About | Buy Print Edition at Amazon | Contact | Five Families - The New York City Mafia | Mirror | Return to the Main Menu | Send this Page
2011
01.23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Hon. Susan D. Wigenton

v. 10 Cr. 851

STEPHEN DEPIRO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 894(a),
a/k/a “Beach,” 1084(a), 1951(a),    
ALBERT CERNADAS, 1955(a), 1962(d)   and 1963
a/k/a “The Bull,”          
NUNZIO LAGRASSO,          
RICHARD DEHMER,          
a/k/a “Dickie,”          
EDWARD AULISI,          
a/k/a “Eddie,”          
VINCENT AULISI,          
a/k/a “The Vet,”          
THOMAS LEONARDIS,          
a/k/a “Tommy,”          
ROBERT RUIZ,          
a/k/a “Bobby,”          
MICHAEL TRUEBA,          
a/k/a “Mikey,”          
RAMIRO QUINTANS,          
a/k/a “Romo,”          
SALVATORE LAGRASSO,          
ANTHONY ALFANO,          
a/k/a “Brooklyn,”          
TONINO COLANTONIO,          
a/k/a “Tony,”          
JOHN HARTMANN,          
a/k/a “Lumpy,” “Fatty” and        
“Fats,” and          
GIUSEPPE PUGLIESE,          
a/k/a “Pepe”          
               

 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 3142

PAUL J. FISHMAN United States Attorney District of New Jersey 970 Broad Street Newark, New Jersey 07102

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The government respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3142, for an order detaining lead defendant Stephen Depiro pretrial and releasing the remaining defendants conditioned on the satisfaction of stringent conditions, enumerated below, including large secured bonds, house arrest, and prohibitions pertaining to employment and union activities.

Depiro is a soldier in the Genovese organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra (“the Genovese crime family”) and, since at least 2005, has managed and controlled the crime family’s waterfront rackets through corrupt International Longshoreman’s Association (“ILA”) union officials. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3142(e), there is no condition or combination of conditions which “will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” Accordingly, the entry of an order detaining Depiro pretrial is warranted.

As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, the Genovese crime family has preyed for years upon ILA members employed in various positions on the New Jersey docks through a pattern of racketeering activity. That pattern is predicated, in part, on the systematic use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, to force dockworkers to make tribute payments -amounts

ranging up to thousands of dollars each year -to the Genovese

crime family at Christmastime. The extortions typically coincided

with certain ILA members’ receipt of “Container Royalty Fund”

checks, a form of year-end compensation. The breadth and scope of

the extortion scheme at issue is stunning: It dates back nearly

three decades; implicates the last three Presidents of ILA Local

1235 (defendants Albert Cernadas, Vincent Aulisi and Thomas

Leonardis), a long-standing Vice-President of ILA Local 1235

(defendant Michael Trueba) and the long-standing Vice-President of

ILA Local 1478 (defendant Nunzio LaGrasso); and illuminates the

victimization of countless ILA members -including members of ILA

Local I, ILA Local 1235 and ILA Local 1478 -a number of whom are

identified in the Superseding Indictment as John Does #1-11, by

the Genovese crime family.l

1 An indictment was also unsealed today in the Eastern District of New York charging three ILA members -Patrick Cicalese, Robert Moreno and Manuel Salgado -with obstruction of justice and perjury. Specifically, Patrick Cicalese, a Genovese crime family associate and the Chief Planning Clerk at Maher Terminals in Newark, New Jersey, is charged with attempting to obstruct justice and perjury in relation to his appearance before a grand jury in the Eastern District of New York in January 2010, during which appearance he testified falsely regarding a meeting he had arranged between himself and Stephen Depiro so that he

(Cicalese) could “run things by” Depiro. Moreno, an ILA Local 1478 Shop Steward, is charged with attempting to obstruct justice and perjury in relation to his federal grand jury appearance in Brooklyn, New York in November 2009, during which appearance he testified falsely that Nunzio LaGrasso had not previously asked Moreno to cover up for an ILA worker who was not at work. Salgado, a Gang Boss at Port Newark Container Terminal (“PNCT”), is charged with attempting to obstruct justice and perjury in relation to his grand jury appearance in April 2010, during which

Depiro’s criminal enterprise was not limited to criminal

conduct on the port, and extended to illegal gambling operations, in which defendant Richard Dehmer threatened physical harm against individuals to collect outstanding debts. For example, in a telephone conversation intercepted pursuant to court-authorized wiretapping, Dehmer discussed his plans for a victim (identified as John Doe #12 in the Superseding Indictment) who had failed to pay a gambling debt in a timely manner: “I guarantee you, he needs his hands to work. He ain’t working no more for a while.” 2

The fact that high-ranking union officials and others were willing to, and did, perpetrate such crimes, including crimes of violence, on Depiro’s behalf constitutes compelling evidence that he poses a danger to the community; Depiro should be detained on that basis alone. Moreover, Depiro previously has exhibited a complete disregard of the law by repeatedly violating prior conditions of pretrial release, supervised release and probation, demonstrating that he cannot be trusted to abide by the conditions of release and act in a lawful manner.

appearance Salgado testified falsely that he had never had a conversation with anyone about paying money around Christmastime on the ports. Cicalese, Moreno and Salgado will be arraigned on the charges in the indictment this afternoon in Brooklyn, New York.

2 The government hereby provides the defendants with notice pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2518(9), of the government’s intent to rely on evidence gathered pursuant to court-authorized wiretaps in the prosecution of this matter.

In addition, Depiro committed additional crimes while on

release, and went so far as to conceal the flight from justice of fellow Genovese crime family member Michael Coppola, who was then the subject of a warrant related to a murder investigation. Depiro was convicted in the District of New Jersey of that conduct in 2002, but nonetheless, obviously undeterred, continued to aid Coppola, including facilitating Coppola’s involvement in the Genovese crime family’s control of the New Jersey piers. Depiro was indicted for that conduct on April 28, 2010, in the Eastern District of New York, which case is pending.

Finally, Depiro, now 55 years old, faces severe penalties if convicted of the instant charges; the prospect that he will spend his remaining days incarcerated provides compelling incentive to flee. Hence, the Court should enter an order detaining Depiro pending trial.

Second, the Court should condition the release of defendant Nunzio LaGrasso on the posting of a $1,000,000 bond, at least 70% secured. As Depiro’s cousin and Vice-President of lLA Local 1478, LaGrasso served as one of the Genovese crime family’s conduits at the ports, using his official union position to collect tribute payments from dockworkers each holiday season for more than 20 years, and funneling that cash to Depiro and the Genovese crime family. The charges against both LaGrasso and fellow Genovese crime family associate Albert Cernadas are

similar, as both served for extended periods as union officials

and conduits for extortion payments to the Genovese crime family. In this regard, on December 13, 2010, defendant Albert Cernadas was arraigned on the charges contained in the first indictment in this case, at which time Magistrate Judge Esther Salas imposed bail in the amount of a $1,000,000 bond, secured by multiple properties with equity of approximately $700,000, i.e., 70% fully secured. In short, since LaGrasso and Cernadas share relatively the same level of culpability in the extortion scheme at issue, their bail packages should be substantially similar.

Third, the Court should release defendant Richard Dehmer only conditioned on a secured bond and home detention. Dehmer served as a Genovese crime family associate who, along with Depiro and others, managed an illegal overseas sports betting operation and collected gambling debts. Despite his age, Dehmer was able to force individuals to pay debts by virtue of his criminal association: People paid Dehmer because they feared Depiro. In addition, Dehmer resorted to threats of violence against gambling debtors, stating in recorded telephone conversations that he intended to use a “bat” and “break every bone” to collect outstanding debts. Dehmer also operated an illegal gambling establishment in Kenilworth, New Jersey, which gamblers frequented for regular poker games. Finally, Dehmer faces up to 20 years in prison on each of the racketeering counts contained in the Superseding Indictment. Because Dehmer constitutes a danger to the community and a flight risk given the severe penalties he is facing, release on a secured bond with a requirement of home detention is appropriate.

Fourth, pretrial release conditions comprising significant, secured bonds are necessary and appropriate with respect to defendants Edward Aulisi, Vincent Aulisi, Thomas Leonardis, Robert Ruiz, Michael Trueba, Ramiro Quintans and Salvatore LaGrasso. These defendants, nearly all of whom were union or port supervisors, abused their lLA positions to extort port workers entrusted to their stewardship. These defendants extracted tribute payments from their co-workers at Christmastime each year, and did so through the threat of physical violence and the infliction of psychological harm. Simply put, these defendants preyed upon their co-workers’ vulnerability and fear for their physical safety and job security. That these defendants went so far as to shake-down the same individuals they worked alongside of each day speaks volumes regarding their criminal proclivities and the danger to the community and potential witnesses posed by pretrial release. Moreover, the defendants pose flight risks because they will be removed from their jobs and face severe penalties if convicted.

OVERVIEW OF DEFENDANTS & CHARGES3

A. RICO DEFENDANTS

1. RICO Charges (Counts 1 and 2)

Defendants Stephen Depiro, Albert Cernadas, Nunzio LaGrasso and Richard Dehmer (collectively, the “RICO Defendants”) are charged with violations of the Racketeer Influenced and corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et~, as members and associates of the Genovese crime family. As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, the Genovese crime family’s primary purpose is to generate money for its members and associates through various criminal activities, including extortion, loansharking and gambling; among the methods and means by which the Genovese crime family furthers those criminal goals are the use and threatened use of violence and threats of economic harm.

Indeed, the charges against Depiro, Cernadas and Nunzio LaGrasso arise from a multi-decade conspiracy to extort ILA union workers on the New Jersey waterfront by threat of force, violence and fear. Similarly, Depiro and Dehmer are charged with a racketeering conspiracy predicated on the extortionate collection of unlawful debt (“CUD RICO”), which conduct involved prospective force and violence. The maximum penalty on both RICO Counts 1 and 2 is a 20-year period of incarceration.

3 The charges and racketeering acts contained in the Superseding Indictment are summarized at “Appendix A” hereto.

2.          Substantive Extortion Charges (Counts 3-4; 9; 14­25; 43-44)

RICO Defendants Depiro, Cernadas and Nunzio LaGrasso are also charged with conspiring to commit Hobbs Act extortion and numerous substantive extortion counts. RICO Defendants Depiro and Dehmer are charged with conspiring to make extortionate collections of credit and Dehmer is charged with a substantive violation regarding same. Each substantive extortion violation carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ incarceration.

3.         Substantive Illegal Gambling Charges (Counts 41-42; 45-53) RICO Defendants Depiro and Dehmer are also charged with illegal gambling offenses relating to bookmaking and conspiracy to commit same, which carry a maximum penalty of five years’ incarceration. Additionally, Dehmer is charged with offenses relating to an illegal gambling club, which carry a maximum penalty of five years’ incarceration, and the transmission of

wagering information, for which the maximum penalty is 2 years’ incarceration. 4

4 Defendant John Hartmann is charged with conspiring to commit, and the commission of, bookmaking. Similarly, defendants Giuseppe Pugliese, Anthony Alfano and Tonino Colantonio are charged in relation to their participation in illegal poker games. These defendants, Hartmann, Pugliese, Alfano and Colantonio (collectively, the “Gambling Defendants”), are not charged with crimes of violence and will not be addressed separately herein.

B. EXTORTION DEFENDANTS

Defendants Albert Cernadas, Nunzio LaGrasso, Edward Aulisi, Vincent Aulisi, Thomas Leonardis, Robert Ruiz, Michael Trueba, Ramiro Quintans and Salvatore LaGrasso are separately charged with conspiring to commit Hobbs Act extortion and numerous substantive extortion violations (collectively, the “Extortion Defendants”). Each of violation charged carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ incarceration. As summarized below, these defendants used their lucrative positions in the ILA to perpetuate a long-term extortion scheme of ILA dockworkers on the New Jersey piers:

Defendant Position(s) Compensation (Year)
CERNADAS ILA Local 1235 President; ILA Executive Vice-President $532,719 (2004)
N. LAGRASSO ILA Local 1478 Vice-President; ILA Representative $255,916 (2010)
E. AULISI ILA Local 1 Checker $99,090 (2007)
V. AULISI ILA Local 1235 President $181,432 (2007)
LEONARDIS ILA Local 1235 President; ILA Representative $256,063 (2010)
RUIZ ILA Local 1235 Delegate; ILA Representative $230,512 (2010)
TRUEBA ILA Local 1235 Vice-President; Maher Terminals Shop Steward $403,756 (2010)
QUINTANS ILA Local 1235 Stevedore Foreman $269,035 (2010)
S. LAGRASSO ILA Local 1235 Head General Foreman $274,790 (2010)

 

BACKGROUND

The Superseding Indictment unsealed today is the latest in a succession of cases targeting the Genovese crime family’s control over the New Jersey waterfront through corrupt ILA union officials. Stephen Depiro, a “made” member in the Genovese crime family, is the most recent successor from the violent crew that has controlled the crime family’s port-related rackets for decades.

A. XLA Union Corruption

On February 11, 2005, a superseding indictment was filed in the Eastern District of New York against four defendants, Arthur Coffey, Harold Daggett, Albert Cernadas and Lawrence Ricci. Among other positions they held in the ILA, Coffey was the President of ILA Locals 1922, 1922-1 and 2062, Daggett was the President of ILA Local 1804-1, and Cernadas was the President of ILA Local 1235. The indictment alleged that Coffey and Daggett were associates of Genovese crime family crews based in New York, Ricci was a captain in a crew based in Northern New Jersey ­reportedly under Tino Fiumara -and that Cernadas was a Genovese crime family associate connected to Ricci’s crew.

Count Two of the indictment charged the defendants with a wire/mail fraud conspiracy between 1996 and October 2004 relating to various union benefit funds which provided health care benefits to members of the ILA in different regions of the United

States. As part of the conspiracy, it was alleged that Coffey, Daggett and Cernadas secretly agreed to award contracts relating to the provision of fund benefits to two different companies, one of which paid an associate of organized crime.and the other of which was associated with organized crime. By awarding contracts to these companies, Coffey, Daggett and Cernadas allegedly intended to earn money for organized crime and ensure the assistance of organized crime in maintaining their positions and salaries as officers of the ILA.

On September 12, 2005, Cernadas pled guilty to Count Two of the indictment and received a sentence of probation. In addition, Cernadas entered into a consent decree which, among other things, barred him from further employment with the ILA. On September 19, 2005, the remaining defendants proceeded to trial, which resulted in their acquittal. While the trial was underway, however, defendant Ricci failed to attend court and could not be located. Weeks later, on or about November 30, 2005, Ricci’s body was found in the trunk of a car behind the Huck Finn Diner in Union, New Jersey. The investigation into Ricci’s murder is ongoing, and court documents have been filed in the Eastern District of New York concerning suspected targets Tino Fiumara and Michael Coppola, among others.

B. RICO Prosecution of Michael Coppola

Michael Coppola, a Genovese captain, was a fugitive from a New Jersey state murder beginning in 1996, when he was served with a summons to provide DNA, until March 2007, when he was captured on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. On July 21, 2009, in the Eastern District of New York, Coppola was convicted after trial of racketeering and racketeering conspiracy, including a predicate act involving extortion and wire fraud in regard to lLA Local 1235.

At Coppola’s trial, witnesses testified regarding the existence of a long-standing agreement between the Gambino and Genovese crime families to divide control over the New York/New Jersey waterfront, pursuant to which the ports in Brooklyn and Staten Island are controlled by the Gambino crime family, and the Manhattan and New Jersey ports are controlled by the Genovese crime family. Witness testimony and other evidence further established that the Genovese crime family crew that has controlled the New Jersey waterfront consisted of, among others, Tino Fiumara, Michael Coppola, Albert Cernadas, Vincent Aulisi and Edward Aulisi.

For example, on March 6, 2007, Coppola had a telephone conversation with defendant Edward Aulisi, a Genovese crime family associate, that directly pertained to the crime family’s three­decade conspiracy to control the leadership of lLA Local 1235. At

the time, Edward Aulisi’s father, Vincent Aulisi, also a Genovese

crime family associate, was the President of Local 1235, after

Cernadas had pled guilty and agreed to a life-time bar from

participating in the lLA. During the conversation, Coppola and

Aulisi discussed several topics, including payments from Local

1235 to the mafia, as well as Coppola’s crew’s historical control

over the union. A pertinent excerpt of the conversation follows:

Aulisi:                            On that note. Ohh, and the VET told me to pass it on. Umm. What the hell did he say to me? Ohh, that, ah, he was glad that, ah, the other, the Cuban, that RICKY RICARDO, was there when this guy made mention hey, once I’m outta, once I’m gone from here this thing stops. So, MIKE, the VET said, this thing stops? The beat goes on, whether you’re here or not. But, RICKY RICARDO was there when he said, he said it.

Coppola:                        Who, who.

Aulisi:                            He said I, want you to relay that.

Coppola:                        Which guy? Who said that?

Aulisi:                            The BULL. You know when this is gone, when I’m gone, he says this thing is gonna end. Meaning, meaning ahh, the month, you know, the the christmases, and everything else, he says what you talking about?

Coppola:                        Yeah, yeah.

Aulisi:                            This gonna, thing’s gonna go on. He wanted me to mention this thing almost, almost doubled.

Coppola:                        (ur)

Aulisi:                            (Ur)

Coppola: Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi:

Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola: Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola: Aulisi:

Yeah we we ­

(UI)

We don’t want him, we don’t want him to be aware of that. We don’t want him to be aware of anything.

No, no, he doesn’t go into them lines with him, but he just want, he wanted me to make mention, you know. I’m glad that the RICKY was there to hear, cause after the guy left he said RICKY came up to me, and says you mention that that this guy wants this thing, this ain’t gonna go no more, he’s got that idea so.

Well, you heard the thing, you heard the thing, what he asked for with his kid didn’t you?

Yeah, yeah, I was laughing (UI)

(UI) fucking (UI)

He’s nuts.

Are they freaking insane? First of all ­

(UI) He was the first one, he was the first

one, when, when the CONG (ph.) you know who that is? Ahh, urn I think so. Just the, with the same name as ahh as

ahhh POP, the guy that was there before. Right. In the beginning. Yeah, yeah.

14

Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi:

Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola:

OK, ok, alright when he left he wanted to leave his wife there. We said under no circumstances, he, he -­

Right.

You know, and, and, we were right next to him all the time during this whole thing, and he said under no circumstances. I said, we, you know, I said, the other guy said, we had to learn from the past.

Right right.

You see the guys that where over with, the ahh, with the truck drivers, when he put his ­

Yes, yes.

Daughter there. When he put his daughter there that time. It created nothing but problems with the men, because the men resent it. Because, in other words, what about the guys that work all their lives through the rank and file, and, and they’re coming up the hard way. Don’t they get a shot? So, you think somebody

It should be a natural common sense thing, that’s right.

And, and, you get, you know, you get a kid out of left field. Where’s the respect gonna come from and where’s everything else gonna come from? So,

sent -­

It ain’t.

word back, under no circumstance, under no, what you call and what does he have, ahh, a short memory? He was the first one to bitch about when the CONG wanted to do it, and then I said, well, we know, and, tell him to remember what happened to these guys when he wanted to put his

lS

daughter there. You know, you have everybody else there. They’re all making a living, Everybody –
Aulisi: Right.
Coppola: It’s time, it’s time for everybody to move on and turn the page.
Aulisi: Right.
Coppola: We don’t want no part of that kid.
Aulisi: I hear ya. Well, you know, its funny and ironic when when he had said you know, this guy made mention to me -­[operator: thirty seconds] -that the kid wasn’t gonna, the kid wasn’t gonna listen to anybody, anyway, now all of sudden he can talk to him, you know, so –
Coppola: Yeah, well he can’t talk to him.
Aulisi: Yeah.    
Coppola: He can’t talk. It’s, it’s, not gonna happen to, you relay that to, to, POP that’s all.
Aulisi: Ok.
             

 

In this conversation, Aulisi told Coppola that Cernadas, a/k/a “The Bull,” had discussed with the then-current President of Local 1235, Vincent Aulisi, whether “the month” and “the christmases” (payments) were going to end when Cernadas left the union. In the recording, Edward Aulisi told Coppola that Vincent Aulisi had instructed Edward (the speaker) to tell Coppola that the “month” and “christmases” were going to continue and in fact had “almost doubled.” Coppola responded by telling Edward that they do not want Cernadas “to be aware of anything.”

16

Coppola and Edward Aulisi also discussed the fact that Cernadas had asked for something for his “kid,” but that Coppola had “sent word back” denying Cernadas’s request. During this portion of the conversation, Coppola related to Aulisi the story of what happened when the former president of Local 1235 wanted to leave his wife in place at the union after leaving himself. Coppola refers to the former president as “Cong” and “[the guy] with the same name as ahh as ahhh POP, the guy that was there before.” The former president of lLA Local 1235 was Vincent Colucci, who shares a first name with Vincent Aulisi (Edward Aulisi’s “Pop”), and was nicknamed “Cong.”s

With Coppola’s co-conspirator statements evidencing that his relationship with the union dates to the time that Vincent Colucci was president, including the time period in which Cernadas was president, and acknowledging the continued flow of payments made by the union membership to the Genovese crime family at Christmastime, Coppola clearly admitted his crew’s -and Cernadas’s -involvement in a long-term conspiracy to extort the members of Local 1235 of money. With the statement, “we were

S Former New Jersey state detective Robert Delaney served in an undercover capacity in an investigation into Fiumara and Coppola in the 1970s. He testified during the Coppola trial in 2009 that “Cong” or “Viet Cong” was a nickname for Vincent Colucci and that Fiumara and Coppola often used nicknames that reflected the real initials of the person being described. He also testified, in substance, that Lawrence Ricci was closely associated with Fiumara and Coppola and that he participated in the Genovese crime family’s control of the New Jersey waterfront.

right next to him all the time during this whole thing,” Coppola explained to co-conspirator Edward Aulisi that Coppola and his crew were involved in directing Cernadas for the duration of Cernadas’s control of the union, including directing Cernadas to extort union members at Christmastime. Notably, Cernadas became President of Local 1235 in the early 1980s, after Colucci was convicted of racketeering. In the conversation, Coppola also described “Cong” as the individual who was “there” (at the union) “in the beginning.” Official records from the Department of Labor show that Colucci was President of Local 1235 during the 1970s, from at least 1974.

