Opinion ID: 770518
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sufficiency of evidence as to conspiratorial participation

Text: 47 The district court found that the evidence was insufficient to show that the defendants had actually obtained anything sufficiently determinable in degree of value to allow the calculation of an amount of forfeiture. (Emphasis added). The court addressed the factual bases upon which the government sought forfeiture according to each category of illegal proceeds sought. We will follow that format and will discuss the involvement of each defendant as it relates to the particular category of proceeds. 48
49 A brief review of the conspiratorial enterprise is helpful in putting the other facts into context. Jack Tocco was alleged to be the Boss of this illegal enterprise, the head of members and capos (supervisors). Many members were charged in this case with participation in criminal activities for financial gain, and the Boss and capos shared in the division of revenues, as allegedly did members, such as defendants Nove Tocco and Paul Corrado. Count one named the defendants as having engaged in a racketeering conspiracy involving extortionate credit or loan activities and collections, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, extortion, illegal gambling, and various conspiracies involving these acts and violent offenses, and acquiring concealed interests in Las Vegas gambling facilities. That count also charged that each defendant agreed that certain predicate acts of racketeering would be committed in carrying out the illegal enterprise and conducting its affairs. Each of these defendants, except for Giacalone who pled guilty, were found to be guilty of count one. 50 Unlike the general conspiracy statute, § 1962(d) requires no overt act orspecific act in carrying it forward. Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 32, 63 (1997). Furthermore, the supporters are as guilty as the perpetrators . . . so long as they share a common purpose, conspirators are liable for the acts of their co-conspirators. Id. at 64. A RICO conspirator may be convicted 'so long as he' agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct that constitutes such crime. Id. at 65 (quoting the Model Penal Code § 5.03(1)(a) (1962) (emphasis added)). Salinas, moreover, summarizes these conspiracy principles applicable to the RICO charges in counts one and two: A conspiracy may exist even if a conspirator does not agree to commit or facilitate every part of the substantive offense. See United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 253-54 (1940). Id. at 63 (emphasis added). We agree that it is not determinative that the defendant committed the crime to further his own agenda, if indeed he was only able to commit the crime by virtue of his position within the enterprise. Id.; see also United States v. Indelicato, 865 F.2d 1370, 1383 (2d Cir. 1989) (en banc). 51 The government was charged with proving that the predicate acts in connection with the conspiracy were related to its illegal purposes, and that these acts constitute a threat of ongoing criminal activity. H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239 (1989); Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex, 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985). The standard, which was met in this case as to the pertinent RICO conspiracy counts, is known as the relationship plus continuity test. Imrex, 473 U.S. at 496 n.14. In defining a 'pattern' . . . Congress [provided that] '[c]riminal conduct forms a pattern if it embraces criminal acts that have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics.' Id.. 52 In considering the continuity prong of the requirements of proof, the Supreme Court has defined what is required: 53 [T]he threat of continuity is sufficiently established where the predicates can be attributed to a defendant operating as part of a long term association that exists for criminal purposes. Such associations include, but extend well beyond, those traditionally grouped under the phrase organized crime. 54 H.J., Inc., 492 U.S. at 242-43. 55 As to relationship or relatedness, [t]he business of a criminal enterprise is crime [and its] crimes form a pattern defined by the purposes of the enterprise. United States v. Masters, 924 F.2d 1362, 1366 (7th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 565-66 (3d Cir. 1991). The predicate acts do not necessarily need to be directly interrelated; they must, however, be connected to the affairs and operations of the criminal enterprise. United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924, 943 (2d Cir. 1993); United States v. Qaoud, 777 F.2d 1105, 1116 (6th Cir. 1985). We adopt the holding in a somewhat similar organized-crime case on the relatedness question: 56 [T]he relatedness requirement can be satisfied by proof that: (1) the defendant was enabled to commit the offense solely by virtue of his position in the enterprise; or (2) the offense was related to the activities of the enterprise. 57 Locasio, 6 F.3d at 943. 58
