|
nitedStates District Court, S.D. Florida.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
vBenjamin Barry KRAMER, Jack Kramer, Melvin Kesser and Michael Gilbert,
Deendants.
807 F.Supp. 707
No. 87-879-C.
DATE: July 22, 1991
SUBSEUENT HISTORY: Affirmed in Part, reversed inpart by: U.S. v. Kramer,
73 F.3d 167 (11th Cir.(Fla.) Jan. 16, 1996) (Nos. 0-5055, 90-5360,
90-5431, 90-5751,91-5659, 93-4951)
Certiorari denied, Kramer v. U.S.,519 U.S. 1011 (Dec. 2,1996) (No. 96-607)
Denial of post-conviction relif affirmed by: Kramer v. .S., 139 Fed.Appx.
234 (11th Cir.(Fla.) Jul. 5, 2005)
HEADNOTE: Followig jury verdict of guilty on Racketeer Influeced and
Corrupt Organiations Act (RICO) counts and forfeiture of convcted
defendants' interests i casino card club, claimants petitioned for relif,
asserting rights to forfeited properties. The District Court, Roettger,
Chief Judge, held that: (1 claimant was nominee holder for drug money trust
t beginning of card clubventure and, thus, title was not vested in
claiman nor was his interest i club superior to that of RICO defendant;
(2) climant was not entitled to etain that portion of his interest of club
derved from his legitimate effortsand business decisions; (3) claimant
cold not recover on ground that he interest in club vested pursuant to
Caliornia community property lws at time her husband purchased shares in
general partnership,as claimat knew or should have known of tainted nature
of her husband's inteest inproject; and (4) family trust asserting claim
could not recover on ground tat trust, through its trustees, was bona fide
purchaser for value without easonabl cause to believe that property was
subject to forfeiture.
Ordered accordngly.
[*709] COUNSEL: Robert Bondi, Asst. U.S. Atty., for Unted States.
Lwrence Rosen, Albert J. Krieger, Miami, FL, Mary Catherine Boner, Ft.
Laudedale, FL, for Benjamin Kramer.
Michael S. Pasano, Miami, FL for Michael Gilbert.
E. David Rosen, Miami, FL, for Jak Kramer.
Arthur W. ifford, Miami, FL, for Melvin Kessler.
AMENDED FINA ORDER WITH FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ROETTGER, Chief Judg.
An essence of oney laundering is deceit and cover-up. This case abounds
with examles of "dragging dad fish across the trail" to throw bloodhounds
off th scent or "draging branches behind a horse to destroy the tracks on
th trail."
Anyone ho sat through the three month long criminal RICO trial hadno doubt
itwas a clear case of money laundering of drug smuggling profis and it was
demonstrated and proved not only to the satisfaction of th jury, bu, the
court believes, to the satisfaction of anyone at the trial.
he eidence in the two-plus month long ancillary hearing under 18 U.S.C.
196 corroborates the illegal money laundering activity even more. The case
is document-intensie" with approximately 1,200 exhibits.
STATUS OF THE CASE
Following the jury verdict of guilty on the RICO counts as to all our
defedants, (Sam Gilbert had also been indicted originally but died shorty
thereafter) a preliminary hearing was held and an order entered freezingthe
assets of the Bicycle Club, based o the jury verdict forfeiting th
interests of Ben Kramer, Jack Kramer and Micael Gilbert in the Bicycle
Clu. [*710] Only the interests of these three conicted defendants in the
Bcycle Club were forfeited. The jury determined tha Mel Kessler had no
interst in the Bicycle Club and declined, therefore, to nter a verdict of
forfeitre as to Defendant Mel Kessler.
Immediatelya number of claimants filed their petitions under 18 U.S.C.
1963(l)(2). This was no urprise: Attornys for a corps of claimants were
present throughout nearlyall the criminal proceedings. Basically, those
claimants fall into two group. One group hadpersons with an interest in
Park Place Associates while the econd groupcomprised those persons with a
claim by virtue of a Californiageneral partership known as LCP. This order
will basically ignore the Park lace Assoiates group because the government
quickly relinquished any oppsition to its claim because of its
non-involvement in money laundering.
LCPstands or Lyon, Coyne and Pierson. Claimants are as follows: Dale Lyon,
Maueen Lyon his wife, and the Lyon Family Trust; Julieann Coyne, now
married nd knwn as Julieann Coyne Wasson, and her husband, Christopher
Wasson; DavidPiersn and Lois Pierson, his estranged or divorced wife;
Karen Gilbert, Michel Gilbert's wife, and the Michael Gilbert Famil Trust;
Robert Gilbert and Margaret Gilbert, sibligs of Michael Gilbert, an the
Robert Gilbert Family Trust.
Although 963 is silent as to depositios, the court permitted the parties
to take dpositions during the summer before the hearing.
The ancillary hearing beganthe second Monday in Sepember and throughout
the proceedings in Septemberthe parties requested ecesses and wanted time
so they could pursue settlemet negotiations. Athough different degrees of
optimism were expressed from hor-to-hour and fom day-to-day, it still
seemed like a hopeful possibiliy. Finally, towards te end of September,
the parties requested that the courtrecess the case o permit lengthy and
intensive settlement negotiations the parties were to dvise the court on
November 30, 1990 whether they had ettled their laims, with all parties
understanding that if they had not settled, the ancillaryhearing would
resume on Monday, Decemer 10, 1990.
All of the claimans settled except Dale Lyon, the Lyon Famly Trust, Karen
Gilbert, and the Mchael Gilbert Family Trust. The othe claimants are not
involved in these roceedings. The claimants requested at the beginning of
the ancillary hearing, on December 10, 1990, that the cout not be advised
of the details o the settlement negotiations for fear it mght cause some
influence, even ubconsciously, on the court's evaluation of the evidence.
Consequently, by stpulation of the parties, the settlement agreemets for
the claimants who hadsettled and the government were dictated int the
record outside the court's presence; the court is still not awar f the
details of the various settlements.
EVIDENCE OF MONEY LAUNDEING OFDRUG SMUGGLING MONEY
It is difficult to compress three monhs of trial evidece without omitting
important details. Ben Kramer, when released from his pison term for
smugglingmarijuana in the late 1970s, resumed smuggling but begn the
smuggling operatons on a grand scale. Ben had partners: Randy Lanir and
Tommy, known as Gorge Brock, and Gene Fisher. Gene Fisher and Tom wee
paired together in thir interests in this operation and the pair's tota
interest was equal to te individual interests of Ben and Randy. Ben's mous
operandi was to think big and not import marijuana in Lockheed Lodestrs o
shrimp boats or sailboats as had been the general practice in this area FN
Ben Kramer's modus operandi was to use barges or freighters and even to
ontainerize the marijuana, so that it could be quickly offloaded at he
por of entry and warehoused and then distributed. The audacity of ths
operatin was quite successful: He imported a barge full of [*711] marijuna
into the old Brooklyn Navy Yard, San Francisco, and into New Orlens.
FN1. I think I can speak with some expertise in this area, as I beliee
I have tried more narcotics cases than any activeor senior U.S. District
juge in America at this point, but only bcause of Chief Judge King's
re
|
| |
| |
|
