US v. Mancuso, CR-N-89-24-ECR.

• Decision Date: 17 November 1989
• Docket Number: No. CR-N-89-24-ECR.,CR-N-89-24-ECR.
• Citation: 726 F. Supp. 1210
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff v. Ciro Wayne MANCUSO, aka "C"; Brian John Degen, aka "B"; John Steven Fagan, aka Sean; William George Pearce, Sr., aka Uncle Bill, Robert C. Olsen, Will George, William Buck; Charles W. Roth, aka Chuck; Marcus Ernest Zybach, aka Marco; Jurgen Karl Peter Ahrens, aka Joe the German; Preecha Supkong, aka Supkong Preecha, Cha; Jeffrey John Welch, aka "The Wine Man"; Damyan Stoianoff, aka Dan Stoiano, Danny; James Bradley Stockman, aka Brad; Harry Edward McKeown, aka Ed; Robert Ames Hoffman; Ronald Dean Moore, aka "RD"; Marc Sandhaus, aka "Marc from Lagunitas"; Michael R. Lyons, aka "Bug-Eye Bob"; Robert Zehm, aka Bob; and Michael W. Caldwell, aka "Boy Scout", defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

726 F. Supp. 1210

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff v. Ciro Wayne MANCUSO, aka "C"; Brian John Degen, aka "B"; John Steven Fagan, aka Sean; William George Pearce, Sr., aka Uncle Bill, Robert C. Olsen, Will George, William Buck; Charles W. Roth, aka Chuck; Marcus Ernest Zybach, aka Marco; Jurgen Karl Peter Ahrens, aka Joe the German; Preecha Supkong, aka Supkong Preecha, Cha; Jeffrey John Welch, aka "The Wine Man"; Damyan Stoianoff, aka Dan Stoiano, Danny; James Bradley Stockman, aka Brad; Harry Edward McKeown, aka Ed; Robert Ames Hoffman; Ronald Dean Moore, aka "RD"; Marc Sandhaus, aka "Marc from Lagunitas"; Michael R. Lyons, aka "Bug-Eye Bob"; Robert Zehm, aka Bob; and Michael W. Caldwell, aka "Boy Scout", defendants.

No. CR-N-89-24-ECR.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

November 17, 1989.

Dorothy Nash Holmes, Asst. U.S. Atty., Reno, Nev., for plaintiff.

Katherine Alfieri, Patrick Sarsfield Hallinan, Hallinan, Poplack & Levine, San Francisco, Cal., and Donald Cavin Hill, Reno, Nev., for Mancuso.

ORDER

EDWARD C. REED, Jr., Chief Judge.

The Government has moved the Court for revocation of the order of the Magistrate for release of defendant Ciro Wayne Mancuso. The said motion is made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a)(1). A Magistrate previously conducted a bail/detention hearing. This Court has reviewed the entire record, has considered the findings and orders of the Magistrate and has considered the evidence which was presented during the Magistrate's hearing. This Court has also held an additional evidentiary hearing at which additional evidence was received by the Court and was proffered.

This Court's review of defendant's detention is de novo. The review is based upon the evidence proffered and adduced at the hearing held by the Magistrate, as well as upon the additional evidence proffered and adduced at the hearing before this Court.

The offenses of which defendant is charged involve a controlled substance.

If convicted of the charges contained in the superseding indictment, defendant faces a possible sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole on one of the counts and lengthy additional terms of imprisonment on numerous other counts.

The weight of the evidence against defendant is not entitled at this stage to weighty consideration. However, there does appear to be substantial evidence of defendant's guilt.

The Court makes the following analysis:

(a) Defendant's physical and mental condition do not appear to be a barrier to defendant fleeing nor do they provide a reason for him to remain in this vicinity.

(b) Defendant has strong family ties in this area, including his wife and two children as well as his parents.

(c) Defendant does not have any regular employment but has been engaged in property development on his own behalf.

(d) Much of defendant's assets have been seized by the government in connection with the present case. However, it may be inferred that defendant still has access to considerable funds which would enable him to flee and to maintain himself elsewhere.

It may be concluded from the evidence that defendant has access to funds and assets in this country which have not been seized for forfeiture by the government. It appears that defendant may have access to funds at the Truckee River Bank whereof he has been able to obtain distributions from a line of credit. While it appears that funds recently withdrawn from the bank on that basis were probably used for business purposes, it does appear that defendant would be able to obtain additional funds.

