funds, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Sections 1341 and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FIFTY-FOUR<br />

(Theft of Union Benefits/Mail Fraud)<br />

218. The defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO committed the<br />

following acts, either one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Fifty-Four:<br />

A. Theft of Union Benefits<br />

219. In or about and between January 2007 and<br />

December 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

91


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 92 of 106<br />

JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with others, did embezzle, steal and<br />

unlawfully and willfully abstract and convert to his own use,<br />

moneys, funds, securities, premiums, credits, property and other<br />

assets of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282<br />

Health and Welfare Benefit Fund, an employee welfare benefit plan<br />

subject to Title I of ERISA, and the International Brotherhood of<br />

Teamsters Local 282 Pension Fund, an employee pension benefit<br />

plan subject to Title I of ERISA, and of funds connected with<br />

such employee benefit plans, in violation of Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Sections 664 and 2.<br />

B. Mail Fraud<br />

220. In or about and between January 2007 and<br />

December 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the Local<br />

282 Funds and employees covered by labor contracts with Local 282<br />

who were participants in the Local 282 Funds and to obtain money<br />

and property, to which the Local 282 Funds and participants were<br />

entitled, by means of false and fraudulent pretenses,<br />

representations and promises, to wit: contributions to the Local<br />

282 Funds and the contractual right to have such contributions<br />

made on behalf of such employees.<br />

92


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 93 of 106<br />

221. It was part of the scheme and artifice that<br />

the defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with others, would and<br />

did submit and cause to be submitted false information to the<br />

Local 282 Funds regarding hours worked by employees covered by<br />

labor contracts with Local 282, claiming that certain hours had<br />

been worked by such employees who had, in fact, worked more<br />

hours, thereby under reporting and under paying contributions to<br />

the Local 282 Funds which were owed to the funds and required to<br />

be made on behalf of the employees,<br />

222. For the purpose of executing the scheme and<br />

artifice, the defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO and others did place and<br />

cause to be placed in authorized depositories for mail matter to<br />

be delivered by the United States Postal Service items of mail<br />

matter, to wit: remittance reports and checks payable to the<br />

Local 282 Funds, in violation of Title 18, united States Code,<br />

Sections 1341 and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FIFTY-FIVE<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion -<br />

staten Island Cement Company Sale)<br />

223. The defendants DOMENICO CEFALU, JOSEPH<br />

COROZZO, NICHOLAS COROZZO, JOHN D'AMICO and LEONARD DIMARIA<br />

committed the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Fifty-Five:<br />

93


case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05<strong>11</strong>6108 Page 94 of 106<br />

A. Extortion Conspiracy<br />

224. In or about and between March 2007 and January<br />

2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

DOMENICO CEFALU, JOSEPH COROZZO, NICHOLAS COROZZO, JOHN D'AMICO<br />

and LEONARD DIMARIA, together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce,<br />

and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by<br />

extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain<br />

property, to wit: money relating to the sale of John Doe #4's<br />

Staten Island cement company, from John Doe #4, with the consent<br />

of John Doe #4, which consent was to be induced through wrongful<br />

use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, in<br />

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 195l(a) and<br />

2 .<br />

B. Extortion<br />

225. In or about and between March 2007 and January<br />

2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

DOMENICO CEFALU, JOSEPH COROZZO, NICHOLAS COROZZO, JOHN D'AMICO<br />

and LEONARD DIMARIA, together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the<br />

movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion,<br />

in that the defendants and others obtained property, to wit:<br />

94


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 95 of 106<br />

money relating to the sale of John Doe #4' s S·taten Island cement<br />

company, from John Doe #4, with the consent of John Doe #4, which<br />

consent was induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened<br />

force, violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, United States<br />

Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.<br />

C. New York Penal Law Extortion<br />

226. In or about and between March 2007 and January<br />

2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

DOMENICO CEFALU, JOSEPH COROZZO, NICHOLAS COROZZO, JOHN D'AMICO<br />

and LEONARD DIMARIA, together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally steal property, to wit: money relating to the sale<br />

of John Doe #4's Staten Island cement company, from John Doe #4,<br />

by extortion, to wit: by compelling and inducing John Doe #4 to<br />

deliver such property to one or more of the defendants by<br />

instilling in him a fear that, if the property was not delivered,<br />

the defendants and others would (1) cause physical injury to John<br />

Doe #4 in the future, (2) cause damage to John Doe #4's property,<br />

and (3) perform an act which would not in itself materially<br />

benefit the defendants, but which was calculated to harm John Doe<br />

#4 materially with respect to his health, safety, business,<br />

calling, career, financial condition, reputation and personal<br />

relationships, in violation of New York Penal Law Sections<br />

95


Case 1:08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Fil.ed 05/16/08 Page 96 of 106<br />

15 5 . 3 0 ( 6) , 15 5 . 0 5 ( 2 ) (e) ( i) , 15 5 . 0 5 ( 2 ) (e) ( ii) , 15 5 . 0 5 ( 2) (e) ( ix)<br />

and 20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FIFTY-SIX<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion - Cement Powder Deliveries)<br />

227. The defendants NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD<br />

DIMARIA and VINCENT DRAGONETTI committed the following acts, any<br />

one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Fifty-Six:<br />

A. Extortion Conspiracy<br />

228. In or about and between October 2007 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD DIMARIA and VINCENT DRAGONETTI,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to<br />

obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles<br />

and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants<br />

and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: cash payments<br />

relating to John Doe #4's delivery of cement powder to the<br />

Liberty View Harbor construction site, from John Doe #4, with the<br />

consent of John Doe #4, which consent was to be induced through<br />

wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear,<br />

in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 195l(a)<br />

and 2.<br />

B. Extortion<br />

229. In or about and between October 2007 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

96


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 97 of 106<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD DIMARIA and VINCENT DRAGONETTI,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct,<br />

delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and<br />

commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and<br />

others obtained property, to wit: cash payments relating to John<br />

Doe #4's delivery of cement powder to the Liberty View Harbor<br />

construction site, from John Doe #4, with the consent of John Doe<br />

#4, which consent was induced through wrongful use of actual and<br />

·threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of Title 18,<br />

United States Code, Sections 195l(a) and 2.<br />

C. New York Penal Law Extortion<br />

230. In or about and between October 2007 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, LEONARD DIMARIA and VINCENT DRAGONETTI,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally steal<br />

property, to wit: cash payments relating to John Doe #4's<br />

delivery of cement powder to the Liberty View Harbor construction<br />

site, from John Doe #4, by extortion, to wit: by compelling and<br />

inducing John Doe #4 to deliver such property to one or more of<br />

the defendants by instilling in him a fear that, if the property<br />

was not delivered, the defendants and others would (1) cause<br />

physical injury to John Doe #4 in the future, (2) cause damage to<br />

97


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 98 of 106<br />

John Doe #4's property, and (3) perform an act which would not in<br />

itself materially benefit the defendants, but which was<br />

calculated to harm John Doe #4 materially with respect to his<br />

health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition,<br />

reputation and personal relationships,. in violation of New York<br />

Penal Law Sections 155.30(6), 155.05(2) (e) (i), 155.05(2) (e) (ii},<br />

155.05 (2) (e) (ix) and 20.00.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FIFTY-SEVEN<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Attempted Extortion -<br />

Staten Island Cement Company Sale)<br />

231. The defendants THOMAS CACCIOPOLI and JOSEPH<br />

SCOPO committed the following acts, any one of which alone<br />

constitutes Racketeering Act Fifty-Seven:<br />

A. Extortion Conspiracy<br />

232. In or about January 2008, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants THOMAS<br />

CACCIOPOLI and JOSEPH SCOPO, together with others, did knowingly<br />

and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect<br />

commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in<br />

commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed<br />

to obtain property, to wit: money relating to the sale of John<br />

Doe #15's Staten Island cement company, from John Doe #15, an<br />

individual whose identity is known to the grand jury, with the<br />

consent of John Doe #15, which consent was to be induced through<br />

98


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 99 of 106<br />

wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear,<br />

in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a)<br />

and 2.<br />

B. Attempted Extortion<br />

233. In or about January 2008, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants THOMAS<br />

CACCIOPOLI and JOSEPH SCOPO, together with others, did knowingly<br />

and intentionally attempt to obstruct, delay and affect commerce,<br />

and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by<br />

extortion, in that the defendants and others attempted to obtain<br />

property, to wit: money relating to the sale of John Doe #15's<br />

Staten Island cement company, from John Doe #15, with the consent<br />

of John Doe #15, which consent was induced through wrongful use<br />

of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation<br />

of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.<br />

C. New York Penal Law Attempted Extortion<br />

234. In or about January 2008, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants THOMAS<br />

CACCIOPOLI and JOSEPH SCOPO, together with others, did knowingly<br />

and intentionally attempt to steal property, to wit: money<br />

relating to an the sale of John Doe #15's Staten Island cement<br />

company, from John Doe #15, by extortion, to wit: by compelling<br />

and inducing John Doe #15 to deliver such property to the<br />

defendants by instilling in him a fear that, if the property was<br />

99


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 102 of 106<br />

within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the<br />

defendants SARAH DAURIA and JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with<br />

others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to commit<br />

offenses against the United States, to wit: embezzling, stealing<br />

and unlawfully abstracting and converting to their own use,<br />

moneys, funds, securities, premiums, credits, property and other<br />

assets of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282<br />

Health and Welfare Benefit Fund, an employee welfare benefit plan<br />

subject to Title I of ERISA, and the International Brotherhood of<br />

Teamsters Local 282 Pension Fund, an employee pension benefit<br />

plan subject to Title I of ERISA, the objects of said conspiracy<br />

being violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 664.<br />

238. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect<br />

its objectives, within the Eastern District of New York and<br />

elsewhere, the defendants SARAH DAURIA and JOSEPH SPINNATO,<br />

together with others, committed and caused to be committed, among<br />

others, the following:<br />

OVERT ACTS<br />

a. On or about June 21, 2005, the defendant<br />

SARAH DAURIA spoke with John Doe #4 concerning falsifying<br />

trucking records in connection with an audit by the International<br />

Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282.<br />

b. On or about June 29, 2005, the defendant<br />

SARAH DAURIA spoke with John Doe #4 concerning falsifying<br />

102


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 103 of 106<br />

trucking records in connection with an audit by the International<br />

Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282.<br />

c. On or about July 18, 2005, the defendant<br />

SARAH DAURIA spoke with the defendant JOSEPH SPINNATO and John<br />

Doe #4. concerning falsifying trucking records in connection with<br />

an audit by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282.<br />

d. On or about July 19, 2005, ·the defendant<br />

SARAH DAURIA spoke with John Doe #4 concerning falsifying<br />

trucking records in connection with an audit by the International<br />

Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282.<br />

e. On or about October 18, 2006, the defendant<br />

SARAH DAURIA spoke with John Doe #4 concerning falsifying<br />

trucking records in connection with an audit by the International<br />

Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282.<br />

f. On or about October 30, 2006, the defendant<br />

SARAH DAURIA spoke with John Doe #4 concerning falsifying<br />

trucking records in connection with an audit by the International<br />

Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282.<br />

g. On or about <strong>No</strong>vember 16, 2006, the defendant<br />

SARAH DAURIA spoke with John Doe #4 concerning falsifying<br />

trucking records in connection with an audit by the International<br />

Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282.<br />

§Jill. )<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 3551 et<br />

103


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05<strong>11</strong>6/08 Page 104 of 106<br />

COUNT FIVE<br />

(Theft of Union Benefits - Teamsters Local 282)<br />

239. On or about and between June 27, 2002 and<br />

January 31, 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive,<br />

within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the<br />

defendants SARAH DAURIA and JOSEPH SPINNATO, together with<br />

others, did knowingly and intentionally embezzle, steal and<br />

unlawfully abstract and convert to their own use, moneys, funds,<br />

securities, premiums, credits, property and other assets of the<br />

International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282 Health and<br />

Welfare Benefit Fund, an employee welfare benefit plan subject to<br />

Title I of ERISA, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters<br />

Local 282 Pension Fund, an employee pension benefit plan subject<br />

to Title I of ERISA.<br />

et seg;.)<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 664, 2 and 3551<br />

COUNT SIX<br />

(Mail Fraud Conspiracy - Teamsters Local 282)<br />

240. On or about and between June 27, 2002 and<br />

January 31, 2008, both dates 'being approximate and inclusive,<br />

within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the<br />

defendants JOSEPH SPINNATO and SARAH DAURIA, together with<br />

others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to devise a<br />

scheme and artifice to defraud Local 282 Funds and the employees<br />

covered by labor contracts with Local 282 who were participants<br />

104


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 105 of 106<br />

in the Local 282 Funds and to obtain money and property, to which<br />

the Local 282 Funds and participants were entitled, by means of<br />

false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, to<br />

wit: contributions to the Local 282 Funds and the contractual<br />

right to have such contributions made on behalf of such<br />

employees.<br />

241. It was part of the scheme and artifice that<br />

the defendants JOSEPH SPINNATO and SARAH DAURIA, together with<br />

others, would and did submit and cause to be submitted false<br />

information regarding hours worked by employees covered by labor<br />

contracts with Local 282, claiming that certain hours had been<br />

worked by such employees who had, in fact, worked more hours,<br />

thereby under reporting and under paying contributions to the<br />

Local 282 Funds which were owed to the funds and required to be<br />

made on behalf of the employees.<br />

242. For the purpose of executing the scheme and<br />

artifice, the defendants JOSEPH SPINNATO and SARAH DAURIA and<br />

others did place and cause to be placed in authorized<br />

depositories for mail matter to be delivered by the United States<br />

Postal Service items of mail matter, to wit: remittances to the<br />

Local 282 Funds, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Sections 1341 and 2.<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1349 and 3551<br />

105


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document690 Filed 05/16/08 Page 106 of 106<br />

COUNT "SEVEN<br />

(Mail Fraud - Teamsters Local 282)<br />

243. On or about and between June 27, 2002 and<br />

January 31, 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive,<br />

within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the<br />

defendants JOSEPH SPINNATO and SARAH DAURIA, together with<br />

others, did knowingly and intentionally devise a scheme and<br />

artifice to defraud Local 282 Funds and the employees covered by<br />

labor contracts with Local 28"2 who were participants in the Local<br />

282 Funds and to obtain money and property, to which, the Local<br />

282 Funds and participants were entitled, by means of false and<br />

fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, to wit:<br />

contributions to the Local 282 Funds and the contractual right to<br />

have such contributions made on behalf of such employees.<br />

244. It was part of the scheme and artifice that<br />

the defendants JOSEPH SPINNATO and SARAH DAURIA, together with<br />

others, would and did submit and cause to be submitted false<br />

information regarding hours worked by employees covered by labor<br />

contracts with Local 282, claiming that certain hours had been<br />

worked by such employees who had, in fact, worked more hours,<br />

thereby under reporting and under paying contributions to the<br />

Local 282 Funds which were owed to the funds and required to be<br />

made on behalf of the employees.<br />

245. For the purpose of executing the scheme and<br />

artifice, the defendants JOSEPH SPINNATO and SARAH DAURIA and<br />

106


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690-2 Filed 05/16/08 Page 3 of 69<br />

Greaseball," JOSEPH COROZZO, also known as "JoJo" and<br />

"Miserable," NICHOLAS COROZZO, also known as "Nicky," "Little<br />

Nicky," "The Doctor," "The Little Guy 1 " "Seymour,, "Grandpa" and<br />

"Grandfather," JOHN D'AMICO, also known as "Jackie the <strong>No</strong>se" and<br />

"Jackie," LEONARD DIMARIA, also known as "Lenny," "L," "The<br />

Conductor," "Nike," "Uncle" and "Fatso," ROBERT EPIFANIA, also<br />

known as "Bobby the Jew," LOUIS FILIPPELLI, ERNEST GRILLO, also<br />

known as "Ernie," "Eyes" and "Baldy," and VINCENT PACELLI, also<br />

known as "Vinny Basile," together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce,<br />

and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by<br />


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690-2 Filed 05/16108 Page 5 of 69<br />

MARIO CASSARINO, also known as "Lanza," and SAP.AH DAURIA,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to<br />

commit offenses against the United States, to wit: embezzling,<br />

stealing and unlawfully abstracting and converting to their own<br />

use, moneys, funds, securities, premiums, credits, property and<br />

other assets of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local<br />

282 Health and Welfare Benefit Fund, an employee welfare benefit<br />

plan subject to Title I of ERISA, and the International<br />

Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282 Pension Fund, an employee<br />

pension benefit plan subject to Title I of ERISA, the objects of<br />

said conspiracy being violations of Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Section 664.<br />

251. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect<br />

its objectives, within the Eastern District of New York and<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

elsewheL·e, the defendants MARIO CASSARINO, also known as uLanza 1<br />

and SARAH DAURIA, together with others, committed and caused to<br />

be committed, among others, the following:<br />

OVERT ArTS<br />

a. On or about December 8, 2004, the defendant<br />

MARIO CASSARINO spoke on the telephone with a trucker in his<br />

employ and instructed him not to sign into union jobs when<br />

possible.<br />

b. On or about December 9, 2004, the defendant<br />

MARIO CASSARINO spoke on the telephone with a trucker in his<br />

<strong>11</strong>1


Case 1:08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690-2 Filed 05<strong>11</strong>6/08 Page 6 of 69<br />

employ concerning the submission of paperwork and hours in<br />

connection with work on a union job.<br />

c. On or about February 1, 2005, the defendant<br />

SARAH DAURIA spoke with the defendant MARIO CASSARINO and<br />

informed him of steps she was taking to falsify trucking records.<br />

d. on or about February 3, 2005, the defendant<br />

SARAH DAURIA represented a trucking company controlled by MARIO<br />

CASSARINO in an audit performed by the International Brotherhood<br />

ot Teamsters Local 282.<br />

e. On or about February 3, 2005, the defendant<br />

SARAH DAURIA spoke to the defendant MARIO CASSARINO about the<br />

results of the audit.<br />

seq.)<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 3551 et<br />

COUNT THIRTEEN<br />

(Theft of Union Benefits - Teamsters Local 282)<br />

252. In or about and between <strong>No</strong>vember 2004 and<br />

December 2005, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

MARIO CASSARINO, also known as "Lanza," and SARAH DAURIA,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally embezzle,<br />

steal and unlawfully abstract and convert to their own use,<br />

moneys, funds, securities, premiums, credits, property and other<br />

assets of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282<br />

Health and Welfare Benefit Fund, an employee welfare benefit plan<br />

<strong>11</strong>2


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690-2 Filed 05<strong>11</strong>6108 Page 7 of 69<br />

subject to Title I of ERISA, and the International Brotherhood of<br />

Teamsters Local 282 Pension Fund, an employee pension benefit<br />

plan subject to Title I of ERISA.<br />

et §.lliJ. )<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 664, 2 and 3551<br />

COQNT FOURTEEN<br />

(Mail Fraud Conspiracy - Teamsters Local 282)<br />

253. In or about and between <strong>No</strong>vember 2004 and<br />

December 2005, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

MARIO CASSARINO, also known as "Lanza," and SARAH DAURIA,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to<br />

devise a scheme and artifice to defraud Local 282 Funds and the<br />

employee=::; cuvt::Led by la.bo::r: contractEJ with Local 282 who were<br />

participants in the Local 282 Funds and to obtain money and<br />

property, to which the Local 282 Funds and participants were<br />

entitled 1<br />

by means of false and fraudulent pretensesr<br />

representations and promises, to wit: contributions to the Local<br />

282 Funds and the contractual right to have such contributions<br />

made on behalf of such employees.<br />

254. It was part of the scheme and artifice that<br />

the defendants MARIO CASSARINO and SARAH DAURIA, together with<br />

others, would and did submit and cause to be submitted false<br />

information regarding hours worked by employees covered by labor<br />

contracts with Local 282, claiming that certain hours had been<br />

<strong>11</strong>3


Case i :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690-2 Filed 05<strong>11</strong>6/08 Page 12 of 69<br />

COUNT NINETEEN<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy - Mayrich Construction Site)<br />

262. On or about and between April 1, 2005 and June<br />

28, 2005, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant GINO<br />

CRACOLICI, together with others, did knowinaly and intentionally<br />

conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement<br />

of artlcles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that<br />

the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, t.o wit: cash<br />

and check payments relating to John Doe #4's work at a Mayrich<br />

Construction site, from John Doe #4, with the consent of John Doe<br />

#4, which consent was to be induced through wrongful use of<br />

actual and threatened force, violence and fear.<br />

3551 .e.!;. seq.)<br />

(Title 18, UniLed States Code, Sections 195l(a) and<br />

COUNT TWENTY<br />

(Extortion - Mayrich Construction Site)<br />

263. On or about and between April 1, 2005 and June<br />

28, 2005, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant GINO<br />

CRACOLICI, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and<br />

affect commerce, and the movement of art-.icles and commodities ln<br />

commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and others obtained<br />

property, to wit: cash and check payments relating to John Doe<br />

#4's work at a Mayrich Construction site, from John Doe #4, with<br />

-----·--··-<br />

<strong>11</strong>8


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690-2 Filed 05/16/08 Page 23 of 69<br />

for approximately $2,000, the objects of said conspiracy being<br />

violations of Title 29, United States Code, Section 501(c).<br />

280. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect<br />

its objectives, the defendants JOSEPH AGATE, NICHOLAS CALVO and<br />

LEONARD DIMARIA and others committed and caused to be committed,<br />

among others, the following:<br />

OVERT ACTS<br />

a. On or about September 16, 2005, the defendant<br />

LEONARD DIMARIA asked John Doe #4 to acquire union work for the<br />

defendant JOSEPH AGATE.<br />

b. On or about March 6, 2006, the defendant<br />

NICHOLAS CALVO met with John Doe #4 to discuss obtaining union<br />

work for the defendant JOSEPH AGATE.<br />

c. On or about March 15, 2006, the defendant<br />

NICIIOLAG CALVO, Louis Mosca and John Doe #4 met to discuss<br />

obtaining union work for the defendant JOSEPH AGATE.<br />

d. On or about March 28, 2006, the defendants<br />

JOSEPH AGATE and NICHOLAS CALVO, Louis Mosca and John Doe #4 met<br />

to discuss the union work Mosca was to secure for AGATE.<br />

e. On or about July 14, 2006, John Doe #4 paid<br />

Louis Mosca $2,000 in cash in return for Mosca's assistance in<br />

acquiring union work for the defendant JOSEPH AGATE.<br />

seq.)<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 3551 et<br />

129


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690.-2 Filed 05/16108 Page 26 of 69<br />

nd MICHAEL URCIUOLI, also known as "Mike the Electrician,"<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to<br />

obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles<br />

and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants<br />

and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money related to<br />

John Doe #4's work for Granite Halmar, from John Doe #4, with the<br />

consent of John Doe #4, which consent was to be induced through<br />

wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.<br />

3551 et Jl:Sill.)<br />

December 2 1<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, sections l95l (a) emu<br />

COUNT THIRTY-SEVEN<br />

(Attempted Extortion - Granite Halmar)<br />

285. On or about and between <strong>No</strong>vember <strong>11</strong>, 2005 and<br />

2005, both dates being approximate and inclusive,<br />

within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the<br />

defendants VINCENT AMARANTE, also known as "Elmo," STEVEN SABELLA<br />

and MICHAEL URCIUOLI, algo known aR "Mik


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690-2 Filed 05/16108 Page 31 of 69<br />

''Cheeks 1 " "Anthony Firehawk, <strong>11</strong> ''Anthony Nighthawk, <strong>11</strong> ''Nighthawk"<br />

and "Firehawk," and WILLIAM SCOTTO, also known as "Billy" and<br />

"Big Billy," together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay ;md affect commerce,<br />

and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by<br />

extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain<br />

property, to wit: money, from John Doe #4, with the consent of<br />

John Doe #4, which consent was to be induced through wrongful use<br />

of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.<br />

3551 et seq.)<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 195l(a) and<br />

COUNT FORTY-THREE<br />

(Attempted Extortion - Cracolici Dispute)<br />

291. On or aoout and between January 1, 2006 and<br />

March 17, 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive,<br />

within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the<br />

defendants GINO CRACOLICI, ANTHONY LICATA, olso known oa<br />

"Cheeks," "Anthony Firehawk," "Anthony Nighthawk," "Nighthawk"<br />

and "Firehawk," and WILLIAM SCOTTO, also known as "Billy" and<br />

"Big Billy, If together with ot.hPrP, nid knowingly and<br />

intentionally attempt to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and<br />

the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by<br />

extortion, in that the defendants and others attempted to obtain<br />

137


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document690-2 Filed 05<strong>11</strong>6/08 Page 36 of 69<br />

COUNT FORTY-NINE<br />

(Theft of Union Benefits - Teamsters Local 282)<br />

298. In or about. and bbruary 2006 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

ANTHONY LICATA. also known as "Cheeks," "Anthony Firehawk,"<br />

"Anthony Nighthawk," "Nighthawk" and "Firehawk," together with<br />

others, did embezzle, steal and unlawfully and willfully abstract<br />

and convert to their own use, moneys, funds, securities,<br />

premiums, credits, property and other assets of the International<br />

Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282 Health and Welfare Benefit<br />

Fund, an employee welfare benefit plan subject to Title I of<br />

ERISA, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 282<br />

Pension FunrJ, an employee pension benefit plan eubject to Title I<br />

of ERISA, and of funds connected with such employee benefit<br />

plans.<br />

{Title 18, United States Code, Sections 664, 2 and 3551<br />

COUNT FIFTY<br />

(Mail Fraud Conspiracy - Teamsters Local 282)<br />

299. In or about and between February 2006 and<br />

January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within<br />

the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant<br />

ANTHONY LICATA, also known as "Cheeks," "Anthony Firehawk,"<br />

"Anthony Nighthawk," "Nighthawk" and "Firehawk," together with<br />

142


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690-2 Filed 05/16/08 Page 41 of 69<br />

COUNT I'IPTY-POUR<br />

(Extortionate Collection of Credit - John Doe #7)<br />

307. In or about and between March 2006 and April<br />

2006, both dates being approximate and inc.lusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants JAMES<br />

OUTERIE, also known as "Big Guy," "Tall Guy, u ''Treetop," "Top, u<br />

"Jamesie" and "Bob," and RICHARD RANIERI, also known as "Fat<br />

Richie," "Big Richie," "Joe," "Richie" and "Rich," together with<br />

others, knowingly and intentionally participated in the use of<br />

extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension<br />

of credit from John Doe #7.<br />

and 3551 et seq.)<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894 (a) (1), 2<br />

COUNT FIFTY-FIVE<br />

(Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy - John Doe #8)<br />

308. In or about and between MaLch 2006 and May<br />

2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants JAMES<br />

OU'l'ERIE, also known as "Big Guy 1 "<br />

"Tall Guy, "<br />

"Treetop," "Top,"<br />

''Jamesie" and "Bob," RICHARD RANIERI, also known as "Fat Richie,"<br />

"Big Richie," "Joe," "Richie" and ''Rich, u and TARA VEGA, also<br />

known as "Big Tara, " together with others, knowingly and<br />

147


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690-2 Filed 05/16/08 Page 47 of 69<br />

knowing that t-.he property involved in the financial transactions,<br />

to wit: proceeds of the extortion of John Doe #4 with respect to<br />

his excavation company and his work at the Liberty View Harbor<br />

construction site, representerl the proceeds of oome form of<br />

unlawful activity, knowing that the financial transactions were<br />

designed in whole and in part to conceal and disguise the nature,<br />

location, source, ownership and control of the prnce.eds of the<br />

specified unlawful activity.<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections<br />

1956 (a) (1) (B) (i), 2 and 3551 et lliill·)<br />

COUNT SIXTY-THREE<br />

(Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy - John Doe #10)<br />

316. In or about and between May 2006 and September<br />

2006, both dates !Jeing approximace and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant RICHARD<br />

RANIERI, also known as "Fat Richie, ' 1 ''Big Richie/" "Joe,"<br />

\\Richie" and "Rich," together with other;:s, knuwlngly and<br />

intentionally conspired to use extortionate means to collect an<br />

extension of credit from John Doe #10.<br />

3551 et seq.)<br />

('T'irle 18, United States Code, Sections 894 (a) (1) and<br />

COUNT SIXTY-FOUR<br />

(Extortionate Collection of Credit - John Doe #10)<br />

317. In or about and between May 2006 and September<br />

2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

153


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690-2 Filed 05/i 6108 Page 49 of 69<br />

NICHOLAS CORO?:ZO, also known as "Nicky," "Little Nicky," "The<br />

Doctor," ''The Little Guy, <strong>11</strong> "Seymour," ''Grandpa" and<br />

"Grandfather," and LEONARD DIMARIA, also known as "Lenny," "L,"<br />

"The Conductor," "Nike, '' ''TTncle <strong>11</strong> and "Fatoo 1 <strong>11</strong> together..- wlth<br />

others, did knowingly and. intentionally conspire to obstruct,<br />

delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and<br />

commodities in commerce, by extortion, in thi'lt. the defendanto and<br />

others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, from the<br />

principals of a Staten Island recycling facility, the identity of<br />

which is known to the grand jury, with the consent of the<br />

principals, which consent was to be induced through wrongful use<br />

of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.<br />

3551 ti .§.llil.)<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 195l(a) and<br />

COUNT SIXTY-SEVEN<br />

(Attempted Extortion - Recycling Facility)<br />

320. In or about and betw.,en June 2006 and January<br />

2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, also known as "Nicky 1 " "Little Nicky,', "The<br />

Doctor," ''The Little Guy, <strong>11</strong> ''Seymour," ''Grandpa <strong>11</strong> and<br />

"Grandfather," and LEONARD DIMARIA, also known as "Lenny," "L,"<br />

''The Conductor," 1 'Nike 1 " "Unclef/ and "Fat so," together with<br />

others, did knowingly and intentionally attempt to obstruct,<br />

delay and attect commerce, and the movement of articles and<br />

155


case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690-2 Filed 05/16108 Page 52 of 69<br />

COUNT SEVENTY<br />

(Honest Services Mail Fraud Conspiracy - Laborers' Local 731)<br />

323, On or about


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690-2 Filed 05/16108 Page 54 of 69<br />

LIUNA Ethic


case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690-2 Filed 05/16108 Page 56 of 69<br />

d. On or about July 19, 2006, the defendant<br />

MICHAEL KING met with John Doe #4 to discuss John Doe #4's<br />

attempt to obtain union work for John Doe #14.<br />

e. On or about July 19, 2006, the defendant<br />

MICHAEL KING again told John Doe #4 that the cost of obtaining<br />

union work for John Doe #14 was $4,000.<br />

f. On or about <strong>No</strong>vembPr 3, 2006, John Doe #4<br />

paid the defendant MICHAEL KING $4,000 for obtaining union work<br />

for John Doe #14.<br />

seq. )<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 3551 et<br />

COUNT SEVENTY-THREE<br />

(Embezzlement of Union Assets - Laborers' Local 731)<br />

331. on or about and between July 5, 2006 and<br />

<strong>No</strong>vember 27, 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive,<br />

within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the<br />

defendanto NICHOLAS CALVO, LEONARD DIMARIA, alSO known as<br />

"Lenny/" ''L," "The Conductor," \'Nike," "Uncle" and "Fatso," and<br />

MICHAEL KING, together with others, while the defendant MICHAEL<br />

KING was a pArson employed by Local 731, did embezzle, :;Leal and<br />

unlawfully and willfully abstract and convert to their own use<br />

the moneys, funds, securities, property, and other assets of<br />

162


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690-2 Filed 05/16/08 Page 59 of 69<br />

COUNT SEVENTY SIX<br />

(Extortion - Staten Island Cement Company Sale)<br />

334. Tn or about and between March 2007 and January<br />

2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

DOMENICO CEFALU, also known as "Italian Dom,!' "Domi.nic," "Dam<br />

from 18th Avenue" and "The Greaseball," JOSEPH COROZZO, also<br />

known as "JoJo" and "Miserable," NICHOLAS COROZZO, also known as<br />

\\Nicky," \\Little Nicky," "The Doctor," "The Little Guy,"<br />

"Seymour," "Grandpa" and "Grandfather," JOHN D'AMICO, also known<br />

as "Jackie the <strong>No</strong>se" and "Jackie," LEONARD DIMARIA, also known as<br />

1 'Lenny, <strong>11</strong> ''L 1 " "The Conductor," "Nike, <strong>11</strong> '\Uncle" and \\Fatso," and<br />