In short, at trial in 2009, the evidence showed, among other things, that Coppola had participated in a wire fraud and extortion scheme involving the Genovese crime family’s control of a succession of Presidents of ILA Local 1235 -including RICO Defendant Albert Cernadas and Extortion Defendant Vincent Aulisi. 6

6 In convicting Coppola of racketeering conspiracy and racketeering, the jury concluded that Coppola’s involvement in the 1977 murder of fellow Genovese crime family member, Giovanni Larducci, also known as “John Lardiere,” “Coca Cola” and “Johnny Cokes,” was not proved. At trial, however, the government offered testimony to establish that Coppola had admitted to a cooperating witness that he had been the individual who shot Lardiere. Specifically, Coppola told others, “some you do with tears in your eyes,” and went on to describe how he shot Lardiere but that his gun jammed. Lardiere then stated, “What’re you gonna do now, tough guy?” Coppola described how he then drew a second pistol from his ankle holster. Coppola then shot Lardiere in the stomach, and “finished him off” by standing over Lardiere and shooting him again. Coppola further related that “[Lardiere] was a tough guy, he died like a man.” Crime scene

Following his conviction, Coppola was sentenced on December 18, 2009, to a term of incarceration of 16 years.

c. The Instant Prosecution

Prosecution witnesses are expected to testify that Depiro, first as a member of the Genovese crime family crew that controlled the New Jersey ports and then, after Ricci’s death, as the Genovese crime family member responsible for overseeing the crime family’s rackets at the ports on behalf of Fiumara and Coppola (who was a fugitive at the time), exercised influence over lLA officials. The evidence is expected to show that Depiro rose to such prominence, in part, due to Michael Coppola’s absence. As part of his control over union officials, Depiro conspired to extort members of the ILA and received proceeds from that extortion racket. Indeed, as discussed further below, in September 1998 Depiro was captured pursuant to a court-authorized wiretap discussing with Fiumara the extortion scheme at issue, with Depiro claiming that he was going to double the amount of the tribute payments due from extortion victims.

evidence and the testimony of a medical examiner strongly corroborated Coppola’s admissions as to how the murder was committed.

19

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to the Bail Reform Act (“the Act”), a defendant’s pretrial detention is warranted “upon proof of a likelihood of flight, a threatened obstruction of justice or a danger of recidivism in one or more of the crimes” specified in the statute. United States v. Himler, 797 F.2d 156, 160 (3d Cir. 1986); 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e}. The Third Circuit has held that the Act was designed to address “the growing problem of crimes committed by persons on release and the recognition that ‘there is a small but identifiable group of particularly dangerous defendants as to whom neither the imposition of stringent release conditions nor the prospect of revocation of release can reasonably assure the safety of the community or other persons.'” United States v. Accetturo, 783 F.2d 382, 383-84 (3d Cir. 1986).

The Act enumerates four factors for consideration:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the crime charged, including whether the offense is a “crime of violence;” (2) the nature and seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant’s release;

(3) the history and characteristics of the defendant; and (4) the weight of the evidence against the defendant. See ide § 3142(g). Given the generalized nature of these factors, however, it is necessary to consult case law for the particularized, context­specific analysis applicable here.

A. The Crimes Charged Are Crimes of Violence

“The Act operates only on individuals who have been arrested for a specific category of extremely serious offenses. Congress specifically found that these individuals are far more likely to be responsible for dangerous acts in the community after arrest.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 750 (1987). As the U.s. Supreme Court held in Salerno, “crimes of violence” fall within that narrow category of extremely serious offenses for which detention is warranted.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 3156(a) (4) defines the term “crime of violence” as “(A) an offense that has [as] an element of the offense the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another;

(B) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”

It is well established that extortion is a crime of violence. Indeed, the Superseding Indictment specifically alleges that the extortion of ILA dockworkers was carried out through “actual and threatened force, violence and fear.” See also United States v. Ciccone, 312 F.3d 535, 542 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Certainly, it cannot be gainsaid that extortion is a ‘crime of violence’ as that term is defined by the [Bail Reform Act] .”); United States v.

Santora, No. 07-1103, 2007 WL 1533839, at *2 (2d Cir. May 25,

2007) (finding that defendant “had committed a crime of violence, specifically conspiracy to commit extortion”) i United States v. Defede, 7 F. Supp. 2d 390, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (“The offense, extortion, is a crime of violence both because it is so defined by statute and because its completion often involves the threat of physical harm.”) .

Similarly, conspiring to use and the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect extensions of credit in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 894(a) (1) are “crimes of violence.” The Superseding Indictment alleges that defendants Depiro and Dehmer engaged in this conduct with respect to an identified victim, who was threatened with serious bodily harm. See also united States

v. Quintina, 845 F. Supp. 38, 39 (D. Mass. 1994) (holding conspiracy to use extortionate means to collect extension of credit and the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect extensions of credit “meet the statutory definitions of ‘crimes of violence'”).

B. Considerations Specific to Organized Crime Defendants

An additional factor that militates against release in cases involving crimes of violence is whether the defendant is associated with a criminal organization, the activities of which routinely include violence and threats of violence. Specifically, with respect to an individual’s association with organized crime, in United States v. Leonetti, Cr. No. 88-00003, 1988 WL 61738

(E.D. Pa. June 9, 1988), Judge Antwerpen held:

The individual criminal acts allegedly committed by each defendant will be examined, but these individual acts must always be viewed in the context of each defendant’s alleged membership in La Cosa Nostra and what that membership and organization represents.

A willingness to kill people who testify against them and to enforce Omerta, the code of silence, through murder, are rules that each defendant adopts and agrees to adhere to through his membership in La Cosa Nostra. By these rules, each of the six defendants seeking bail presents a very real danger to potential witnesses in this case.

Id. at *3 (emphasis in original); accord United States v.

Martorano, Cr. No. 92-26-J, 1992 WL 73558, at *7 (D. Mass. Mar.

23, 1992) (holding that “it is appropriate to consider the nature

of the La Cosa Nostra organizations in making the detention

calculation. In particular, courts have noted the oath taken by

members of these organizations . . . of vowing to kill any

individual posing a threat to the organization. The testimony

before the Court indicates that membership in these organizations

is highly probative of both danger and flight. Past cases also

demonstrate a danger of obstruction of justice.”) .

Consequently, where, as here, there has been a probable cause finding that a member or associate of organized crime committed crimes of violence, courts routinely find that the risk of continued criminal conduct is substantial and detention is appropriate. The rationale for detention in such cases is clear:

The activities of a criminal organization such as the Genovese Family do not cease with the arrest of its principals and their release on even the most stringent of bail conditions. The illegal businesses, in place for many years, require constant attention and protection, or they will fail. Under these circumstances, this court recognizes a strong incentive on the part of its leadership to continue business as usual. When business as usual involves threats, beatings, and murder, the present danger such people pose in the community is self evident.

united States v. Salerno, 631 F. Supp. 1364, 1375 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), order vacated, 794 F.2d 64 (2d Cir.), order reinstated, 829 F.2d 345 (2d Cir. 1987).

For example, in Ciccone, 312 F.3d at 537-38, the Second Circuit affirmed the pre-trial detention of Gambino family boss Peter Gotti, where he was alleged to have “directed the activities of his codefendants,” who committed various exortions, including extortions of the lLA. The Second Circuit ordered Gotti detained irrespective of the fact that he “was not charged with having committed the extortions alleged in the indictment.”

Id.; accord Defede, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 391, 395 (ordering detention of defendant charged with extortion and extortion conspiracy, and holding that ” [g]iven Defede’s position of leadership in a notorious and violent criminal organization, his ability to plan, order and supervise criminal activity is of paramount importance. Defede is a danger at least as much for what he might direct or assist others in doing as for what he might do himself”) .

Similarly, in United States v. Colombo, 777 F.2d 96

(2d Cir. 1985), the captain of an organized crime family crew was ordered detained because the operation of that organization posed a “risk to the public” and a “danger to the community” by its “consistent pattern of orchestrating a series of violent criminal operations.” The Second Circuit affirmed the result despite a finding by the lower court that there was “virtually no evidence of Colombo’s direct participation in the crimes charged.” Id. at

99. Finally, the Third Circuit in United States v. Provenzano, 605 F.2d 85, 89 (3d eire 1979), affirmed the district court’s order of detention pending appeal where defendant had convictions for extortion and labor racketeering, raising the potential that defendant “would continue to exercise his influence within the union corruptly and in violation of criminal law.”

c. Obstruction of Justice

Pretrial detention also is warranted in cases in which there exists “a serious risk that such person will obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) (2) (B). Although the underlying rationale for the rule is based to some degree on the need to protect potential witnesses from harm, detention is nonetheless authorized by statute absent the prospect of violence. See, e.g., United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 135 (2d Cir. 2000) (affirming lower court’s revocation of defendant’s bail based on evidence that LaFontaine had sought to influence witnesses while released on bond, and reiterating “that a record of violence or dangerousness [in the sense of violence or threats aimed against witnesses] is not necessary to support pre-trial detention”) .

Moreover, the statute is not limited to witness tampering, and instead sweeps broadly to protect any perversion of the justice process. As the Second Circuit observed in LaFontaine, “pre-trial detention was even more justified in cases of violations related to the trial process (such as witness tampering) than in cases where the defendant’s past criminality was said to support a finding of general dangerousness.” Id. at

134. Thus, conduct involving the harboring of a fugitive, for example, constitutes obstruction of justice within the reach of the statute. See, e.g., United States v. Beckstead, Cr. No. 04­

5103, 2006 WL 1112853 (4th Cir. Apr. 26, 2006) (holding that conviction for harboring fugitive warranted upward sentencing adjustment for obstruction of justice) .

D. Elaborate Bail Packages

It is well established that even the most elaborate conditions of home detention cannot substitute for incarceration where the defendant is violent or cannot be trusted to comply with the conditions of release. For example, in United States v. Bergrin, Cr. No. 09-369, 2009 WL 1560039, at *9 (D.N.J. May 29, 2009), Magistrate Judge Madeline Cox Arleo ordered the defendant detained where he had advanced his criminal enterprise “through conversations and meetings” in which he directed others to commit crimes because “even the most stringent house arrest does not address this harm and does not minimize the very real possibility that further similar criminal conduct could be carried out from home.”

Courts have consistently held, particularly with respect to prohibiting criminal association, that elaborate bail conditions

have an Achilles’ heel: if there is a unifying theme in this intricate set of restrictions, it is that virtually all of them hinge on the defendant’s good faith compliance. To illustrate, electronic monitoring, while valuable in pretrial release cases

. . . cannot be expected to prevent a defendant from committing crimes or deter him from participating in felonious activity within the monitoring radius. Second, by allowing outside visits to doctors and lawyers, the conditions open up a sizeable loophole; there is no feasible way of assuring that [the

defendant], while en route to and from such

appointments, will not make stops and take detours with

a view toward continuing his criminal life. House

arrest poses much the same problem; limiting visitors

can only work, for example, if the appellee submits the

names of potential guests for clearance… which,

itself, is honor-dependent.

United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880, 886-87 (1st Cir. 1990);

see also United States v. Bellomo, 944 F. Supp. 1160, 1167

(S.D.N.Y. 1996) (“As in Colombo and Orena, the nature and extent of the danger that Bellomo presents arises not only from the threat of violent acts on his part, but from his position of leadership in a criminal organization and his ability to plan, order, and supervise criminal activity arising from that position as well. He is a danger at least as much for what he might direct or assist others in doing as for what he might do himself. Keeping him under house arrest would not defuse this danger.”); United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 632 (2d Cir. 1993) (“horne detention and electronic monitoring at best ‘elaborately replicate a detention facility without the confidence of security such a facility instills'”).

A. R:J:CO DEFENDANTS

ARGUMENT

1. Genovese Crime Family Soldier Stephen Depiro

a. Depiro’s Lengthy Criminal Record

As a threshold matter, Depiro is a repeat felon with several convictions dating back 20 years. Specifically, on or about May 11, 1990, Depiro pled guilty to possession of gambling Records in the Second Degree (Bookmaking) in Richmond County, New York criminal court, and received a conditional discharge. On June 9, 1993, Depiro was again charged with promoting gambling, conspiracy and possession of gambling records, in New Jersey Superior Court, Somerset County, and received pretrial intervention, pursuant to which the charges subsequently were dismissed.

On or about April 14, 1998, Depiro was charged with violations of the federal RICO laws, pursuant to which then­Magistrate Judge Stanley R. Chesler set bail for Depiro in the amount of a $250,000 bond with standard bail conditions. During the relevant time period, Depiro worked as a longshoreman at Maher Terminal in Port Newark, where he allegedly oversaw loansharking and gambling rackets under Joseph Queli, another member of the Genovese crime family. On or about April 16, 1999, Depiro pled guilty to racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962@, for which he was sentenced to 30 months of incarceration

and three years’ supervised release, which terminated on July 17, 2004.

On April 26, 2002, Depiro was charged with conspiring with Tino Fiumara regarding then-fugitive Michael Coppola. On March 21, 2003, Depiro pled guilty to misprision of a felony for concealing Coppola’s unlawful flight to avoid prosecution between August 1996 and April 1999. The Superseding Information to which Depiro pled guilty charged that he “was an associate of . . . the Genovese Crime Family.” Depiro subsequently was sentenced to probation and a four-year term of supervised release, which ended on November 24, 2007.

On April 28, 2010, Depiro was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of New York on charges related to Depiro’s harboring and otherwise assisting fugitive Michael Coppola between May 2004 and March 2007. See United States v. Stephen Depiro, 10 Cr. 341 (ILG) (E.D.N.Y.). These charges against Depiro are still pending.

Depiro’s past criminal record and persistent recidivism is indicative of an inability or unwillingness to comply with the rule of law. In either event, Depiro’s release poses a danger to the community and his detention is warranted on this ground alone. See, e.g., Provenzano, 605 F.2d at 95 (“The trial judge’s study of decisions interpreting the Act’s ‘danger to the community’ provision, however, convinces him that courts are not confined in such cases to considering only harms involving an aura of violence. We agree and hold that a defendant’s propensity to commit crime generally, even if the resulting harm would be not solely physical, may constitute a sufficient risk of danger to come within the contemplation of the Act.”).

b.       Depiro’s Repeated Violations of Pretrial Release, Supervised Release and Probation

An analysis of Depiro’s criminal history illustrates that Depiro has been undeterred from the commission of additional crimes by previously imposed conditions of release. There is, therefore, no reason to believe that Depiro will comply with even the most stringent conditions of release imposed by this Court. In summary, as a result of his 1998 racketeering arrest and conviction, Depiro was on pretrial release from April 1998 through April 1999, and, following his 30-month incarceration, on supervised release through July 2004. Nonetheless, Depiro admittedly violated the conditions of pretrial release set by Magistrate Judge Chesler, and in 2003 pled guilty to a felony involving conduct between August 1996 and April 1999, relating to Coppola’s flight. Depiro’s 2003 conviction resulted in probation and a four-year term of supervised release through November 2007. Subsequently, a grand jury indicted Depiro for again assisting Coppola’s flight between May 2004 and March 2007, in violation of the foregoing conditions. Moreover, in January 2006, Depiro again admittedly violated parole and supervised release by

associating with a known, violent felon. Finally, as set forth

further below, a grand jury has found probable cause that Depiro yet again violated the foregoing conditions of release by engaging in the conduct at issue here.

Specifically, beginning in April 1998, Depiro was on pretrial release on conditions set by Magistrate Judge Chesler relating to his arrest for racketeering. It cannot be gainsaid that those pretrial release conditions clearly were inadequate to protect the community, as Depiro admitted that he continued to violate criminal law with respect to concealing the flight from justice of Coppola from August 1996 through April 1999. Indeed, the final Pre-Sentence Report prepared in that case documented numerous intercepted telephone conversations between Depiro and Fiumara relating to the offense conduct in September 1998. 7 Depiro’s admitted violations of pretrial release in this regard end the inquiry as to whether he should be released here -he should not.

Similarly, Depiro was on probation and supervised release from his March 2003 felony conviction relating to the foregoing conduct when he once again violated the conditions imposed by Judge John W. Bissell. Specifically, on or about

7 The Government has not filed the October 2003 Pre­Sentence Report electronically, but will make the Report available for inspection by the Court and Depiro at the detention hearing.

January 3, 2006, Depiro admitted to a violation for associating

with Daniel Dellisanti, another “made” member of the Genovese crime family.

Depiro’s violations of Judge Bissell’s judgment, however, did not end there: an Eastern District of New York grand jury recently indicted Depiro, finding probable cause to believe that he violated federal law by harboring and otherwise aiding Coppola between May 2004 and March 2007. Indeed, the evidence in that case includes, among other things, an intercepted telephone call between Depiro and Coppola in March 2007, well before the supervision imposed by Judge Bissell terminated in November 2007.

Finally, with respect to the instant charges, a federal grand jury in Newark, New Jersey has found probable cause to believe that Depiro conspired to violate the federal RICO laws from at least December 1982 through January 2011. Moreover, the evidence at trial will include the September 14, 1998 recorded telephone call between Depiro and Fiumara discussed below, in which Depiro stated that he intended to double the amount extorted from ILA members. Of course, Depiro’s conversation with Fiumara in this regard occurred while he was on pretrial release pursuant to conditions imposed by Magistrate Judge Chesler only five months earlier, in April 1998.

In short, there can be no real question that any

conditions of pretrial release set by this Court would be flouted by Depiro, just as he previously did with respect to Magistrate Judge Chesler’s and Judge Bissell’s conditions through persistent violations of pretrial release, supervised release and probation. See, e.g., Bergrin, 2009 WL 1560039, at *9, *11 (“Plainly, he did not abide by his conditions of release. The court has no assurance that he will refrain from criminal conduct if released.

The serious nature of the charges, allegedly committed while defendant was on bail, militates strongly in favor of detention.”) i United States v. Dees, 467 F.3d 847, 852 (3d Cir. 2006) i United States v. Terpening, 902 F.2d 42 (9th Cir. 1990)

(“Violation of conditional release following a parole violation is similar to violation of a pretrial conditional release: in both instances the defendant was given his liberty on the understanding that he act lawfully, and in both cases the defendant violated this trust. Such a violation is indicative of recidivist tendencies. Moreover, like violation of pretrial conditional release, violation of conditional release following a parole violation is not otherwise reflected in a defendant’s criminal history. Thus, Terpening’s violation of conditional release . . . is an indication that his criminal history significantly under-represents the likelihood that he will commit further crimes ….”).

c. Nature of the Instant Charges

The present charges against Depiro involve crimes of violence and evince increasing criminality. Notably, the instant charges demonstrate Depiro’s continued criminal involvement with the New Jersey waterfront and victimization of port workers. Depiro is also charged with conspiracy to make extortionate collections of credit, pursuant to which Richard Dehmer threatened violence against individuals to compel them to pay debts owed to Depiro.

Depiro is charged with conspiracy to extort money from ILA union members which, as discussed above, is a crime of violence because it involves the actual and threatened use of force, violence and fear. Moreover, Depiro’s extortion scheme was successful over an extended period of time due to the reputation of the Genovese crime family crew of which he is a member. Indeed, as part of the investigation, the United States Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of New York and the District of New Jersey conducted numerous interviews of ILA union members, regarding, among other topics, the Christmastime tribute payments. Many of the witnesses stated that, based on what they heard on the docks and otherwise, they feared the consequences of refusing to make the extortionate payments at issue given the reputation of the individuals involved.

Just as significantly, the instant charges establish

that Depiro has been undeterred from continued criminal involvement on the New Jersey waterfront. Indeed, Depiro previously pled guilty in 1999 to RICO charges relating to the waterfront, for which he received a substantial term of incarceration and supervised release. Notwithstanding that sentence -and while on supervised release -Depiro continued to victimize dockworkers through crimes of violence and increasingly sophisticated schemes to control and influence corrupt lLA union officials. Hence, the instant charges are even more serious when considered in conjunction with Depiro’s similar past conduct. See, e.g., Provenzano, 605 F.2d at 89 (“Concluding that he would continue to exercise his influence within the union corruptly and in violation of the criminal law, the trial judge found that Provenzano’s freedom pending appeal would constitute a danger to the community.”) .

Finally, Depiro and those acting on his behalf have demonstrated a willingness to resort to threats of violence in furtherance of their criminal enterprise. For instance, in a July 17, 2009 intercepted telephone call between Depiro and a sports bettor, Depiro threatened: “Don’t be fuckin’ doin’ that, what you’re doin’. I’m telling you that right now. I mean you got something in tonight and that’s not right.” In context, and based on witness testimony, in this statement, Depiro was referring to the fact that the bettor had placed additional bets despite not having paid his outstanding sports betting losses. Due to Depiro’s formidable reputation and the bettor’s fear of Depiro, he called Dehmer less than an hour later, stating, “I got 1300 of my own money on me, I’ll just drop that off.”

Similarly, Dehmer repeatedly threatened violence and harm on Depiro’s behalf against individuals who failed to timely pay sports-betting losses. For example, in intercepted telephone calls, Dehmer sent word to another bettor “that some people are really mad at him,” and “somebody is furious at him.” Likewise, Dehmer told a bettor “you better be here before 2:00 because somebody is going to be fucking furious” and, when the bettor suggested that he would not be able to pay, Dehmer further stated, “this guy is going to be so fucking mad.” Finally, in another intercepted telephone call, Dehmer told an individual, “this guy is fucking mad. You know you get paid on a certain fucking day, he wants to get paid.” In context and based on additional intercepted calls, it is apparent that Dehmer is referring to Depiro in these calls.