59 The district court denied any forfeiture award against Nove Tocco, Paul Corrado, and the other defendants despite much evidence of recorded conversations between Nove and Paul regarding their forceful collections of the street tax from bookmakers engaged in illegal gambling. The $234,700 in street tax proceeds was calculated from the amounts taken fromstatements that the two were generating about $100,000 a year off the street from the business. Conservatively estimating that the activity continued for one and one-half years in the early 1990s, the government concluded that Nove and Paul generally collected about $150,000 over 18 months. In addition, more specific evidence showed that about $84,700 was extorted from Ramzi Yaldoo and George Yatooma, both of whom testified at trial as to the amounts extorted from them. Thus, the evidence was undisputed that Nove Tocco and Paul Corrado were engaged in this extortionate activity, receiving at least $234,700. 60 The district court determined that Paul and Nove were acting on behalf of the conspiratorial enterprise and that their collection of the street taxes should be attributable to the members of the enterprise. From our review of the transcripts of the tape recordings, we find that it was clear error for the district court to fail to attribute those proceeds to Jack Tocco and Giacalone, who were members of the criminal enterprise. The government should not have been required to prove that Nove and Paul shared their collections with other partners. Nor was it required to show the proportion of sharing or to trace these extortionate collections back to each member. The entire illegal scheme could not have succeeded were it not for the support, or the use of the name and the reputation of, the conspiratorial enterprise. Witnesses testified that they believed that Nove and Paul were supported by the larger organization of which they were a part. Recorded conversations between Nove and Paul indicate that they were working with (or for), or were empowered by, the capos Jack Tocco and Anthony Corrado. Because the amount of proceeds from this activity was quantifiable from the evidence at trial, and because the evidence showed that the scheme was related to the entire criminal enterprise of which these defendants were active members, we find that the district court committed clear error in failing to hold Jack Tocco and Giacalone jointly and severally liable for forfeiture of the street tax proceeds. 61
62 The government asserted that the profits made from the sale of the hotel interests were a basis for forfeiture against Jack Tocco and Vito Giacalone. With respect to the sale of the Frontier Hotel specifically, evidence was submitted solely through the testimony of Anthony Polizzi, who testified that the hotel was sold to Howard Hughes for a $1,000,000 profit. Polizzi testified that his father stated that he and his partners each received unspecified shares of the proceeds from the sale. Michael Corrado and Anthony Zerilli were convicted and imprisoned for conspiracy to acquire and maintain hidden interests in the Frontier Hotel gambling and casino operation. Further, Polizzi testified that he heard Jack Tocco thanking his father for his efforts in obtaining the interest on behalf of the partnership. 63 While we believe this is a close issue, we cannot ignore that there is relatively little corroborative evidence on this account. The sale of a hotel is a complicated transaction, yet there was no evidence that any of the defendants were personally involved, nor is there any evidence to corroborate the alleged statements made by Michael and related to his son regarding the involvement of the enterprise. The evidence of the thank you comment of Jack Tocco is not sufficient to show that the entire group was involved in this substantial transaction. Based on this scant evidence of a connection between the enterprise and the sale of this hotel, we decline the invitation to reverse the district court with respect to this $1,000,000 forfeiture request. 64
65 The evidence regarding the sale of the Edgewater Hotel, however, is a different matter. FBI agent Ruffino testifiedthat he overheard a conversation between Anthony Corrado, Vito Giacalone, and William Pompili, where they were discussing the sale of their interest in the Edgewater. Ruffino stated that he received from the sale of the hotel $800,000 and $1.6 million and having another $800,000 on December 31st, totalling $3.2 million. The district court attributed none of the $3,200,000 value to Anthony Corrado, Giacalone or Jack Tocco because the involvement in the Edgewater Hotel was not connected to the Detroit partnership except through the participation of members Anthony Corrado and Vito William Giacalone. (Emphasis added). Again, because the government did not show that the Detroit partnership received and distributed among themselves any amount of money . . . from the sale, forfeiture was denied, even as to Giacalone and Anthony Corrado. 66 In addition to the testimony of agent Ruffino, corroborating evidence from the Nevada Gaming Commission was submitted regarding the Edgewater interest. Also, there was evidence that Giacalone had meetings with Pompili, since deceased, in Las Vegas, and that Jack Tocco and Anthony Corrado also met with Pompili, who had architectural plans for the Edgewater Hotel and Casino. 67 Based on this evidence, which is considerably more substantial than the evidence relating to the sale of the Frontier, we find that it was clear error for the district court to deny forfeiture against Jack Tocco and Giacalone, jointly and severally, for the profits that the members of the enterprise shared from the sale of the Edgewater Hotel. The continuing activities were related to the illegal purposes of the conspiracy charged, and Giacalone's and Corrado's personal involvement confirms that the Cosa Nostra was involved in obtaining these illegal proceeds. The district court itself acknowledged the participation of defendants Anthony Corrado and Vito Giacalone and their involvement in the Edgewater Hotel transaction. As previously pointed out, the district court's requirement that the Detroit partnership must have received and distributed among themselves proceeds or monetary benefits from the Edgewater in order for forfeiture to attach was erroneous if any of the lead partners obtained financial benefits by reason of their participation or involvement in that enterprise. 