AUGUSTUS SCLAFANI, also known as "Gus" and "Gus Boy," together<br />

with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and<br />

affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in<br />

commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and others<br />

obt.ained property, to wit: money relating to the sale of Jolw Doe<br />

#4's Staten Island cement company, from John Doe #4, with the<br />

consent of John Doe #4, which consent was induced through<br />

wrongful use of actual and thrAat.ened force, violence and fear.<br />

3551 et §.gg.)<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a), 2 and<br />

165


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690-2 Filed 05/16108 Page 61 of 69<br />

NICHOLAS COROZZO, also known as "Nicky," "Little Nicky," "The<br />

Doctor I" "The Little Guy," \\Seymour r u "Grandpa" and<br />

"Grandfather," LEONARD DIMARIA, also known as "Lenny," "L," "The<br />

Conductor, <strong>11</strong> "Nike, <strong>11</strong> "Uncle <strong>11</strong> and "Fatsar'' and VINCENT DRAGONETTI,<br />

also known as '-'Vinny, <strong>11</strong> "Skinny, fJ "Mike," "Mikey" and \\Marbles,''<br />

did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect<br />

commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in<br />

commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and others<br />

obtained property, to wit: cash payments relating to John Doe<br />

#4's delivery of cement powder to the Liberty View Harbor<br />

construction site, from John Doe #4, with the consent of John Doe<br />

#4, which consent was induced through wrongful use of actual and<br />

threatened force, violence and fear.<br />

3551 et seg.)<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 195l(a), 2 and<br />

COUNT SEVENTY-NINE<br />

{Extortion Conspiracy - Staten Island Cement Company Sale)<br />

337. In or about January 2008, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants THOMAS<br />

CACCIOPOLI, also known as ' 1 Tommy Sneakers,,, and JOSEPH SCOPO,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to<br />

obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles<br />

and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants<br />

and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money from John Doe<br />

#13 in connection with the sale of a Staten Island cement<br />

167


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690-2 Filed 05/16/08 Page 66 of 69<br />

upon their conviction of any ouch offense, the government will<br />

seek forfeiture in accordance with Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Section 981 (a) (1) (C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section<br />

246l(c), which require any person convicted of such offenses to<br />

forfeit any property constituting or derived from proceeds<br />

obtained directly or indirectly as a result of such offenses,<br />

including but not limited to' t.h


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 690-2 Filed 05/16/08 Page 67 of 69<br />

United States Code, Section 246l(c), to seek forfeiture of any<br />

other property of such defendants up to the value of the<br />

forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation.<br />

(Title 28, United Sti3tes Code, Section 246l(c); Title<br />

18, United States Code, Section 981(a) (1) (C); Title 21, United<br />

States Code, Section 853(p))<br />

345.<br />

CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION FOR<br />

COUNTS SEVENTY-FIVE AND SEVENTY-SIX<br />

The United States hereby gives notice to the<br />

defendants charged in Counts Seventy-Five and Seventy-Six that,<br />

upon their conviction of any such offense, the government will<br />

seek forfeiture in accordance with Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Section 981 (a) (1) (C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section<br />

2461(c), which require any person convicted of such offenses to<br />

forfeit any property constituting or derived from proceeds<br />

obtained directly or indirectly as a result of such offenses,<br />

including but not limited to: the sum ot at least approximately<br />

Eight Thousand Dollars ($8,000).<br />

346. If any of the above-described forfeitable<br />

property, as a result of any act or omission of the dcfcndanto;<br />

diligence;<br />

with, a third party;<br />

a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due<br />

b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited<br />

173


EXHIBIT 2


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07/03/08 Page 1 of 23<br />

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT<br />

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK<br />

------------------------------X Docket#<br />

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 08-cr-76 (JBW) (RML)<br />

- versus - U.S. Courthouse<br />

Brooklyn, New York<br />

ANTHONY LICATA, Defendant May 30, 2008<br />

------------------------------X<br />

A<br />

p<br />

TRANSCRIPT OF CRIMINAL CAUSE FOR PLEADING<br />

BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT M. LEVY<br />

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE<br />

p E A R A N c E S:<br />

For the Government: Benton Campbell, Esq.<br />

United States Attorney<br />

BY: Joey Lipton, Esq.<br />

Assistant U.S. Attorney<br />

225 Cadman Plaza East<br />

Brooklyn, New York <strong>11</strong>201<br />

For the Defendant: Charles Carnesi, Esq.<br />

Official Transcriber: Rosalie Lombardi<br />

L.F.<br />

Transcription Service: Transcription Plus II<br />

821 Whittier Avenue<br />

New Hyde Park, N.Y. <strong>11</strong>040<br />

(516) 358-7352<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings recorded by electronic sound-recording,<br />

transcript produced by transcription service


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07103/08 Page 2 of 23<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

1 THE CLERK: 08-cr-76, United States v. Agate,<br />

2 et al., the defendant's name is Anthony <strong>Licata</strong>, Criminal<br />

3 Cause for Pleading.<br />

4 Please state their names for the record.<br />

5 MR. LIPTON: Good morning, your Honor.<br />

6 Joey Lipton for the government.<br />

7<br />

8<br />

9<br />

THE COURT: Good morning.<br />

MR. CARNESI: Good morning, your Honor.<br />

Charles Carnesi appearing for Mr. <strong>Licata</strong>.<br />

10 THE COURT: Good morning. Good morning, sir.<br />

<strong>11</strong> Can you state your full name for the record.<br />

12 THE DEFENDANT: Anthony <strong>Licata</strong>.<br />

13 THE COURT: Thank you.<br />

14 A N T H 0 N Y L I C A T A ,<br />

15 called as a witness, having been first duly sworn,<br />

16 was examined and testified as follows:<br />

17 THE COURT: What is your client going to do<br />

18 this morning?<br />

19 MR. CARNESI: Your Honor, it's our intention to<br />

20 enter a plea pursuant to a plea agreement which I believe<br />

21 has been filed this morning with the Court to Count 42 in<br />

22 full satisfaction of the superseding indictment. I don't<br />

23 know that officially he has been arraigned on the<br />

24 superseding indictment.<br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

2


1<br />

2<br />

Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07/03/08 Page 3 of 23<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

MR. LIPTON: I believe he has not, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: Sir, have you seen the superseding<br />

3 indictment in this case?<br />

4 (Microphone not positioned properly)<br />

5 THE DEFENDANT: (inaudible)<br />

6<br />

7 lawyer?<br />

8<br />

9<br />

10<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

12<br />

13<br />

charges against you?<br />

publicly?<br />

THE COURT: Did you go over it with your<br />

THE DEFENDANT: (inaudible)<br />

THE COURT: Do you understand all of the<br />

THE DEFENDANT: (inaudible).<br />

THE COURT: Would you like me to read it<br />

14 MR. CARNESI: <strong>No</strong>, your Honor, that's not<br />

15 necessary.<br />

16 THE COURT: I have here a consent form in which<br />

17 you have agreed to have me hear your plea and make a<br />

18 recommendation to Judge Weinstein.<br />

19<br />

20<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: Did you sign that today after<br />

21 discussion with your lawyer?<br />

22<br />

23<br />

24 what you are doing?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: (inaudible)<br />

THE COURT: Do you have any questions about<br />

25 THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

3


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07/03/08 Page 4 of 23<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

1 THE COURT: And you understand, you don't have<br />

2 to do this if you would prefer to have Judge Weinstein;<br />

3 no one would be upset.<br />

4 THE DEFENDANT: (inaudible) .<br />

5 THE COURT: Okay. Are you making this decision<br />

6 voluntarily?<br />

7 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.<br />

8 THE COURT: I am going to ask you a number of<br />

9 questions. You will be answering under oath which means<br />

10 you have to answer honestly, and completely. If you make<br />

<strong>11</strong> any false statements, the government could prosecute you<br />

12 for perjury.<br />

13 Do you understand?<br />

14<br />

15<br />

16<br />

17<br />

18<br />

19<br />

20<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.<br />

THE COURT: How old are you, sir?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: 39.<br />

THE COURT:<br />

that you finished?<br />

What is the last level of school<br />

THE DEFENDANT: (inaudible) high school.<br />

THE COURT: Are you now or have you recently<br />

21 been under the care of a doctor or a psychiatrist?<br />

22<br />

23<br />

24<br />

25<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

THE COURT: Is that picking up well?<br />

THE CLERK: (inaudible) .<br />

(Microphone repositioned)<br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

4


1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

8<br />

9<br />

10<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07/03/08 Page 5 of 23<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

THE COURT: In the past 24 hours, have you<br />

taken any narcotic drugs, alcoholic beverages, medicine<br />

or pills of any kind?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

THE COURT: Have you ever been hospitalized or<br />

treated for drug addiction, alcoholism or a mental or<br />

emotional problem?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

THE COURT: Is your mind clear now?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: Do you understand why you're here<br />

12 and what's happening here today?<br />

13<br />

14<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: Counsel, have you discussed this<br />

15 matter fully with your client?<br />

16<br />

17<br />

18<br />

19<br />

20<br />

MR. CARNESI: Yes, we have.<br />

THE COURT: Is he capable of understanding the<br />

nature of these proceedings?<br />

MR. CARNESI: Absolutely.<br />

THE COURT: Do you have any doubts as to his<br />

21 competence to plead at this time?<br />

22<br />

23<br />

MR. CARNESI: <strong>No</strong>ne whatsoever.<br />

THE COURT: Have you advised him of the<br />

24 possible penalties in this case?<br />

25 MR. CARNESI: Yes, your Honor.<br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

5


10<br />

Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07/03/08 Page 6 of 23<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

1 THE COURT: Have you explained to him how<br />

2 sentencing works, how the guidelines are calculated and<br />

3 that there is no guarantee at this time what his sentence<br />

4 will be?<br />

5 MR. CARNESI: Yes, your Honor, we have<br />

6 discussed all of that.<br />

7 THE COURT: Do you think he understood<br />

8 everything you discussed?<br />

9 MR. CARNESI: I'm sure he did.<br />

<strong>11</strong> said?<br />

12<br />

13<br />

14 he said?<br />

THE COURT: Sir, did you hear what your lawyer<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: Do you agree with everything that<br />

15 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

16 THE COURT: Have you discussed your case fully<br />

17 with him?<br />

18 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

19 THE COURT: Are you satisfied to have him<br />

20 represent you?<br />

21 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

22 THE COURT: Would the government mind putting<br />

23 on the record what it is that it intends to prove or<br />

24 would prove if this case went to trial?<br />

25 MR. LIPTON: Yes, Judge. Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> has been<br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

6


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07/03/08 Page 7 of<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

1 charged in Racketeering Act 37, 41 and 53 pursuant to the<br />

2 RICO conspiracy charged in Count One. He has also been<br />

3 charged in Counts 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52.<br />

4 And it's my understanding that he is going to be pleading<br />

5 guilty today to Count 42 which is an extortion conspiracy<br />

6 charge.<br />

7 The government would prove that the defendant<br />

8 agreed with others to (1) obtain property of another<br />

9 person with the consent of that person, (2) to induce the<br />

10 victim's consent by wrongfully using or threatening to<br />

<strong>11</strong> use force, violence or fear and (3) that interstate or an<br />

12 item moving in interstate commerce was delayed,<br />

13 obstructed, or effected in some way or degree by the<br />

14 defendant's actions.<br />

15 Specifically, the government would prove that<br />

16 from approximately January 1, 2006 to March 17, 2006, the<br />

17 defendant and others conspired to use extortionate means<br />

18 to secure payments from an individual referred to as John<br />

19 Doe #4 and the superseding indictment with respect to a<br />

20 dispute with a co-defendant by the name of Gino Cracolici<br />

21 over trucking work in connection with dumping rights at a<br />

22 New Jersey landfill.<br />

23<br />

24<br />

25<br />

government said?<br />

THE COURT: Any quest ons about what the<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

7


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07/03/08 Page 8 of<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

1 MR. CARNESI: Judge, we've heard the<br />

2 government's proffer. As indicated in the plea<br />

3 agreement, we do dispute whether or not there was any<br />

4 intention or any threat of violence. Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> was<br />

5 prepared today to allocute to the fact that he understood<br />

6 that the victim as alleged in this count of the<br />

7 indictment was led to believe that he would have suffered<br />

8 economic harm in the event that he did not accede and<br />

9 agree to pay this debt.<br />

10 MR. LIPTON: And, Judge, just so the record is<br />

<strong>11</strong> clear, and I an say at the end I understand that that's<br />

12 what Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> will be allocuting to, but that does not<br />

13 limit the government's ability to argue at sentencing<br />

14 that the threatened or actual use of fear went beyond<br />

15 economic harm to actual physical harm.<br />

16 THE COURT: Right. Okay.<br />

17<br />

18<br />

MR. CARNESI: Thank you, Judge.<br />

THE COURT: And this will come out at --<br />

19 MR. CARNESI: This is an argument that we'll<br />

20 deal with at sentencing<br />

21<br />

22<br />

THE COURT: Yes.<br />

MR. CARNESI: Thank you.<br />

23 THE COURT: I think it will. Okay.<br />

24 Do you have any questions about the colloquy<br />

25 between the lawyers?<br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

8


1<br />

Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07/03108 Page 9 of 23<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

2 THE COURT: Okay.<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

3 <strong>No</strong>w I know your lawyer has explained to you<br />

4 very carefully what your rights are and what you'll give<br />

5 up if you plead guilty. I am going to go through them<br />

6 again. If you have any questions, feel free to consult<br />

7 your lawyer or ask me.<br />

8 Mr. <strong>Licata</strong>, do you understand that you have a<br />

9 right to plead not guilty?<br />

10 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

<strong>11</strong> THE COURT: And do you understand that if you<br />

12 continue to plead not guilty, you have a right under the<br />

13 Constitution and laws of this country to a speedy, public<br />

14 trial by a jury with the help of your lawyer on the<br />

15 charges contained in the superseding indictment.<br />

16 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

17 THE COURT: And do you understand that if you<br />

18 go to trial, you would be presumed innocent. That means<br />

19 that all of the burden is on the government. You don't<br />

20 have to present any evidence at all. The government has<br />

21 to prove your guilty on each charge that it wishes to<br />

22 present to the jury. It has to do that with competent,<br />

23 admissible evidence and it has to prove its case beyond a<br />

24 reasonable doubt.<br />

25 Do you understand?<br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

9


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07/03/08 Page <strong>11</strong> of 23<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

1 THE COURT: And if you chose not to testify,<br />

2 because you have a right not to incriminate yourself, the<br />

3 trial judge would instruct the jurors that they couldn!t<br />

4 hold that against you and assume that you're guilty just<br />

5 because you didn't present evidence in your own defense.<br />

6 Do you understand?<br />

7 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

8 THE COURT: <strong>No</strong>w, if you plead guilty here today<br />

9 and if Judge Weinstein accepts your guilty plea, you will<br />

10 be giving up all of those rights. You won't have a<br />

<strong>11</strong> trial. You won't be able to keep your Fifth Amendment<br />

12 privilege. I will have to ask you some questions to make<br />

13 sure that you are guilty if you plead guilty. And Judge<br />

14 Weinstein will simply enter a judgment that you're guilty<br />

15 based on the statements you make here today.<br />

16 Do you understand?<br />

17<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

18 THE COURT: And just to be clear, if you do<br />

19 plead guilty, I am going to have to ask you some<br />

20 questions so I can be sure that you, in fact, are guilty<br />

21 of Count 42. If you do plead guilty, you will have to<br />

22 answer my questions and admit your guilt. When you do<br />

23 that, you will give up your constitutional right to<br />

24 remain silent.<br />

25 Do you understand?<br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

<strong>11</strong>


1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07/03/08 Page 12 of 23<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: Okay. So any questions?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

THE COURT: Are you willing to give up your<br />

5 right to a trial, your Fifth Amendment privilege and the<br />

6 other rights?<br />

7<br />

8<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: So let's turn to the plea<br />

9 agreement. Is this the only current, existing agreement<br />

10 between the parties?<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

12<br />

13<br />

14<br />

15<br />

16<br />

17<br />

18<br />

19<br />

20<br />

21<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Judge.<br />

MR. CARNESI: Yes, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: And I understand you have some<br />

disagreements as well.<br />

the --<br />

agreement.<br />

MR. LIPTON: Yes, which have been made out in<br />

THE COURT: Would you just explain them?<br />

MR. CARNESI: They are reflected in the plea<br />

THE COURT: All right. And so everything that<br />

is applicable to this case with respect to the plea and<br />

22 the sentencing is in this plea agreement.<br />

23 MR. CARNESI: Yes, your Honor, there is one<br />

24 other item which my understanding is, the government has<br />

25 agreed to place on the record and that is Mr. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