In sum, the current charges involve not only crimes of violence, but also actual threats of force, violence and fear directed at numerous, identified victims. Furthermore, the charges are indicative of Depiro’s long-term victimization of New Jersey port workers, undaunted by a prior period of incarceration, and represent a heightened degree of danger and sophistication in comparison to his prior crimes. Finally, the instant charges illustrate Depiro’s far-ranging control and influence over criminal associates, from corrupt lLA union officials to bookmakers. Consequently, the nature of the charges at issue here weighs heavily in favor of Depiro’s detention.

d. Weight of the Evidence

The weight of the evidence against Depiro is overwhelming, and includes countless recordings, cooperating witnesses, physical surveillance and Depiro’s own admissions. A partial summary of the evidence against Depiro follows.

Government witnesses, themselves members and associates of the Genovese crime family and other crime families, are expected to testify that Depiro is a “made” member of the Genovese crime family who controls the crime family’s port­related rackets, a capacity in which he supervises and exercises influence over others, including corrupt lLA union officials.

Additionally, wiretap intercepts further evidence Depiro’s role in the Genovese crime family’s rackets on the New Jersey piers. For example, Depiro was captured, pursuant to court-authorized wiretapping, in a telephone calIon September 14, 1998 speaking to Fiumara regarding the lLA extortion scheme. The recorded call was described as follows in Depiro’s October

2003 Pre-Sentence Report, Paragraph 21(e), to which he and his counsel raised no objection: DePiro told Fiumara that at Christmas time he is going to demand double the amount of money from people. Fiumara responded: “Yeah. Definitely.” DePiro told Fiumara about someone at the Port who he tried to collect from last Christmas who claimed “you took all my money” and that he was broke. DePiro explained to Fiumara that this person made $220,000 -$250,000 a year. DePiro told Fiumara that he does not want “Brief [Lawrence Ricci] to say he wants two percent” and Fiumara said that Brief [Ricci] should “mind his own business.” DePiro told Fiumara that Brief [Ricci] has “all the guys that he works there, bring us double and that’s that and we’ll go from there.” Fiumara responded: “Without a doubt.”

Cooperating witness testimony and wiretap intercepts regarding the waterfront extortion conspiracy are corroborated by observations made by law enforcement agents during the course of this investigation. From approximately September 2009 to January 2010, Depiro was observed meeting with Fiumara on multiple occasions in Manhattan and on Long Island (where Fiumara resided before his death in September 2010) .

For example, on January II, 2010, law enforcement agents conducted surveillance of Depiro and Fiumara at Bryant & Cooper steakhouse, located at 2 Middleneck Road, Roslyn, New York. Inside the restaurant, law enforcement agents observed Fiumara, Depiro and an attorney meeting at a small tabletop in the bar area. Law enforcement agents overheard portions of the attorney, Depiro and Fiumara’s conversation, including, among other things, the following statement: “Christmas is long gone.”

In context, this overheard comment evidences Depiro’s and Fiumara’s concerns about the future of the extortion scheme discussed above, by which members of the ILA are required to provide tribute payments to ILA union officials around Christmas, which payments are in turn transmitted to the Genovese crime family.

With respect to Depiro’s involvement in illegal gambling, in addition to the intercepted telephone calls described above, law enforcement has captured additional conversations that evidence Depiro’s control over and management of an illegal gambling operation. Those recorded conversations are also corroborated by documentary evidence recovered upon the execution of a search warrant at Dehmer’s illegal gambling club in Kenilworth, New Jersey, on or about January 20, 2010. Finally, Depiro’s own admissions establish his guilt. Specifically, in December 2006, Depiro was interviewed by law enforcement agents. During the interview, Depiro admitted that he was a gambler and a bookmaker and was arrested in the mid­1990s in an illegal gambling ring. In addition, Depiro acknowledged that he was arrested in the late 1990s along with Tino Fiumara.

In short, the evidence in this case establishes that Depiro committed the crimes at issue, and that he did so by virtue of his membership in the Genovese crime family. As set

forth above, courts routinely consider the heightened danger posed by a defendant’s membership in an organized, criminal enterprise when evaluating whether pretrial release is appropriate. Here, no condition of release could ensure that Depiro would renounce his status in the Genovese crime family, control over and involvement in the crime family’s port-related rackets, which have thrived for decades. Depiro’s leadership position within the Genovese crime family and the likelihood that he will continue to direct the activities of criminal associates is, therefore, a danger to the community that cannot be mitigated barring Depiro’s detention. See, e.g., Salerno, 631 F. Supp. at 1375.

e. Severity of Penalties Faced

Depiro, age 55, faces severe penalties, including a maximum prison sentence of 90 years, if convicted of the instant charges. Thus, there is a possibility that Depiro will spend the remainder of his days incarcerated. Accordingly, despite his ties to New Jersey and the apparent willingness of others to post property on his behalf, Depiro poses a serious risk of flight. See, e.g., Bergrin, 2009 WL 1560039, at *8 (balancing defendant’s “significant and long-standing ties to the community” against defendant’s criminal history and ordering detention); United

States v. Townsend, 897 F.2d 989, 995 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Consideration of the nature of the offenses charged involves

consideration of the penalties. The defendants are charged with

multiple counts, and it is reasonable, from their perspective, to look at the potential maximum sentences they face if they were found guilty on each count and sentenced consecutively on each count. Whyte faces a potential sentence of 35 years, Mohan and Townsend a potential sentence of 70 years. … Facing the much graver penalties possible under the present indictment, the defendants have an even greater incentive to consider flight.”) .

* * *

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Government respectfully submits that the Court should enter a permanent order of detention as to RICO Defendant Stephen Depiro based on danger to the community and risk of flight.

2. Genovese Crime Family Associate Nunzio LaGrasso As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, RICO

Defendant Nunzio LaGrasso, like Cernadas, utilized his high­ranking and influential union position to force dockworkers to make tribute payments of money at Christmastime for more than 20

years. Although he served as the Vice-President of ILA Local 1478, LaGrasso exercised such influence and control over the New Jersey waterfront that he was able to compel dockworkers from other ILA Locals to relinquish money to the mob. As a Genovese crime family associate, LaGrasso acted on behalf of the crime family and, more specifically, his cousin, Stephen Depiro, to

commit the foregoing crimes of violence and victimize those ILA

members whose interests he was supposed to serve. Thus, given the nature of the crimes at issue and his criminal associations, LaGrasso poses a danger to the community.

In addition, LaGrasso, age 60, faces a substantial prison sentence. Furthermore, following his arrest on New Jersey state charges in April 2010, LaGrasso was suspended from employment on the New Jersey waterfront and stands to lose his position permanently. Hence, LaGrasso constitutes a flight risk because he is facing a severe jail term and the loss of long­term, meaningful employment.

For these reasons, LaGrasso is similarly situated to fellow RICO Defendant and former ILA union official Albert Cernadas, for whom bail was set on December 13, 2010, by Magistrate Judge Salas. Indeed, given the nature of the charges and potential flight risk, Magistrate Judge Salas determined that a significant bail package was appropriate and, among other conditions, required that Cernadas post a $1,000,000 bond secured by multiple properties with equity of approximately $700,000, i.e., at least 70% secured. Since LaGrasso and Cernadas face similar penalties and share similar levels of culpability in the RICO extortion scheme, their bail packages should be substantially similar.

3. Genovese Crime Family Associate Richard Dehmer

RICO Defendant Dehmer, as a Genovese crime family associate, operated and managed with Depiro and others an illegal gambling operation involving bookmaking, and managed an illegal poker club. In this regard, Dehmer exercised direction and oversight over numerous other individuals associated with the sports betting and gambling club operations, including but not limited to the Gambling Defendants charged in the Superseding Indictment. For example, Dehmer conducted regular poker tournaments at the gambling club in Kenilworth, New Jersey, which required him to arrange card dealers, such as Anthony Alfano and Giuseppe Pugliese, another Genovese crime family associate, and to organize players.

Another of Dehmer’s responsibilities was to ensure that bettors timely paid gambling losses. In so doing, Dehmer resorted to threats of violence against others. For examale, pursuant to court-authorized wiretapping, Dehmer was captured in a recorded telephone call discussing a bettor’s outstanding debt with defendant Giuseppe Pugliese, stating that, “I am going over there tonight. I am going over there with a fucking bat, I really am.” Referencing the same bettor in a subsequent telephone call, Dehmer said, “It is costing me money. I got to borrow money to pay but I guarantee you, I guarantee you, he needs his hands to work. He ain’t working no more for a while.”

Finally, referencing the same bettor, Dehmer said that he had told another individual to “tell him [the bettor] that I am coming over there, and I will break every bone in his fucking hands so he can’t work.”

Given the nature of the charges, Dehmer’s demonstrated willingness to use violence to further his and Depiro’s interests, and Dehmer’s criminal association with the Genovese crime family, Dehmer should not be released in the absence of a secured bond with a condition of house arrest, enforced by electronic monitoring. In addition, house arrest is appropriate to mitigate the risk of flight that exists given that Dehmer, age 75, faces a maximum penalty of 20 years’ incarceration on certain charges.

B. EXTORTION DEFENDANTS

Defendants Edward Aulisi, Vincent Aulisi, Thomas Leonardis, Robert Ruiz, Michael Trueba, Ramiro Quintans, and Salvatore LaGrasso are ILA union members who -not unlike the foregoing Genovese crime family members and associates -extorted ILA dockworkers at Christmastime. These defendants, most of whom were entrusted to act in the interests of those they supervised or represented, utilized their positions to victimize those in their ward. It cannot be gainsaid that, if these defendants were so brazen as to perpetrate crimes of violence against individuals in their very workplace, there can be no assurance that they

would act lawfully were they to be released into the community

without substantial bail conditions.

In this regard, given the nature of the charges and the need to protect witnesses, both with respect to those who have already come forward and are identified in the Superseding Indictment as well as prospective victims in the scheme, it is necessary to bar the Extortion Defendants (and RICO Defendants Stephen Depiro, Albert Cernadas, Nunzio LaGrasso) from further association in any manner, means or capacity, with the ILA and/or New Jersey waterfront.s See, e.g., United States v. Traitz, 807 F.2d 322, 325-26 (3d Cir. 1986) (affirming district court’s pretrial release order based on house arrest and “removal of the defendants from union activities,” because “the district court did not err in determining that house arrest combined with the other conditions of release, including in particular the requirement that defendants cease all connection with the Roofer’s Union through which and on whose behalf many of the crimes of violence were allegedly committed, would provide the reasonable assurance required by the statute of the safety of the community”) .

S

It is the government’s understanding that, based on the defendants’ indictment, their passes to enter the New Jersey and New York waterfront will be suspended, effective immediately, by the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor. The defendants, however, apparently will retain their ILA memberships pending further review.

Furthermore, each Extortion Defendant faces severe

maximum penalties upon conviction: (1) Edward Aulisi, age 51, 20 years’ incarceration; (2) Vincent Aulisi, age 78, 100 years’ incarceration; (3) Thomas Leonardis, age 53, 60 years’ incarceration; (4) Robert Ruiz, age 52, 100 years’ incarceration;

(5) Michael Trueba, age 75, 160 years’ incarceration; (6) Ramiro Quintans, age 52, 140 years’ incarceration; and (7) Salvatore LaGrasso, age 54, 40 years’ incarceration. In addition, upon arrest, each defendant likely will be suspended from further employment on the New Jersey waterfront, further severing their ties to this District. Accordingly, each of the Extortion Defendants poses a risk of flight.

Thus, bail packages consisting of significant secured bonds are appropriate. For years, these defendants held lucrative positions with the ILA and received substantial remuneration, some for decades. Given the defendants’ means, there will little deterrent to flight absent bail conditions comprising large secured bonds. For example, a criminal complaint against Robert Ruiz charging him with conspiring to commit Hobbs Act extortions in 2008 and 2009 was filed in the Eastern District of New York on December 6, 2010. The Ruiz complaint, which was dismissed on January 6, 2011 in anticipation of the instant prosecution, alleged, among other things, that the government had recovered $51,900 in cash buried in a longshoreman’s backyard, and that the longshoreman, who was himself a victim of the extortion scheme, had been asked by Ruiz to hold the money. There, Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azrack released Ruiz on a $500,000 bond secured by property with equity of approximately $350,000, i.e., at least 70% fully secured. That charge has now been converted from a complaint in the Eastern District of New York to an indictment based on a probable cause finding by a grand jury sitting in Newark, New Jersey, that Ruiz committed the offenses in question, including additional extortions, pursuant to which he now faces a 100-year sentence.

In other words, the full nature and scope of the extensive criminal conspiracy involving numerous other ILA members indicted here was not before Magistrate Judge Azrack at the time of her decision. Moreover, this case involves New Jersey victims and a need to protect the New Jersey community from further crimes of these defendants, all of whom are New Jersey residents. Accordingly, while Magistrate Judge Azrack’s decision regarding Ruiz’s pretrial release establishes a “floor” pursuant to which this Court should evaluate bail, it fails to redress adequately the serious danger to the community and flight risk posed by each of the Extortion Defendants, a number of whom

have heightened relative levels of culpability and criminal

responsibility in the scheme. 9

9 For many of these same reasons, Depiro’s current conditions of pretrial release are insufficient. On March 30, 2010, Depiro was charged via criminal complaint in the Eastern District of New York with racketeering and racketeering conspiracy, including predicate acts involving conspiring to extort ILA members and officials, conspiring to use extortionate means to collect extensions of credit and illegal gambling. Depiro also was charged with conspiring to harbor fugitive Michael Coppola. There, Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy released Depiro conditioned on a significant, secured bond and home detention, with exceptions for daily religious services and as approved by Pretrial Services. On or about April 28, 2010, Depiro was indicted by a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of New York for various offenses relating to his harboring of Coppola, which charges are currently pending, and the foregoing complaint was dismissed.

In contrast to the prior complaint, Depiro has now been indicted by a federal grand jury sitting in Newark, New Jersey. Significantly, the Superseding Indictment represents a finding by the grand jury, based on the evidence presented, that probable cause exists that Depiro committed the crimes in question. The instant prosecution, moreover, is based on a far more extensive and wide-ranging conspiracy, involving many more victims and participants, than that alleged in the prior complaint. Indeed, there are 15 defendants named in the Superseding Indictment, and many victims of Depiro’s crimes are specifically identified. In comparison, in the complaint, Depiro was the sole defendant and no victims were identified. Thus, there are additional, unaddressed concerns here relating to potential obstruction of justice, which Depiro has committed previously, and witness/victim interference. Finally, given the status of the ongoing investigation, the evidence presented to Magistrate Judge Levy was far more limited than that documented herein; the evidence now before the Court paints a compelling portrait of an individual who has continued to commit crimes on behalf of the Genovese crime family against New Jersey victims despite a substantial period of incarceration and repeated violations of release conditions, none of which has deterred Depiro from the commission of further crimes endangering this community. Depiro’s danger to the community and risk of flight, therefore, can only be adequately and appropriately addressed through detention.

CONCLUSION

For each of the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully submits that the Court should enter an order detaining lead defendant Stephen Depiro pretrial and releasing the remaining defendants on the above-described conditions. The government reserves its right to supplement its position with respect to each defendant.

Respectfully submitted,

PAUL J. FISHMAN United States Attorney

By: Anthony J. Mahajan Jacquelyn M. Rasulo Taryn A. Merkl Assistant U.S. Attorneys

APPENDIX A

A. RICO DEFENDANTS

RICO Charges (Counts 1 and 2)

Substantive Extortion Charges (Counts 3-4; 9; 14­25; 43-44)

COUNT/RA Defendant Offense/Statute Date
Count 1 DEPIRO CERNADAS N. LAGRASSO DEHMER RICO Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d} December 1982 -January 2011
RA1 DEPIRO CERNADAS N. LAGRASSO Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a} December 1982 -January 2011
RA2 - CERNADAS Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 December
RA33   U.S.C. § 1951(a} i N.J. Statute 2C:20-5(g} 1982 -January 2006
RA34 - N. LAGRASSO Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 December
RA70   U.S.C. § 1951(a) i N.J. Statute 2C:20-5(g) 1989 -January 2010
RA71 DEPIRO DEHMER Illegal Gambling -Sports Betting, 18 U.S.C. § 1955 /N.J. Statute 2C:37-2i Use of Interstate Facility to Transmit Wagering Information, 18 U.S.C. § 1084 July 2009 -January 2010
RA72 DEPIRO DEHMER Conspiracy to Use Extortionate Means to Collect Extensions of Credit/Use of Extortionate Means to Collect Extensions of Credit, 18 U.S.C. § 894(a} July 2009 -January 2010
RA73 DEHMER Illegal Gambling -Poker, 18 U.S.C. § 1955 July 2009 -January 2010

 

COONT/RA Defendant Offense/Statute Date
Count 2 DEPIRO DEHMER CUD RICO Conspiracy, U.S.C. § 1962 (d) 18 July 2009 -January 2010
           

 

Count

Defendant

Offense/Statut$

Date

Count 3

DEPIRO

Hobbs Act Extortion

December CERNADAS Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C.

1982 ­

N. LAGRASSO § 1951(a)

January 2011

Counts 4 CERNADAS Hobbs Act Extortion, 18

December & 9

U.S.C. § 1951(a)

2005 ­January 2006

Counts

N. LAGRASSO Hobbs Act Extortion, 18

December 14 -25

U.S.C. § 1951(a)

2006 ­January 2010

Count 43 DEPIRO Extortionate Collection of January DEHMER Credit Conspiracy, 18

2009 ­

U.S.C. § 894(a) (1)

January 2010

Count 44 DEHMER Extortionate Collection of October Credit, 18 U.S.C. 2009 ­§ 894(a) (1) January 2010

3. Substantive Illegal Gambling Charges (Counts 41­42; 45-53)

Count Defendant Offense/Statute Date
Count 41 DEPIRO DEHMER Illegal Gambling Conspiracy -Bookmaking, 18 U.S.C. § 371 July 2009 -January 2010
Count 42 DEPIRO DEHMER Illegal Gambling -Bookmaking, 18 U.S.C. § 1955(a) July 2009 -January 2010

 

Count Defendant Offense/Statute Date
Counts 45 -51 DEHMER Transmission of Wagering Information, 18 U.S.C. § 1084 Various dates in 2009 & 2010
Count 52 DEHMER Illegal Gambling Conspiracy -Poker, 18 U.S.C. § 371 July 2009 -January 2010
Count 53 DEHMER Illegal Gambling -Poker, 18 U.S.C. § 1955(a) July 2009 -January 2010

 

B. EXTORTION DEFENDANTS

Count Defendant Offense/Statute Date  
Count 3 S. DEPIRO A. CERNADAS N. LAGRASSO E. AULISI V. AULISI S. LAGRASSO LEONARDIS QUINTANS RUIZ TRUEBA Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 1982 January 2011 -
Counts 5-6 V. AULISI Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2006 January 2008 -
Counts 7-8 RUIZ Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2008 January 2010 -
Counts 10­11 V. AULISI Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2006 January 2008 -
Counts 12­13 RUIZ Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2008 January 2010 -
Count 26 QUINTANS Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2008 January 2009 -

 

Count Defendant .. Offense/Statute Date  
Count 27 S. LAGRASSO Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951{a) December 2009 January 2010 -
Counts 28­29 QUINTANS Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951{a) December 2008 January 2010 -
Count 30 TRUEBA Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951{a) December 2007 January 2008 -
Count 31 LEONARDIS TRUEBA Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2008 January 2009 -
Count 32 LEONARDIS Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2009 March 2010 -
Counts 33­36 TRUEBA Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951{a) December 2006 January 2010 -
Count 37 TRUEBA Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951{a) December 2007 January 2008 -
Counts 38­40 QUINTANS Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951{a) December 2007 January 2010 -
2011
01.23

/.

2010R01087/JMR/AJM

.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Hon. Susan D. Wigenton

v.

10 Cr. 851

STEPHEN DEPIRO,

18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 894(a},a/k/a “Beach,” 1084 (a), 1951 (a) ,

ALBERT CERNADAS,

1955(a), 1962(d) and 1963

a/k/a “The Bull,” NUNZIO LAGRASSO, RICHARD DEHMER,

a/k/a “Dickie,” EDWARD AULISI, a/k/a “Eddie,” VINCENT AULISI, a/k/a “The Vet,” THOMAS LEONARDIS, a/k/a “Tommy,” ROBERT RUIZ, a/k/a “Bobby,” MICHAEL TRUEBA, a/k/a “Mikey,” RAMIRO QUINTANS,

a/k/a “Romo,” SALVATORE LAGRASSO, ANTHONY ALFANO,

a/k/a “Brooklyn,” TONINO COLANTONIO, a/k/a “Tony,”

JOHN HARTMANN, a/k/a “Lumpy,” “Fatty” and “Fats,” and

GIUSEPPE PUGLIESE, a/k/a “Pepe”

SUP E R SED I N G I N D I C T MEN T

The Grand Jury charges:

INTRODUCTION

At all times relevant to this Superseding

Indictment, unless otherwise indicated:

The Enterprise

The members and associates of the Genovese organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra constituted an “enterprise,” as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(4), that is, a group of individuals associated in fact (hereinafter, the “Genovese crime family” and “the enterprise”). The enterprise constituted an ongoing organization whose members functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the enterprise. The Genovese crime family engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce. The Genovese crime family was an organized criminal group that operated in the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere.

La Cosa Nostra operated through organized crime families. Five of these crime families -the Bonanno, Colombo, Gambino, Genovese and Luchese crime families -were headquartered in New York City, and supervised criminal activity in New York, in other areas of the United States and in some instances in other countries. Another crime family, the Decavalcante crime family, also existed, operating principally in New Jersey but from time to time also in New York City.

The ruling body of La Cosa Nostra, known as the “Commission,” consisted of leaders from each of the crime families. The Commission convened from time to time to decide

certain issues affecting all of the crime families, such as rules governing crime family membership.

