Opinion ID: 777541
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Folco as Loan Shark

Text: 13 In weighing Perrotta's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence against him, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict. United States v. Benjamin, 252 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.2001). There was ample evidence at trial that Folco was a loan shark, including a notebook in which Folco had recorded the principal amount, interest rate, and payment schedule of over a dozen debts owed to him. The interest Folco charged on these loans was two to three percent per week. There was extensive evidence that it was Folco's practice to use violence and threats of violence to collect debts. For example, Folco explained to Gary Cedroni (a Folco associate) that one of his debt collectors, who had just got out of the can and was half fucking nuts, would crack a debtor in order to scare him enough to secure payment. 1 In a second conversation, Folco told Cedroni that one of his debt collectors had cracked [a debtor] on the mouth on Folco's behalf and said `You better have the money by six o'clock or else.' In a third conversation, George Melillo (another Folco associate) indicated to Folco that the next time he encountered a certain debtor, Melillo would smash him in the mouth ... [k]nock him out cold. Folco suggested that the debtor be warned that if payment was not made within a week, he and his father would get a beating. The surveillance tapes contained several other accounts of Folco's extortionate techniques.