12


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07103108 Page 13 of 23<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

1 there is a possibility that one defendant will remain and<br />

2 go to trial, Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> is not to be subpoenaed to<br />

3 testify during that trial.<br />

4 THE COURT: Against that particular defendant?<br />

5 MR. CARNESI: Yes, your Honor.<br />

6 THE COURT: Okay.<br />

7 MR. LIPTON: And the government agrees to that,<br />

8 your Honor.<br />

9 THE COURT: Do we need to put the defendant's<br />

10 name on the record or is that not necessary?<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

12 Judge.<br />

13<br />

MR. CARNES I: I don't believe that's necessary,<br />

MR. LIPTON: We can. Gino Cracolici would be<br />

14 the defendant that we're referring to, your Honor.<br />

15 THE COURT: Okay. All right.<br />

16 So, Mr. <strong>Licata</strong>, this plea agreement is dated<br />

17 May 30 which is today and it appears to have your<br />

18 signature. Did you sign it here today?<br />

19 THE DEFENDANT: Yeah.<br />

20 THE COURT: Before you signed it, did you go<br />

21 over it carefully with your lawyer and was he able to<br />

22 answer all of your questions?<br />

23<br />

24<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: Is there anything that you don't<br />

25 understand that you would like to have your lawyer<br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

13


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07/03/08 Page 14 of 23<br />

1 clarify for you?<br />

2 THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

3 THE COURT: So according to this agreement, if<br />

4 you plead guilty to Count 42, you are facing from zero to<br />

5 20 years in prison and if you're sentenced to prison,<br />

6 when you're released, there is a period of supervised<br />

7 release of up to three years.<br />

8 Do you understand that?<br />

9<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

10 THE COURT: And if you violate any term of your<br />

<strong>11</strong> release, you could be sentenced to prison for up to two<br />

12 additional years, separate and apart from the sentence<br />

13 you get on this case or the time you've already served on<br />

14 supervised release.<br />

15 Do you understand that?<br />

16 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

17 THE COURT: There is also a possible fine of up<br />

18 to $250,000 or twice the gross profits.<br />

19 Do you understand that?<br />

20<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

21 THE COURT: There is a requirement that there<br />

22 be restitution and the Court has to determine what the<br />

23 amount is.<br />

24 Do you understand that?<br />

25 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

14


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07103108 Page 15 of 23<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

1 THE COURT: There is a $100 fee called a<br />

2 special assessment that you have to pay at the time of<br />

3 sentencing.<br />

4 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

5 THE COURT: <strong>No</strong>w paragraph 2 discusses the<br />

6 sentencing guidelines. In deciding how to sentence you,<br />

7 Judge Weinstein is going to calculate what your guideline<br />

8 range is. Your guideline range is something that the<br />

9 government has estimated in paragraph 2. Their estimate<br />

10 is right in there.<br />

<strong>11</strong> Your lawyer may have given you his estimate of<br />

12 your guideline range but the final judge of the guideline<br />

13 range is Judge Weinstein. He is the only one who can<br />

14 make that decision and, in fact, he doesn't even know<br />

15 what your guideline range is at this point. He hasn't<br />

16 made that decision. So anything anyone has told you<br />

17 about the sentencing guideline range is just an estimate.<br />

18 Do you understand?<br />

19 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

20 THE COURT: After Judge Weinstein calculates<br />

21 the guideline range, he will then decide whether to<br />

22 sentence you within the guidelines or to give you a<br />

23 sentence that is outside of the guidelines. It could be<br />

24 above the guideline range or below the guideline range or<br />

25 it could be right in the middle.<br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

15


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07/03/08 Page 16 of 23<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

1 Do you understand that?<br />

2 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

3 THE COURT: So when you decide today whether or<br />

4 not to plead guilty, you will be pleading guilty without<br />

5 knowing for sure what the guideline range is or what your<br />

6 ultimate sentence will be.<br />

7 Do you understand that?<br />

8 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

9<br />

10<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

12<br />

THE COURT: Okay.<br />

Do you have any questions?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

THE COURT: Is there anything you would like to<br />

13 discuss with your lawyer at this point?<br />

14<br />

15<br />

16<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

THE COURT: Okay.<br />

So I am going to ask Mr. Lipton to just put on<br />

17 the record the government's estimate of the guideline<br />

18 range.<br />

19 MR. LIPTON: Yes, Judge, it's 18 to 24 months,<br />

20 assuming the defendant becomes eligible for two global<br />

21 points which is dependent on a certain number of<br />

22 defendants taking pleas by a certain date and then he is<br />

23 also eligible for an additional point if even more<br />

24 defendants plead guilty by a certain date.<br />

25 MR. CARNESI: That's my understanding as well,<br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

16


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07103108 Page 17 of 23<br />

1 Judge.<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

THE COURT: Okay.<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

And do you understand that?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

5 THE COURT: Yes. All right. And then at the<br />

6 end of paragraph 2, there is the statement that the<br />

7 defendant agrees to the above-guidelines calculation<br />

8 except that you may challenge the applicability of the<br />

9 two point enhancement pursuant to guideline<br />

10 2 (b) (3.2) (B) (1) which the government has the right to<br />

<strong>11</strong> oppose. And that's what we just discussed earlier.<br />

12<br />

13<br />

14<br />

15<br />

16 that?<br />

MR. CARNESI: Yes, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: All right.<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: Do you have any questions about<br />

17 THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

18 THE COURT: Also you agree not to move for a<br />

19 downward departure from the guidelines.<br />

20 something you all discussed as well?<br />

21<br />

22<br />

23<br />

24<br />

25<br />

MR. CARNESI: Yes, your Honor.<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

Is that<br />

THE COURT: <strong>No</strong>w in paragraph 4, this has to do<br />

with your waiver of an appeal. In exchange for whatever<br />

is in the plea agreement, you have agreed not to appeal<br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

17


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07103/08 Page 18 of 23<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

1 or otherwise challenge through a habeas petition or any<br />

2 other vehicle, your conviction or sentence if the Court<br />

3 gives you a term of imprisonment of 27 months or less.<br />

4 Do you understand that?<br />

5<br />

6<br />

10<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: Okay.<br />

7 Is there anything else that anyone would like<br />

8 to put on the record with respect to the plea agreement?<br />

9 MR. CARNES I: <strong>No</strong>t by the de fen dan t, your Honor.<br />

MR. LIPTON: <strong>No</strong>, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: Do you have any questions about the<br />

12 plea agreement or anything else having to do with your<br />

13 case?<br />

14<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

15 THE COURT: Is there anything you would like to<br />

16 speak to your lawyer about?<br />

17 THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

18 THE COURT: Ask me about?<br />

19<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

20 THE COURT: <strong>No</strong>. Okay. <strong>No</strong>body wants my advice.<br />

21 Are you ready to plead?<br />

22 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

23 THE COURT: Counsel, is there any reason why<br />

24 your client should not plead guilty to Count 42?<br />

25 MR. CARNESI: <strong>No</strong>, your Honor.<br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

18


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07/03/08 Page 19 of 23<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

1 THE COURT: How do you plead to Count 42;<br />

2 guilty or not guilty?<br />

3 THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.<br />

4 THE COURT: Are you pleading guilty<br />

5 voluntarily?<br />

6 THE DEFENDANT: Yeah.<br />

7 THE COURT: Has anybody forced you or<br />

8 threatened you?<br />

9<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

10 THE COURT: Except for whatever is in the plea<br />

<strong>11</strong> agreement, has anyone made you promises that made you<br />

12 agree to plead guilty?<br />

13 THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

14 THE COURT: Has anyone promised you what your<br />

15 sentence will be?<br />

16 THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

17 THE COURT: So I understand you've prepared a<br />

18 statement?<br />

19 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

20 THE COURT: Okay. If you would please, it's<br />

21 your turn to read that.<br />

22 THE DEFENDANT: On about -- on or about January<br />

23 1, 2006 and March 17, 2006, within the Eastern District<br />

24 of New York and elsewhere, I knowingly and intentionally<br />

25 attempted to obstruct, delay, and effect commerce in the<br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

19


1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07/03/08 Page 20 of 23<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

movement of articles and commodities and commerce in that<br />

I obtained the consent of John Doe #4 to pay a debt owed<br />

to Gino Cracolici. In doing so, I understood that John<br />

Doe #4 believed that if he didn't pay, he would suffer<br />

economic harm.<br />

THE COURT: <strong>No</strong>w you state in the eastern<br />

7 district, do you remember which borough that was? Was it<br />

8 Brooklyn? Staten Island?<br />

9 THE DEFENDANT: Staten Island, I guess.<br />

10 THE COURT: Okay. And this was somewhere<br />

<strong>11</strong> between January 1, 2006 and March 17, 2006?<br />

12 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

13 THE COURT: What else would the government like<br />

14 to put on the record?<br />

15 MR. LIPTON: Just that that activity would<br />

16 effect interstate commerce, your Honor.<br />

17<br />

18<br />

19<br />

20<br />

21<br />

THE COURT: I think he said that.<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: And you are prepared to prove that.<br />

MR. LIPTON: Yes, we're prepared to prove that.<br />

THE COURT: Okay. And I will just incorporate<br />

22 by reference what you said earlier as to what you were<br />

23 prepared to prove with respect to the elements of the<br />

24 statute. Okay.<br />

25 Is there anything else the defendant would put<br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

20


1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07/03/08 Page 21 of<br />

on the record?<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

MR. CARNESI: <strong>No</strong>, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: The government?<br />

MR. LIPTON: <strong>No</strong>, Judge.<br />

THE COURT: All right.<br />

Mr. <strong>Licata</strong>, I find that you're acting<br />

7 voluntarily, that you thoroughly understand your rights,<br />

8 the charges against you and the rights you're giving up<br />

9 by pleading guilty. You understand the consequences of a<br />

10 guilty plea, including the possible sentence and fine and<br />

<strong>11</strong> other penalties, restitution. You also understand that<br />

12 there is no guarantee what your sentence will be. And I<br />

13 find that based on your statements here today, that there<br />

14 is a factual basis for your plea. That you did, in fact,<br />

15 do what's charged in Count 42. So I, therefore,<br />

16 recommend that the Court accept your plea of guilty to<br />

17 Count 42.<br />

18<br />

19<br />

MR. CARNESI: Thank you.<br />

THE COURT: Mr. <strong>Licata</strong>, a sentencing date has<br />

20 been set of December 29, 2008 at 10 a.m. before<br />

21 Judge Weinstein.<br />

22 THE COURT: So, I am sure you know this but the<br />

23 next step for you is to go to the probation officer.<br />

24 They will conduct their presentence investigation. You<br />

25 have a right to have your lawyer present when you're<br />

Transcription Plus II Rosalie Lombardi<br />

21


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 895 Filed 07/03/08 Page of 23<br />

1 interviewed. Okay?<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

8<br />

9<br />

10<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

12<br />

13<br />

14<br />

15<br />

16<br />

17<br />

18<br />

19<br />

20<br />

21<br />

22<br />

23<br />

24<br />

25<br />

<strong>Pro</strong>ceedings<br />

MR. CARNESI: Thank you<br />

THE COURT: Thank you.<br />

MR. LIPTON: Thank you,<br />

(Matter concluded)<br />

-ooo-<br />

Transcription Plus II<br />

very much.<br />

Judge.<br />

Rosalie Lombardi<br />

22


EXHIBIT 3


Case 1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 1415 Filed 10<strong>11</strong>6/08 Page 3 of 5<br />

AO 2458 (Rev, 06/05) Judgment in a Criminal Case<br />

Sheet 3 -Supervised Release<br />

DEFENDANT; ANTHONY LICATA<br />

CASE NUMBER; CROB-76 (JBW)<br />

SUPERVISED RELEASE<br />

Upon release from imprisonment, the defendant shall be on supervised release for a term of;<br />

Judgment-Page 3 of 8<br />

3 YEARS. THE DEFT. IS NOT TO HAVE ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH MEMBERS OF ORGANIZED CRIME OR<br />

CRIMINALS, UNLESS THEY ARE RELATED BY A NATURAL RELATIONSHIP, MARRIAGE OR OTHERWISE.<br />

The defendant must report to the probation office in the district to which the defendant is released within 72 hours of release from the<br />

custody of the Bureau of Prisons.<br />

The defendant shall not commit another federal, state or local crime.<br />

The defendant shall not unlawfully possess a controlled substance. The defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled<br />

substance. The defendant shall submit to one drug test within 15 days of release from imprisonment ana at least two periodic drug tests<br />

thereafter, as determined by the court.<br />

D The above drug testing condition is suspended; based on the court's detennination that the defendant poses a low risk of<br />

future substance abuse. (Check, if applicable.)<br />

!¥( The defendant shall not possess a firearm, ammunition, destructive device, or any other dangerous weapon. (Check, if applicable.)<br />

0 The defendant shall cooperate in the collection of DNA as directed by the probation officer. (Check, if applicable.)<br />

0 The defendant shall register with the state sex offender registration agency in the state where the defendant resides, works, or is a<br />

student, as directed by the probation officer. (Check, if applicable.)<br />

0 The defendant shall participate in an approved program for domestic violence, (Check, if applicable.)<br />

If this judgment imposes a fme or restitution, it is a condition of supervised release that the defendant pay in accordance with the<br />

Schedule of Payments slieet of this judgment.<br />

The defendant must comply with the standard conditions that have been adopted by this court as well as with any additional conditions<br />

on the attached page.<br />

1)<br />

2)<br />

3)<br />

4)<br />

5)<br />

6)<br />

7)<br />

8)<br />

9)<br />

10)<br />

<strong>11</strong>)<br />

12)<br />

13)<br />

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION<br />

the defendant shall not leave the judicial district without the permission of the court or probation officer;<br />

the defendant shall report to the probation officer and shall submit a truthful and complete written report within the first five days of<br />

each month;<br />

the defendant shall answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and follow the instructions of the probation officer;<br />

the defendant shall support his or her dependents and meet other family responsibilities;<br />

the defendant shall work regularly at a lawful occupation, unless excused by the probation officer for schooling, training, or other<br />

acceptable reasons;<br />

the defendant shall notify the probation officer at least ten days prior to any change in residence or employment;<br />

the defendant shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol and shall not purchase, possess, use, distribute, or administer any<br />

controlled substance or any paraphernalia related to any controlled substances; except as prescribed by a physician;<br />

the defendant shall not frequent places where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or administered;<br />

the defendant shall not associate with any eersons engaged in criminal activity and shall not associate with any person convicted of a<br />

felony, unless granted permission to do so by the probanon officer;<br />

the defendant shall P:ermit a probation officer to visit him or her at any time at home or elsewhere and shall permit confiscation of any<br />

contraband observe(! in plain view of the probation officer;<br />

the defendant shall notify the probation officer within seventy-two honrs ofbeing arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer;<br />

the defendant shall not enter into any agreement to act as an informer or a special agent of a law enforcement agency without the<br />

permission of the court; and ·<br />

as directed by the probation officer, the defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned by the defendant's criminal<br />

record or P.ersonal history or characteristics and shall permit the probation officer to make such notifications and to confirm the<br />

defendant s compliance with such notification requirement.


AO 2458 (Rev. 06/05) Judgment tn a Criminal Case<br />

Sheet 3A-SllpeiVised Release<br />

DEFENDANT: ANTHONY LICATA<br />

CASE NUMBER: CR08-76 (JBW)<br />

1 :08-cr-00076-JBW Document 1415 Filed 10/16/08 Page 4 of 5<br />

ADDITIONAL SUPERVISED RELEASE TERMS<br />

Judgment Page 4 of 8<br />

THE DEFENDANT SHALL SUBMIT HIS PERSON, RESIDENCE, PLACE OF BUSINESS, VEHICLE, OR ANY OTHER<br />

PREMISES UNDER HIS CONTROL TO A SEARCH ON THE BASIS THAT THE PROBATION OFFICER HAS<br />

REASONABLE BELIEF THAT CONTRABAND OR EVIDENCE OF A VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE<br />

RELEASE MAY BE FOUND; THE SEARCH MUST ALSO BE CONDUCTED IN A REASONABLE MANNER AT A<br />

REASONABLE TIME; FAILURE TO SUBMIT TO A SEARCH MAY BE GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION; THE<br />

DEFENDANT SHALL INFORM ANY OTHER RESIDENTS THAT THE PREMISES MAY BE SUBJECT TO SEARCH<br />

PURSUANT TO THIS CONDITION.