4. The Genovese crime family had a hierarchy and structure. The head of the Genovese crime family was known as the “boss.” The Genovese crime family boss was assisted by an “underboss” and a counselor known as a “consigliere.” Together, the boss, underboss and consigliere were the crime family’s “administration.” With the assistance of the underboss and consigliere, the boss was responsible for, among other things, setting policy and resolving disputes within and among La Cosa Nostra crime families and other criminal groups. The administration further supervised, supported, protected and disciplined the lower ranking participants in the crime family. In return for their supervision and protection, the administration received part of the illegal earnings generated by the crime family. Members of the Genovese crime family served in an “acting” rather than “official” capacity in the administration on occasion due to another administration member’s incarceration or ill health, or for the purpose of seeking to insulate another administration member from law enforcement scrutiny. Further, on occasion, the Genovese crime family was overseen by a “panel” of crime family members that did not include the boss, underboss and/or consigliere.

5. Below the administration of the Genovese crime family

were numerous “crews,” also known as “regimes” and “decinas.” Each crew was headed by a “captain,” also known as a “skipper,”

“caporegime” and “capodecina.” Each captain’s crew consisted of

“soldiers” and “associates.” The captain was responsible for supervising the criminal activities of his crew and providing the crew with support and protection. In return, the captain often received a share of the crew’s earnings.

Only members of the Genovese crime family could serve as a boss, underboss, consigliere, captain or soldier. Members of the Genovese crime family were referred to on occasion as “goodfellas” or “wiseguys,” or as persons who had been “straightened out” or who had their “button.” Associates were individuals who were not members of the Genovese crime family but who, nonetheless, engaged in criminal activity for, and under the protection of, the Genovese crime family.

Many requirements existed before an associate could become a member of the Genovese crime family. The Commission of La Cosa Nostra from time to time limited the number of new members that could be added to a crime family. An associate was also required to be proposed for membership by an existing crime family member. When the crime family’s administration considered the associate worthy of membership, the administration then circulated the proposed associate’s name on a list given to other La Cosa

Nostra crime families, which the other crime families reviewed and either approved or disapproved. Unless there was an objection to the associate’s membership, the crime family then “inducted,” or “straightened out,” the associate as a member of the crime family in a secret ceremony. During the ceremony, the associate, among other things: swore allegiance for life to the crime family above

all else, even the associate’s own family; swore, on penalty of

death, never to reveal the crime family’s existence, criminal

activities and other secrets; and swore to follow all orders

issued by the crime family boss, including swearing to commit

murder if the boss directed it.

Methods and Means of the Enterprise

The principal purpose of the Genovese crime family was to generate money for its members and associates. This purpose was implemented by members and associates of the Genovese crime family through various criminal activities, including fraud, extortion, illegal gambling and loansharking. The members and associates of the Genovese crime family also furthered the enterprise’s criminal activities by threatening economic injury and using and threatening to use physical violence, including murder.

Although the primary purpose of the Genovese crime family was to generate money for its members and associates, the members and associates at times used the resources of the Genovese

crime family to settle personal grievances and vendettas, sometimes with the approval of higher ranking members of the family. For those purposes, members and associates of the enterprise were asked and expected to carry out, among other crimes, acts of violence, including murder and assault.

The members and associates of the Genovese crime family engaged in conduct designed to prevent government detection of their identities, their illegal activities and the location of proceeds of those activities. That conduct included a commitment to murdering persons, particularly members or associates of organized crime families, who were perceived as potential witnesses against members and associates of the enterprise.

Members and associates of the Genovese crime family often coordinated criminal activity with members and associates of other organized crime families.

At various times relevant to this Superseding Indictment, the defendant ALBERT CERNADAS was an associate of the Genovese crime family and the President of International Longshoremen’s Association (“ILA”) Local 1235. The defendant RICHARD DEHMER was an associate of the Genovese crime family. The defendant STEPHEN DEPIRO was a soldier and an associate within the Genovese crime family. The defendant NUNZIO LAGRASSO was an associate of the Genovese crime family and the Vice-President of ILA Local 1478.

COUNT ONE (Racketeering Conspiracy)

The allegations of paragraphs one through 12 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

From at least in or about December 1982 through in or about January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendants

ALBERT CERNADAS, RICHARD DEHMER, STEPHEN DEPIRO, and NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, being a person employed by and associated with the Genovese crime family, an enterprise that engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(c), that is, to conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of that enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961(1) and 1961(5).

15. The pattern of racketeering activity through which the

defendants

ALBERT CERNADAS, RICHARD DEHMER, STEPHEN DEPIRO, and NUNZIO LAGRASSO,

together with others, agreed to conduct the affairs of the enterprise consisted of the racketeering acts set forth below in paragraphs 16 through 46 as Racketeering Acts One through Seventy­Three. The defendants agreed that a conspirator would commit at least two acts of racketeering in the conduct of the affairs of

the enterprise. RACKETEERING ACT ONE (Extortion Conspiracy)

It was a method and means of the extortion conspiracy that defendants STEPHEN DEPIRO, ALBERT CERNADAS and NUNZIO LAGRASSO extorted tribute payments of money from ILA port workers at or around Christmastime, the holiday period in which certain of those ILA union members received “container royalty fund” checks, a form of year-end compensation.

From at least in or about December 1982 to in and about January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

ALBERT CERNADAS, STEPHEN DEPIRO, and NUNZIO LAGRASSO together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and their co-conspirators agreed to obtain property of ILA union members, that is: money belonging to lLA union members, with their consent, which consent was to be induced by wrongful use of actual

and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951{a). RACKETEERING ACTS TWO THROUGH TWENTY-FIVE (Extortion)

18. The defendant ALBERT CERNADAS, together with others, agreed to the commission of the following acts of extortion, either one of which alone, whether in violation of federal or state law, constitutes the Racketeering Act alleged:

A. Extortion

19. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ALBERT CERNADAS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #1, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #1, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, united States Code, Sections 1951{a) and 2:

B. Theft by Extortion

20. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ALBERT CERNADAS, together with others, did purposely and unlawfully obtain property of another by extortion, in that the defendant and his co­conspirators obtained property of John Doe #1, that is: money belonging to John Doe #1, by purposely threatening to inflict harm which would not substantially benefit the defendant ALBERT CERNADAS and his co-conspirators but which was calculated to materially harm John Doe #1, in violation of New Jersey Statute 2C:.20-5 (g) :

Date: Vidtim ,Racketeering,· Act~ .
December 1982 -January 1983 John Doe #1 2
December 1983 -January 1984 John Doe #1 3
December 1984 -January 1985 John Doe #1 4
December 1985 -January 1986 John Doe #1 5
December 1986 -January 1987 John Doe #1 6
December 1987 -January 1988 John Doe #1 7
December 1988 -January 1989 John Doe #1 8
December 1989 -January 1990 John Doe #1 9
December 1990 -January 1991 John Doe #1 10
December 1991 -January 1992 John Doe #1 11
December 1992 -January 1993 John Doe #1 12

 

Date

Victim

Racketeering Act

December 1993 -January 1994

John Doe #1

13 December 1994 -January 1995

John Doe #1

14 December 1995 -January 1996

John Doe #1

15 December 1996 -January 1997

John Doe #1

16 December 1997 -January 1998

John Doe #1

17 December 1998 -January 1999

John Doe #1

18 December 1999 -January 2000

John Doe #1

19

December 2000 -January 2001

John Doe #1

20

December 2001 -January 2002

John Doe #1

21

John Doe #1December 2002 -January 2003

22

John Doe #1

23December 2003 -January 2004 24

John Doe #1

December 2004 -January 2005

25

John Doe #1

December 2005 -January 2006

RACKETEERING ACTS TWENTY-SIX THROUGH THIRTY-THREE (Extortion)

21. The defendant ALBERT CERNADAS, together with others, agreed to the commission of the following acts of extortion, either one of which alone, whether in violation of federal or state law, constitutes the Racketeering Act alleged:

A. Extortion

22. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ALBERT CERNADAS,

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #2, an

individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #2, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2:

B. Theft by Extortion

23. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ALBERT CERNADAS, together with others, did purposely and unlawfully obtain property of another by extortion, in that the defendant and his co­conspirators obtained property of John Doe #2, that is: money belonging to John Doe #2, by purposely threatening to inflict harm which would not substantially benefit the defendant ALBERT CERNADAS and his co-conspirators but which was calculated to materially harm John Doe #2, in violation of New Jersey Statute 2C:20-S (g) :

Date Victim Racketeering
    Act
December 1997 -January 1998 John Doe #2 26
December 1998 -January 1999 John Doe #2 27
December 2000 -January 2001 John Doe #2 28
December 2001 -January 2002 John Doe #2 29
December 2002 -January 2003 John Doe #2 30
December 2003 -January 2004 John Doe #2 31
December 2004 -January 2005 John Doe #2 32
December 2005 -January 2006 John Doe #2 33

 

RACKETEERING ACTS THIRTY-FOUR THROUGH FORTY-THREE (Extortion)

24. The defendant NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, agreed to the commission of the following acts of extortion, either one of which alone, whether in violation of federal or state law, constitutes the Racketeering Act alleged:

A. Extortion

25. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #3, an individual whose identity is known to the grand jury, that is:

money belonging to John Doe #3, with his consent, which consent

was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2:

B. Theft by Extortion

26. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of Ne~_Jer~ey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did purposely and unlawfully obtain property of another by extortion, in that the defendant and his co­conspirators obtained property of John Doe #3, that is: money belonging to John Doe #3, by purposely threatening to inflict harm which would not substantially benefit the defendant NUNZIO LAGRASSO and his co-conspirators but which was calculated to materially harm John Doe #3, in violation of New Jersey Statute 2C:20-5(g) :

Date Victim Racketeering Act
December 2000 -January 2001 John Doe #3 34
December 2001 -January 2002 John Doe #3 35
December 2002 -January 2003 John Doe #3 36
December 2003 -January 2004 John Doe #3 37
December 2004 -January 2005 John Doe #3 38
December 2005 -January 2006 John Doe #3 39

 

Date Victim Racketeering
    Act
December 2006 -January 2007 John Doe #3 40
December 2007 -January 2008 John Doe #3 41
December 2008 -January 2009 John Doe #3 42
December 2009 -January 2010 John Doe #3 43

 

RACKETEERING ACTS FORTY-FOUR THROUGH SIXTY-FIVE (Extortion)

27. The defendant NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, agreed to the commission of the following acts of extortion, either one of which alone, whether in violation of federal or state law, constitutes the Racketeering Act alleged:

A. Extortion

28. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #4, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #4, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force,

violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,

Sections 1951(a} and 2:

B. Theft by Extortion

29. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did purposely and unlawfully obtain property of another by extortion, in that the defendant and his co­conspirators obtained property of John Doe #4, that is: money belonging to John Doe #4, by purposely threatening to inflict harm which would not substantially benefit the defendant NUNZIO LAGRASSO and his co-conspirators but which was calculated to materially harm John Doe #4, in violation of New Jersey Statute 2C:20-5(g) :

Date Victim Racketeering . Act·
December 1989 -January 1990 John Doe #4 44
December 1990 -January 1991 John Doe #4 45
December 1991 -January 1992 John Doe #4 46
December 1992 -January 1993 John Doe #4 47
December 1993 -January 1994 John Doe #4 48
December 1994 -January 1995 John Doe #4 49
December 1995 -January 1996 John Doe #4 50
December 1996 -January 1997 John Doe #4 51
December 1997 -January 1998 John Doe #4 52

 

Date , , ViatiDl’ Raaketeering, Act
December 1998 -January 1999 John Doe #4 53
December 1999 -January 2000 John Doe #4 54
December 2000 -January 2001 John Doe #4 55
December 2001 -January 2002 John Doe #4 56
December 2002 -January 2003 John Doe #4 57
December 2003 -January 2004 John Doe #4 58
December 2004 -January 2005 John Doe #4 59
December 2005 -January 2006 John Doe #4 60
December 2006 -January 2007 John Doe #4 61
December 2007 -January 2008 John Doe #4 62
December 2008 -January 2009 John Doe #4 63
December 2009 -January 2010 John Doe #4 64

 

RACKETEERING ACTS SIXTY-FIVE THROUGH SEVENTY (Extortion)

30. The defendant NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, agreed to the commission of the following acts of extortion, either one of which alone, whether in violation of federal or state law, constitutes the Racketeering Act alleged:

A. Extortion

31. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO,

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #S, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #S, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a} and 2:

B. Theft by Extortion

32. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did purposely and unlawfully obtain property of another by extortion, in that the defendant and his co­conspirators obtained property of John Doe #S, that is: money belonging to John Doe #5, by purposely threatening to inflict harm which would not substantially benefit the defendant NUNZIO LAGRASSO and his co-conspirators but which was calculated to materially harm John Doe #5, in violation of New Jersey Statute 2C:20-5 (g) :

Date Victim , Racketeering Act 65
December 2004 -January 2005 John Doe #5
December 2005 -January 2006 John Doe #5 66
December 2006 -January 2007 John Doe #5 67
December 2007 -January 2008 John Doe #5 68
December 2008 -January 2009 John Doe #5 69
December 2009 -January 2010 John Doe #5 70

 

RACKETEERING ACT SEVENTY-ONE (Illegal Gambling -Sports Betting)

33. The defendants RICHARD DEHMER and STEPHEN DEPIRO, together with others, agreed to the commission of the following acts, anyone of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Seventy-One:

A. Illegal Gambling Business

34. From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

RICHARD DEHMER and STEPHEN DEPIRO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, that is: a gambling business involving bookmaking, which operated in violation of the laws of New Jersey, that is: New Jersey Statute 2C:37-2, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and

owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days and had a gross revenue of at least $2,000 in any single day, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955(a) and 2.

B. Promoting Gambling

35. From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

RICHARD DEHMER and STEPHEN DEPIRO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally engage in conduct which materially aided a form of gambling activity, that is: bookmaking, involving the receipt and acceptance of three or more bets in any two week period, in violation of New Jersey Statute 2C:37-2.

C. Transmission of Wagering Information

36. On or about August 11, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the

placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest, in

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084(a).

D. Transmission of Wagering Information

37. On or about November 10, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084(a).

E. Transmission of Wagering Information

38. On or about November 16, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084(a).

F. Transmission of Wagering Information

39. On or about November 25, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084(a).

G. Transmission of Wagering Information

40. On or about December 14, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084(a).

H. Transmission of Wagering Information

41. On or about December 21, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER,

together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084(a).

I. Transmission of Wagering Information

42. On or about January 18, 2010, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084(a).

RACKETEERING ACT SEVENTY-TWO (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/ Extortionate Collection of Credit)

43. The defendants RICHARD DEHMER and STEPHEN DEPIRO, together with others, agreed to the commission of one or more of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Seventy-Two:

A. Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

44. From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about

,

January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

RICHARD DEHMER and

STEPHEN DEPIRO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect extensions of credit from bettors engaged in DEHMER and DEPIRO’s bookmaking operation, in violation of Title 18, United states Code, Section 894(a) (1).

B. Extortionate Collection of Credit

45. From at least in or about October 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect extensions of credit from John Doe #12, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a) (1) and 2.

RACKETEERING ACT SEVENTY-THREE (Illegal Gambling -Poker)

46. From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, that is: a gambling business involving poker, which operated in violation of the laws of New Jersey, that is: New Jersey Statute 2C:37-2, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955(a) and 2.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1962(d) and 1963.

COUNT TWO (Collection of Unlawful Debt Racketeering Conspiracy)

The allegations of paragraphs one through 15 and 33 through 46 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

RICHARD DEHMER and STEPHEN DEPIRO, together with others, being persons employed by and associated with the Genovese crime family, an enterprise that engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to violate Title 18, United States Code, section 1962(c), that is, to conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of that enterprise through the collection of unlawful debt, as that term is defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(6), that is: debts that were incurred in gambling activity which was in violation of federal law, that is: Title 18, United States Code, Section 1955, and New Jersey State law, that is: New Jersey Statute 2C:37-2, and were incurred in connection with the business of gambling, in violation of federal law and New Jersey State law.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962 (d) .

COUNT THREE (Extortion Conspiracy)

49. From at least in or about December 1982 to in and about

January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the

District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

EDWARD AULISI, VINCENT AULISI, ALBERT CERNADAS, STEPHEN DEPIRO, NUNZIO LAGRASSO, SALVATORE LAGRASSO,

.. THOMAS LEONARDIS,

I

RAMIRO QUINTANS, ROBERT RUIZ, and MICHAEL TRUEBA,

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defenda~t and his co-conspirators agreed to obtain property of ILA union members, that is: money belonging to ILA union members, with their consent, which consent was to be induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT FOUR

(Extortion)

50. From at least in or about December 2005 to in and about January 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ALBERT CERNADAS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #1, that is: money belonging to John Doe #1, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT FIVE (Extortion)

51. From at least in or about December 2006 to in and about January 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

VINCENT AULISI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #1, that is: money belonging to John Doe #1, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT SIX (Extortion)

52. From at least in or about December 2007 to in and about January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

VINCENT AULISI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #1, that is: money belonging to John Doe #1, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT SEVEN (Extortion)

53. From at least in or about December 2008 to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ROBERT RUIZ, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #1, that is: money belonging to John Doe #1, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, united States Code, Sections· 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT EIGHT (Extortion)

54. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ROBERT RUIZ, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #1, that is: money belonging to John Doe #1, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, united States Code, sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT NINE (Extortion)

55. From at least in or about December 2005 to in and about January 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ALBERT CERNADAS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #2, that is: money belonging to John Doe #2, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, united States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TEN (Extortion)

56. From at least in or about December 2006 to in and about January 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

VINCENT AULISI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #2, that is: money belonging to John Doe #2, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, united States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT ELEVEN (Extortion)

57. From at least in or about December 2007 to in and about January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

VINCENT AULISI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #2, that is: money belonging to John Doe #2, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, united states Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWELVE (Extortion)

5S. From at least in or about December 200S to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ROBERT RUIZ, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #2, that is: money belonging to John Doe #2, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title lS, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTEEN (Extortion)

59. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ROBERT RUIZ, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #2, that is: money belonging to John Doe #2, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT FOURTEEN (Extortion)

60. From at least in or about December 2006 to in and about January 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #3, that is: money belonging to John Doe #3, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, united States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT FIFTEEN (Extortion)

61. From at least in or about December 2007 to in and about January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #3, that is: money belonging to John Doe #3, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT SIXTEEN (Extortion)

62. From at least in or about December 2008 to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #3, that is: money belonging to John Doe #3, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Sections 1951{a) and 2.

COUNT SEVENTEEN (Extortion)

63. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #3, that is: money belonging to John Doe #3, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, united States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT EIGHTEEN (Extortion)

64. From at least in or about December 2006 to in and about January 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #4, that is: money belonging to John Doe #4, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT NINETEEN (Extortion)

65. From at least in or about December 2007 to in and about January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #4, that is: money belonging to John Doe #4, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States ‘Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY (Extortion)

66. From at least in or about December 2008 to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #4, that is: money belonging to John Doe #4, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation ot Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY-ONE (Extortion)

67. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #4, that is: money belonging to John Doe #4, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, united states Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY-TWO (Extortion)

68. From at least in or about December 2006 to in and about January 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #5, that is: money belonging to John Doe #5, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY-THREE (Extortion)

69. From at least in or about December 2007 to in and about January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #5, that is: money belonging to John Doe #5, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY-FOUR (Extortion)

70. From at least in or about December 2008 to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #5, that is: money belonging to John Doe #5, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY-FIVE (Extortion)

71. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #5, that is: money belonging to John Doe #5, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, united States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY-SIX (Extortion)

72. From at least in or about December 2008 to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

RAMIRO QUINTANS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the· movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #6, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #6, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY-SEVEN (Extortion)

73. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

SALVATORE LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #6, that is: money belonging to John Doe #6, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY-EIGHT (Extortion)

74. From at least in or about December 2008 to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

RAMIRO QUINTANS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #7, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #7, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY-NINE (Extortion)

75. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

RAMIRO QUINTANS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #7, that is: money belonging to John Doe #7, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY (Extortion)

76. From at least in or about December 2007 to in and about January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

MICHAEL TRUEBA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #8, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #8, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY-ONE (Extortion)

77. From at least in or about December 2008 to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendants

THOMAS LEONARDIS and MICHAEL TRUEBA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #8, that is: money belonging to John Doe #8, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear. In violation of Title 18, united States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY-TWO (Extortion)

78. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about March 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

THOMAS LEONARDIS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #8, that is: money belonging to John Doe #8, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY-THREE (Extortion)

79. From at least in or about December 2006 to in and about January 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

MICHAEL TRUEBA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #9, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #9, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY-FOUR (Extortion)

80. From at least in or about December 2007 to in and about January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

MICHAEL TRUEBA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #9, that is: money belonging to John Doe #9, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code,’ Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY-FIVE (Extortion)

81. From at least in or about December 2008 to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

MICHAEL TRUEBA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #9, that is: money belonging to John Doe #9, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY-SIX (Extortion)

82. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

MICHAEL TRUEBA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #9, that is: money belonging to John Doe #9, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY-SEVEN (Extortion)

83. From at least in or about December 2007 to in and about January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

MICHAEL TRUEBA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #10, and individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #10, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY-EIGHT (Extortion)

84. From at least in or about December 2007 to in and about January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

RAMIRO QUINTANS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #11, and individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #11, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY-NINE (Extortion)

85. From at least in or about December 2008 to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

RAMIRO QUINTANS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #11, that is: money belonging to John Doe #11, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of” Title 18, United States Code, Sections 19s1(a) and 2.

COUNT FORTY (Attempted Extortion)

86. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

RAMIRO QUINTANS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally attempt to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators attempted to obtain property of John Doe #11, that is: money belonging to John Doe #11, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT FORTY-ONE (Illegal Gambling Conspiracy -Bookmaking)

87. From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

RICHARD DEHMER,

STEPHEN DEPIRO, and

JOHN HARTMANN,

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, that is: a gambling business involving bookmaking, which operated in violation of the laws of New Jersey, that is: New Jersey Statute 2C:37-2, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days and had a gross revenue of at least $2,000 in any single day, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955 (a) .