68 We find irrelevant the district court's observation that the gambling activity carried on by these hotels was not illegal. The illegality of the transactions was the Detroit enterprise's concealment and misrepresentation involved in acquiring the secret interest held by the Detroit Cosa Nostra through straw men such as Pompili. This latter activity was sufficiently related to the charged conspiracy's pattern and practice of illegal activity with respect to gambling to put defendants on notice concerning potential forfeiture from the sale of the Edgewater Hotel. Item No. 13 of the indictment as to count one charged it to be a part of the conspiracy to use fronts or straw men to acquire interests in Nevada hotel casinos and to conceal their interests from the State of Nevada. Thus, we find that there was sufficient proof to establish that the Edgewater Hotel transaction was a part of the conspiracy herein, particularly as to Vito Giacalone (and as to Anthony Corrado if he is not granted a new trial upon remand). However, there is sufficient uncertainty as to the profits or revenues derived from that transaction to necessitate a remand to the district court on the Edgewater forfeiture question. Thus, upon remand, the district court should consider, under the standards herein established as to forfeiture, to what extent or degree forfeiture should be ordered against Jack Tocco and Vito Giacalone. 69
70 Silverio (Sal) Vitello testifed that he paid Vito Giacalone $1,000 per week for about 10 years to assure labor peace. He also stated that he gave Giacalone randomcash payments and Christmas bonuses. He concluded that he paid about $1,000,000 to Giacalone in total. The government sought to use this testimony as a basis for an additional amount of forfeiture. The district court rejected that position, stating that [t]he government offered no evidence to show that the money paid to Giacalone was ever shared by others in the Detroit partnership. 71 In our view, the evidence was sufficient to show that Giacalone obtained $1,000,000 from Sal Vitello for his assistance in using his influence and strong-arm support in challenging the unions. We find Giacalone was obviously empowered to help Vitello based on his membership in the Detroit family. Although the district court declined to forfeit these proceeds because there was no offer of evidence to show that the money paid to Giacalone was ever shared by others in the Detroit partnership, we find this conclusion by the district court to be clearly erroneous, certainly as to Vito Giacalone himself. 72 Giacalone pled guilty to the conspiracy allegations in count two, but count one charges were realleged and incorporated by reference in count two. Giacalone's activities with Vitello, acknowledged to have occurred by reason of his guilty plea, were related to the alleged purposes of the RICO conspiracy and his acts were ongoing and reflected continuity as discussed in the conspiracy principles section hereinabove. Even if the evidence supports a finding that Giacalone acted on his own in extorting money from Vitello, it is not determinative that [he] committed the crime to further his own agenda, if indeed he was only able to commit the crime by virtue of his position with the enterprise. Salinas, 522 U.S. at 63. Thus, the district court clearly erred in requiring that the government demonstrate that Giacalone shared with his co-conspirators the proceeds received from Vitello. The court should have assessed the forfeiture amount of $1,000,000 against Giacalone and Jack Tocco, jointly and severally. 73
74 Evidence as to these alleged payments or distribution of revenues from the Detroit enterprise to defendants springs primarily from Angelo Polizzi's testimony. Jack Tocco and Vito Giacalone, as partners, were identified as periodic recipients of unlawful gambling proceeds. As indicated above, Angelo Polizzi testified about information given him by his father Michael, also a partner in the Detroit Cosa Nostra. According to Angelo Polizzi, his father received periodic illegal gambling draws of between $700 and $1,000 per week in 1994. Further, Polizzi accompanied his father in delivering draws to other partners. The district court noted that there was a paucity of any corroborating evidence to support Polizzi's statements. The district court, therefore, declined to use 30 years of weekly draws as a basis for calculating an amount to be forfeited. (Emphasis added.) 75 Polizzi also testified that Christmas bonuses totaling $30,000 were paid to his mother for the benefit of his father while Michael was incarcerated (on the Nevada gambling casino matter). Sal Vitello also testified that he paid Giacalone substantial amounts annually as Christmas bonuses over many years. Because the district court found that there was insufficient proof that Jack Tocco or Anthony Corrado benefitted from these payments made to avoid labor problems, it declined to award forfeiture with regard to these payments to Giacalone. 76 Although this is a close issue, we affirm the decision of the district court in this regard, because the evidence regarding the amounts of these proceeds is speculative at best 4 . Our decision, it should benoted, is not based upon the district court's decision that any such draws or bonuses were not shown to have benefitted Jack Tocco. Rather, we find that the evidence was insufficient to calculate accurately a forfeiture award with respect to these proceeds.