EXHIBIT 4


1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT<br />

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK<br />

2 -------------------------------------x<br />

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,<br />

3<br />

Plaintiff,<br />

4<br />

versus<br />

5<br />

ANTHONY LICATA,<br />

6<br />

Defendant.<br />

7 -------------------------------------x<br />

Docket <strong>No</strong>.:<br />

08 CR 76<br />

U.S. Courthouse<br />

225 Cadman Plaza East<br />

Brooklyn, NY <strong>11</strong>201<br />

August 20, 2008<br />

8 10:46 a.m.<br />

10<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

12<br />

13<br />

14<br />

15<br />

16<br />

17<br />

18<br />

19<br />

20<br />

21<br />

22<br />

23<br />

9 Transcript of Criminal Cause for Sentencing<br />

Before: HONORABLE JACK B. WEINSTEIN,<br />

District Court Senior Judge<br />

For the Government:<br />

For the Defendant:<br />

Also Present:<br />

Court Reporter:<br />

APPEARANCES<br />

BENTON J. CAMPBELL, ESQ.<br />

United States Attorney<br />

Eastern District of New York<br />

271 Cadman Plaza East<br />

Brooklyn, New York <strong>11</strong>201<br />

BY: JOSEPH LIPTON, ESQ.,<br />

Assistant U.S. Attorney<br />

CHARLES F. CARNESI, ESQ.<br />

1225 Franklin Avenue, Sutie 325<br />

Garden City, New York <strong>11</strong>590<br />

SINDEE HAASNOOT, <strong>Pro</strong>bation<br />

MRS. LICATA<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR<br />

Official Court Reporter<br />

225 Cadman Plaza East<br />

Brooklyn, New York <strong>11</strong>201<br />

Phone: 718-613-2601<br />

Fax: 718-613-2631<br />

24 <strong>Pro</strong>ceedings recorded by mechanical stenography. Transcript<br />

produced by computer-aided transcription.<br />

25<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

1


1<br />

2<br />

(In open court.)<br />

(Defendant present.)<br />

USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

3 THE CLERK: Criminal cause for sentencing, USA versus<br />

4 Anthony <strong>Licata</strong>.<br />

5<br />

6<br />

MR. LIPTON: Joey Lipton for the government.<br />

MR. CARNESI: Good morning, your Honor. Charles<br />

7 Carnesi appearing for Mr. <strong>Licata</strong>.<br />

8<br />

9<br />

10 morning, your Honor.<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

12<br />

13 here, sir?<br />

14<br />

15<br />

16<br />

17<br />

18<br />

THE CLERK: <strong>Pro</strong>bation?<br />

MS. HAASNOOT: Sindee Haasnoot from probation. Good<br />

THE COURT: Good morning, everybody.<br />

Do you have a family member or members you want up<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: Who?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: My wife is here.<br />

THE COURT: You can come up, madam.<br />

Swear the defendant, please.<br />

19 THE CLERK: Sir, could you please stand up and raise<br />

20 your right hand.<br />

21 (Anthony <strong>Licata</strong> was duly sworn.)<br />

22<br />

23<br />

24<br />

25<br />

THE CLERK: Please state your name.<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Anthony <strong>Licata</strong>.<br />

THE COURT: Do you require an interpreter, sir?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

2


1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

THE COURT: Is that so?<br />

MR. CARNESI: Yes, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: Have you read the presentence report and<br />

4 had it explained to you by your attorney?<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

8<br />

9<br />

10<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

12<br />

13<br />

14<br />

15<br />

16<br />

17<br />

18<br />

19<br />

20<br />

21<br />

22 recording?<br />

23<br />

24<br />

25<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: Are you ready to be sentenced?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: You are a citizen of what country?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: United States.<br />

THE COURT: <strong>No</strong> deportation.<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

THE COURT: Are you satisfied with your attorney?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.<br />

THE COURT: Does the attorney have a conflict?<br />

MR. CARNESI: <strong>No</strong>, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: Any unresolved motions?<br />

MR. LIPTON: <strong>No</strong>t from the government, your Honor.<br />

MR. CARNESI: <strong>No</strong>, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: Are you seeking a downward departure?<br />

MR. CARNESI: <strong>No</strong>, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: Does anybody object to the video<br />

MR. CARNESI: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

MR. LIPTON: <strong>No</strong>, judge.<br />

THE COURT: Did both sides use the proper guidelines<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

3


1 manual?<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

MR. CARNESI: I believe that's correct.<br />

MR. LIPTON: Yes, judge.<br />

THE COURT: The Court observes the defendant's<br />

5 demeanor. He appears to be capable of understanding these<br />

6<br />

7<br />

10<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

12<br />

13<br />

14<br />

proceedings. Does counsel agree?<br />

MR. CARNESI: Yes, your Honor.<br />

8 THE COURT: Are you under the influence of any drug or<br />

9 narcotic?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

THE COURT: Is your mind clear?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.<br />

THE COURT: Victim statement?<br />

MR. LIPTON: Yes, judge. That would be addressed at<br />

15 the time of restitution in September.<br />

16 THE COURT: You understand you may be subject to<br />

17 restitution. That means giving back to the victim what the<br />

18 victim lost, but I'm not prepared at this moment to decide<br />

19 restitution because it involves a lot of other people and<br />

20 overlapping claims.<br />

21 Do you understand that?<br />

22<br />

23<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: So we are putting it off, as we can, for<br />

24 90 days. Do you approve?<br />

25 MR. CARNESI: Yes, your Honor.<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

4


1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

THE COURT: And the hearing is on September -­<br />

THE CLERK: 16th.<br />

THE COURT: 16th, which will be an evidentiary<br />

4 hearing. Do you understand that?<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7 May 30, 2008.<br />

8 (Pause.)<br />

9<br />

10<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

12<br />

13<br />

14<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.<br />

THE COURT: Sir, would you look at the transcript of<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: It is accurate?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yeah, I went over it, yes.<br />

THE COURT: Was everything you said there truthful?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: Did anybody make any threats or promises<br />

15 to induce you to say what you said?<br />

16<br />

17<br />

18<br />

19<br />

20<br />

21<br />

22<br />

23<br />

24 accept the plea.<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

THE COURT: Was it entirely voluntary?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: Do you still wish to plead guilty?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: How do you plead, guilty or not guilty?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.<br />

THE COURT: Based on the information before me, I<br />

25 Do you want a Fatico hearing?<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

5<br />

.


1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

MR. CARNESI: <strong>No</strong>, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: Do you want a jury trial on any issue?<br />

MR. CARNESI: <strong>No</strong>, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: You may address the Court yourself, you<br />

5 can have witnesses, and your attorney will address the Court.<br />

6 Do you understand?<br />

7<br />

8<br />

9 presentence report?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.<br />

THE COURT: Anything you want to contest in the<br />

10 MR. CARNESI: Yes, your Honor. We have made reference<br />

<strong>11</strong> to it in our letter.<br />

12 THE COURT: All right. Make it orally again. The<br />

13 letter of August --<br />

14<br />

15<br />

16 August 3.<br />

17<br />

18<br />

19<br />

20<br />

MR. CARNESI: 13th.<br />

THE COURT: 13th. I have the government's letter of<br />

MR. CARNESI: Your Honor, beginning at page 12.<br />

THE COURT: Marked as Court Exhibit 1, the transcript.<br />

Yes?<br />

21 presentence report --<br />

22<br />

23<br />

MR. CARNESI: Referring to paragraph two of the<br />

THE COURT: Page 12?<br />

24 the presentence report.<br />

MR. CARNESI: Page 12 of our letter, paragraph two of<br />

25 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Paragraph two. Yes?<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

6


USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

1 MR. CARNESI: There is something in the.report<br />

2 referring to the three-point reduction, which was of course<br />

3 part of Mr. <strong>Licata</strong>'s plea agreement. Obviously, we believe<br />

4 that the plea agreement should control and that Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> is<br />

5 entitled to the three-point reduction. I don't believe that<br />

6 the government has any objection to that.<br />

7<br />

8<br />

THE COURT: What's the government's position?<br />

MR. LIPTON: That's correct. We have no objection to<br />

9 that. We stand by the plea agreement, and we believe the three<br />

10 points for global disposition is appropriate.<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

12<br />

13<br />

THE COURT: <strong>Pro</strong>bation objects?<br />

MS. HAASNOOT: Yes, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: I will grant it.<br />

14 Any particularized findings of fact or law that either<br />

15 side wishes?<br />

16 MR. CARNESI: Your Honor, there are additional<br />

17 objections that we have to the presentence report.<br />

18<br />

19<br />

20<br />

21 moment.<br />

THE COURT: All right. I will do those in a moment.<br />

MR. CARNESI: Okay. <strong>No</strong>, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: I will deal with the calculations in a<br />

22 Any obstruction of justice here?<br />

23<br />

24<br />

MR. LIPTON: <strong>No</strong>, judge.<br />

THE COURT: Where would the defendant like to be<br />

25 incarcerated, if he is incarcerated?<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

7


1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

THE COURT: Do you own a car?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: What?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Mercedes.<br />

THE COURT: What year?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: 2001 and 2001 and 2002.<br />

THE COURT: I will decide a fine, if any, when we get<br />

8 to computations. And restitution we will put off, correct?<br />

9<br />

10<br />

MR. CARNESI: Yes, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: Is there a limitation on his right to<br />

<strong>11</strong> appeal within the agreement?<br />

12<br />

13 or below.<br />

14<br />

15<br />

16<br />

17<br />

18<br />

19<br />

20<br />

21<br />

22<br />

23<br />

24<br />

25<br />

MR. LIPTON: Yes, judge, if the sentence is 27 months<br />

THE COURT: Are you working?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: What are you doing?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Construction.<br />

THE COURT: How much are you bringing home every week?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Twelve hundred.<br />

THE COURT: Your wife working?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

THE COURT: One count?<br />

MR. LIPTON: Just pled guilty to one count.<br />

We move to dismiss the remaining counts.<br />

THE COURT: $100 special assessment payable forthwith,<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

9<br />

.


1 no interest.<br />

2 Counts dismissed.<br />

USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

3 Supervised release three years, 5Dl.2.3.<br />

4 Have you ever been treated for a psychiatric problem?<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

8<br />

9<br />

10<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

12<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

THE COURT: Drugs?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

THE COURT: Alcohol?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

THE COURT: Gambling?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

THE COURT: You are to have no guns during the period<br />

13 of supervised release, take no drugs except by prescription,<br />

14 and have nothing to do with any members of this gang or any<br />

15 criminals. Do you understand?<br />

16<br />

17<br />

18<br />

19<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.<br />

THE COURT: Do you want me to read those conditions?<br />

MR. CARNESI: <strong>No</strong>, your Honor.<br />

MR. LIPTON: Your Honor, can we also ask that<br />

20 associates of <strong>org</strong>anized crime be made part of that prohibition.<br />

21 THE COURT: You may not have anything to do with any<br />

22 associates or members of <strong>org</strong>anized crime. Do you understand?<br />

23<br />

24<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.<br />

THE COURT: And the probation service may enter your<br />

25 home at any time to search without notice. Do you understand<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

10


1 that?<br />

2<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

3 THE COURT: Did the government take property when you<br />

4 were arrested?<br />

5<br />

6<br />

10<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

12<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

THE COURT: All right. Let's look at the<br />

7 calculations, and then I will hear you on Booker and 3553(a).<br />

8 There is no question about 18 as the base offense<br />

9 level, is there?<br />

MR. CARNESI: Yes, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: That's correct?<br />

MR. CARNESI: That's correct. However, your Honor, we<br />

13 did that calculation. There is an issue with regard to a<br />

14 two-point aggravating factor alleging a threat of violence<br />

15 either express or implied.<br />

16<br />

17<br />

THE COURT: I will hear you.<br />

MR. CARNESI: Okay. Well, judge, again, referring to<br />

18 the letter that we submitted on August 13, when pursuant to<br />

19 Mr. <strong>Licata</strong>'s allocution he allocuted specifically to a<br />

20 perceived threat of economic harm, he acknowledged that by<br />

21 virtue of the different business dealings between him and the<br />

22 cooperating witness, Mr. Vollaro, that it was reasonable for<br />

23 Mr. Vollaro to have feared that if he took a position contrary<br />

24 to paying Mr. Cracolici, who was the primary individual<br />

25 involved in this dispute, that he was likely to suffer some<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

<strong>11</strong>


USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

1 kind of economic crime because in fact he and Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> had<br />

2 some business dealings prior to Mr. Cracolici approaching<br />

3 Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> to secure this payment.<br />

4 The actual meetings and the discussions involving<br />

5 Mr. Vollaro paying Mr. Cracolici<br />

6 THE COURT: That's number four in the indictment.<br />

7 That's number four in the indictment?<br />

8<br />

9<br />

MR. LIPTON: Yes, judge.<br />

THE COURT: Referred to --<br />

10 MR. CARNESI: Right, yes, your Honor, referred to<br />

<strong>11</strong> there as the Cracolici dispute.<br />

12 The conversations themselves were recorded. It's<br />

13 beyond argument that there was never any expressed threat of<br />

14 harm or violence in any of those conversations, which leaves us<br />

15 with the government's argument that there may have been some<br />

16 kind of implied threat. For the reasons that we set forth in<br />

17 our letter, we don't believe that could have been the case.<br />

18 There are a number of factors that I think speak to that issue.<br />

19 First and foremost, judge, before Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> ever<br />

20 became involved in attempting to resolve this dispute on behalf<br />

21 of Mr. Cracolici, Mr. Cracolici had had a similar dispute<br />

22 involving some moneys that Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> owed him. Mr. Cracolici<br />

23 approached Mr. Vollaro to assist him in collecting those<br />

24 moneys. Mr. Vollaro did act on behalf of Mr. Cracolici, and<br />

25 ultimately Mr. Cracolici received his payment from Mr. <strong>Licata</strong>.<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

12


USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

1 Under those circumstances, judge, I think that it's<br />

2 pretty clear that if Mr. Vollaro felt the confidence to try to<br />

3 approach Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> on Mr. Cracolici' s benefit, behalf rather,<br />

4 that it's very unlikely that he in any way feared any implied<br />

5 threat from Mr. <strong>Licata</strong>. He was the one who initially went to<br />

6 Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> to get those moneys.<br />

7 Beyond that, judge, if the Court can refer to certain<br />

8 exhibits which were provided to us in the form of these<br />

9 recordings, dealing with exactly that position regarding this<br />

10 implied threat, you can see that from the context of the<br />

<strong>11</strong> relationship between Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> and Mr. Vollaro it was again<br />

12 highly unlikely that there was any possible fear on<br />

13 Mr. Vollaro's part of express violence. First there are<br />

14 conversations, which we submitted to the Court in our letter,<br />

15 involving Mr. Vollaro's relationship with other individuals,<br />

16 other defendants in this indictment. And clearly, on page 4 of<br />

17 our letter we refer to his conversations with another<br />

18 individual, who the government in their submissions has<br />

19 referred to as a very powerful faction within this<br />

20 <strong>org</strong>anization.<br />

21 That individual is, for lack of a better term,<br />

22 basically bolstering Mr. Vollaro's position, and he is telling<br />

23 Mr. Vollaro in essence we are a hundred percent behind you, you<br />

24 have the ability to talk directly as if you are speaking for<br />

25 me, anybody has any problems or difficulties with your position<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

13


1 you have them come to me.<br />

USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

2 So when Mr. Vo1laro sits down to have a conversation<br />

3 with Mr. <strong>Licata</strong>, he has the confidence that he has the support<br />

4 of this, according to the government, very powerful member<br />

5<br />

6<br />

within this <strong>org</strong>anization. So again, he has no reason to fear<br />

that he is going to be hurt by Mr. <strong>Licata</strong>. To the contrary, he<br />

7 has the confidence that he is basically in a stronger position<br />

8 than Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> at that time.<br />

9 The second point, judge, is on page 7. We refer to<br />

10 another conversation in which Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> is referred to by<br />

