Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Bloome
Citations: 777 F. Supp. 208; 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16403; 1991 WL 238695Docket: No. CR-90-0504
Court: District Court, E.D. New York; November 7, 1991; Federal District Court
Defendants Michael Bloome, Salvatore Fusco, and Vincent Zappola were convicted of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and conspiracy to violate RICO. They waived their right to a jury trial for a count in the superseding indictment seeking forfeiture of $1,825,000.00, claimed to be the proceeds from their racketeering activities. The stolen property included $1,100,000.00 in jewelry from the Jewelers of Bond Street, $555,000.00 in watches from the Bulova Warehouse, and $85,000.00 in cash from Bradley’s Department Store. The defendants argue that forfeiture should only apply to the $85,000.00 cash, asserting that the forfeiture statute applies solely to cash proceeds realized from racketeering acts. The court rejected this argument, clarifying that the statute allows for forfeiture of any property constituting or derived from proceeds of racketeering, not limited to cash. The court emphasized that jewelry and watches are tangible personal property subject to forfeiture under the statute, thereby confirming that all stolen property from the three acts is forfeitable. Defendants Zappola and Bloome contend they cannot be subjected to forfeiture for the burglary of the Jewelers of Bond Street, arguing they did not participate in the burglary and joined the conspiracy only afterward. They assert that standard conspiracy principles should apply, exonerating them from responsibility for acts committed prior to their involvement. However, Section 1963 mandates forfeiture of property derived from racketeering activities, and since both violated Section 1962(d) by conspiring to commit such acts, they are liable for forfeiture regardless of their timing of joining the conspiracy. The burglary is classified as racketeering activity, making the proceeds subject to forfeiture. The court cites United States v. Caporale, establishing that conspiracy convictions can lead to forfeiture under Section 1963, affirming Congress's intent to penalize conspiracies similarly to substantive violations. Although Bloome and Zappola argue their lack of prior participation in the burglary, case law indicates that conspirators can be held accountable for the acts of their co-conspirators before their entry into the conspiracy, specifically regarding forfeiture liability. Ultimately, the court finds that the government has proven the value of property derived from racketeering activity, totaling $1,740,000, and imposes joint and several liability on Bloome, Fusco, and Zappola for these amounts.