In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its objectives, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants RICHARD DEHMER, STEPHEN DEPIRO and JOHN HARTMANN,

together with others, committed and caused to be committed, among others, the following:

OVERT ACTS

a. On or about July 14, 2009, at approximately 7:39 p.m., the defendant RICHARD DEHMER called a sports betting operator.

b. On or about July 17, 2009, at approximately 9:09 p.m., the defendant STEPHEN DEPIRO had a telephone conversation over the defendant RICHARD DEHMER’s cellular telephone.

c. On or about August 3, 2009, at approximately 10:04 a.m., the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and STEPHEN DEPIRO had a telephone conversation.

d. On or about August 11, 2009, at approximately 1:42 p.m., the defendant RICHARD DEHMER called a sports betting operator.

e. On or about August 23, 2009, at approximately 10:50 a.m., the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and JOHN HARTMANN had a telephone conversation.

f. On or about September 21, 2009, at approximately 7:18 p.m., the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and JOHN HARTMANN had a telephone conversation.

g. On or about October 10, 2009, at approximately 2:33 p.m., the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and STEPHEN DEPIRO had a telephone conversation.

h. On or about October 10, 2009, at approximately 2:34

p.m., the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and JOHN HARTMANN had a telephone conversation.

i. On or about November 10, 2009, at approximately

12:50 p.m., the defendant RICHARD DEHMER called a sports betting operator.

j. On or about November 16, 2009, at approximately

12:37 p.m., the defendant RICHARD DEHMER called a sports betting operator.

k. On or about November 22, 2009, at approximately

9:56 a.m., the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and JOHN HARTMANN had a telephone conversation.

1. On or about November 25, 2009, at approximately

12:20 p.m., the defendant RICHARD DEHMER called a sports betting operator.

m. On or about November 25, 2009, at approximately

p.m., the defendant STEPHEN DEPIRO called a sports betting operator.

On or about December 6, 2009, at approximately 8:34 a.m., the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and JOHN HARTMANN had a telephone conversation.

o. On or about December 14, 2009, at approximately

7:33 p.m., the defendant RICHARD DEHMER called a sports betting operator.

p. On or about December 21, 2009, at approximately

p.m., the defendant RICHARD DEHMER called a sports betting operator.

On or about January 18, 2010, at approximately 1:07 p.m., the defendant RICHARD DEHMER called a sports betting operator.

On or about January 26, 2010, the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and STEPHEN DEPIRO met at a restaurant in New Jersey.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

COUNT FORTY-TWO (Illegal Gambling -Bookmaking)

88. From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

RICHARD DEHMER, STEPHEN DEPIRO, and JOHN HARTMANN,

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, that is: a gambling business involving bookmaking, which operated in violation of the laws of New Jersey, that is: New Jersey Statute 2C:37-2, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days and had a gross revenue of at least $2,000 in any single day. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955(a) and 2.

COUNT FORTY-THREE (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy)

89. From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

RICHARD DEHMER and STEPHEN DEPIRO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect extensions of credit from bettors engaged in DEHMER and DEPIRO’s bookmaking operation. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 894 (a) (1) .

COUNT FORTY-FOUR (Extortionate Collection of Credit)

90. From at least in or about October 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect extensions of credit from John Doe #12.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a) (1) and 2.

COUNT FORTY-FIVE (Transmission of Wagering Information)

91. On or about August 11, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest.

In violation of Title 18, united States Code, Section 1084 (a) .

COUNT FORTY-SIX (Transmission of Wagering Information)

92. On or about November 10, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084 (a) .

COUNT FORTY-SEVEN (Transmission of Wagering Information)

93. On or about November 16, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084(a) .

COUNT FORTY-EIGHT (Transmission of Wagering Information)

94. On or about November 25, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084 (a) .

COUNT FORTY-NINE (Transmission of Wagering Information)

95. On or about December 14, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084 (a) .

COUNT FIFTY (Transmission of Wagering Information)

96. On or about December 21, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest.

In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Section 1084 (a) .

COUNT FIFTY-ONE (Transmission of Wagering Information)

97. On or about January 18, 2010, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084 (a) .

COUNT FIFTY-TWO (Illegal Gambling Conspiracy -Poker)

98. From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

ANTHONY ALFANO, TONINO COLANTONIO, RICHARD DEHMER, and GIUSEPPE PUGLIESE,

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, that is: a gambling business involving poker, which operated in violation of the laws of New Jersey, that is: New Jersey Statute 2C:37-2, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 19S5(a).

99. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its objectives, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY ALFANO, TONINO COLANTONIO, RICHARD DEHMER, and GIUSEPPE PUGLIESE, together with others, committed and caused to be committed, among others, the following:

OVERT ACTS

a. On or about August 12, 2009, at approximately 7:45 a.m., the defendants TONINO COLANTONIO and RICHARD DEHMER had a telephone conversation.

b. On or about September 11, 2009, at approximately

p.m., the defendants TONINO COLANTONIO and RICHARD DEHMER had a telephone conversation.

On or about October 7, 2009, at approximately 9:15 p.m., the defendant RICHARD DEHMER had a telephone conversation with a coconspirator.

On or about November 8, 2009, at approximately 3:19 p.m., the defendants ANTHONY ALFANO and RICHARD DEHMER had a telephone conversation.

e. On or about December 17, 2009, at approximately

p.m., the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and GIUSEPPE PUGLIESE had a telephone conversation.

On or about January 6, 2010, at approximately 11:58 a.m., the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and GIUSEPPE PUGLIESE had a telephone conversation.

On or about January 18, 2010, at approximately 7:14 p.m., the defendants ANTHONY ALFANO and RICHARD DEHMER had a telephone conversation.

h. On or about January 19, 2010, at approximately 4:28 p.m., the defendants TONINO COLANTONIO and RICHARD DEHMER had a telephone conversation.   In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Section 371.

81

COUNT FIFTY-THREE (Illegal Gambling -Poker)

100. From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

ANTHONY ALFANO, TONINO COLANTONIO, RICHARD DEHMER, and GIUSEPPE PUGLIESE,

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, that is: a gambling business involving poker, which operated in violation of the laws of New Jersey, that is: New Jersey Statute 2C:37-2, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955(a) and 2.

A TRUE BILL

. REDACTED

FOREPERSON

PAUL J. FISHMAN

United States Attorney

2011
01.23

01-20-11 — NEWARK, N.J. – Fifteen New Jersey residents, including an alleged member and associates of the Genovese organized crime family, are charged with racketeering and related offenses in a superseding indictment unsealed this morning in conjunction with arrests in the case, New Jersey U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman and Eastern District of New York U.S. Attorney Loretta E. Lynch announced. The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jacquelyn M. Rasulo and Taryn A. Merkl of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of New York; and Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Mahajan, of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of New Jersey.

GENOVESE ORGANIZED CRIME FAMILY SOLDIER AND ASSOCIATES INDICTED ON RACKETEERING CHARGES, INCLUDING EXTORTION OF INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION MEMBERS

Union Officials Charged with Participation in Three-Decade Conspiracy to Extort Dock Workers

NEWARK, N.J. – Fifteen New Jersey residents, including an alleged member and associates of the Genovese organized crime family, are charged with racketeering and related offenses in a superseding indictment unsealed this morning in conjunction with arrests in the case, New Jersey U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman and Eastern District of New York U.S. Attorney Loretta E. Lynch announced.

The 53-count superseding indictment filed in Newark federal court charges Stephen Depiro, a soldier in the Genovese organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra (the “Genovese family”), and three Genovese family associates – Albert Cernadas, former President of International Longshoremen’s Association (“ILA”) Local 1235 and former ILA Executive Vice President; Nunzio LaGrasso, the Vice President of ILA Local 1478 and ILA Representative; and Richard Dehmer – with racketeering conspiracy, including predicate acts of conspiring to extort ILA members on the New Jersey piers, bookmaking, extortionate collection of credit, and illegal gambling. Depiro and Dehmer are also charged with racketeering conspiracy involving the collection of unlawful debt and charges relating to bookmaking and gambling. 

Seven other defendants, including Thomas Leonardis, the President of ILA Local 1235 and ILA Representative; Robert Ruiz, the Delegate of ILA Local 1235 and ILA Representative; and Vincent Aulisi, former President of ILA Local 1235, are charged with extorting ILA members.  The indictment also includes bookmaking and gambling charges against four additional defendants. 

A separate indictment was also unsealed today in Brooklyn federal court, charging that Patrick Cicalese, Robert Moreno, and Manuel Salgado – ILA members on the New Jersey piers – impeded a proceeding before a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of New York by committing perjury.

Fourteen of the defendants charged in the Newark indictment were arrested this morning in a coordinated law enforcement effort.  Cernadas was previously charged and arrested.  All three defendants charged in the Brooklyn indictment were also arrested this morning.

The defendants arrested on charges in the Newark superseding indictment will be arraigned this afternoon before United States Magistrate Judge Claire C. Cecchi in Newark federal court.  Cernadas will be arraigned on the superseding indictment at a later date. The defendants arrested on charges in the Brooklyn indictment will be arraigned this afternoon before United States Magistrate Andrew L. Carter Jr., in Brooklyn federal court.

According to the superseding indictment and detention memo filed in Newark federal court:

Depiro is associated with a Genovese family crew, formerly headed by powerful Genovese family member Tino Fiumara, and, since at least 2005, has managed the Genovese family’s control over the New Jersey waterfront – including the nearly three-decades-long extortion of port workers in ILA Local 1, ILA Local 1235, and ILA Local 1478.  Members of the Genovese family, including Depiro, are charged with conspiring to collect tribute payments from New Jersey port workers at Christmastime each year through their corrupt influence over union officials, including the last three presidents of ILA Local 1235.  The timing of the extortions typically coincided with the receipt by certain ILA members of “Container Royalty Fund” checks, a form of year-end compensation.

Depiro also controlled a sports betting package that was managed by several others, including Dehmer, through the use of an overseas sports betting operation.  In connection with the illegal gambling operations involving bookmaking, Dehmer threatened physical violence against individuals to collect outstanding debts for Depiro. Dehmer also allegedly operated an illegal poker club in Kenilworth, N.J.

The government’s cases are being prosecuted jointly by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the District of New Jersey, in Newark, and the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn.  The charges arise from a long-term investigation initiated in the Eastern District of New York which was later joined by the District of New Jersey.  These related cases are part of a larger operation announced this morning by Attorney General Eric Holder in Brooklyn.  In all, 91 members and associates of seven organized crime families of La Cosa Nostra (LCN), including the New England LCN family, all five New York-based families and the New Jersey-based Decavalcante family have been charged with federal crimes in 16 indictments returned in four judicial districts. Another 36 defendants also have been charged for their roles in alleged associated criminal activity.

U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman stated: “According to the charges unsealed today, organized crime still has a grip on the New Jersey waterfront.  Workers should be free to pursue an honest living without being worried that their own union representatives will shake them down. Our ports and those who work there play vital roles in our region’s economy and security.  Paying tribute to the mob is not an acceptable cost of doing business in New Jersey.”

“Today’s arrests are an example of this Office’s commitment to eradicating La Cosa Nostra’s corrupting influence in our communities,” stated Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.  “The charges announced today are but an example of some of the myriad crimes allegedly engaged in by members and associates of LCN, including entrenched labor racketeering, extortion, and gambling.”

Michael B. Ward, Special Agent In Charge of the Newark Division of the FBI stated: “It’s become almost cliché to link organized crime to New Jersey, with oft-repeated comments about the ‘Soprano State’ and bodies allegedly being buried in the Meadowlands.  Today’s arrests will serve as a stark reminder that organized crime continues to operate in New Jersey through corruption, extortion, racketeering, and violence.  Organized crime is not to be romanticized, but rather is now being targeted anew by the FBI in New Jersey by agents whose attention is focused on these groups 24/7.”            

“Today’s RICO indictments are part of our long-term fight to rid the ports of New Jersey and New York of the stranglehold of organized crime. Several union officials from two locals of the International Longshoremen’s Association were arrested this morning on corruption charges. The alleged conspiracy involved a scheme to extort tribute payments from union members for members of the Genovese crime family.  We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to prevent the influence of organized crime over unions,” stated Marjorie Franzman, Special Agent in Charge for the New York Region of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General, Office of Labor Racketeering and Fraud Investigations.

U.S. Attorneys Fishman and Lynch credited the FBI in New York and New Jersey and the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General with the investigation leading to the charges.  They also thanked the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor for their cooperation and assistance.

The charges and allegations contained in the indictments are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. 

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jacquelyn M. Rasulo and Taryn A. Merkl of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of New York; and Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Mahajan, of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of New Jersey.

The defendants and charges in the Newark indictment are outlined in the following chart, along with the maximum potential penalty per count if convicted.  Each count also carries a maximum $250,000 fine.

Defendant Count/Charges Maximum Potential Penalty
Stephen Depiro, 55, of Kenilworth, N.J. Count 1: RICO Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Count 2: “CUD” RICO Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Count 41: Illegal Gambling Conspiracy – Bookmaking Five years in prison
Count 42: Illegal Gambling – Bookmaking Five years in prison
Count 43: Exortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Albert Cernadas, 75, of Union, N.J. Count 1: RICO Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Count 4: Hobbs Act Extortion 20 years in prison
Count 9: Hobbs Act Extortion 20 years in prison
Nunzio LaGrasso, 60, of Florham Park, N.J. Count 1: RICO Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Counts 14-25: Hobbs Act Extortion 20 years in prison
Richard Dehmer, 75, of Springfield, N.J. Count 1: RICO Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Count 2: “CUD” RICO Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Count 41: Illegal Gambling Conspiracy – Bookmaking Five years in prison

 

Defendant Count/Charges Maximum Potential Penalty
  Count 42: Illegal Gambling – Bookmaking Five years in prison
Count 43: Exortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Count 44: Extortionate Collection of Credit 20 years in prison
Counts 45-51: Transmission of Wagering Information Two years in prison
Count 52: Illegal Gambling Conspiracy – Poker Five years in prison
Count 53: Illegal Gambling – Poker Five years in prison
Edward Aulisi, 51, of Flemington, N.J. Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Vincent Aulisi, 78, of West Orange, N.J. Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Counts 5, 6, 10 & 11: Hobbs Act Extortion 20 years in prison
Thomas Leonardis 53, of Glen Gardner, N.J. Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Counts 31 & 32: Hobbs Act Extortion 20 years in prison
Robert Ruiz, 52, of Watchung, N.J. Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Counts 7, 8, 12 & 13: Hobbs Act Extortion 20 years in prison
Michael Trueba, 75, of Kearny, N.J. Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Counts 30, 31, 33-37: Hobbs Act Extortion 20 years in prison
Defendant Count/Charges Maximum Potential Penalty
Ramiro Quintans, 52, of Basking Ridge, N.J. Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
  Counts 26, 28, 29, 38-40: Hobbs Act Extortion 20 years in prison
Salvatore LaGrasso, 60, of Edison, N.J. Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
  Count 27: Hobbs Act Extortion 20 years in prison
Anthony Alfano, 76, of Union, N.J. Count 52: Illegal Gambling Conspiracy – Poker Five years in prison
  Count 53: Illegal Gambling – Poker Five years in prison
Tonino Colantonio, 32, Kenilworth, N.J. Count 52: Illegal Gambling Conspiracy – Poker Five years in prison
  Count 53: Illegal Gambling – Poker Five years in prison
John Hartmann, 41, Kenilworth, N.J. Count 41: Illegal Gambling Conspiracy – Bookmaking Five years in prison
  Count 42: Illegal Gambling – Bookmaking Five years in prison
Guiseppe Pugliese, 32, Kenilworth, N.J. Count 52: Illegal Gambling Conspiracy – Poker Five years in prison
Count 53: Illegal Gambling – Poker Five years in prison

11-032 ###

m4s0n501
2010
10.16

N.J. Waterfront Commission holds first hearing on mob influence at docks

Published: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 9:38 PM Updated: Friday, October 15, 2010, 6:10 PM

Steve Strunsky/The Star-Ledger

. . .

Today’s otherwise sober proceedings at the commission’s lower Manhattan headquarters took an almost comic turn at one point, as former longshoreman Edward “Eddie” Aulisi, repeatedly and by rote, invoked his 5th Amendment right in response to question after question from a commission lawyer. The lawyer, Michelle Demeri, had played a taped phone conversation that, a commission detective testified, captured Aulisi talking to Michael “Mikey Cigars” Coppola, a capo in the Genovese crime family, about extortion from dock workers and other form of waterfront racketeering in March 2007. Coppola was then a fugitive from a murder investigation.

Aulisi is the son of a former International Longshoreman’s Association Local 1235 president, Vincent Aulisi, who commission officials say installed his son in a no-show job as a checker, or dockside clerk, at the APM terminal in Elizabeth. On a projection screen in the crowded hearing room, commission officials showed photographs of the son barbecuing and riding a lawnmower while he was scheduled to work. The commission eventually barred Aulisi from working on the waterfront for associating with Coppola.

“Isn’t it true that you had a no-show job at APM?” Demeri asked Aulisi.

“”On advice from my counsel, I hereby assert my privilege against self-incrimination,” he replied, repeating that same response, word-for-word a half dozen times in response to a half-dozen questions.

Testimony from Joseph Curto, president of the New York Shipping Association, a trade group, detailed labor practices codified in bargaining agreements between stevedoring companies and the longshoremen’s union. The commission officials say the practices allow for and even encourage excessive pay for little or no work, depending on the position.

For example, a relief checker, Eddie Aulisi’s typical job title, is paid whether or not he is providing relief, and is not required to be on-site even during the loading or unloading job he is assigned to.

. . .

Read the complete article.

2010
10.16

Jersey ‘captain’ in Bonanno crime family sentenced to 18 months in prison for loansharking

Published: Friday, October 15, 2010, 3:50 PM Updated: Friday, October 15, 2010, 4:16 PM

Michaelangelo Conte/The Jersey Journal

A Bonanno crime family “captain” who was born and raised in Jersey City’s Marion section was sentenced this morning to 18 months in federal prison after having pleaded guilty to a loansharking offense.

Joseph Sammartino Sr., 56, aka “Sammy”’ and “Sammo,” who now lives in North Arlington, is already more than halfway through his prison term since he has been held without bail since his arrest in October 2009.

. . .

Read the complete story.

2010
07.24

45 arrested in illegal Bergen County gambling ring

Published: Tuesday, March 25, 2008, 1:48 PM Updated: Tuesday, March 25, 2008, 7:38 PM
By Rudy Larini

Bergen County Prosecutor John Molinelli announces at a news conference in Hackensack, today, the arrests of more than 40 people for their alleged involvement in an organized crime betting ring.

A gambling ring that took in $1 million a month in bets was cracked today with the arrest of 45 individuals, including four reputed associates of the Genovese crime family as well as a high school athletic director and a teacher from another school district.

Authorities also seized more than $5 million, about five pounds of marijuana and five vehicles during raids that began at 5 a.m. in Bergen, Hudson, Monmouth and Ocean counties.
. . .

The other ringleaders were identified as Mark Iafelice, 49, of Edgewater; Brian DiGuilmi, 48, of Emerson, and Bernard Duffy, 63, of Hasbrouck Heights. All are charged with racketeering, conspiracy and promoting gambling, which carry penalties of up to 10 years in prison.

Molinelli described the Skinners, Iafelice and DiGuilmi as “associates” of the Genovese crime family.

Others arrested included a North Bergen High School athletic director, Jerry Maietta, 37, of North Bergen; a North Bergen school aide, Ralph Marino, 52, of Cliffside Park, and John Prato, 36, of Brick, a teacher at Freehold Regional High School.

North Bergen spokesman Paul Swibinski, remarked, “Certainly everyone is innocent until proven guilty.”

. . .
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/03/42_arrested_in_illegal_gamblin.html

2010
06.16

Wed June 16 between 1 and 3 pm EST author Ade Makinde will be at
The Hudson County Facts Frankie DePaula Page
from London to exchange Frankie DePaula stories with us.

Mr Makinde has recently published a well researched book about the shooting of Hudson County boxer Frankie DePaula. Bring your own stories and talk to friends and family of the late Jersey City cult hero.