<strong>11</strong> Mr. Vollaro rather disparagingly, indicated to a third<br />

12 individual indicating that again he is not afraid to speak that<br />

13 way of Mr. <strong>Licata</strong>, he doesn't have any fear of Mr. <strong>Licata</strong>, and<br />

14 he doesn't consider Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> a threat or a powerful<br />

15 individual within that <strong>org</strong>anization.<br />

16 On page 8, judge, we refer to another conversation<br />

17 between Mr. Vollaro and one of the FBI agents, who apparently<br />

18 was working with him in this investigation, and that<br />

19<br />

20<br />

conversation is recorded as well. In that conversation<br />

Mr. Vollaro indicates a number of things. One, that he himself<br />

21 is in a position where he believes he is about to be proposed<br />

22 for induction into this <strong>org</strong>anization. So he has a very<br />

23 confident attitude towards his position, but, more importantly,<br />

24 he indicates here to the agent handling him that he is not<br />

25 concerned of any threat of violence, that people within this<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

14


USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

1 <strong>org</strong>anization are not, whatever the history may have been at<br />

2 this point in time, hurting each other or threatening each<br />

3 other with that kind of physical harm.<br />

4 To the same extent, there is a conversation referred<br />

5 to on page 10 of the letter echoing just those sentiments, all<br />

6 right, that he is not concerned or not afraid.<br />

7 And, finally, that based on Mr. Vollaro's own position<br />

8 as a convicted felon, his position within the world or his<br />

9 activity within the world of drugs, that he was a rather large<br />

10 player in that activity in Staten Island, was confined in<br />

<strong>11</strong> prison, served time in prison with, according to again the<br />

12 government's position, very powerful-- that's where he made<br />

13 this alliance with some very powerful members of this<br />

14 <strong>org</strong>anization.<br />

15 What you have -- judge, it's our position what you<br />

16 have is you had basically a dispute over some money.<br />

17 Mr. Cracolici, having been dealing with Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> and in some<br />

18 business dealings before, asked Mr. <strong>Licata</strong>, since he knew from<br />

19 the prior incident that Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> knew Mr. Vollaro, if he<br />

20<br />

21<br />

could speak with him. Mr. Vollaro sat down to discuss this<br />

with Mr. Cracolici, Mr. <strong>Licata</strong>, and another co-defendant. He<br />

22 brought with him someone who, according to the government, he<br />

23 was dealing with on his behalf.<br />

24 In fact, contrary to the government's position that<br />

25 there was some perceived threat of violence here, to the<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

15


USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

1 contrary, Mr. Cracolici in essence lost that arbitration.<br />

2<br />

3<br />

There were no ramifications from that. <strong>No</strong> one was hurt or<br />

threatened as a result of that. His case was basically<br />

4 dismissed, and Mr. Cracolici and Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> had to accept that<br />

5 decision. They didn't carry any onerous weight in this<br />

6 meeting.<br />

7 The point is that, one, there was no express threat,<br />

8 and everybody agrees to that. But two, although as a general<br />

9 concept if one individual was dealing with another in a<br />

10 position of disparate power, if we had, for example, an<br />

<strong>11</strong> individual who was John Q. Citizen dealing with somebody who he<br />

12 perceived to be a member of some dangerous <strong>org</strong>anization, then<br />

13 the mere knowledge of this individual's alleged involvement in<br />

14 this <strong>org</strong>anization could rise to the level of an implied threat.<br />

15 That's not the case here.<br />

16 It clearly is a situation where Mr. Vollaro believed<br />

17 himself, and with good reason, to be in a stronger position<br />

18 than Mr. <strong>Licata</strong>. So it's highly unlikely that he perceived any<br />

19 threat other than exactly what Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> acknowledged in the<br />

20 course of his plea, which is if you don't treat this individual<br />

21 fairly, as we perceive it, we are not going to do business with<br />

22 you any more and we are not going to suggest that anybody else<br />

23 do business with you. We will hurt your business in that form,<br />

24 but never any question of any violence.<br />

25 So we feel that the two points is totally<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

16


USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

1 number 4 owes him money, and John Doe number 4 is not paying<br />

2 him. So Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> is asked to go intervene on Mr. Cracolici's<br />

3 behalf. Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> and another co-defendant, Billy Scotto, go<br />

4 to John Doe number 4, go to and say pay up. Then in the mob<br />

5 settings there is sit-down to try to resolve the issue, but if<br />

6 John Doe number 4 doesn't pay up or doesn't go to his mob<br />

7 handlers and get it resolved, he is certainly subject to these<br />

8 threats of implied physical violence, not only threats but if<br />

9 he doesn't do what he says he is not a made guy at that time.<br />

10 Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> is, Mr. Scotto is.<br />

<strong>11</strong> He knows that he either has to pay up or he has to get<br />

12 it resolved through the mob protocol, which happens. So even<br />

13 farther along the line of the extortions that your Honor has<br />

14 already found, an implied threat applies.<br />

15 This case is sort of a cut-and-dry extortion, where<br />

16 money is owed, the mob guys go in and say you got to pay, there<br />

17 is then sit-downs that take place; and that's exactly what<br />

18 Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> has pled guilty to. So, your Honor, we think that<br />

19 even more so than what your Honor has already found with regard<br />

20 to made members, where the implied threat of physical violence<br />

21 has been applied, it certainly applies in this case.<br />

22<br />

23 briefly.<br />

24<br />

25<br />

MR. CARNESI: Judge, if I can just respond very<br />

THE COURT: Yes.<br />

MR. CARNESI: In our letter and contrary to what was<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

18


USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

1 just stated, as to whether or not Mr. Vollaro in fact owed<br />

2 Mr. Cracolici money, there is a conversation that's included in<br />

3 the letter where he not only acknowledges that he owed him that<br />

4 amount of money, but laughs with another associate about the<br />

5 fact that how these guys don't even know how much money I owe<br />

6 them, that in fact he owed them substantially more. Also, the<br />

7 suggestion that because of Mr. <strong>Licata</strong>'s so-called position<br />

8 there that he had to pay Mr. Vollaro to pay Mr. Cracolici,<br />

9 well, that's just belied by the· facts.<br />

10 The facts are very simple. It's conceded he didn't<br />

<strong>11</strong> pay. The government acknowledges that. Mr. Vollaro was in<br />

12 fact basically a stronger position. And the person who had to<br />

13 accept that result or the persons who had to accept that result<br />

14 were Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> and Mr. Cracolici. They couldn't get paid, and<br />

15 they couldn't do anything about it because of Mr. Vollaro's<br />

16<br />

17<br />

position. So, again, it just belies the facts.<br />

It belies logic to suggest that Mr. Vollaro was in<br />

18 some way intimidated by this implied threat. History shows<br />

19 that wasn't the case. He had no reason to be intimidated, and<br />

20 based on what was going on contemporaneously in his<br />

21 conversations with other people, it belies logic that he would<br />

22 have been intimidated.<br />

23 THE COURT: I find that this offense involved an<br />

24 express relationship with but no express threat of bodily<br />

25 injury, but there was an implied threat of bodily injury based<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

.<br />

19


USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

1 upon the fact this defendant was a made member of this mob.<br />

2 Number 4 was not even, though he had powerful sponsors, he was<br />

3 subject to and acted in part upon this implied threat and aura<br />

4 of force that surrounded the defendant.<br />

5 Consistent with my decision in related cases, the two<br />

6 points applies.<br />

7 Specific offense characteristics are two, correct?<br />

8<br />

9<br />

10<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

MR. CARNESI: Yes, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: Adjusted offense level of 22?<br />

MS. HAASNOOT: Yes, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: Minus three for acceptance of<br />

12 responsibility, minus three for global arrangement, followed by<br />

13 probation, correct, bringing us down to 16.<br />

14<br />

15<br />

16<br />

17 the loss issue.<br />

18<br />

19<br />

MR. LIPTON: Yes.<br />

MR. CARNESI: Judge.<br />

MR. LIPTON: I think the defendant has objection to<br />

MR. CARNESI: Yes, judge, which was also included in<br />

our letter. Given the two-point adjustment, we believe the<br />

20 appropriate level would be 14.<br />

21<br />

22<br />

THE COURT: Which adjustment?<br />

MR. CARNESI: The adjustment that the Court just found<br />

23 for express or implied violence.<br />

24<br />

25<br />

THE COURT: You are making an objection?<br />

MR. CARNESI: Yes, judge.<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

20


1<br />

USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

THE COURT: I'm finding against you.<br />

2 MR. CARNESI: I understand, but that would bring the<br />

3 level to 14. We have also contested the two-point assessment<br />

4 based on a $70,000 alleged dispute.<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7 discovery --<br />

8<br />

THE COURT: Well --<br />

MR. CARNESI: Our information pursuant to the<br />

THE COURT: That would affect what paragraph?<br />

9 MR. LIPTON: Forty-four, your Honor. Defense counsel<br />

10 is objecting to the probation's calculation of that and two<br />

<strong>11</strong> points for loss and the plea agreement.<br />

12 The government agrees with defense counsel that there<br />

13 should be no adjustment for loss, and we stand by our plea<br />

14 agreement.<br />

15<br />

16<br />

THE COURT: So what should that be then?<br />

MR. LIPTON: That should be zero, and then the<br />

17 adjusted offense level before acceptance should be 17.<br />

18 THE COURT: Yes. That brings it down to 14.<br />

19 MR. LIPTON: With the global and acceptance of a B14,<br />

20 that's correct, yes, your Honor.<br />

21 THE COURT: I find that probation is wrong and that<br />

22 the loss results in zero on the specific offense<br />

23 characteristics. Correct?<br />

24<br />

25<br />

MS. HAASNOOT: Okay, your Honor.<br />

MR. LIPTON: Pursuant to the plea agreement, your<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

21


1 Honor, we stand by that.<br />

USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

2 THE COURT: In accordance with negotiated plea<br />

3 agreement.<br />

4 What criminal category is he in?<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

8<br />

9<br />

10<br />

<strong>11</strong> applies.<br />

MR. CARNESI: One.<br />

MR. LIPTON: Agreed, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: Fifteen to twenty-one months?<br />

MR. LIPTON: Correct.<br />

MS. HAASNOOT: Yes, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: I find that that's the guideline that<br />

12 <strong>No</strong>w, I will hear you on Booker and 3553(a).<br />

13 MR. CARNESI: Judge, based on our assessment of the<br />

14 case, although within the plea agreement clearly we had<br />

15 understood that this would be the government's position<br />

16 regarding the calculations<br />

17<br />

18<br />

19<br />

THE COURT: What's the fine?<br />

MS. HAASNOOT: 5,000 to 40,000, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: Thank you.<br />

20 MR. CARNESI: We feel, judge, at this point that the<br />

21 Court should exercise its own independent determination as to<br />

22 where Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> should fit in and whether or not in fact the<br />

23 guideline sentence would be appropriate.<br />

24 This case is a very unique case, notwithstanding the<br />

25 Court's decision just now to apply the two-point assessment, in<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

22


USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

1 that again, this was a legitimate dispute over moneys owed to<br />

2 Mr. Cracolici. The tapes clearly establish Mr. Vollaro's<br />

3 position, that he did in fact owe money to Mr. Cracolici and in<br />

4 fact more money than Mr. Cracolici was even aware of.<br />

5 <strong>No</strong>twithstanding the Court's finding of some implied<br />

6 threat based on status, there is no question that there was no<br />

7 actual threat. There is no question that Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> being at<br />

8 that meeting, his primary purpose was to assist Mr. Cracolici.<br />

9<br />

10<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> is, was at the time, in the construction<br />

business. He was doing business with both Mr. Cracolici and<br />

Mr. Vollaro. This isn't a situation where someone because of<br />

12 their status within a criminal <strong>org</strong>anization stepped out of<br />

13 context and went and injected himself using the force of this<br />

14 <strong>org</strong>anization to go and extort money from another individual.<br />

15 They had a commonality of interest, which was their involvement<br />

16 in the construction industry.<br />

17 As the Court is well aware, and as we have referred to<br />

18 before, no money was paid as a result of this dispute to<br />

19 Mr. Cracolici, nor has there ever been an allegation that<br />

20 Mr. <strong>Licata</strong> was to benefit personally by trying to resolve this<br />

21 dispute on behalf of Mr. Cracolici. I think all of those<br />

22 things, judge, put in proper context, make this a rather unique<br />

23 extortion circumstance; and I think as a result of that, that<br />

24 the Court should exercise its own independent judgment.<br />

25 THE COURT: Thank you.<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

23


1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4 ages?<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

8<br />

USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

Do you want to add anything, sir?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

THE COURT: You have three children. What are their<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Twelve, ten, and three.<br />

THE COURT: And your wife does not work, correct?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

THE COURT: You will be able to get a job, that job<br />

9 back, I take it, when you finish your term of imprisonment?<br />

10 Yes?<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

12<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: The government?<br />

13 MR. LIPTON: Thank you, judge. The government does<br />

14 not take a position where within the guideline range that your<br />

15 Honor sentences the defendant. We do believe that the level<br />

16 14, that criminal history category two deals with the<br />

17 appropriate guideline range, which is 15 to 21 months, and that<br />

18 is a final -- sorry -- criminal history category one, which is<br />

19 15-to-21 month range with a 4,000 to $40,000 fine range. In<br />

20 the plea agreement the defendant agreed to the guideline<br />

21 calculation and agreed not to move for a downward departure,<br />

22 was allowed to contest the implied threat issue, which your<br />

23 Honor has resolved.<br />

24 This defendant did run a successful business involving<br />

25 trucking. He was charged with ten counts in the indictment,<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

24


USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

1 including RICO as a made member of the Gambino family that<br />

2 involved fraud and theft of union benefits based on allegations<br />

3 of double breasting; and then there are allegations relating to<br />

4 the Cracolici dispute, which were the basis for the extortion<br />

5 charge that he pled guilty to.<br />

6 Despite the success of his business and having a<br />

7 number of trucks that he ran from those businesses and despite<br />

8 the success of those businesses, he decided to go into double<br />

9 breasting. He decide to get involved in the extortion. He<br />

10 decided to become a made member of the Gambino family.<br />

<strong>11</strong> Your Honor, this is a case in which, unlike several<br />

12 defendants that you have had in this case and defendants you<br />

13 have had in other cases who did not sort of have the choices<br />

14 and the means that this defendant did, he did have the choice,<br />

15 he did have the means, and he still does; and despite those<br />

16 choices and despite the means, he decided to involve himself in<br />

17 these activities.<br />

18 And, your Honor, I think that a sentence within the<br />

19 guideline range will satisfy the factors of 3553 without being<br />

20 greater than necessary for just punishment. We believe that a<br />

21 guideline range of 15 to 21 months is the appropriate and<br />

22 warranted sentence in this case.<br />

23<br />

24<br />

25<br />

THE COURT: Thank you.<br />

Do you know what double breasting is?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

25


1<br />

2<br />

MR. CARNESI: Judge.<br />

USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

THE COURT: You are not to engage in that during the<br />

3 period of supervised release.<br />

4 MR. CARNESI: I didn't mean to interrupt you, but,<br />

5 judge, we never actually addressed the other exceptions that we<br />

6 took to the presentence report, and in fact most of those<br />

7 exceptions dealt with this allegation of double breasting and<br />

8 this union activity.<br />

9 THE COURT: I'm not going to weigh that in assessing<br />

10 penalties.<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

12<br />

MR. CARNESI: Thank you, judge.<br />

THE COURT: However, I do not want him involved in<br />

13 that illegal activity during his supervised release period, and<br />

14 probation will insist on that.<br />

15<br />

16<br />

17 correct?<br />

18<br />

19<br />

MS. HAASNOOT: Yes, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: You have my finding on the guidelines,<br />

THE CLERK: Yes, judge.<br />

MS. HAASNOOT: Would your Honor also like to order<br />

20 full financial disclosure to the <strong>Pro</strong>bation Department to ensure<br />

21 no double breasting?<br />

22 THE COURT: Well, the probation can ask for whatever<br />

23 accounting it wishes and inspect the defendant's books, but I'm<br />

24 not going to order that. We will leave it in your discretion.<br />

25 MS. HAASNOOT: Okay.<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

26


USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

1 THE COURT: Pursuant to Booker and Section 3553(a), I<br />

2 have considered the offense-- it's a serious offense involving<br />

3 mob-implied violence -- and the history of the defendant, who<br />

4 is a member of the mob and has utilized its violent reputation<br />

5 in his personal activities. I have considered the need to<br />

6 indicate the seriousness of the offense and to promote respect<br />

7 for the law and just punishment, to provide general deterrence<br />

8 and specific deterrence, to protect the public from further<br />

9 crimes of the defendant.<br />

10 There is no educational, vocational training, medical<br />

<strong>11</strong> care, or other correctional treatment that would be better<br />

