United States v. Paul Corrado Jack W. Tocco Vito W. Giacalone Nove Tocco Anthony J. Corrado

Citations: 286 F.3d 934; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 7145; 2002 WL 571473Docket: 98-2315

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; April 15, 2002; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On April 15, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a ruling in the case of United States v. Corrado, reversing the district court’s prior decision regarding criminal forfeiture against defendants Paul Corrado, Nove Tocco, and Anthony Corrado. This decision followed an earlier ruling in September 2000 that had reversed the district court's finding on forfeiture against defendants Jack Tocco and Vito Giacalone, while leaving pending issues concerning the three aforementioned defendants until a related Remmer hearing was conducted. 

The district court subsequently determined that the jury was not prejudiced by misconduct, reinstating the convictions of Paul Corrado, Nove Tocco, and Anthony Corrado. The appellate court's analysis revealed that the forfeiture issues facing these defendants mirrored those previously addressed for Tocco and Giacalone. Key conclusions included:

1. Criminal forfeiture is part of a defendant's sentencing, allowing the government to appeal if the district court’s forfeiture determination is deemed unlawful.
2. Double jeopardy does not preclude the government’s appeal concerning forfeiture, as it is part of the sentencing process.
3. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1963(a), the district court is mandated to impose forfeiture if there is a sufficient connection between the property and the RICO violation.
4. Co-conspirators in a RICO enterprise are jointly and severally liable for proceeds that are foreseeable from their conspiratorial activities.
5. Unlike general conspiracy statutes, RICO does not require an overt act for liability, holding all conspirators accountable for the actions of their co-conspirators when they share a common purpose.

The court denied a rehearing petition filed by Jack Tocco and the other defendants, thus concluding the matter concerning the forfeiture appeals against Paul Corrado, Nove Tocco, and Anthony Corrado.

In Salinas v. United States, the court examined the liability of Paul Corrado and Nove Tocco for forfeiture of $234,700 in street tax proceeds, concluding that their actions were supported by a larger criminal organization, thus rendering them jointly and severally liable. The district court's error lay in requiring the government to prove that Corrado and Tocco shared these proceeds with other conspirators, when their empowerment by the organization sufficed for liability. 

Anthony Corrado faced claims of joint liability for a total forfeiture of $5,473,100, including $234,700 from street tax proceeds and profits from hotel sales and extorted funds. The court rejected the government's claims regarding the $1 million from the Frontier Hotel sale due to lack of evidence linking the defendants to the transaction. The court remanded the case to determine the extent of Anthony Corrado's liability concerning the Edgewater Hotel sale and also dismissed claims for the $38,400 in unlawful gambling proceeds. The court's review included the district court's decision not to hold Anthony Corrado liable for the street tax proceeds and the extorted amount from Sal Vitello, affirming that the street tax collection was indeed attributable to the criminal enterprise.

Anthony Corrado is deemed liable as a "capo" of a criminal enterprise, with the court affirming the government's assertion of his responsibility for $234,700 in collected street taxes. The court clarified that the government was not required to demonstrate shared collections among partners or trace extortionate funds to each member; the enterprise's success relied on the collective support and reputation of its members. Evidence, including recorded conversations, indicated Corrado's active participation in the scheme, justifying his liability for the forfeiture of illegal proceeds. Additionally, Corrado is held accountable for $1,000,000 extorted from Sal Vitello, countering the district court's stance that forfeiture was unnecessary without proof of shared extortion funds. The district court's failure to impose these forfeiture amounts was deemed an error. The case is remanded for consideration of Corrado's forfeiture in relation to the Edgewater Hotel sale. 

In the petition for rehearing filed by Jack William Tocco and others, the court found no new issues warranting reconsideration and denied the petition. The court addressed arguments regarding the implications of Supreme Court decisions on double jeopardy and civil forfeiture, affirming that acquittal in criminal forfeiture does not prevent subsequent civil actions and that civil forfeiture is not considered punishment. The court emphasized Congress's long-standing authorization for concurrent civil forfeiture and criminal prosecution based on the same events, highlighting that enforcing forfeiture for illegal activities promotes responsible property management.

Forfeiture serves as an economic penalty to deter illegal activities by making such behavior unprofitable. The defendants' arguments lack support from relevant case law. Specifically, the precedent set by Apprendi is not applicable in this context, and its future implications regarding double jeopardy are not speculated upon. Conversely, the government references United States v. Bajakajian, which establishes that criminal forfeiture constitutes punishment and is classified as a 'fine' under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Additional cases, such as United States v. Christunas and United States v. Investment Enterprises, clarify the appealability of forfeiture orders and reinforce the understanding that forfeiture is akin to a fine and, thus, not constrained by double jeopardy principles. The court concludes that the defendants have not introduced any new material issues for reconsideration regarding forfeiture. Consequently, the petition for rehearing is denied for all defendants.