Organized Crime Statutes and Enforcement: The Galante Case - Coursework Example

 During the summer of 2008, James Galante and thirty-two of his employees and associates accepted a plea bargain from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, pleading guilty to racketeering charges involving his trash hauling business (FBI, 2008). This offense is important because these mob group activities kept other companies from competing in Galante's area without paying him and drove up prices for customers (FBI, 2008). His offenses fell under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization, or RICO, statute (18 U.S.C 1961-1967) due to his committing extortion and bribery, violated the Internal Revenue Code, and even could fall under the Hobbs Act (FBI, 2008; Abadinsky, 2010, pp 363-368). Use of the RICO standard is what allowed Galante's employees and associates to be charged; under that statute, even belonging to his organization is a crime (Abadinsky, 2010, pp 369). Galante's organization was a group of companies involved in trash hauling, also called carting. He was the owner of twenty-five companies that among them controlled approximately eighty percent of the waste-hauling market in Connecticut and eastern New York state. At least forty other companies were found to have connections to Galante's organizations, and Galante himself was found to have connections to larger organized crime enterprises (FBI, 2008). One of the individuals charged as a member of this group was a member of the Genovese crime family, a group in New York City involved in several other cases of extortion and illegal gambling rings (FBI, 2008; Department of Justice, 2010). Also involved were several public officials, including a former mayor of Waterbury CT, Joseph Santopietro, “a federal drug agent, and a Connecticut state trooper” (FBI, 2008; News-Times, 2008). Galante's group was guilty of racketeering due to their organization of what the FBI calls a “property rights system” (FBI, 2008). The company, and its underlying mob connections, claimed rights over certain territories and customer accounts. They then took these accounts and divided them up among companies who pay a fee to them, and drive any competition out through the use of illegal tactics, such as vandalism of their equipment and threats to the safety of their employees. This set-up caused an imbalance in the bidding system for the customer contracts, since the companies involved in this organization communicated with each other to rig the bidding. The lack of competition led to higher costs for the customer accounts; since these were primarily municipal customers, this meant higher prices for the individual taxpayers in these districts (FBI, 2008). Federal agents used wiretaps to determine which companies were connected to Galante's organization, and which were victims. Some of the phone calls that were intercepted even allowed them to warn potential future victims about the scheme. The key to the investigation was the use of an undercover agent working for a victim company. The undercover agent was eventually hired by one of Galante's companies as a salesperson, giving him unparalleled access to Galante's operation. The other method used to collect evidence against Galante was an analysis of his and his companies tax records (FBI, 2008). Galante was indicted by a grand jury at the same trial as twenty-eight of his co-conspirators, and was held awaiting trial without bail, though all others charged by the same jury posted bond. The charges at this point included “racketeering, extortion, conspiracy, wire and mail fraud, witness tampering and tax evasion” (News-Times, 2008). Galante was eventually convicted of “racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the IRS, and conspiracy to commit wire fraud” (Koonz, 2009). He was sentenced to the maximum federal prison term, eighty-seven months, and then an additional year under a plea bargain for violations of state campaign finance laws (News-Times, 2008). Additionally, all twenty-five of Galante's companies were forfeited to the federal government, properties valued by the government at one hundred million dollars, though others say the value of the companies is closer to fifty or sixty million (FBI, 2008; Koonz, 2009). All of these penalties are provisions of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute, and fall well within the provisions laid out in that statute (Abadinsky, 2010, pp 369). The mass grand jury indictment in this case is similar to many other conspiracy cases in that many individuals were charged at the same time. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in a 1974 case, this sort of grouping of charges before a jury can deprive some individuals, listed as possible members of the conspiracy, of their constitutional rights. Every United States citizen is entitled to freedom of association, even with criminal groups (Abadinsky, 2010, pp 368). Given the laundry list of charges brought before the grand jury and the large number of co-conspirators charged under the single jury session, one would hope that the jury gave adequate time to investigating each person on this list to ensure that they were all involved in the same enterprise. One major criticism of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute is that it can freeze company and personal assets during an investigation, before trial begins. The threat of freezing assets is a powerful motivator in plea bargains, because companies may agree to bargaining simply to avoid being put out of business during the investigative process (Abadinsky, 2010, pp 370). In the case of James Galante, the freezing of company and personal assets was challenged due to the fact that it left him without the available funds to pay for his own defense (News-Times, 2008). Constitutionally, all citizens are guaranteed the right of adequate defense at trial. While the definition of a constitutionally sufficient defense may vary, there is no doubt that a defense attorney for a major trial such as that for the racketeering charges brought against James Galante would not come cheap. The seizure and freezing of his personal assets allowed under the RICO statute could easily leave him without the ability to pay for this service. One might, however, also argue that Galante's ill-gotten funds do not entitle him to better legal counsel than would be provided by the court to any other defendant who cannot afford to hire an attorney. Galante's business was also in violation of several provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. There were charges brought that Galante's hockey team, the Trashers, exceeded the salary cap for their team members by offering no-show positions and bonuses with Galante's many businesses. Additionally, there were many other individuals on Galante's payroll that were not working for him, including Galante's own five-year-old daughter, listed as earning a salary of $49,650. A fictitious company, named Nutmeg Investments, is listed on the indictment as the home of a private resident instead of the location of a commercial organization. Finally, Galante is charged with failing to report money paid to Ianniello, another major figure in local organized crime. The offenses named as violations of the Internal Revenue Code are the largest section of Galante's indictment (Lucas, 2006). Galante is still responsible for paying taxes on his illegal earnings, as well as on his business endeavors, and therefore can be prosecuted for failure to keep full and accurate records of his employees and business expenditures as well as for “willful failure to pay federal income tax” (Abadinsky, 2010, pp 363). The Galante case could be prosecuted under a broad interpretation of the Hobbs Act, which makes provisions for organizations that attempt to interfere with interstate commerce (Abadinsky, 2010, pp 366). Waste haulers may need to cross state lines in order to dispose of their loads taken from customer drop-off points. Also, state-approved wiretaps heard Galante and his employees threatening the personal safety of other carter companies for their placement of waste removal bins, in both New York state and in Connecticut, therefore proving that his competitors did interstate business (Lucas, 2006). In theory, Galante could have been held in violation of the Hobbs Act, though none of the charges brought against him name this statute specifically. The Galante case also involves another type of crime, in the form of public corruption. Joseph Santopietro, a former mayor of Waterbury Connecticut, was charged in connection with the Galante case, as a consultant to James Galante's businesses. Paul Galietti, a Connecticut state trooper, was found accessing the FBI National Crime Information Center Database without authorization to check a car license plate for Galante. Finally, Louis Angioletti, a Drug Enforcement Administration special agent, was listed on the indictment as obstructing the investigation (Lucas, 2006). However, these crimes only fall under the organized crimes statutes because of their proximity to Galante's business practices and not because the offenses themselves are considered organized crime (Abadinsky, 2010). The investigation was long and thorough, and the charges finally brought against Galante and his associates were many. In the end, it is obvious that the case of James Galante is a clear-cut case of organized crime, in violation of federal statutes against tax evasion, instate commerce interference, and racketeering. Federal agents used all of the tools at their disposal to gather evidence and prosecute the conspirators, and all involved have been brought to justice. WORKS CITED Abadinsky, H. (2010) Organized crime. (9th ed.). Bemont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Department of Justice. (2010, March 23). Former acting boss of Genovese crime family sentenced in Manhattan federal court to 18 additional months in prison. In FBI - The New York division: Department of Justice press release. Retrieved January 18, 2011 FBI. (2008, November 4). Dirty business: Mob-infested trash industry cleaned up. In FBI - Mob trash industry investigation. Retrieved January 18, 2011 Lucas, F. (2006, June 10). Feds trash Galante. News-Times. Retrieved January 18, 2011 Koonz, B. (2009, November 15). Attorney wants suits dropped against ex-Galante clients. Times- Union. Retrieved January 18, 2011 News-Times (2008, October 18). Galante's road to prison. News-Times. Retrieved January 18, 2011 Read More