In recent time defendant has authorized the sale of one of his two Mercedes automobiles in Switzerland and in that connection authorized transfer of 30,000 DM to Jurgen Ahrens and 30,000 DM to Margaret Ahrens, both of whom are European residents. Further, the government has provided convincing evidence, including reference to a document and statements made by a Dr. Vedeker (spelling uncertain; spelling is based upon phonetics) that defendant authorized the transfer of $267,000 from a corporation controlled by him to another person in Europe. It may be inferred that the funds described in this paragraph are available to defendant for his use in Europe. The government has not been able to seize them.

(e) Defendant has been a resident off and on of the Lake Tahoe community for a period of approximately twenty years. However, he has at different times during that period resided in different states and in a foreign country.

(f) It appears that defendant does have community ties to the Lake Tahoe area. Many of his friends and neighbors attest to his good character and contributions to the community. Sixty to seventy members of the community attended a hearing in the Magistrate's court. Fifty letters in support of defendant have been submitted.

(g) There is no indication in the record of any alcohol or drug abuse by defendant.

(h) Defendant was previously arrested in 1969 in Kansas with codefendant Degen for harvesting marijuana. He was fined $1,000 for that offense.

In 1972 defendant was arrested in Guadalajara, Mexico, with ten other persons in possession of 4400 pounds of marijuana and was incarcerated for a year in jail in Mexico on account of that arrest. In 1974 defendant was arrested at Half Moon Bay for possession of cocaine. This arrest was disposed of as a deferred prosecution and a misdemeanor.

(i) There is no indication that defendant failed to appear on previous occasions at required court hearings.

(j) At the time of the offense charged in the superseding indictment defendant was not on probation or parole.

(k) Defendant has undertaken, over a period of several years, extensive foreign travel to Europe, the Far East, Mexico and Canada. He has presently accummulated 248,000 miles on his United Airlines Frequent Flyer Program. He has lived for at least a year in Mexico. Defendant has the requisite knowledge, funds and knowhow to freely travel anywhere in the world. At the time of his arrest he held a partially unused open airline ticket to Hong Kong.

At the time of his arrest defendant also attempted to conceal the passports of his wife, child and himself, together with cashier's checks in a briefcase at his residence after the briefcase had been searched by the officers who were at that time searching his residence.

(l) The defendant has demonstrated that he is readily able to move cash in and out of the country. He has arranged for transfers of large amounts of money including transfer from the Cayman Islands to a Swiss bank of $100,000 on one occasion and separate transfer of $750,000.

In 1986, a coconspirator paid defendant several hundred thousand dollars in Marin County, California. $490,000 of this money was delivered by defendant Roth to Miami for defendant Mancuso for purposes of transferring it out of the country.

(m) Defendant is a licensed pilot. At one time he flew a pressurized plane from the United States to Panama. At the time of his arrest there was discovered in his briefcase a check for $3,000 payable to an individual from whom defendant has been leasing an airplane.

Defendant has contacts in the Cayman Islands, Mexico, Bankok, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, the Phillipines, Spain, England, France, Costa Rica and Hong Kong.

(n) At or just before defendant was arrested he was seeking to destroy certain documents in his fireplace at his residence, including a copy of a statement from Nordfinanz-Bank of Switzerland, which appears to be a statement for a loan to defendant in an amount in excess of $600,000. Other evidence adduced at the hearing indicated that this document should have been produced pursuant to subpoena issued to defendant, but was not. This document may refer to a fictional deed of trust on defendant's property in the United States wherein defendant's own funds may have actually been advanced for laundering purposes by Nordfinanz-Bank so as to make it look as if defendant owed Nordfinanz-Bank this money.

There was also found at defendant's residence at the time of his arrest partially burned in the fireplace a letter from an individual known as Brad Stockman which alludes to the proposition that in a year or two more in Mexico the problems of defendant and Mr. Stockman will be "worked out" and that "we have it made going back to '86."

Also found in the fireplace partially burned was a letter from Dr. A. Hinderling, dated August 14, 1989, respecting the freezing of assets of defendant (apparently through action of the plaintiff) in Switzerland. References in this letter indicate that there is a "Mortgage Deed" held in defendant's name or for him. This letter may well refer to the aforementioned deed of trust for the sum in excess of $600,000 on defendant's property in the United States which the letter indicates belongs to defendant. The Hinderling letter might also be taken to refer to some other Mortgage Deed owned by defendant in Switzerland. The letter also suggests that it may be possible for defendant to obtain access to the "Mortgage Deed," in spite of the freezing of the asset. It is to be noted in this connection that in recent months defendant went to Switzerland to try to get his money and assets out.

It appears that at the time of or just before his arrest, defendant was attempting to destroy both the Stockman and Hinderling letters.

(o) After his arrest, defendant also endeavored to have a truck removed from his premises to avoid its use as evidence and the danger of potential government forfeiture. He tried to get the arresting agents to allow his wife to drive the truck away contending that it...