12 achieved in prison, but if you want me to I can recommend<br />

13<br />

14<br />

15<br />

something. You have your high school diploma?<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yeah.<br />

THE COURT: Do you want anything else while you are in<br />

16 prison, training in computers, or anything?<br />

17<br />

18<br />

THE DEFENDANT:<br />

THE COURT: <strong>No</strong>.<br />

<strong>No</strong>.<br />

I have considered the kinds of<br />

19 sentences available, the sentencing ranges, policy statement,<br />

20 sentences of other people in similar circumstances, and<br />

21 elements of 3553(a) and the statutes and impose a penalty<br />

22 that's sufficient but not greater than that required. There is<br />

23 no reason to depart from the guidelines in this case.<br />

24 Accordingly, I sentence the defendant to 15 months in<br />

25 prison, $6,000 fine payable $500 a month beginning one month<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

27


1<br />

2<br />

USA v. <strong>Licata</strong><br />

after you are released from prison, $500 a month. If you make<br />

those payments, no interest. If you fail to make the payments,<br />

3 interest.<br />

4 Do you understand?<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

8<br />

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.<br />

THE COURT: When do you want to surrender?<br />

MR. CARNESI: Judge, we would ask for voluntary<br />

surrender. It's my experience that normally takes about six to<br />

9 eight weeks to get designated. So I would ask eight weeks,<br />

10 judge.<br />

<strong>11</strong><br />

12<br />

13<br />

14<br />

15<br />

16<br />

17<br />

18<br />

19<br />

20<br />

21<br />

22<br />

23<br />

24<br />

25<br />

THE COURT: All right. Any objection to<br />

MR. LIPTON: <strong>No</strong>, judge.<br />

THE COURT: Give me a date, please.<br />

THE CLERK: The 20th.<br />

THE COURT: Of what, October?<br />

THE CLERK: October 20.<br />

THE COURT: That's a Monday, is it?<br />

THE CLERK: It is' judge.<br />

THE COURT: Is that convenient for you?<br />

MR. CARNESI: Yes, your Honor.<br />

THE COURT: All right. Good luck to both<br />

MR. CARNESI: Thank you.<br />

(End of proceedings.)<br />

that?<br />

of you.<br />

MICHELE NARDONE, CSR, RPR -- Official Court Reporter, USDC/EDNY<br />

28


EXHIBIT 5


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 2 of 32 PageID #: 2<br />

defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(4), that<br />

is, a group of individuals associated in fact (the "Gambino crime<br />

family" and the "enterprise"). The enterprise constituted an<br />

ongoing <strong>org</strong>anization whose members functioned as a continuing<br />

unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the<br />

enterprise. The Gambino crime family engaged in, and its<br />

activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce. The<br />

Gambino crime family was an <strong>org</strong>anized criminal group that<br />

operated in the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere.<br />

2. La Cosa <strong>No</strong>stra operated through <strong>org</strong>anized crime<br />

families. Five of these crime families - the Bonanno, Colombo,<br />

Gambino, Genovese and Luchese crime families - were headquartered<br />

in New York City, and supervised criminal activity in New York,<br />

in other areas of the United States and, in some instances, in<br />

other countries. Another crime family, the Decalvacante crime<br />

family, also operated principally in New Jersey, but from time to<br />

time also in New York City.<br />

3. The ruling body of La Cosa <strong>No</strong>stra, known as the<br />

"Commission," consisted of leaders from each of the crime<br />

families. The Commission convened from time to time to decide<br />

certain issues affecting all of the crime families, such as rules<br />

governing crime family membership.<br />

2


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 3 of 32 PageID #: 3<br />

4. The Gambino crime family had a hierarchy and<br />

structure. The head of the Gambino crime family was known as the<br />

\\boss." The Gambino crime family boss was assisted by an<br />

"underboss" and a counselor known as a "consigliere." Together,<br />

the boss, underboss and consigliere were the Gambino crime<br />

family's "administration." With the assistance of the underboss<br />

and consigliere, the boss was responsible for, among other<br />

things, setting policy and resolving disputes within and between<br />

La Cosa <strong>No</strong>stra crime families and other criminal groups. The<br />

administration further supervised, supported, protected and<br />

disciplined the lower-ranking participants in the Gambino crime<br />

family. In return for their supervision and protection, the<br />

administration received part of the illegal earnings generated by<br />

the Gambino crime family. Members of the Gambino crime family<br />

served in an "acting" rather than "official" capacity in the<br />

administration on occasion due to another administration member's<br />

incarceration or ill health, or for the purpose of seeking to<br />

insulate another administration member from law enforcement<br />

scrutiny. Further, on occasion, the Gambino crime family was<br />

overseen by a "panel" of crime family members that did not<br />

include the boss, underboss and/or consigliere.<br />

5. Below the administration of the Gambino crime<br />

family were numerous "crews," also known as "regimes" and<br />

"decinas." Each crew was headed by a "captain," also known as a<br />

3


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 4 of 32 PageID #: 4<br />

"skipper," "caporegime" and "capodecina." Each captain's crew<br />

consisted of "soldiers" and "associates." The captain was<br />

responsible for supervising the criminal activities of his crew<br />

and providing the crew with support and protection. In return,<br />

the captain often received a share of the crew's earnings.<br />

6. Only members of the Gambino crime family could<br />

serve as a boss, underboss, consigliere, captain or soldier.<br />

Members of the Gambino crime family were referred to on occasion<br />

as "goodfellas" or "wiseguys," or as persons who had been<br />

"straightened out" or who had their "button." Associates were<br />

individuals who were not members of the Gambino crime family, but<br />

who nonetheless engaged in criminal activity for, and under the<br />

protection of, the Gambino crime family.<br />

7. Many requirements existed before an associate could<br />

become a member of the Gambino crime family. The Commission of<br />

La Cosa <strong>No</strong>stra from time to time limited the number of new<br />

members that could be added to a crime family. An associate was<br />

also required to be proposed for membership by an existing crime<br />

family member. When the crime family's administration considered<br />

the associate worthy of membership, the administration then<br />

circulated the proposed associate's name on a list given to other<br />

La Cosa <strong>No</strong>stra crime families, which the other crime families<br />

reviewed and either approved or disapproved. Unless there was an<br />

objection to the associate's membership, the crime family then<br />

4


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 5 of 32 PageID #: 5<br />

"inducted," or "straightened out," the associate as a member of<br />

the crime family in a secret ceremony. During the ceremony, the<br />

associate, among other things: swore allegiance for life to the<br />

crime family above all else, even the associate's own family;<br />

swore, on penalty of death, never to reveal the crime family's<br />

existence, criminal activities and other secrets; and swore to<br />

follow all orders issued by the crime family boss, including<br />

swearing to commit murder if the boss directed it.<br />

Methods and Means of the Enterprise<br />

B. The principal purpose of the Gambino crime family<br />

was to generate money for its members and associates. This<br />

purpose was implemented by members and associates of the Gambino<br />

crime family through various criminal activities, including drug<br />

trafficking, robbery, extortion, illegal gambling and<br />

loansharking. The members and associates of the Gambino crime<br />

family also furthered the enterprise's criminal activities by<br />

threatening economic injury and using and threatening to use<br />

physical violence, including murder.<br />

9. Although the primary purpose of the Gambino crime<br />

family was to generate money for its members and associates, the<br />

members and associates at times used the resources of the<br />

<strong>org</strong>anized crime families to settle personal grievances and<br />

vendettas, sometimes with the approval of higher-ranking members<br />

of the families. For those purposes, members and associates of<br />

5


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 6 of 32 PageID #: 6<br />

the enterprise were asked and expected to carry out, among other<br />

crimes, acts of violence, including murder and assault.<br />

10. The members and associates of the Gambino crime<br />

family engaged in conduct designed to prevent government<br />

detection of their identities; their illegal activities and the<br />

location of proceeds of those activities. That conduct included<br />

a commitment to murdering persons, particularly members or<br />

associates of <strong>org</strong>anized crime families, who were perceived as<br />

potential witnesses against members and associates of the<br />

enterprise.<br />

<strong>11</strong>. Members and associates of the Gambino crime family<br />

often coordinated criminal activity with members and associates<br />

of other <strong>org</strong>anized crime families.<br />

The Defendants<br />

12. At various times, the defendants ANTHONY LICATA,<br />

also known as "Cheeks," "Anthony Firehawk," "Anthony Nighthawk,"<br />

"Nighthawk" and "Firehawk," and ANTHONY SCIBELLI were soldiers<br />

within the Gambino crime family.<br />

13. At various times, the defendant ANTHONY O'DONNELL,<br />

also known as "Tony 0," was an associate within the Gambino crime<br />

family.<br />

6


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 7 of 32 PageID #: 7<br />

COUNT ONE<br />

(Racketeering Conspiracy)<br />

14. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 13 are<br />

realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this<br />

paragraph.<br />

15. In or about and between July 2004 and August 2010,<br />

both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY<br />

LICATA, also known as "Cheeks," "Anthony Firehawk," "Anthony<br />

Nighthawk," "Nighthawk" and "Firehawk," ANTHONY O'DONNELL, also<br />

known as "Tony 0," and ANTHONY SCIBELLI, together with others,<br />

being persons employed by and associated with the Gambino crime<br />

family, an enterprise that engaged in, and the activities of<br />

which affected, interstate and foreign commerce, did knowingly<br />

and intentionally conspire to violate Title 18, United States<br />

Code, Section 1962(c), that is, to conduct and participate,<br />

directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of that<br />

enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined<br />

in Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961(1) and 1961(5).<br />

16. The pattern of racketeering activity through which<br />

the above-named defendants, together with others, agreed to<br />

conduct the affairs of the enterprise consisted of Racketeering<br />

Acts One through Eight, set forth below in paragraphs 17 through<br />

44. The defendants agreed that a conspirator would commit at<br />

7


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 8 of 32 PageID #: 8<br />

least two acts of racketeering in the conduct of the affairs of<br />

the enterprise.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT ONE<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Attempted Extortion - Construction List)<br />

17. The defendant named below agreed to the commission<br />

of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act One:<br />

A. Extortion Conspiracy<br />

18. In or about and between July 2004 and January<br />

2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY<br />

O'DONNELL, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement<br />

of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that<br />

the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit:<br />

money, from one or more individuals and companies in the<br />

construction industry, whose identities are known to the Grand<br />

Jury, with their consent, which consent was to be induced through<br />

wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear,<br />

contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).<br />

B. Attempted Extortion<br />

19. In or about and between July 2004 and January<br />

2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY<br />

O'DONNELL, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

8


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 9 of 32 PageID #: 9<br />

attempt to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement<br />

of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that<br />

the defendant and others attempted to obtain property, to wit:<br />

money, from one or more individuals and companies in the<br />

construction industry, whose identities are known to the Grand<br />

Jury, with their consent, which consent was to be induced through<br />

wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear,<br />

contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT TWO<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy - Cracolici Dispute)<br />

20. On or about and between January 1, 2006 and March<br />

17, 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY<br />

LICATA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement<br />

of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that<br />

the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit:<br />

money, from John Doe #1, an individual whose identity is known to<br />

the Grand Jury, with his consent, which consent was to be induced<br />

through wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and<br />

fear, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).<br />

9


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 10 of 32 PageID #: 10<br />

RACKETEERING ACT THREE<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion - Cement Manufacturing)<br />

21. The defendant named below agreed to the commission<br />

of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Three:<br />

A. Federal Law - Extortion Conspiracy<br />

22. In or about and between May 2006 and June 2007,<br />

both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY<br />

SCIBELLI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement<br />

of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that<br />

the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: cash<br />

payments relating to John Doe #l's manufacture of cement at the<br />

Liberty View Harbor construction site, from John Doe #1, with his<br />

consent, which consent was to be induced through wrongful use of<br />

actual and threatened force, violence and fear, contrary to Title<br />

18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).<br />

B. Federal Law - Extortion<br />

23. In or about and between May 2006 and June 2007,<br />

both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY<br />

SCIBELLI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles<br />

and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant<br />

10


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page <strong>11</strong> of 32 PageID #: <strong>11</strong><br />

and others obtained property, to wit: cash payments relating to<br />

John Doe #1's manufacture of cement at the Liberty View Harbor<br />

construction site, from John Doe #1, with his consent, which<br />

consent was induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened<br />

force, violence and fear, contrary to Title 18, United States<br />

Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.<br />

C. New York State Law - Extortion<br />

24. In or about and between May 2006 and June 2007,<br />

both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY<br />

SCIBELLI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

steal property by extortion, in that the defendant, together with<br />

others, obtained property, to wit: cash payments relating to John<br />

Doe #1's manufacture of cement at the Liberty View Harbor<br />

construction site, by compelling and inducing John Doe #1 to<br />

deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the<br />

property was not so delivered, one or more persons would (1)<br />

cause physical injury to John Doe #1 in the future, (2) cause<br />

damage to John Doe #1's property and (3) perform an act which<br />

would not in itself materially benefit the actor, but which was<br />

calculated to harm John Doe #1 materially with respect ·to his<br />

health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition,<br />

reputation and personal relationships, contrary to New York Penal<br />

<strong>11</strong>


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 12 of 32 PageID #: 12<br />

Law Sections 155.30(6), 155.05(2) (e) (i), 155.05(2) (e) (ii),<br />

15 5 . 0 5 ( 2 ) ( e) ( ix) and 2 0 . 0 0 .<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FOUR<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Attempted Extortion - John Doe #2)<br />

25. The defendant named below agreed to the commission<br />

of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Four:<br />

A. Extortion Conspiracy<br />

26. In or about and between February 2007 and August<br />

2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY<br />

LICATA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement<br />

of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that<br />

the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit:<br />

money, from John Doe #2, whose identity is known to the Grand<br />

Jury, with his consent, which consent was to be induced through<br />

wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear,<br />

contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).<br />

B. Attempted Extortion<br />

27. In or about December 2007, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY LICATA,<br />

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally attempt to<br />

obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles<br />

and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant<br />

12


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 13 of 32 PageID #: 13<br />

and others attempted to obtain property, to wit: money, from John<br />

Doe #2, with his consent, which consent was to be induced through<br />

wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear,<br />

contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 195l(a) and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT FIVE<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion - Sitt Asset Management)<br />

28. The defendants named below agreed to the<br />

commission of the following acts, any one of which alone<br />

constitutes Racketeering Act Five:<br />

A. Federal Law - Extortion Conspiracy<br />

29. On or about and between March 2, 2007 and May 31,<br />

2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

ANTHONY O'DONNELL and ANTHONY SCIBELLI, together with others, did<br />

knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and<br />

affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in<br />

commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed<br />

to obtain property, to wit: money, from the owners of Sitt Asset<br />

Management, individuals whose identities are known to the Grand<br />

Jury, with their consent, which consent was to be induced through<br />

wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear,<br />

contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 195l(a).<br />

B. Federal Law - Extortion<br />

30. On or about and between March 2, 2007 and May 31,<br />

2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

13


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 14 of 32 PageID #: 14<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

ANTHONY O'DONNELL and ANTHONY SCIBELLI, together with others, did<br />

knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce,<br />

and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by<br />

extortion, in that the defendants, together with others, obtained<br />

property, to wit: money, from the owners of Sitt Asset<br />

Management, with their consent, which consent was induced through<br />

wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear,<br />

contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.<br />

C. New York State Law - Extortion<br />

31. On or about and between March 2, 2007 and May 31,<br />

2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

ANTHONY O'DONNELL and ANTHONY SCIBELLI, together with others, did<br />

knowingly and intentionally steal property by extortion, in that<br />

the defendants, together with others, obtained property, to wit:<br />

money, from Sitt Asset Management by compelling and inducing one<br />

or more owners and representatives of Sitt Asset Management to<br />

deliver such property by instilling in such owners and<br />

representatives a fear that, if the money were not so delivered,<br />

one or more persons would perform an act which would not in<br />

itself materially benefit the actors but which was calculated to<br />

harm such owners and representatives materially with respect to<br />

their health, safety, businesses, callings, careers, financial<br />

14


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 15 of 32 PageID #: 15<br />

conditions, reputations and personal relationships, contrary to<br />

New York Penal Law Sections 155.30(6), 155.05(2) (e) (ix) and<br />

20.00.<br />

D. Interstate Travel in-aid-of Racketeering<br />

32. On or about and between March 2, 2007 and May 31,<br />

2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere·, the defendant ANTHONY<br />