2010
05.14

Lucchese Crime Family Organization Chart
View Large Image as PDF

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

FILED
LAW DIVISION -CRIMINAL
MAY 14 2010
State Grand Jury Number SGJ585-10-2
Superior Court
CLERKS 0FFICE
10 -0 5 –0 0 0 5 7 -S
Docket Number STATE OF NEW JERSEY
v. INDICTMENT JOSEPH DI NAPOLI MATTHEW MADONNA RALPH V. PERNA NICODEMO SCARFO, JR. JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA FRANK CETTA JOHN G. PERNA RALPH M. PERNA JOHN MANGRELLA
AKA “Blackie” GARY MEDURE ELLIOT PORCO MARTIN TACCETTA ANTONIO RUSSO
AKA “CURLY” ALFONSO CATALDO AKA “TIC” MICHAEL RAMUNO, III
RONALD SCRIPPS GIANNI IACOVO ROBERT DECRESCENZO CHARLES BOLOGNA JAMES FURFARO ROBERT ROMANO JOHN TURI MICHAEL MAFFUCCI GEORGE MAIORANO BLERIM IBRIAMI SHPETIM HANI
AKA “TIM” ROSANNA PERNA
. VITA CETTA EDWIN SPEARS SAMUEL A. JULIANO MICHAEL BRUINTON
AKA “MAC” DWAYNE SPEARS and
KRISTEN GILLIAM The Grand Jurors of and for the State of New Jersey, upon their oaths, present that:
COUNT ONE
(Racketeering -First Degree)
JOSEPH DI NAPOLI MATTHEW MADONNA RALPH V. PERNA NICODEMO SCARFO, JR. JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA FRANK CETTA JOHN G. PERNA RALPH M. PERNA JOHN MANGRELLA
GARY MEDURE ELLIOT PORCO MARTIN TACCETTA ANTONIO RUSSO ALFONSO CATALDO
MICHAEL RAMUNO, III
RONALD SCRIPPS GIANNI IACOVO ROBERT DECRESCENZO CHARLES BOLOGNA JAMES FURFARO ROBERT ROMANO
-3­
JOHN TURI MICHAEL MAFFUCCI GEORGE MAIORANO BLERIM IBRIAMI SHPETIM HANI ROSANNA PERNA VITA CETTA EDWIN SPEARS SAMUEL A. JULIANO MICHAEL BRUINTON DWAYNE SPEARS and
KRISTEN GILLIAM who are named as the defendants herein, and other persons whose identities are known and unknown to the Grand Jurors, who are co­conspirators and members of the criminal enterprise but not named as defendants herein, -at the times and places herein specified, did commit the crime of racketeering, that is, the defendants and other persons employed by or associated with an enterprise engaged in or the activities of which affected trade or commerce, purposely or knowingly did conduct or participate directly or indirectly, or did conspire in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation
of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2c and N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2d, all as hereinafter described.
THE RELEVANT TIMES
1. The predicate criminal activity occurred between in or about January 2005, and in or about April 2010.
THE RELEVANT PLACES
2. The predicate criminal activity took place at the Township of Galloway, and at the City of Ventnor, in the County of Atlantic, at the Borough of Elmwood Park, at the Borough of Fort Lee, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, all in the County of Bergen, at the Township of
·Belleville, at the Township of Cedar Grove, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, and at the Township of West Caldwell, all in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Township of East Hanover, at the Borough of Florham Park, at the Township of Parsippany, and at the Township of Pequannock, all in the County of Morris, at the Township of Brick, and at the Township of Toms River, both in the County of Ocean, at the Borough of Bloomingdale, at the City of Clifton, at the Borough of Hawthorne,and at the Borough of North Haledon, all in the County of Passaic, at the City of Rahway, in the County of Union, in the
State of New York, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court.
THE ENTERPRISE
3. JOSEPHDI NAPOLI, MATTHEW MADONNA, RALPH V. PERNA, NICODEMO SCARFO, JR., JOSEPH M. PERNA, MICHAEL CETTA, FRANK CETTA, JOHN G. PERNA, RALPH M. PERNA, JOHN MANGRELLA, GARY MEDURE, ELLIOT PORCO, MARTIN TACCETTA, ANTONIO RUSSO, ALFONSO CATALDO, MICHAEL RAMUNO, III, RONALD SCRIPPS, GIANNI IACOVO, ROBERT DECRESCENZO, CHARLES BOLOGNA, JAMES FURFARO,ROBERT ROMANO, JOHN TURI, MICHAEL MAFFUCCI, GEORGE MAIORANO, BLERIM IBRIAMI, SHPETIM HANI, ROSANNA PERNA, VITA CETTA, EDWIN SPEARS, SAMUEL A. JULIANO, MICHAEL BRUINTON, DWAYNE SPEARS, KRISTEN GILLIAM, all of whom are co-conspirators, and Francine Hightower
who is a co-conspirator and member of the enterprise, but not charged in this indictment, and other persons whose identities are both known and unknown to the State Grand Jurors, would constitute an enterprise within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1c, that is, a union or group of individuals associated in fact, or associates thereof, which, among other names, members or associates thereof self identified as the “Lucchese” organized crime family or the “Nine-Trey Gangster Bloods,” for the purposes set forth below.
THE PURPOSES OF THE ENTERPRISE
The purposes of the enterprise would include the maintenance of its strength and the assurance of its perpetuation through specific rules and protocols applicable to its members and associates, including: discussing matters pertaining to the operation, conduct and control of the enterprise with no one other than members or highly trusted associates of the enterprise; resolving disputes or seeking direction from superiors within the enterprise through a specific chain of command; enforcing the protocols of the enterprise through any means necessary, including threats or use of violence; keeping a
member’s immediate supervisor within the enterprise informed of illegal activities and law enforcement activities targeting the enterprise; collectively generating income on behalf of and for the benefit the enterprise through various illicit schemes; and dividing proceeds from enterprise members’ criminal activities in accordance with enterprise protocol. A further purpose of the enterprise would be to shield its operation from detection by law enforcement authorities by, among other means: using code names when communicating; resorting to in-person meetings; using
wireless telephones in fictitious or nominee names; prohibiting membership or association in the .enterprise to those who may have law enforcement familial relationships or familial relationships with those who may have cooperated with law enforcement.
THE PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY
The pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1d, engaged in by members of the enterprise, did consist of at least two incidents ·of racketeering conduct during the relevant time period stated above, including but not limited to: gambling offenses in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C : 37-1 et ~, theft offenses in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-1 et ~, aggravated assault in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1), forgery and fraudulent practices in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-1 et ~, failure to file tax returns or reports in violation of N.J.S.A. 54:52-8, failure to pay gross income taxes in violation of
N.J. S.A. 54:52-9, bribery in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2, possession with intent to di stribute controlled dangerous substances in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5 et ~, unlawful use of firearms in violation of N. J.S.A. 2C:39-1 et ~, money laundering in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25, involving property valued in excess of $500,000, and conspiracy to commit the foregoing crimes in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C : 5-2, primarily in the following ways:
JOSEPH DI NAPOLI did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by
deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns,
failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
MATTHEW MADONNA did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
RALPH V. PERNA did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13,14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as
well as other conduct.
NICODEMO SCARFO, JR. did c9mmit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, II, 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as
well as other conduct.
JOSEPH M. PERNA did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, distribution of controlled dangerous substance, bribery, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, II, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as
other conduct.
MICHAEL CETTA
did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated _assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, distribution of controlled dangerous substance, bribery, and money laundering, all of which is the

subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 21, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other
conduct.

FRANK CETTA did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging ln and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
JOHN G. PERNA did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling,
possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, la, II, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
RALPH M. PERNA did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, la, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, ‘ 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
JOHN MANGRELLA did commit the racketeerirtg conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering,
all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, II, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
GARY MEDURE did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
ELLIOT PORCO did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
MARTIN TACCETTA
did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, la, II, 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
ANTONIO RUSSO did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, la, II, 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as
well as other conduct.
ALFONSO CATALDO did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated
assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
MICHAEL RAMUNO III did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose; theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
RONALD SCRIPPS did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
GIANNI IACOVO did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
ROBERT DECRESCENZO did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose,theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as
well as other conduct.
CHARLES BOLOGNA
did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, II, 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, an.d 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
JAMES FURFARO did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, II, 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
ROBERT ROMANO did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated
assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, S, 9, la, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, lS, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
JOHN TURI did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose,theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, S, 9, la, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, lS, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
MICHAEL MAFFUCCI did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, S, 9, la, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
GEORGE MAIORANO did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawfUl purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tqX returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
BLERIM IBRIAMI did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
SHPETIM RANI
did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, la, II, 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
ROSANNA PERNA did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, la, II, 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
VITA CETTA did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated
assault, possession of a weapon for an: unlawful purpose, theft by
deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns,
failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering,
all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as
well as other conduct.
EDWIN SPEARS
did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or
conspiring to commit repeated acts of distribution of controlled
dangerous substance, bribery, and money laundering, all of which
is the subject of Counts 19, 21, 33, and 34 of this Indictment,
as well as other conduct.
SAMUEL A. JULIANO did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of distribution of controlled dangerous substance, bribery, possession with the intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance, unlawful use of firearms, unlawful possession of destructive devices or explosives, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
MICHAEL BRUINTON did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of distribution of controlled
dangerous substance, bribery, and money laundering, all of which
is the subject of Counts 19, 21, 33, and 34 of this Indictment,
as well as other conduct.
DWAYNE SPEARS
did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or
conspiring to commit repeated acts of distribution of controlled
dangerous substance, bribery, and money laundering, all of which
is the subject of Counts 19, 21, 33, and 34 of this Indictment,
as well as other conduct.
KRISTEN GILLIAM
did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or
conspiring to commit repeated acts of distribution of controlled
dangerous substance, bribery, and money laundering, all of which
is the subject of Counts 19, 21, 33, and 34 of this Indictment,
as well as other conduct.
All in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2c, N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2d, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
FORFEITURES
1. All allegations heretofore set forth are hereby incorporated by reference and re-alleged as if fully set forth herein, for the purpose of alleging forfeitures pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 2C:41-3b.
2. The defendants have property constituting:
A. Interests, including money and other things of value, established, acquired, maintained, operated, controlled, conducted, or participated in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2c, and
N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2d.

3. The said interests, all subject to forfeiture to the State of New Jersey, shall expressly include all items of real and personal property detailed within the attached “Appendix A” to this indictment which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
COUNT TWO (Leader of Organized Crime ~ Second Degree) JOSEPH DI NAPOLI and
MATTHEW MADONNA between in or about January 2005 t and in or about April 2010 t at the Township of GallowaYt at the City of Ventnort in the County of Atlantic t at the Borough of Elmwood Parkt at the Borough of Fort Lee at the Borough of Glen Rockt and at the Township of
t
Wyckoff t all in the County of Bergent at the Township of
Bellevillet at the Township of Cedar Grove at the Borough of Glen Ridge and at the Township of West Caldwell t all in the
t
t
County of Essext at the Township of East Amwell t in the County of Hunterdont at the Borough of Farmingdale t and at the Township Neptune t both in the County of Monmoutht at the Township of East Hanover t at the Borough of Florham Parkt at the Town of Morristownt at the Township of ParsippanYt and at the Township of Pequannockt all in the County of Morris t at the Township of Brickt at the Township of Toms Rivert both in the County of Oceant at the Borough of Bloomingdale t at the City of Cliftont at the Borough of Hawthorne t and at the Borough of North Haledont all in the County of Passaic t in the State of New York t in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvaniat elsewhere t and within the jurisdiction of this Court t were leaders of organized of
organized crime, in that the said JOSEPH DI NAPOLI and MATTHEW MADONNA purposely did conspire with others whose identities are both known and unknown to the Grand Jurors, who compromised an illegal enterprise of individuals associated in fact, which referred to itself as the Lucchese organized crime family, as an organizer, supervisor, and manger, to commit a continuing series of crimes which would constitute a pattern or racketeering activity, pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1a and d, all of which is described in Count One of this Indictment and incorporated herein by reference, contrary to the provisions of
N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2g. and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT THREE (Leader of Organized Crime -Second Degree)
RALPH V. PERNA between in or about January 2005, and in or about April 2010, at the Township of Galloway, and at the City of Ventnor, in the County of Atlantic, at the Borough of Elmwood Park, at the Borough of Fort Lee, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, all in the County of Bergen, at the Township of Belleville, at the Township of Cedar Grove, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, and at the Township of West Caldwell, all in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township
Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Township of East Hanover, at the Borough of Florham Park, at the Town of Morristown, at the Township of Parsippany, and at the Township of Pequannock, all in the County of Morris, at the Township of Brick, at the Township of Toms River, both in the County of Ocean, at the Borough of Bloomingdale, at the City of Clifton, at the Borough of Hawthorne, and at the Borough of North Haledon, all in the County of Passaic, in the State of New York, in the Commonweatlh of Pennsylvania, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, was a leader of organized of organized crime, in that the said RALPH V. PERNA purposely did conspire with others whose identities are both known and unknown
to the Grand Jurors, who compromised an illegal enterprise of individuals associated in fact, which referred to itself as the Lucchese organized crime family, as an organizer, supervisor, and manger, to commit a continuing series of crimes which would constitute a pattern or racketeering activity, pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1a and d, all of which is described in Count One of this Indictment and incorporated herein by reference, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2g, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT FOUR
(Conspiracy -Second Degree)
JOSEPH DI NAPOLI MATTHEW MADONNA RALPH V. PERNA NICODEMO SCARFO { JR. JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA FRANK CETTA JOHN G. PERNA RALPH M. PERNA
JOHN MANGRELLA
GARY MEDURE ELLIOT PORCO MARTIN TACCETTA ANTONIO RUSSO ALFONSO CATALDO
MICHAEL RAMUNO{ III RONALD SCRIPPS GIANNI IACOVO ROBERT DECRESCENZO
CHARLES BOLOGNA JAMES FURFARO ROBERT ROMANO
-28­
JOHN TURI MICHAEL MAFFUCCI GEORGE MAIORANO BLERIM IBRIAMI SHPETIM RANI VITA CETTA and
ROSANNA PERNA who are named as the defendants herein, and other persons whose identities are known and unknown to the Grand Jurors, who are co­conspirators and members of the criminal enterprise but not named as defendants herein, between in or about January 2005, and in or about April 2010, at the Township of Galloway, and at the City of Ventnor, in the County of Atlantic, at the Borough of Elmwood Park, at the Borough of Fort Lee, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, all in the County of Bergen, at the Township of Belleville, at the Township of Cedar Grove, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, and at the Township of West Caldwell, all in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the
Township of East Hanover, at the Borough of Florham Park, at the Township of Parsippany, and at the Township of Pequannock, all in the County of Morris, at the Township of Brick, and at the
Township of Toms River, both in the County of Ocean, at the Borough of Bloomingdale, at the City of Clifton, at the Borough of Hawthorne, and at the Borough of North Haledon, all in the County of Passaic, in the State of New York, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, with the. purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the crimes of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, and failure to pay gross income tax, did agree that:
A. One or more of them knowingly would engage in conduct which would constitute the aforementioned crimes, or
B. One or more of them knowingly would aid in the planning, solicitation, or commission of the said crimes, that is:
1. Knowingly to accept or receive money or other property, pursuant to an agreement or understanding with any person, whereby one or more of them would participate in the proceeds of gambling activity or engage in conduct which would materially aid gambling activity, by engaging in or materially aiding bookmaking to the extent that one or more of them received or accepted in anyone day more than five bets totaling more than $1,000, or by receiving, in connection with an illegal lottery, policy scheme or enterprise, money or written records from a
….!
person other than a player whose chances or plays are represented by such money or records, or more than $100 in anyone day of money played in such illegal lottery, policy scheme or enterprise, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:37-2a(1), N.J.S.A. 2C:37-2a(2), N.J.S.A. 2C:37-2b(1), and 2C:37-2b(2) .
1. Knowingly, with knowledge of the contents thereof, to possess a writing, paper, instrument or article of a kind commonly used in the operation or promotion of a bookmaking scheme or enterprise, constituting, reflecting or representing more than five bets totaling more than $1000, or of a kind commonly used in the operation, promotion or playing of a lottery or a policy scheme or enterprise, which constitute, reflect, or represent more than 100 plays or chances therein, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:37-3a(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:37-3a(2).
2. Purposely to obtain by extortion property of another, that is, u.s. currency, by purposely threatening to inflict bodily injury on, physically confine or restrain anyone or commit any other criminal offense, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-5.
3. Purposely to attempt to cause serious bodily injury to another, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:12.,.lb(1) .
4. To possess a certain weapon, that is, a knife, with the purpose to use it unlawfully against the person or property of another, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4d.
5. Purposely to obtain the property of another having a value of $75,000 or more, by deception, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4.
6. With purpose to deceive or injure another or to conceal a wrongdoing, to falsify or utter a writing or record knowing it to contain a false statement or information, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:21~4a.
7. Knowingly, with intent to defraud the State or to evade, avoid, or otherwise not make timely payment of any tax, fee, penalty, interest, or any part thereof which shall be due pursuant to the provisions of the State Tax Uniform Procedure law

[R.S. 54:48-1 et seq], to fail to file a tax return as required to be filed pursuant to the provisions of the State Tax Uniform Procedure law [R.S. 54:48-1 et seq], contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 54:52-8.
9. Knowingly, with intent to evade, avoid or otherwise not make timely payment of the tax required to be paid pursuant to N.J.S.A 54:48-1 et seq., to fail to pay and turn over
the gross income taxes due, contrary to the provisions of
N.J.S.A. 54:52-9.
All in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT FIVE
(Promoting Gambling -Third Degree)
JOSEPH DI NAPOLI MATTHEW MADONNA RALPH V. PERNA NICODEMO SCARFO, JR. JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA FRANK CETTA JOHN G. PERNA RALPH M. PERNA
JOHN MANGRELLA
GARY MEDURE ELLIOT PORCO MARTIN TACCETTA ANTONIO RUSSO ALFONSO CATALDO
MICHAEL RAMUNO, III RONALD SCRIPPS GIANNI IACOVO ROBERT DECRESCENZO
CHARLES BOLOGNA JAMES FURFARO ROBERT ROMANO
JOHN TURI
MICHAEL MAFFUCCI GEORGE MAIORANO BLERIM .IBRIAMI SHPETIM HANI VITA CETTA and
ROSANNA PERNA between in or about January 2005, and in or about April 2010, at the Township of Galloway, and at the City of Ventnor, in the County of Atlantic, at the Borough of Elmwood Park, at the Borough of Fort Lee, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, all in the County of Bergen, at the Township of Belleville, at the Township of Cedar Grove, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, and at the Township of West Caldwell, all in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Township of East Hanover, at the Borough of Florham Park, at the Township of Parsippany, and at the Township of Pequannock, all in the County
of Morris, at the Township of Brick, and at the Township of Toms River, both in the County of Ocean, at the Borough of Bloomingdale, at the City of Clifton, at the Borough of Hawthorne, and at the Borough of North Haledon, all in the County
of Passaic, in the State of New York, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, did promote gambling by knowingly accepting or receiving money or other property, pursuant to an agreement or understanding with any person whereby the said defendants did or would participate in the proceeds of gambling activity or did knowingly engage in conduct which materially aided any form of gambling activity including but not limited to conduct directed toward the creation or establishment of a particular game, contest, scheme, device or activity involved, towards the solicitation or inducement of persons to participate therein, toward the arrangement of any of its financial or recording
phases, or toward any other phase of its operation, .by engaging in bookmaking and receiving or accepting in anyone day more than five bets totaling more than $1000, or by receiving, in connection with an illegal lottery, policy scheme or enterprise, money or written records from a person other than a player whose chances or plays are represented by such money or records, ·or more than $100 in anyone day of money played in such illegal lottery, policy scheme or enterprise, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:37-2a(1), N.J.S.A. 2C:37-2a(2), N.J.S.A. 2C:37­2b(1), 2C:37-2b(2), and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity fo the same.
COUNT SIX
(Possession of Gambling Records -Third De”gree)
JOSEPH DI NAPOLI MATTHEW MADONNA RALPH V. PERNA NICODEMO SCARFO, JR. JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA FRANK CETTA JOHN G. PERNA RALPH M. PERNA
JOHN MANGRELLA
GARY MEDURE ELLIOT PORCO MARTIN TACCETTA ANTONIO RUSSO ALFONSO CATALDO
MICHAEL RAMUNO, III RONALD SCRIPPS GIANNI IACOVO ROBERT DECRESCENZO
CHARLES BOLOGNA JAMES FURFARO ROBERT ROMANO
-37­
JOHN TORI MICHAEL MAFFUCCI GEORGE MAIORANO
BLERIM IBRIAMI SHPETIM RANI . VITA CETTA
and
ROSANNA PERNA between in or about January 2005, and in or about April 2010, at the Township of Galloway, and at the City of Ventnor, in the County of Atlantic, at the Borough of Elmwood Park, at the Borough of Fort Lee, and at the Township of Wyckoff, all in the County of Bergen, at the Township of Belleville, at the Township of Cedar Grove, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, and at the Township of West Caldwell, all in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Township of East Hanover, at the Borough of Florham Park, at the Township of Parsippany, and at the Township of Pequannock, all in the County of Morris, at the Township of
Brick, and at the Township of Toms River, both in the County of Ocean, at the Borough of Bloomingdale, at the City of Clifton, at the Borough of Hawthorne, and at the Borough of North Haledon, all in the County of Passaic, in the State of New York, in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, with knowledge of the contents thereof, did possess a writing, paper, instrument or article of a kind commonly used in the operation or promotion of a bookmaking scheme or enterprise, constituting, reflecting or representing more than five bets totaling more than $1000, or of a kind commonly used in the operation, promotion or playing of a lottery or a policy scheme or enterprise, which constitute, reflect, or represent more than 100 plays or chances therein, contrary to the
provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:37-3a(1), 2C:37-3a(2) and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT SEVEN (Attempted Theft by Extortion -Second Degree) JOSEPH·M. PERNA JOHN G. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA GIANNI IACOVO JAMES FURFARO and
ROBERT ROMANO between in or about June 2007, and in or about December 2007, at the Borough of Elmwood Park, at the Borough of Fort Lee, and at the Township of Wyckoff, all in the County of Bergen, at the Township of Belleville, at the Township of Cedar Grove, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, and at the Township of West Caldwell, all in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Hanover, at the Borough of Florham Park, at the Township of Parsippany, and at the Township of Pequannock, all in the County of Morris, at the Township of Brick, and at the Township of Toms River, both in the County of Ocean, at the Borough of Bloomingdale, at the City of Clifton, at the Borough of Hawthorne, and at the Borough of North
Haledon, all in the County of Passaic, in the State of New York, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, purposely did attempt to obtain by extortion property of another, that is,
u.S. currency, by purposely attempting to threaten to inflict bodily injury on, physically confine or restrain anyone or commit any other criminal offense, contrary to the provisions of
N.J.S.A. 2C:20-5 , N.J.S.A. 2C:5 -1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT EIGHT (Aggravated Assault -Second Degree) JOSEPH M. PERNA JOHN G. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA GIANNI IACOVO JAMES FURFARO and
ROBERT ROMANO between in or about June 2007, and in or about December 2007, at the· Borough of Elmwood Park, at the Borough of Fort Lee, and at the Township of Wyckoff, all in the County of Bergen, at the Township of Belleville, at the Township of Cedar Grove, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, and at the Township of West Caldwell, all in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Hanover, at the Borough of Florham Park, at the Township of Parsippany, and at the Township of Pequannock, all in the County of Morris, at the Township of Brick, and at the Township of Toms River, both in the County of Ocean, at the Borough of Bloomingdale, at the City of Clifton, at the Borough of Hawthorne, and at the Borough of North
Haledon, all in the County of Passaic, in the State of New York, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, purposely did attempt to cause serious bodily injury to another, contrary
to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(l), N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT NINE
(Possession of a Weapon For Unlawful Purposes -Third Degree)
JOHN G. PERNA
and
ROBERT ROMANO on or about September 7, 2007, at the Borough of Fort Lee, in the County of Bergen, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, did possess a certain weapon, that is, a knife, with the purpose to us it unlawfully against the person or property of another, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4d and
N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TEN (Theft by Deception -Second Degree)
JOSEPH M. PERNA between in or about March 2005, and in or about September 2006, at the Borough of Franklin Lakes, and at the Borough of Glen Rock, both in the County of Bergen, at the Town of Morristown, in the County of Morris, at the Borough of North Haledon, in the County of Passaic, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, purposely did obtain the property of the Washington Mutual Bank having a value of approximately $426,600, by deception, that is, by creating or reinforcing the false impression through the execution of various application documents in connection with
Washington Mutual Bank mortgage loan 03-2386-068873192-6, attesting that the said JOSEPH M. PERNA had specific employment and lawful income in support of said mortgage loan,
WHEREAS, IN. TRUTH AND IN FACT, as the said JOSEPH M. PERNA well knew, he was not employed by the entity nor did he receive the stated income identified in the documents he executed in support of the Washington Mutual Bank mortgage loan 03-2386­068873192-6, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:20 -4 and
N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, th~ government and dignity of the same.
COUNT ELEVEN (Falsifying Records -Fourth Degree)
JOSEPH M. PERNA between in or about March 2005, and in or about September 2006, at the Borough of Franklin Lakes, and at the Borough of Glen Rock, both in the County of Bergen, at the Town of Morristown, in the County of Morris, at the Borough of North Haledon, in the County of Passaic, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, with purpose to deceive or injure another or to conceal a wrongdoing, did falsify or utter a writing or record knowing it to contain a false statement or information, that is, various application documents in connection with Washington Mutual Bank home mortgage 03-2386-068873192-6, attesting that the said JOSEPH M. PERNA had specific employment and lawful income in support of said mortgage loan, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-4a and
N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWELVE (Theft by Deception -Second Degree) JOSEPH M. PERNA and
ROSANNA PERNA between in or about September 2006, and in or about February 2009, at the Borough of Franklin Lakes, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Borough of River Edge, all in the County of Bergen, at the Borough of North Haledon, in the County of Passaic, in the State of New York, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, purposely did obtain the property of the Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, and Countrywide Home Loans having a value of approximately $475,000, by deception, that is, by creating or reinforcing the false impression through the execution of various application documents in connection with
mortgage loan 73825289, attesting that the said JOSEPH M. PERNA and ROSANNA PERNA had specific emplbymentand lawful income in support of said mortgage loan,
WHEREAS, IN TRUTH AND IN FACT, as the said JOSEPH M. PERNA and ROSANNA PERNA well knew, they were not employed by the entities nor did they receive the stated income identified in the documents they executed in support of mortgage loan 73825289,
contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4 and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6/ and against the peace of this State/ the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT THIRTEEN (Falsifying Records -Fourth Degree) JOSEPH M. PERNA
and
ROSANNA PERNA between in or about September 2006, and in or about February 2009, at the Borough of Franklin Lak~s, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Borough of River Edge, all in the County of Bergen, at the Borough of North Haledon, in the County of Passaic, in the State of New York, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, with purpose to deceive or injure another or to conceal a wrongdoing, did falsify or utter a writing or record knowing it to contain a false statement or information, that is, various application documents in connection with Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, and Countrywide Home Loans
mortgage loan 73825289, attesting that the said JOSEPH M. PERNA and ROSANNA PERNA had specific e,mployment and lawful income in support of said loan, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-4a and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT FOURTEEN
(Failure to File Tax Return -Third Degree) JOSEPH M. PERNA and
ROSANNA PERNA between in or about January 2005/ and in or about April 2010/ at the Borough of Franklin Lakes/ at the Borough of Glen Rock/ and at the Borough of River Edge/ all in the County of Bergen/ at the Borough of North Haledon/ in the County of Passaic/ at the City of Trenton/ in the County of Mercer/ elsewhere/ and within the jurisdiction of this Court/ with intent to defraud the State or to evade/ avoid/ or otherwise not make timely payment of any tax/ fee, penalty/ interest/ or any part thereof which shall be due pursuant to the provisions of the State Tax Uniform Procedure law
. 54:48-1 et seg)/ did fail to file a tax return for the calendar years ending 2005 and 2007/ as required to be filed pursuant to the provisions of the State Tax Uniform Procedure law
. 54:48-1 et seg) / contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 54:52-8 and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State/ the government and dignity of the same.

