U.S. v. Hurley
| Citation | 63 F.3d 1 |
| Decision Date | 07 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 93-1511,93-1560-93-1563,93-1616,94-1508,93-2206,94-1507 and 94-1388,93-2207,93-1617,s. 93-1511 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Vincent HURLEY, Defendant, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Carlo DeMARCO, Defendant, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James SACCOCCIO, Defendant, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Stanley CIRELLA, Defendant, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kenneth SACCOCCIO, Defendant, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Stephen PIZZO, Defendant, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Donna SACCOCCIA, Defendant, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Anthony DeMARCO, Defendant, Appellant. . Heard |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) |
Terrance Reed, Washington, DC and Edward C. Roy, Providence, RI, with whom Reed & Hostage, Washington, DC, Roy & Cook, James T. McCormick, McKenna & McCormick, Michael C. Andrews, Mary June Ciresi, Vincent Indeglia, Indeglia & Associates, Providence, RI, Richard Inglis, and Gargiulo, Rudnick & Gargiulo, Boston, MA, were on joint briefs, for appellants Donna Saccoccia, Stanley Cirella, Kenneth Saccoccio, Vincent Hurley, James Saccoccio, Carlo DeMarco and Stephen Pizzo.
Robert D. Watt, Jr., Providence, RI, for appellant Anthony DeMarco.
Kathleen A. Felton, Criminal Div., Appellate Section, Dept. of Justice and Michael P. Iannotti, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Sheldon Whitehouse, U.S. Atty., James H. Leavey and Michael E. Davitt, Asst. U.S. Attys., Providence, RI, and John P. Elwood, Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, were on joint brief, for U.S.
Before SELYA, CYR and BOUDIN, Circuit Judges.
The eight appellants challenge their convictions, sentences and forfeitures for their participation in an extensive money laundering operation organized by Stephen Saccoccia. His conviction and sentence were affirmed in United States v. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754 (1st Cir.1995). In this case, we affirm the convictions of the eight appellants before us, their sentences, and the forfeiture orders entered against them.
The eight appellants are Donna Saccoccia (wife of Stephen), her brother Vincent Hurley, James Saccoccio and his brother Kenneth Saccoccio, Carlo DeMarco and his brother Anthony DeMarco, Stanley Cirella and Stephen Pizzo. Along with Stephen Saccoccia and others, appellants were indicted on November 18, 1991, and were charged with conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d). Certain of them were also charged with substantive counts of money laundering, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1956-57, currency reporting offenses, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5324, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1952.
One conspirator originally charged, David Izzi, pled guilty before trial and testified for the government. Stephen Saccoccia was severed and tried separately due to the illness of his counsel. Alfred Gabriele, added as a conspirator in a superseding indictment, was also tried separately, and his appeal is still pending. United States v. Gabriele, No. 94-1215 (1st Cir.). The end result was that the eight appellants in this case were tried together in the district court in Rhode Island. Trial began on November 6, 1992, and ended in a jury verdict on December 18, 1992.
At trial, the government's evidence consisted primarily of the testimony of other participants in the money laundering activities, of Colombian nationals involved in the international drug trade, and of bank employees. The government also offered bank records of financial transactions and numerous court-ordered wiretap recordings. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, United States v. Valerio, 48 F.3d 58, 63 (1st Cir.1995), the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find the following.
Stephen Saccoccia owned and controlled a number of precious metals businesses, including Saccoccia Coin Company in Cranston, Rhode Island ("Saccoccia Coin"); Trend Precious Metals in Cranston and in New York, New York ("Trend"); and International Metal Marketing ("International Metal") and Clinton Import/Export in Los Angeles, California ("Clinton Import/Export"). In the late 1980s, after some indirect dealings, Stephen Saccoccia began laundering drug money for Duvan Arboleda, a Colombian narcotics dealer. The laundering operation, ultimately expanded to serve a second drug ring as well, took several forms but each began with Stephen Saccoccia receiving large amounts of cash in New York, generated from the sale of cocaine. Often, Saccoccia would send one of his employees usually unindicted co-conspirator Richard Gizzarelli, to a prearranged location, such as a street corner, to meet a customer's courier. Gizzarelli would bring the cash to the Trend office in New York or to Saccoccia's apartment in New York to count it.
The money then followed two different routes. Some of the cash would be used to purchase money orders or gold; the gold and some of the remaining cash would then be shipped to International Metal in Los Angeles. Much of the rest of the cash--up to $200,000 per day--would be sent to Trend and Saccoccia Coin in Rhode Island, either through armored car service or in the car of a Saccoccia employee.
Once the cash reached Rhode Island, it was counted by Saccoccia employees and divided into a number of packets in amounts either greater than or less than $10,000. Most of the cash went to the Trend office in Cranston. Saccoccia employees, directed by Izzi, then drove to local banks where they purchased cashier's checks in amounts less than $10,000 payable to Trend, or cashier's checks in amounts greater than $10,000 payable to companies nominally owned by Hurley. The purpose of these maneuvers--called "smurfing" in law enforcement parlance--was to avoid or minimize the filing of accurate currency transaction reports, which are required by federal law for cash deposits in amounts of $10,000 or more.
Ultimately the local Rhode Island checks would be deposited in, and money from the Hurley accounts wired to, the Trend account at Citizens Bank in Rhode Island. A smaller portion of the cash sent to Rhode Island went to Saccoccia Coin. That cash was used to buy gold without documentation; the gold was then resold to legitimate companies in exchange for checks recorded as payments for gold sales. Some of the cash was also used in the ordinary operations of the Saccoccia Coin Shop, a heavily cash-based enterprise.