O'DONNELL, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

travel in interstate commerce with intent to promote, manage,<br />

establish, carry on and facilitate the promotion, management,<br />

establishment and carrying on of unlawful activity, to wit:<br />

extortion, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections<br />

195l(a) and 2, and grand larceny by extortion, contrary to New<br />

York Penal Law Sections 155.30(6) I 155.05(2) (e) (ix) and 20.00,<br />

and thereafter performed and attempted to perform the promotion,<br />

management, establishment, carrying on and facilitation of the<br />

promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of such<br />

unlawful activity, to wit: the extortion of Sitt Asset Management<br />

and its owners and representatives, contrary to Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Sections 1952(a) (3) (A) and 2.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT SIX<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion - John Doe #3 and John Doe #4)<br />

33. The defendant named below agreed to the commission<br />

of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Six:<br />

15


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 16 of 32 PageID #: 16<br />

A. Federal Law - Extortion Conspiracy<br />

34. On or about and between March 2, 2007 and June 4,<br />

2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY<br />

SCIBELLI, together' with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement<br />

of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that<br />

the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit:<br />

money, from John Doe #3 and John Doe #4, individuals whose<br />

identities are known to the Grand Jury, with their consent, which<br />

consent was to be induced through wrongful use of actual and<br />

threatened force, violence and fear, contrary to Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Section 1951(a).<br />

B. Federal Law - Extortion<br />

35. On or about and between March 2, 2007 and June 4,<br />

2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY<br />

SCIBELLI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles<br />

and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant,<br />

together with others, obtained property, to wit: money, from John<br />

Doe #3 and John Doe #4, with their consent, which consent was<br />

induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force,<br />

16


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 17 of 32 PageID #: 17<br />

violence and fear, contrary to Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Sections 1951{a) and 2.<br />

C. New York State Law - Extortion<br />

36. On or about and between March 2, 2007 and June 4,<br />

2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY<br />

SCIBELLI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

steal property by extortion, in that the defendant, together with<br />

others, obtained property, to wit: money, by compelling and<br />

inducing John Doe #3 and John Doe #4 to deliver such property by<br />

instilling in John Doe #3 and John Doe #4 a fear that, if the<br />

property was not so delivered, one or more persons would<br />

(1) cause physical injury to some person in the future and (2)<br />

cause damage to property, contrary to New York Penal Law Sections<br />

15 5 . 3 0 ( 6 ) , 15 5 . 0 5 ( 2 ) ( e ) ( i ) , 15 5 . 0 5 ( 2 ) ( e ) ( i i ) and 2 0 . 0 0 .<br />

RACKETEERING ACT SEVEN<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy - John Doe #3)<br />

37. The defendant named below agreed to the commission<br />

of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Seven:<br />

A. Federal Law - Extortion Conspiracy<br />

38. In or about and between September 2007 and October<br />

2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY<br />

LICATA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

17


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 18 of 32 PageID #: 18<br />

conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement<br />

of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that<br />

the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit:<br />

money, from John Doe #3, with his consent, which consent was to<br />

be induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force,<br />

violence and fear, contrary to Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Section 1951(a).<br />

B. New York State Law - Extortion Conspiracy<br />

39. In or about and between September 2007 and October<br />

2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY<br />

LICATA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

conspire to steal property by extortion, in that the defendant<br />

and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, by<br />

compelling and inducing John Doe #3 to deliver such property by<br />

instilling in him a fear that, if the property was not so<br />

delivered, one or more persons would cause physical injury to<br />

John Doe #3 in the future, contrary to New York Penal Law<br />

Sections 155.40(2), 155.05(2) (e) (i) and 105.10.<br />

40. In furtherance of the conspiracy, and to effect<br />

its objectives, within the Eastern District of New York and<br />

elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY LICATA committed and caused to<br />

be committed, among others, the following:<br />

18


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 19 of 32 PageID #: 19<br />

OVERT ACTS<br />

a. On or about September 21, 2007, the defendant<br />

ANTHONY LICATA met with John Doe #3 at the Staten Island office<br />

of Nighthawk Trucking.<br />

b. On or about September 21, 2007, at the Staten<br />

Island Office of Nighthawk Trucking, the defendant ANTHONY LICATA<br />

demanded that John Doe #3 pay $30,000.<br />

c. On or about and between September 21, 2007<br />

and February 7, 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive,<br />

the defendant ANTHONY LICATA engaged in telephone calls with John<br />

Doe #3.<br />

RACKETEERING ACT EIGHT<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion - Cement Powder Deliveries)<br />

41. The defendant named below agreed to the commission<br />

of the following acts, any one of which alone constitutes<br />

Racketeering Act Eight:<br />

A. Federal Law - Extortion Conspiracy<br />

42. In or about and between October 2007 and January<br />

2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY<br />

SCIBELLI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement<br />

of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that<br />

the defendant and others agreed to obtain property, to wit: cash<br />

payments relating to John Doe #1's delivery of cement powder to<br />

19


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 20 of 32 PageID #: 20<br />

the Liberty View Harbor construction site, from John Doe #1, with<br />

his consent, which consent was to be induced through wrongful use<br />

of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, contrary to<br />

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a).<br />

B. Federal Law - Extortion<br />

43. In or about and between October 2007 and January<br />

2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY<br />

SCIBELLI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles<br />

and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants<br />

and others obtained property, to wit: cash payments relating to<br />

John Doe #1's delivery of cement powder to the Liberty View<br />

Harbor construction site, from John Doe #1, with his consent,<br />

which consent was induced through wrongful use of actual and<br />

threatened force, violence and fear, contrary to Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.<br />

C. New York State Law - Extortion<br />

44. In or about and between October 2007 and January<br />

2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY<br />

SCIBELLI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

steal property by extortion, in that the defendant, together with<br />

others, obtained property, to wit: cash payments relating to John<br />

20


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 21 of 32 PageID #: 21<br />

Doe #1's delivery of cement powder to the Liberty View Harbor<br />

construction site, by compelling and inducing John Doe #1 to<br />

deliver such property by instilling in him a fear that, if the<br />

property was not so delivered, one or more persons would (1)<br />

cause physical injury to John Doe #1 in the future, (2) cause<br />

damage to John Doe #1's property and (3) perform an act which<br />

would not in itself materially benefit the actor, but which was<br />

calculated to harm John Doe #1 materially with respect to his<br />

health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition,<br />

reputation and personal relationships, contrary to New York Penal<br />

Law Sections 155.30(6), 155.05(2) (e) (i), 155.05(2) (e) (ii),<br />

15 5 . 0 5 ( 2 ) ( e ) ( ix) and 2 0 . 0 0 .<br />

and 3551 et seq.)<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1962(d), 1963<br />

COUNT TWO<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy - John Doe #2)<br />

45. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 13 are<br />

realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this<br />

paragraph.<br />

46. In or about and between February 2007 and August<br />

2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

EMMANUEL GARAFOLO, also known as "Manny," ANTHONY LICATA, also<br />

known as "Cheeks," "Anthony Firehawk," "Anthony Nighthawk,"<br />

"Nighthawk" and "Firehawk," and WILLIAM SCOTTO, also known as<br />

21


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 22 of 32 PageID #: 22<br />

"Billy" and "Big Billy," together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce,<br />

and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by<br />

extortion, in that the defendants and others agreed to obtain<br />

property, to wit: money, from John Doe #2, with his consent,<br />

which consent was to be induced through wrongful use of actual<br />

and threatened force, violence and fear.<br />

3551 et seq.)<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and<br />

COUNT THREE<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy - Sitt Asset Management)<br />

47. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 13 are<br />

realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this<br />

paragraph.<br />

48. On or about and between March 2, 2007 and May 31,<br />

2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

VINCENT DRAGONETTI, also known as "Vinny," "Skinny," "Mike,"<br />

"Mikey" and "Marbles," THOMAS FRANGIAPANE, ANTHONY O'DONNELL,<br />

also known as "Tony 0," and ANTHONY SCIBELLI, together with<br />

others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct,<br />

delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and<br />

commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and<br />

others agreed to obtain property, to wit: money, from the owners<br />

of Sitt Asset Management, with their consent, which consent was<br />

22


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 23 of 32 PageID #: 23<br />

to be induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened<br />

force, violence and fear.<br />

3551 et seq.)<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and<br />

COUNT FOUR<br />

(Extortion - Sitt Asset Management)<br />

49. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 13 are<br />

realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this<br />

paragraph.<br />

50. On or about and between March 2, 2007 and May 31,<br />

2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

VINCENT DRAGONETTI, also known as "Vinny," "Skinny," "Mike,"<br />

"Mikey" and "Marbles," THOMAS FRANGIAPANE, ANTHONY O'DONNELL,<br />

also known as "Tony 0," and ANTHONY SCIBELLI, together with<br />

others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and<br />

affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in<br />

commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants, together with<br />

others, obtained property, to wit: money, from the owners of Sitt<br />

Asset Management, with their consent, which consent was induced<br />

through wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and<br />

fear.<br />

3551 et seq.)<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 195l(a), 2 and<br />

23


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 24 of 32 PageID #: 24<br />

COUNT FIVE<br />

(Interstate Travel in-aid-of Racketeering)<br />

51. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 13 are<br />

realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this<br />

paragraph.<br />

52. On or about and between March 2, 2007 and March<br />

15, 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant ANTHONY<br />

O'DONNELL, also known as "Tony 0," together with others, did<br />

knowingly and intentionally travel in interstate commerce with<br />

intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on and facilitate the<br />

promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of unlawful<br />

activity, to wit: extortion, contrary to Title 18, United States<br />

Code, Sections 195l(a) and 2, and grand larceny by extortion,<br />

contrary to New York Penal Law Sections 155.30(6),<br />

155.05(2) (e) (ix) and 20.00, and thereafter performed and<br />

attempted to perform the promotion, management, establishment,<br />

carrying on and facilitation of the promotion, management,<br />

establishment and carrying on of such unlawful activity, to wit:<br />

the extortion of Sitt Asset Management and its owners and<br />

representatives.<br />

2 and 3551 et seg.)<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1952(a) (3) (A),<br />

24


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 25 of 32 PageID #: 25<br />

COUNT SIX<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy - John Doe #3 and John Doe #4)<br />

53. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 13 are<br />

realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this<br />

paragraph.<br />

54. On or about and between March 2, 2007 and June 4,<br />

2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

VINCENT DRAGONETTI, also known as "Vinny," "Skinny," "Mike,"<br />

"Mikey" and "Marbles," and ANTHONY SCIBELLI, together with<br />

others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct,<br />

delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and<br />

commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and<br />

others agreed to obtain property, to wit': money, from John Doe #3<br />

and John Doe #4, with their consent, which consent was to be<br />

induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force,<br />

violence and fear.<br />

3551 et seq.)<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 195l(a) and<br />

COUNT SEVEN<br />

(Extortion - John Doe #3 and John Doe #4)<br />

55. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 13 are<br />

realleged and inc9rporated as if fully set forth in this<br />

paragraph.<br />

25


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 26 of 32 PageID #: 26<br />

56. On or about and between March 2, 2007 and June 4,<br />

2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

VINCENT DRAGONETTI, also known as "Vinny," "Skinny," "Mike,"<br />

"Mikey" and "Marbles," and ANTHONY SCIBELLI, together with<br />

others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and<br />

affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in<br />

commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants, together with<br />

others, obtained property, to wit: money, from John Doe #3 and<br />

John Doe #4, with their consent, which consent was induced<br />

through wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and<br />

fear.<br />

3551 et seg.)<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a), 2 and<br />

COUNT EIGHT<br />

(Extortion Conspiracy - John Doe #3)<br />

57. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 13 are<br />

realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this<br />

paragraph.<br />

58. In or about and between September 2007 and October<br />

2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants<br />

ANTHONY LICATA, also known as "Cheeks," "Anthony Firehawk,"<br />

"Anthony Nighthawk," "Nighthawk" and "Firehawk," and JOSEPH<br />

LOMBARDI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

26


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 27 of 32 PageID #: 27<br />

conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement<br />

of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that<br />

the defendants and others agreed to obtain property, to wit:<br />

money, from John Doe #3, with his consent, which consent was to<br />

be induced through wrongful use of actual and threatened force,<br />

violence and fear.<br />

3551 et seq.)<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and<br />

COUNT NINE<br />

(Extortion - John Doe #3)<br />

59. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 13 are<br />

realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this<br />

paragraph.<br />

60. In or about and between September 2007 and October<br />

2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the<br />

Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant JOSEPH<br />

LOMBARDI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally<br />

obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles<br />

and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant<br />

and others obtained property, to wit: money, from John Doe #3,<br />

with his consent, which consent was induced through wrongful use<br />

of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.<br />

3551 et seq.)<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a), 2 and<br />

27


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 28 of 32 PageID #: 28<br />

COUNT TEN<br />

(Attempted Extortion - John Doe #2)<br />

61. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 13 are<br />

realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this<br />

paragraph.<br />

62. In or about December 2007, within the Eastern<br />

District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants EMMANUEL<br />

GARAFOLO, also known as "Manny," ANTHONY LICATA, also known as<br />

"Cheeks," "Anthony Firehawk," "Anthony Nighthawk," "Nighthawk"<br />

and "Firehawk," and WILLIAM SCOTTO, also known as "Billy" and<br />

"Big Billy," together with others, did knowingly and<br />

intentionally attempt to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and<br />

the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by<br />

extortion, in that the defendants and others attempted to obtain<br />

property, to wit: money, from John Doe #2, with his consent,<br />

which consent was to be induced through wrongful use of actual<br />

and threatened force, violence and fear.<br />

3551 et seq.)<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a), 2 and<br />

CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNT ONE<br />

63. The United States hereby gives notice to the<br />

defendants charged in Count One that, upon conviction of such<br />

offense, the government will seek forfeiture, in accordance with<br />

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963, which requires any<br />

person convicted of such offense to forfeit:<br />

28


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 29 of 32 PageID #: 29<br />

a. any interest the person acquired or maintained<br />

in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962;<br />

b. any interest in, security of, claims against,<br />

or property or contractual right of any kind affording a source<br />

of influence over any enterprise which the person has<br />

established, operated, controlled, conducted or participated in<br />

the conduct of, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Section 1962; and<br />

c. any property constituting, or derived from,<br />

any proceeds which the person obtained, directly or indirectly,<br />

from racketeering activity, in violation of Title 18, United<br />

States Code, Section 1962, including but not limited to, a sum of<br />

money representing the amount of proceeds obtained as a result of<br />

such offenses.<br />

64. If any of the property described above, as a<br />

result of any act or omission of the defendants:<br />

diligence;<br />

with, a third party;<br />

the court;<br />

or<br />

a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due<br />

b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited<br />

c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of<br />

d. has been substantially diminished in value;<br />

29


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 30 of 32 PageID #: 30<br />

e. has been commingled with other property which<br />

cannot be divided without difficulty;<br />

it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 18,<br />

United States Code, Section 1963(m), to seek forfeiture of any<br />

other property of such defendants up to the value of the<br />

forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation.<br />

1963 (m) )<br />

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1963(a) and<br />

CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNTS TWO THROUGH TEN<br />

65. The United States hereby gives notice to the<br />

defendants charged in Counts Two through Ten that, upon<br />

conviction of any such offenses, the government will seek<br />

forfeiture, in accordance with Title 18, United States Code,<br />

Section 981(a) (1) (C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section<br />

2461(c), of any property, real or personal, which constitutes or<br />

is derived from proceeds traceable to any such offenses,<br />

including, but not limited to, a sum of money representing the<br />

amount of proceeds obtained as a result of such offenses.<br />

66. If any of the property described above, as a<br />

result of any act or omission of the defendants:<br />

diligence;<br />

with, a third party;<br />

a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due<br />

b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited<br />

30


Case 1:<strong>11</strong>-cr-00003-DLI Document 1 Filed 01/05/<strong>11</strong> Page 32 of 32 PageID #: 32

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!