COUNT FIFTEEN
(Failure to Pay Gross Income Tax -Third Degree) JOSEPH M. PERNA and
ROSANNA PERNA between in or about January 2005, and in or about April 2010, at the Borough of Franklin Lakes, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Borough of River Edge, all in the County of Bergen, at the Borough of North Haledon, in the County of Passaic, at the City of Trenton, in the County of Mercer, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, with intent to evade, avoid or otherwise not make timely payment of the tax required to be paid pursuant to N.J.S.A 54:48-1 et seg., for the calendar years ending 2005, 2006 and 2007, did fail to pay and turn over the gross income taxes due, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 54:52-9 and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT SIXTEEN
(Failure to Pay Gross Income Tax -Third Degree)
RALPH M. PERNA between in or about January 2005, and in or about April 2010, at the Township of West Caldwell, in the County of Essex, _at the City of Trenton, in the County of Mercer, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, with intent to evade, avoid or otherwise not make timely payment of the tax required to be paid pursuant to N.J . S.A 54:48-1 et seq., for the calendar years ending 2005, 2006 and 2007, did fail to pay and turn over the gross income taxes due, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A.
54:52 -9, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same .
COUNT SEVENTEEN (Failure to File Tax Return -Third Degree) MICHAEL CETTA and
VITA CETTA between in or about January 2007, and in or about April 2010, at the Township of Wyckoff, in the County of Bergen, at the City of Trenton, in the County of Mercer, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this. Court, with intent to defraud the State or to evade, avoid, or otherwise not make timely payment of any tax, fee, penalty, interest, or any part thereof which shall be due pursuant to the provisions of the State Tax Uniform Procedure law
[R.S. 54:48-1 et seq], did fail to file a tax return for the calendar year ending 2007, as required to be filed pursuant to the provisions of the State Tax Uniform Procedure law [R.S. 54:48-1 et seq], contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 54:52-8 and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT EIGHTEEN (Failure to Pay Gross Income Tax -Third Degree) MICHAEL CETTA and
VITA CETTA between in or about January 2005, and in or about April 2010, at the Township of Wyckoff, in the County of Bergen, at the City of Trenton, in the County of Mercer, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, with intent to evade, avoid or otherwise not make timely payment of the tax required to be paid pursuant to N.J.S.A 54:48-1 et seq., for the calendar years ending 2005, 2006 and 2007, did fail to pay and turn over the gross income taxes due, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 54:52-9 and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT NINETEEN
(Conspiracy -Second Degree)
JOSEPH M. PERNA
MICHAEL CETTA
EDWIN SPEARS
SAMUEL A. JULIANO
MICHAEL BRUINTON
DWAYNE SPEARS
and
KRISTEN GILLIAM who are named as the defendants herein, and other persons whose identities are known and unknown to the Grand Jurors, who are co~ conspirators and members of the criminal enterprise but not named as defendants herein, between in or about June 2005, and in or about December 2007, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, both in the County of Bergen, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, at the Township of East
Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Town of Morristown, in the County of Morris, at the Borough of North Haledon, in the County of Passaic, at the City of Rahway, in the County of Union, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the crimes of distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, official misconduct, bribery and the unlawful possession of electronic devices in correctional facilities, did agree that:
A. One or more of them knowingly would engage in conduct which would constitute the aforesaid crimes, or
B. One or more of them knowingly would aid in the planning, solicitation, or commission of said crimes, that is:
1. Knowingly or’ purposely to distribute a controlled dangerous substance, that is:
A. Heroin, in a quantity of one-half ounce or more including any adulterants or dilutants, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5 (a) (1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35 -5 (b) (2)
B. Marijuana, in a quantity of one ounce or more including any adulterants or dilutants, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a) (1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b) (11)
1. Knowingly, in the capacity of a public servant, to commit an unauthorized act relating to said public office with purpose to obtain a benefit for themselves or another, or knowingly to refrain from performing a duty imposed by law or which clearly inherent in the nature of said public office, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2.
2. Knowingly, directly or indirectly, to offer, confer, agree to confer upon another or to solicit, accept, or agree to accept from another a benefit as consideration for a

violation of an official duty of a public servant, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2.
4. Knowingly to possess an electronic communication device, that is, a wireless telephone, while confined in a State correctional facility, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A.
2C:29-10(b) . All in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWENTY (Official Misconduct -Second Degree) JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA EDWIN SPEARS SAMUEL A. JULIANO MICHAEL BRUINTON DWAYNE SPEARS and
KRISTEN GILLIAM between in or about June 2005, and in or about December 2007, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, both in the County of Bergen, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Town of Morristown, in the County of Morris, at the Borough of ~orth Haledon, in the County of Passaic, at the City of Rahway, in the County of Union, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the said MICHAEL BRUINTON being a public servant, that is, a sworn law enforcement officer with the New Jersey Department of Corrections, having thereby the official functions and duties, among others, to display good faith, honesty and integrity, to be . impervious to corrupting influences and to refrain from
soliciting or accepting from any person anything of value for the performance of or for refraining from the performance of his duties or for violation thereof, and acting with a purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or others, did commit acts relating to his office constituting unauthorized acts or did refrain from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office, that lS, the said MICHAEL BRUINTON knowingly did use his position as a State Corrections Officer to smuggle contraband, including but not limited to narcotics and electronic .devices into the East Jersey State correctional facility in exchange for u.S. currency, and thereby did aid his coconspirators in the operation of an illegal narcotics and
electronics device distribution scheme within the State Prison system, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2 and
N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWENTY-ONE (Bribery -Second Degree) JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA EDWIN SPEARS SAMUEL A. JULIANO MICHAEL BRUINTON DWAYNE SPEARS and
KRISTEN GILLIAM between in or about June 2005, and in or about December 2007, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, both in the County of Bergen, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Town of Morristown, in the County of Morris, at the Borough of North Haledon, in the County of Passaic, at the City of Rahway, in the County of Union, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly did directly or indirectly offer, confer, agree to confer upon another or solicit, accept, or agree to accept from another a benefit for consideration for a violation of an official duty of a public servant, that is, the said JOSEPH M. PERNA, MICHAEL CETTA, EDWIN SPEARS, SAMUEL A. JULIANO, DWAYNE
SPEARS, arid KRISTEN GILLIAM, knowingly did, directly or indirectly, offer, confer, or agree to confer upon the said MICHAEL BRUINTON, a public servant in his capacity as a sworn law enforcement officer with the New Jersey Department of Corrections, who knowingly did directly or indirectly solicit, accept, or agree to accept a benefit having a value in excess of $200, as consideration for the violation of an official duty of the public servant, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2(c) and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWENTY-TWO (Unlawful Possession of Certain Electronic Devices in Correctional Facilities -Third Degree) JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA EDWIN SPEARS SAMUEL A. JULIANO MICHAEL BRUINTON DWAYNE SPEARS and
KRISTEN GILLIAM between in or about July 2007, and in or about December 2007, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, both in the County of Bergen, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Town of Morristown, in the County of Morris, at the Borough of North Haledon, in the County of Passaic, at the City of Rahway, in the County of Union, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly or purposely did possess an electronic communication device, that is, a wireless telephone, while confined in the East Jersey State Prison, a State correctional facility, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-10(b) and
N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
-62­
COUNT TWENTY-THREE (Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance -Second Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly or purposely did possess with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance, that is, Oxycodone, a Schedule II Narcotic Drug, in a quantity of one ounce or more including any adulterants or dilutants, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a) (1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b) (4), and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWENTY-FOUR (Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance -Second Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly or purposely did possess with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance, that is, cocaine, in an aggregate quantity of one-half ounce or more including any adulterants or dilutants, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(2) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5c, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWENTY-FIVE (Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance -Third Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly or purposely did possess controlled dangerous substances, that is, cocaine and Oxycodone, both Schedule II controlled dangerous substances, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1), and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWENTY-SIX
(Certain Persons Not To Have Weapons -Second Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, having been previously convicted of the crime of burglary (N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2) on Union County Indictment UNN-95-07­00796-1, did possess certain firearms, that is, one .357 caliber Dan Wesson handgun, with a defaced serial number, one .32 caliber
Amadeo Rossi & CIA hand gun, serial number 2175, one double barrel Ithaca shotgun, serial number 194523, and one .22 single shot Winchester rifle, model number 60, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7b, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWENTY-SEVEN (Unlawful Possession of a Weapon -Third Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly did possess certain weapons, that is, one .357 caliber Dan Wesson handgun, with a defaced serial number, and one .32 caliber Amadeo Rossi & CIA hand gun, serial number 2175, without first having obtained a permit to carry same as provided in N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4, contrary to the provisions of
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWENTY-EIGHT
(Unlawful Possession of a Weapon -Third Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly did possess certain weapons, that is, one double barrel Ithaca shotgun, serial number 194523, and one .22 single shot Winchester rifle, model number 60, without first having obtained a firearms purchaser identification card, as provided in N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3, contrary to the provisions of
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5c, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWENTY-NINE (Prohibited Weapon -Third Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly did possess a destructive device, that is, one incendiary bomb or military grenade, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3a, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of same.
COUNT THIRTY (Possession of Weapons During Commission of Certain Crimes -Second Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly did possess certain firearms, that is, one .357 caliber Dan Wesson handgun, defaced serial number’, one .32 caliber Amadeo Rossi & CIA hand gun, serial number 2175, one double barrel Ithaca shotgun, serial number 194523, and one .22 single shot Winchester rifle, model number 60, while in the course of committing or attempting to commit or conspiring to commit violations of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5, contrary to the provisions
of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4.1(a), and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT THIRTY-ONE (Prohibited Weapon -Fourth Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly did possess a defaced firearm, that is, .357 caliber Dan Wesson handgun, contrary to the provisions of
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3d, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of same.
COUNT THIRTY-TWO
(Prohibited Weapon -Fourth Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly did possess dum dum bullets, that is, one box of fifty, .357 Magnum 110 GR jacketed hollow point bullets, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3f, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of same.
COUNT THIRTY-THREE
(Conspiracy -First Degree)
JOSEPH DI NAPOLI MATTHEW MADONNA RALPH V. PERNA NICODEMO SCARFO, JR. JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA FRANK CETTA JOHN G. PERNA RALPH M. PERNA
JOHN MANGRELLA
GARY MEDURE ELLIOT PORCO MARTIN TACCETTA ANTONIO RUSSO ALFONSO CATALDO
MICHAEL RAMUNO,III
RONALD SCRIPPS GIANNI IACOVO ROBERT DECRESCENZO CHARLES BOLOGNA JAMES FURFARO ROBERT ROMANO
JOHN TURI MICHAEL MAFFUCCI .GEORGE MAIORANO BLERIM IBRIAMI SHPETIM HANI ROSANNA PERNA VITA CETTA EDWIN SPEARS SAMUEL A. JULIANO MICHAEL BRUINTON DWAYNE SPEARS and
KRISTEN GILLIAM who are named as the defendants herein, and other persons whose identities are known and unknown to the Grand Jurors, who are co­conspirators and members of the criminal enterprise but not named as defendants herein, between in or about June 2005, and in or about December 2007, at the Township of Galloway, and at the City of Ventnor, in the County of Atlantic, at the Borough of Elmwood Park, at the Borough of Fort Lee, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, all in the County of Bergen, at the Township of Belleville, at the Township of Cedar Grove, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, and at the Township of West Caldwell,
all in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in
the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Township of East Hanover, at the Borough of Florham Park, at the Town of Morristown, at the Township of Parsippany, and at the Township of Pequannock, all in the County of Morris, at the Township of Brick, and at the Township of Toms River, both in the County of Ocean, at the Borough of Bloomingdale, at the City of Clifton, at the Borough of Hawthorne, and at the Borough of North Haledon, all in the County of Passaic, at the City of Rahway, in the County of Union, in the State of New York, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the crime of money laundering, did
agree that:
A. One or more of them knowingly would engage in conduct which would constitute the aforementioned crime, or
B. One or more of them knowingly would aid in the planning, solicitation, or commission of the said crime, that is:
1. Knowingly to transport or possess property known or which a reasonable person would believe to be derived from criminal activity, or engage in transactions involving property known or which a reasonable person would believe to be derived from criminal activity with the intent to facilitate or promote the criminal activity or knowing the transactions were designed
in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership or control of said property, or knowingly direct, organize, finance, plan, manage, supervise, or control the transportation of or the transactions in property known or which a reasonable person would believe to be derived from criminal activity, said property having a value of $500,000 or more, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:21~25.
All in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT THIRTY-FOUR
(Money Laundering -First Degree)
JOSEPH DI NAPOLI MATTHEW MADONNA RALPH V. PERNA NICODEMO SCARFO, JR. JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA FRANK CETTA JOHN G. PERNA RALPH M. PERNA
JOHN MANGRELLA
GARY MEDURE ELLIOT PORCO MARTIN TACCETTA ANTONIO RUSSO ALFONSO CATALDO
MICHAEL ‘RAMUNO, III
RONALD SCRIPPS GIANNI IACOVO ROBERT DECRESCENZO CHARLES BOLOGNA JAMES FURFARO ROBERT ROMANO
JOHN TURI MICHAEL MAFFUCCI GEORGE MAIORANO BLERIM IBRIAMI SHPETIM RANI ROSANNA PERNA VITACETTA EDWIN SPEARS SAMUEL A. JULIANO MICHAEL BRUINTON DWAYNE SPEARS and
KRISTEN GILLIAM between in or about June 2005, and in or about December 2007, at the Township of Galloway, and at the City of Ventnor, both in the County of Atlantic, at the Borough of Elmwood Park, at the Borough of Fort Lee, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, all in the County of Bergen, at the Township of Belleville, at the Township of Cedar Grove, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, and at the Township of West Caldwell, all in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township
Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Township of East Hanover, at the Borough of Florham Park, at the Town of
Morristown, at the Township of Parsippany, and at the Township of Pequannock, all in the County of Morris, at the Township of Brick, and at the Township of Toms River, both in the County of Ocean, at the Borough of Bloomingdale, at the City of Clifton, at the Borough of Hawthorne, and at the Borough of North Haledon, all in the County of Passaic, in the State of New York, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, while engaged in the racketeering activity set forth in Count One of this Indictment, knowingly did transport or possess property or did engage in transactions involving property known to be, or which a reasonable person
would believe to be, derived from criminal activity, including but not limited to racketeering, gambling offenses, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, theft by deception, falsifying records, bribery, official misconduct, possession with the intent to distribute controlled dangerous substances, weapons offenses, unlawful electronic devices in correctional facilities, failure to file tax returns or reports, failure to pay gross income tax, and conspiracy to commit those offenses, with a value of $500,000, or more, with the intent to facilitate or promote such activity or knowing that the transactions were designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership or control of the property derived from the said criminal activity, and/or by knowingly directing, organizing,
financing, planning, managing, supervising, or controlling the transportation of or the transactions in property known to be, or which a reasonable person would believe to be, derived from criminal activity, that is, the said JOSEPH DI NAPOLI, MATTHEW MADONNA, RALPH V. PERNA, NICODEMO SCARFO, JR., JOSEPH M. PERNA, MICHAEL CETTA, FRANK CETTA, JOHN G. PERNA, RALPH M. PERNA, JOHN MANGRELLA, GARY MEDURE, ELLIOT PORCO, MARTIN TACCETTA, ANTONIO RUSSO, ALFONSO CATALDO, MICHAEL RAMUNO, III, RONALD SCRIPPS, GIANNI IACOVO, ROBERT DECRESCENZO, CHARLES BOLOGNA, JAMES FURFARO, ROBERT ROMANO, JOHN TURI, MICHAEL MAFFUCCI, GEORGE
MAIORANO, BLERIM IBRIAMI, SHPETIM HANI, ROSANNA PERNA, VITA CETTA, EDWIN SPEARS, SAMUEL A. JULIANO, MICHAEL BRUINTON, DWAYNE SPEARS, KRISTEN GILLIAM, did transport or possess U.S. currency, engage in banking and financial institution transactions, make purchases, payments and receive extensions of credit for the purchase and maintenance of real and personal property and the purchase or lease of vehicles, including but not limited to the property set forth in the Forfeiture Section of Count One of this Indictment, knowing, or having reason to belive, the property that was transported or possessed was derived from criminal activity, that the transactions involving said property were
designed in whole or in part with the intent to facilitate or promote the criminal activity, or to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership or control of the said
property derived through criminal activity, or that the
direction, organization, financing, planning, managing,
supervision, or control of the transportation of or transactions
in said property was of property known, or which a reasonable person would believe, to be derived from criminal activity, cohtrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25a and N.J.S.A. 2C:21~25b and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
NJ Division of Criminal Justice
A True Bill:
Date :—-J.d”—‘/~r!…….:…../_~__
J
‘-.’. ‘-“‘.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION -CRIMINAL
State Grand Jury Number SGJ585-10-2 Superior Court Docket Number ____________________~
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
v. JOSEPH DI NAPOLI MATTHEW MADONNA RALPH V. PERNA APPENDIX A NICODEMO SCARFO I JR. JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA FRANK CETTA , ) JOHN G. PERNA RALPH M. PERNA JOHN MANGRELLA
AKA “Blackiell GARY MEDURE ELLIOT PORCO MARTIN TACCETTA ANTONIO RUSSO
AKA “CURLYII ALFONSO CATALDO AKA “TICII MICHAEL RAMUNO I III
RONALD SCRIPPS GIANNI IACOVO
ROBERT DECRESCENZO
CHARLES BOLOGNA
JAMES FURFARO
ROBERT ROMANO
JOHN TURI
MICHAEL MAFFUCCI
GEORGE MAIORANO
BLERIM IBRIAMI
SHPETIM RANI
AKA “TIM” ROSANNA PERNA VITA CETTA EDWIN SPEARS SAMUEL A. JULIANO MICHAEL BRUINTON
AKA “MAC”
DWAYNE SPEARS
and
KRISTEN GILLIAM
All allegations set forth within Count One of the captioned
Indictment are hereby incorporated by reference and re-alleged as
if fully set forth herein, for the purpose of alleging
forfeitures pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:41-3b.
2. The defendants have property constituting:
A. Interests, including money and other things of value, established, acquired, maintained, operated, controlled, conducted, or participated in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2c, and
N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2d.
3. The said interests, all subject to forfeiture to the State of New Jersey, shall expressly include all items of real and personal property:

I) REAL PROPERTY –
Property Address Property Owner
1) 3119 Glasgow Ave. Toms River, NJ 08743 Block: 1079 Lot: 11 Joseph Perna

2) 243 Eastview Terrace Joseph & Rosanna Perna Wyckoff, NJ 07841 Block: 393 Lot: 5
As substituted by:
392 Cornell Street Joseph & Rosanna Perna Wyckoff, NJ Block: 479 Lot: 4
3) 38-40 Tillinghast St. Vita Cetta Newark, NJ 07108 Block: 3029 Lot: 8
4) 3411 Lisbon Ave. Michael Cetta Toms River, NJ 08753 Block:1076.09 Lot: 21 &23
..