At the Los Angeles end, the gold sent to International Metal was sold, and the proceeds were wired back to the Trend account at Citizens Bank. Cash received by International Metal was used to purchase gold covertly, the gold was then sold, and the proceeds were also wired to the Trend account. Thus, the bulk of the cash that Saccoccia sent out of New York eventually ended up in the Trend account at Citizens. Citizens Bank closed the Trend account in April 1991. Thereafter, cash was still transported from New York and "smurf" employees in Rhode Island still obtained cashier's checks from various banks, but the checks were sent to International Metal and Clinton Import/Export in Los Angeles.
Donna Saccoccia assisted her husband in most aspects of the operation, relayed his instructions to the others and wired funds abroad to Colombian banks. Hurley and Anthony DeMarco picked up cash from couriers in New York and transported it to Rhode Island. Hurley, Anthony and Carlo DeMarco, Kenneth and James Saccoccio, Cirella and Pizzo received the cash deliveries in Rhode Island, counted the money, and separated it into packets of smaller amounts for transport to local banks. Anthony DeMarco and James and Kenneth Saccoccio bought the bulk of the cashier's checks.
A staggering amount of money moved through this laundering operation. Between March 1, 1990, and August 22, 1991, Stephen or Donna Saccoccia wired over $136 million to foreign bank accounts primarily in Colombia; more than $97 million of this amount was wired from the Trend account in Citizens Bank jointly controlled by Donna and Stephen. Apart from the $136 million, substantial sums were retained by the Saccoccias and their employees as compensation.
All eight appellants were convicted of RICO conspiracy. All but Carlo DeMarco and Pizzo were convicted of substantive offenses. After post-trial motions, appellants were sentenced in May 1993, and forfeiture judgments against each appellant were entered pursuant to the RICO forfeiture statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1963, and in some cases under the money laundering forfeiture statute. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 982. Appellants' substantive convictions (in addition to RICO conspiracy), their sentences, and their forfeiture amounts are listed below:
Name Substantive conviction Sentence Forfeiture
amount
Donna 13 counts of money laundering 14 yrs., 2 yrs. $136,344,23-
Saccoccia (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1956), and 47 supervised 1.86
counts of unlawful release
transactions (Sec. 1957)
Vincent 1 count structuring (31 U.S.C. 18 yrs., 3 yrs. $136,344,23-
Hurley Sec. 5324(3)), and 1 count of supervised 1.86
interstate travel in aid of release
racketeering (18 U.S.C. Sec
1952)
James 15 counts of structuring. 10 yrs., 3 yrs. $ 37,456,10-
Saccoccio supervised 0.79
release
Kenneth 14 counts of structuring. 12 yrs., 3 yrs. $ 37,456,10-
Saccoccio supervised 0.79
release
Stanley 1 count
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Chin
...even when "it has merely been held in custody by that individual and has been passed along to its true owner," United States v. Hurley, 63 F.3d 1, 21 (1st Cir. 1995). Thus, the fact that the offender is required to pay a certain portion of his salary to the federal government as taxes does ......
-
U.S. v. McHan
...that conspirators are jointly and severally liable for amounts received pursuant to their illicit agreement. See United States v. Hurley, 63 F.3d 1, 22 (1st Cir.1995), aff'g United States v. Saccoccia, 823 F.Supp. 994 (D.R.I.1993); United States v. Masters, 924 F.2d 1362, 1369-70 (7th Cir.)......
-
U.S. v. Houlihan
...the appellants clearly fit that description--come within the definitional sweep of section 1962(c). See United States v. Hurley, 63 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1322, 134 L.Ed.2d 474 (1996); United States v. Oreto, 37 F.3d 739, 750-51 (1st Cir.1994), cert......
-
U.S. v. DeFries
...generally is the harm that the defendant caused, not the net gain that he realized from his condition"); United States v. Hurley, 63 F.3d 1, 21 (1st Cir.1995); United States v. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754, 785 (1st Cir.1995). Furthermore, even were we persuaded by the view of the Seventh Circuit......
-
Financial institutions fraud.
...in enforcement and concluding that [section] 5324 does not encourage discriminatory enforcement). (367.) United States v. Hurley, 63 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 1995) (rejecting Fifth Amendment claim); United States v. Camarena, 973 F.2d 427, 428 (5th Cir. 1992) (same); United States v. Mickens, 9......
-
RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
...receipts of the illegal activity.’” (quoting United States v. Simmons, 154 F.3d 765, 769–70 (8th Cir. 1998))); United States v. Hurley, 63 F.3d 1, 21 (1st Cir. 1995) (emphasizing Congress used the term “proceeds” to alleviate unreasonable burden on government to prove profits). But see Uni......
-
Financial institutions fraud.
...in enforcement and concluding that [section] 5324 does not encourage discriminatory enforcement). (360.) United States v. Hurley, 63 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 1995) (rejecting Fifth Amendment claim); United States v. Camarena, 973 F.2d 427, 428 (5th Cir. 1992) (same); United States v. Mickens, 9......
-
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FRAUD
...by the BSA for “any suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation.”411 In this 405. United States v. Hurley, 63 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 1995) (rejecting Fifth Amendment claim); United States v. Camarena, 973 F.2d 427, 428–29 (5th Cir. 1992) (rejecting the same); ......
-
18 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 32.2 Criminal Forfeiture
...may be jointly and severally liable for the forfeiture of the entire proceeds of the criminal offense. See United States v. Hurley, 63 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1995) (government can collect the proceeds only once, but subject to that cap, it can collect from any defendant so much of the proceeds as......