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
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