5) 476 James Way Michael & Vita Cetta
Wyckoff, NJ 07841
Block: 342
Lot: 1
6) 11 Knoll Terrace Ralph & Andrea Perna
West Caldwell, NJ 07006
Block: 3305
Lot: 10
7) 3 Donna Drive AnnaMarie & Ralph Perna
East Hanover, NJ
Block: 96
Lot: 47
II) PERSONAL PROPERTY –
A -Bank Accounts:
Account Name Account Number
Commerce Bank accounts:
1) Anthony M. Perna UTTMA 2490241672
Rosanna Perna Custodian
2) Joseph Perna UTTMA 0069180552
Rosanna Perna Custodian
3) Vita Cetta & Rosanna Perna 3450363670
4) Rosanna Perna 3451659905
5) Rosanna Perna 3450417533
Joseph Perna
6) Michael J. Cetta UTTMA 2490101269
Vita Cetta Custodian
7) Vita Cetta 3452301753
8 Vita Cetta 3450551973
9) Vita Cetta 0028051372
10) Vita Cetta 0510248322
Michael Anthony Cetta

3451614766 2490100440
3451615754
3450389068
1030279228679 3000017828900
VIN SAJWA44C879B13479 5N3AA08C44N810209 JNKAYOIF66M259981 IGIYY33P5P5113180 IG3AK4796DM405658 IG4GJ1178HP445906 40867S105773 IN9RS26595N214020 5LMFU28566LJ28415 IG6DW677170127035 IFMDU73E74UB67147 IG6DM57T870100153
5LMFU28526LJ25530
11) Vita Cetta 12) Vita Cetta Michael Anthony Cetta 13) Vita Cetta
Michael Anthony Cetta 14) Ralph and Andrea Perna Wachovia Bank: 15) Andrea and Ralph Perna
16) Ralph and Andrea
b-Vehicles:
Registered Owner Michael Cetta Michael Cetta Michael Cetta Vita Cetta Vita Cetta Vita Cetta Vita Cetta Vita Cetta Donato Magno Anna Marie Perna Ralph M. Perna Ralph M. Perna Andrea Perna Perna
Vehicle 2007 Jaguar XKR 2004 Infinity QX56 2006 Infinity M35 1993 Chev. Corvette 1983 aIds. Hurst 1987 Buick Regal 1964 Chevrolet 2005 Motorcycle
2006 2007 2004 2007 2006
Lincoln Cadillac STS Ford Explorer Cadillac CTS Lincoln
-5­
..
.
~ .-~

Andrea Perna 2000 Jeep IJ4GW48SXYC286910
Jasmin Crespo 2002 Jeep IJ4GW48S92CI01284
C -United States currency:

$3,711 Joseph and Rosanna Perna’s Residence $81,494 Michael and Vita Cetta’s Residence $1,102 Ralph M. and Andrea Perna’s Residence $25,867 Samuel Juliano’s Residence $4,982 Ralph V. and AnneMarie Perna’s Residence $19,888 John Perna’s Residence $69,319 Joseph DiNapoli’s Residence
D -Various Items of Personal Property:
From the residence of Joseph and Rosanna Perna As described in Grand Jury Exhibit 51
-9 watches
From the residence of Ralph V. and Andrea Perna As described in Grand Jury Exhibit 64
-16 watches
From the residence of John Perna As described in Grand Jury Exhibit 70 A
-3 flat screen televisions -7 watches -1 jewelry box with diamond earrings
From the safe deposit box of Michael and Vita Cetta As described in Grand Jury Exhibit 69C
-11 watches -56 items of jewelry -3 items of vintage United States currency-collection
From the residence of Michael and Vita Cetta As described in Grand Jury Exhibit 69A
-68 sports memorabilia items -22 watches -3 Rolex certificates of authenticity -6 items of jewelry -1 black box containing 6 pairs of cufflinks
~F’LED
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYiMAY 1 4 2010 LAW DIVISION -CRIMINAL
State Grand Jury Number SGJ585-10-2 Superior Court
10-05-00057-3
Docket Number
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
. v. JOSEPH DI NAPOLI MATTHEW MADONNA RALPH V. PERNA
NICODEMO SCARFO, JR. JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA FRANK CETTA JOHN G. PERNA RALPH M. PERNA JOHN MANGRELLA ORDER OF VENUE
A/K/A “BLACKIE” GARY MEDURE ELLIOT PORCO MARTIN TECCETTA ANTONIO RUSSO A/K/A “CURLY”
ALFONSO CATALDO A/KIA “TIC”
MICHAEL RAMUNO, III RONALD SCRIPPS GIANNI IACOVO ROBERT DECRESCENZO CHARLES BOLOGNA JAMES FURFARO
ROBERT ROMANO
JOHN TURI
MICHAEL MAFFUCCI
GEORGE MAIORANO
BLERIM IBRIAMI
SHPETIM RANI
A/K/A
“TIM”
ROSANNA PERNA
VITA CETTA
EDWIN SPEARS
SAMUEL A. JULIANO
MICHAEL BRUINTON A/K/A “MAC”
DWAYNE SPEARS
and
KRISTEN GILLIAM
An Indictment having been returned to this Court by the State Grand Jury in the above caPtioned/natter,
IT IS ORDERED on this I~t1\ day of fV) ~ ,2010, pursuant to paragraph 8 of the State Grand Jury Act, that t~e County of Morris be and hereby is designated as the County of Venue for the purpose of trial.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Superior Court shall transmit forthwith the Indictment in this matter and a certified copy of this Order to the Criminal Division Manager of the County of Morris for filing.

2010
05.08
‘Entirely too comfortable’ with the Jersey Mafia
By CHRIS BAUD / The Trentonian

On Feb. 17, 1970, Frank Sinatra flew into Trenton to testify before the New Jersey State Investigative Commission as part of an ongoing investigation of organized crime.

Rumors of Sinatra and the Mafia had floated around since 1947, when Sinatra accompanied Joseph “Joey Fish” Fischetti to Havana as part of a meeting of American mobsters with deported boss Charles “Lucky” Luciano.

National gossip columnist Walter Winchell “dimed” on Sinatra, describing his relationships with underworld characters. Sinatra was also associated with Chicago mobster Sam “Mom” Giancana, and in a show of loyalty gave up his gaming license after it was learned he allowed Giancana to stay at his lodge in Lake Tahoe. He also had ties to New York’s Carlo Gambino, and Raymond Patriarca of New England.

Mario Puzo’s character Johnny Fontane, the heartthrob singer-actor of “The Godfather” who got his big break when Vito Corleone made a movie producer “an offer he can’t refuse,” was a thinly veiled representation of Sinatra. Although there are many variations on the story, it was believed Sinatra was helped early in his career when North Jersey gangster Willie Moretti “convinced” bandleader Tommy Dorsey to let Sinatra out of his contract by shoving a revolver in his mouth.

“Sinatra was what I call a ‘mob groupie,’ ” said mob historian Carl Sifakis of Queens, N.Y. “In Las Vegas, he was partner with Sam Giancana, one of the top Mafia figures in America. When he made his movie comeback, he used his mob contacts to get him the role in ‘From Here to Eternity.’ ”

But throughout his life, Sinatra fought (sometime with his fists) to keep people from talking about his underworld buddies, saying, “I wouldn’t have had so many problems if my last name didn’t end in a vowel.”

His appearance at SIC headquarters at 218 W. State St. happened only after the singer fought a subpoena for months. Sinatra had faced contempt charges for noncompliance and called the SIC “a three-ring circus.”

Details of Sinatra’s testimony were kept secret, although members of the SIC told reporters that Sinatra had been a helpful witness and answered all their questions.

But after Sinatra’s death on May 15, 1998, one member of the SIC told The Trentonian that the legendary singer from Hoboken had been evasive and flatly denied any association with organized crime figures.

“He was not very cooperative,” said Glen Miller of Princeton, the panel member. “He called our commission a ‘circus’ when we just wanted to know what he knew about organized crime.”

The FBI had a file of 1,275 pages on Sinatra, charting everything from Mafia ties to his relationship with President John F. Kennedy to his indulgence in high-priced call girls with Rat Pack buddies Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr. and Peter Lawford.

Sinatra was merely the most famous New Jerseyan linked to organized crime in the late 1960s and early 1970s. A year earlier, associations with mobsters ruined the careers of two Mercer County politicians.

On Dec. 11, 1968, Assistant Attorney General William J. Brennan 3rd told the state chapter of Sigma Delta Chi, a journalistic society, that three members of the New Jersey Legislature were “entirely too comfortable with organized crime.”

Brennan, the son of Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr., was directing a Mercer County grand jury investigating organized crime and corruption in local government.

Saying that crooks had infiltrated numerous industries and labor unions, Brennan added: “Too many local governments are responsive more to the mob than to the electorate that put them in office.”

Brennan’s statements came on the heels of a series of Life magazine articles about organized crime, charging that the Mafia wielded great influence in New Jersey, specifically linking Hudson County’s Congressman Cornelius Gallagher, as well as a retired state trooper, to the mob.

In 1957, cops had disrupted a meeting of La Cosa Nostra in Apalachin, N.Y., bringing the existence of a national crime syndicate into the spotlight and forcing FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to acknowledge the existence of the Mafia.

But by 1968, little was known about the inner workings of the mob. Francis Ford Coppola’s Hollywood version of “The Godfather” was still four years away, and the public had rarely heard such insider language as “consigliere” or “capo.” Additionally, Watergate had not yet destroyed the public’s trust in elected officials.

Brennan’s accusations struck like a thunderbolt, shaking the legislative body to the core, and touching off weeks of raging controversy. Brennan wouldn’t reveal the names of the three politicians, but he added fuel to the fire a day later, saying there were three other state officials with close connections to the mob.

Gov. Richard Hughes, in a meeting with Democratic Party leaders and Attorney General Arthur Sills, asked Brennan to disclose the names. Brennan refused, stating that the meeting of party leaders did not constitute a political body and his disclosures could make him vulnerable to defamation suits.

Brennan was, however, willing to turn over confidential files on the legislators. Hughes, fearful of jeopardizing informants named in the files, declined.

Frank McDermott, R-Union, was president-elect of the state Senate and demanded public disclosure of Brennan’s six.

The day after Christmas, the Evening News of Newark, citing “unimpeachable and completely authentic” sources, printed the names of Brennan’s three pols who were too comfortable with organized crime. On the list were two assemblymen, Republican John Selecky of East Windsor and Democrat David Friedland of Hudson County.

Most shockingly, Sido Ridolfi, Mercer’s prominent Democratic state senator, was also named. Ridolfi, who had served in the Senate representing Trenton since 1954, was a former president of the upper house and served as acting governor briefly in 1967.

Although Selecky and Ridolfi both denied any wrongdoing, they told reporters they had an inkling of the associations Brennan had in mind.

Ridolfi had helped John Simone, a k a Johnny Keyes, in the purchase of a house at 710 President Ave. in Lawrence. Simone was a cousin of Angelo Bruno, Philadelphia’s boss of bosses. Simone had been sentenced to two years for bootlegging by a federal court in 1944 and had a long record of other offenses, including assault and robbery. In 1980 he would himself fall victim to a mob rubout.

It was also learned that Ridolfi had represented the Bralynski brothers, Edward and Raymond, in a number of real estate deals, and the three jointly owned land in Hamilton that was in the path of an extension of Interstate 295 between Nottingham Way and East State Street Extension. Edward Bralynski had received notoriety when he was seen accompanying Simone to a city trial for Bruno in a motor-vehicle violation case.

Selecky had testified as a character witness for Salvatore Profaci, owner of the Hightstown restaurant Ming Room, who had been charged with abusive language toward a trooper in a traffic violation case. Profaci’s uncle, Joe Profaci, had ruled one of the fearsome Five Families of the New York Mafia from 1930 until his death in 1962. Salvatore Profaci had also been caught by state police digging what was believed to be a grave in Millstone Township in 1968.

Friedland, meanwhile, had been involved in a loan sharking deal. Woodbridge Township car-wash owner Julius Pereria filed a complaint against reputed Mafia figure John DiGilio, who had extorted Pereria for $6,000 interest on a $3,000 loan.

On Dec. 30, Brennan appeared before a committee to investigate the Legislature and confirmed that Selecky, Ridolfi and Friedland were indeed the men who were “entirely too comfortable” with the Mafia.

Brennan, saying that a man need not be convicted of a crime to be considered a member of a crime ring, insisted that the three had exercised poor judgment in their actions, and that legislators should not represent clients in criminal cases. Brennan then came under fire, as a lawyer for the committee, Sidney McCord, called Brennan’s testimony “flimsy” and “all innuendo.”

In mid-January 1969, Brennan was relieved of his charge of investigating corruption as a new state anti-crime probe was formed.

“If the testimony concerning the other three names is as flimsy as this,” McCord said, “I see no reason to make any more names public so that people can say, ‘Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.’ ”

But the Brennan incident undoubtedly helped raise public awareness of the problem of corruption.

Within a month of his speech before Sigma Delta Chi, the State Investigative Commission, which later questioned Sinatra, was formed. At the same time, the federal government launched an anti-Mafia strike force consisting of officials from seven federal agencies. Based in Newark, the team conducted raids and gathered intelligence on Mafia families believed to be raking in $1 billion a year in the state.

Although Gov. William Cahill was premature when he announced a complete victory over organized crime late in 1970, as the Philadelphia and New York families continued to exert influence in the state, the Mafia did take a major hit in the early 1970s.

A dozen high-ranking mobsters went to jail rather than break omerta — the Mafia’s code of silence, enforced by murder — and U.S. Attorney Ken Lacey brought indictments against 122 state officials. Lacey most notably won a conviction against Newark Mayor Hugh Addonizio for extortion and conspiracy.

Perhaps most importantly, Brennan’s charges helped pave the way for tougher standards of ethics for elected officials and a zero tolerance for association with crime figures.

A committee led by Sen. Alfred Beadleston, R-Monmouth, sharply criticized Ridolfi, Selecky and Friedland.

Of Ridolfi, they said: “Senator Ridolfi has had undesirable business associates and clients of questionable character.

“He failed to exercise sound judgment when he learned that there was question as to the character and reputation of his business associates.”

Its report said Selecky had “brought the Legislature under a cloud of disapproval,” adding that he should have refused to appear as a character witness for Profaci and severed his relationship with him.

Selecky was outraged.

“How did I bring this house under public disapproval?” Selecky asked. “I stood up for a man who had committed no crime, who happens to have an Italian name and who happens to have an uncle who has been dead for five years.”

Ridolfi, who claimed he had no knowledge of Simone’s involvement in organized crime, steadfastly maintained he was innocent of any wrongdoing.

Just last year, Ridolfi said: “It was not fair, and the coverage of [The Trentonian] was not fair.”

The committee exonerated Brennan’s second trio of politicians: John Horn and Lee Laskin, both assemblymen from Camden County, as well as Sen. Frank Farley of Atlantic County, saying there was no evidence any of the three could be linked to organized crime. Brennan himself had said the evidence against them did not match those of Ridolfi, Friedland and Selecky.

Since the committee had found Ridolfi, Selecky and Friedland had broken no laws, it did not recommend any action against them. Still, the damage was done. Ridolfi chose not to run for re-election. Selecky, who vowed to run again, was nonetheless pressured out by GOP leaders.

Of course, Sinatra, the man who invented cool and lived like a rock star before rock ’n roll existed, could never go out of style. He continued to play to adoring audiences until the late 1990s.

“When you become an icon, you can get away with a lot of things,” mob historian Sifakis said.

Ridolfi and Selecky, merely politicians, weren’t so lucky.

2010
05.07

Immigrant Presence and The “Mob Tax”

Fuel bootlegging, La Cosa Nostra and the Russian Mafia

. . .

Jermyn described a significant presence of immi­grants involved in the motor fuel tax evasion cases:

There was a large number of Turkish immigrants at the retail levels and there were eastern bloc immigrants who became involved all the way up the chain of distribution to the point where they were actually acquiring gasoline terminals as a result of bootlegging activities.

. . . .

There was a language barrier to begin with. Conspiratorial conversations were often in a foreign language. There weren’t many agents that could speak Rumanian, unfortunately, or Russian. There was inability to infiltrate the closely-knit groups by way of informants or police agents and, in addition to that, these individuals were well-educated and oftentimes smarter than law enforcement agencies.

Q. Did you also find the presence or involve­ment of traditional organized crime groups in the motor fuel tax evasion cases?

A. Yes. Just as with any other industry, where there is an opportunity to make money, illegiti­mate traditional organized crime groups infil­trate that industry. In this case, that occurred very early on…

…the immigrants who became involved in businesses were bright enough to realize that they had to pay tribute to traditional organ­ized crime families in order to operate in certain areas, and there was usually a one or two cents per gallon levy by the mob families imposed upon the sale of bootlegged gasoline.

Q. Is that called the “mob tax”?

A. Yes… amounted to millions and millions of dollars.

Jermyn said the investigation revealed the in­volvement of three traditional organized crime fami­lies in the early period of bootlegging between 1981 and 1988 – the Lucchese, Genovese and the Colombo organized crime families. “And later on in the schemes the Gambino family also became involved,” he said.

Jermyn characterized the relationship between traditional organized crime and the eastern bloc immigrants as “very cooperative.”

[O]ne of the abilities of the organizational skills of the principals involved in these schemes was that they were able to forge a very close working relationship. It became almost like a cartel between the traditional organized crime fami­lies and the eastern bloc people, and they were able to monopolize and control the price of unbranded gasoline in the Long Island area for many, many years.

He recalled a surveillance that revealed a “sum­mit meeting” between the bootleggers, the organized crime figures and the eastern bloc people, “sitting at a large conference table in a meeting room in Long Island.”

Q. Who was the most significant organized crime figure you prosecuted?

A. [O]ne of the defendants in the racketeering case, which was prosecuted federally, was a captain in the Colombo organized crime family by the name of Michael Franzese. There were also many organized crime associates who were prosecuted and convicted and were serving lengthy jail terms.

Jermyn described one motor fuels case in which Franzese was involved:

The amount that was actually evaded was in excess of $30 million dollars and it involved a company where a bond was actually obtained for the payment of the taxes and Mr. Franzese bribed the official in the bonding company to issue the bond. The bonding company actually ended up losing additional moneys, so that there were many victims other than just the state and the federal government.

The Violent Side of Fuel Tax Evasion

Testimony was heard from various witnesses about a darker side of fuel tax evasion and an underlying fear among those in the business.

Rackets Chief Jermyn testified:

Where necessary, violent means have been used to expand a particular bootlegger’s sphere of influence. We’ve estimated as many as a dozen murders have taken place in the last seven years as a result of the bad guys infiltrating the mar­ketplace.

Jermyn described the murders of Michael Markowitz and Phillip Moskowitz. Markowitz, he said, was “one of the bigger bootleggers in the New York area.” He was an eastern bloc immigrant who came to this country with virtually no money in 1979 but at the time of his death had “upwards of 30 million dollars just in assets… not even counting various bank accounts over in Austria and Lichtenstein.” Markowitz was shot in the head while sitting in his Rolls Royce in Brooklyn in 1989.

Phillip Moskowitz was murdered after he was indicted and “certain tapes were released in which he compromised the positions of various organized crime families and identified them as being active in the bootlegging business. His body was found in New Jersey,” Jermyn said.

SCI Special Agent Diszler gave testimony based on the Commission’s own investigation.

BY COUNSEL HOEKJE:

Q. Agent Diszler, have you sensed a fear among the witnesses to whom you have spoken?

A. In most instances we have. Most of them are aware, through the media, of course, that there have been violent homicides which have oc­curred in New York and New Jersey concerning this industry.

Witnesses have told me that they can discern certain accents over the telephone quite easily and many times have felt intimidated and threat­ened by the sales pitch which they get. Even bank officers have expressed an underlying fear to me.

Many times these individuals attempt to open bank accounts in New Jersey at local banks and when they fill out the bank applications it is learned that they have no roots to the community whatsoever. If the accounts are opened, within days and sometimes within hours there are wire transfers moving through their accounts which number in the thousands of dollars. These banking people who are not familiar with the businesses involved often become highly suspi­cious and concerned enough to usually contact the local police departments.

BY CHAIRMAN ZAZZALI:

Q. Are you comfortable identifying the type of accents that you referred to before when people got those anonymous calls?

A. Yes, I would be comfortable in saying that itwas definitely a Soviet, Eastern European ac­cent.

. . .

From a NJ SCI report


About | Buy Print Edition at Amazon | Contact | Five Families - The New York City Mafia | Mirror | Return to the Main Menu | Send this Page