Opinion ID: 1441526
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Loansharking Conspiracy

Text: Abramo and Schifilliti argue that the evidence was insufficient to convict them of conspiring to make and collect extortionate extensions of credit. In particular, they contend that there was no evidence of any particular extortionate loan, or of extortionate means used to collect such a loan, or of a conspiracy between these two defendants to commit the offense. The existence of the loansharking conspiracy rested in large part on Gallo's improperly admitted plea allocution, and on co-conspirators' statements reported by the cooperating witnesses, some of which defendants argue were also inadmissible. But for the purpose of assessing the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, we must weigh that evidence as though it was properly admitted. See Cruz, 363 F.3d at 197. (Our ruling on sufficiency therefore does not support any inference as to admissibility.) Cooperating witnesses admitted to personal participation in loansharking, and testified extensively about the Decavalcante family's involvement in loansharking and shylocking. See, e.g., Tr. 156-57, 1275, 1590, 1932. It was explained that shylocking is the same thing as loan sharking. Tr. 2565. Cooperating witness Palermo defined loansharking as lending money at high interest rates, and using violence or the threat of violence to ensure repayment. Tr. 1976-77. Asked what happens if a loan shark customer fails to pay back the money he borrowed, Palermo explained, you extend it for a while and then if nothing happens, he winds up with a beating. Tr.1977. Palermo described a particular debtor who was having difficulty keeping up with his payments, and was consequently afraid for his life and thought the wise guys to whom he owed the money were going to hurt or kill him. Id. Similarly, Rotondo defined loansharking as len[ding] money to others at usurious rates . . . with the understanding that something would happen to them if they didn't pay it back. Tr. 930. Capo testified that the means of collecting such loans were [t]hreats of intimidation, reputation, I would try to know my customers to make sure they . . . understood my position in organized crime or association with it. Tr. 158. See 18 U.S.C. § 891(7) (defining loansharking to include an extension of credit where the debtor reasonably believed that . . . the creditor had a reputation for the use of extortionate means to collect . . . or to punish the nonrepayment thereof). Specifically as to Abramo, cooperating witnesses testified that he was the Shylock's Shylock, Tr. 1145, and offered details about Abramo's loan shark book and loan shark pickups, Tr. 1146, 1147. They described Abramo's partners in the loanshark business, the crew members who served as enforcers, his arrangements for delivery of loanshark payments, and his measures for dealing with problem debtors. Tr. 1145-47, 2237, 2251-52. As to Schifilliti, cooperating witness Palermo testified that the defendant discussed details about his loansharking business and on one occasion asked Palermo to lend two crew members to make a collection on a loan. Tr. 2282, 2037. Palermo further testified about a conversation with one of those crew members who explained that, in order to collect money from the debtor, he had to strong-arm[ ] the guy, [get] very nasty with the guy. Tr. 2222-23. The evidence thus established that these defendants engaged in loansharking and conspired with several other co-conspirators to run their loansharking operations. It was unnecessary to link Abramo's and Schifilliti's operations in order to convict them both of the loansharking offense. The combination of the admissible and inadmissible evidence was sufficient to support a conviction.