Comments on: It’s Not Watergate, But…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:02:36 +0000

bedazzling:admittance simulations recalculation abolitionists,nutria:theirs?coordinate

By: On The Green In Two

On The Green In Two — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:22:31 +0000

Some of the shake houses are indeed up and operating again, at least those that were not hit in the recent busts. Generally those that get busted simply move to a new location. I have my eye on the operation at Sherman and Mass Avenue since it’s right in the Martindale-Brightwood Revitalization area.
I’m not such a fan of the O’Rielly Factor on Fox but could you imagine if he or even rabble rouser Nacy Grace of CNN were to get undercover video and recordings of what’s going on with number racketeering in Indianapolis and gave their critique as to why ANY major city, especially like Indianapolis (home of the reigning Super Bowl) allow organized crome to operate in broad daylight? It’s a disgrace what’s going on and it may do the city good to have it’s dark underbelly exposed.
Hope Abdul reads this. If he can get the inroad to Fox or CNN I think the video can be obtained.

By: Shorebreak

Shorebreak — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:21:03 +0000

Anon 4:47,

As you stated, this is only a scenario. But it’s based on fact (DNC/teamsters/election funding/McKinney illegal gambling).

That includes numerous legal records - many from Congressional hearings - documenting DoJ interference in similar investigations. That’s a tough nut to swallow, but to deny the fact that it’s occured in the past and to omit the possibility that it’s taking place in Indy would be tantamount to sticking one’s head in the sand. Based upon precedence, it simply cannot be ruled out.

It seems to me that in light of current circumstances, in light of past history tied directly to Indy via McKinney, the DNC, illegal gambling, teamsters, and election fraud, and in light of documented DoJ involvement in similar matters, it would be a miscarriage of justice not to seriously consider this as one of several possible scenarious that is behind the continued operation of peashake houses.

Even after the recent busts and media attention, they are continuing to operate. The pot’s been stirred but it’s gonna take much more than a few blogs and posts on Indystar to see some real results.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:47:09 +0000

Shorebreak:
If your scenario is true, this explains why the game are not legal. The operators would have to report all income to IRS. Illegal gambling and narcotics sales is big business in this country to the tune of trillions of dollars. Untaxed revenue in whose pockets?

By: Shorebreak

Shorebreak — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:02:19 +0000

On The Green In Two:

Frank McKinney is definitely a good lead into the possible beneficiaries in Peashakes. He was chairman of the DNC for several years. Like the RNC, that kind of appointment doesn’t happen unless you’re a willing participant in the use of laundered funds.

Additionally, the teamsters have a long history of working out backdoor deals with the DNC in contribution swapping and other election issues. The profits from illegal enterprise have often been at the heart of this funding.

Of course, that adds another possible dimension to the longevity of peashakes in Indianapolis. If they are indeed tied directly to DNC funding - which could easily extend to funding of candidates on a national level - then it also makes sense that they’re not being operated by the DNC, but by other enterprises who use them to fund DNC campaign efforts.

Something else to consider is that these activities have remain uninterrupted for years by the GOP as well as by the Dems. Why? Because they have similar fund raising activities in other locales. “You keep your hands off my stack and I’ll keep my hands off yours”.

Why else would this activity, laundering, fraud, racketeering, etc. be allowed to continue? It reaches up to some very high places at the national level in government.

Which makes me wonder once again why the DoJ has failed to move after three years and close to $100 million in laundered funds has passed through the city. This ain’t no small time racket.

By: On The Green In Two

On The Green In Two — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:19:59 +0000

Shorebreak,
Everywhere I look on illegal gambling and other forms of racketeering in Indianapolis the names Frank E. McKinney,Sr, and Frank E. McKinney, Jr. keep coming up. Again, we are back to the Fletcher American Bank (early) then Fidelity (later) and American Fletcher National Bank (the old AFNB now Chase).
Mckinney,Sr. died in 1974 and McKinney,Jr. who died in midair plane collision in 1992. Who is still around that was close to McKinney, Jr.?
McKinney,Sr. had dealings with Jimmy Hoffa and there was a local attorney named David Probstein that was involved back in the late 50’s. Probstein had a law firm in Indy until he left the state after testifying against Hoffa.
Somehow the numbers operation is being ran by very prominant local white businessmen. The operation somehow was passed at some point to someone Frank McKinney,Jr.knew and did banking business with. Had Democrat and Republican ties as money knew no party in a close group. I believe a new generation of Indianapolis power brokers are running the operation. Names of Board members who sold to AFNB to Bank One would be a start. Who was their legal team? I’m trying to be objective on this thing but it’s starting to involve some of the old money of Indianapolis. Need more information.

By: On The Green In Two

On The Green In Two — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:14:10 +0000

Is there any particular reason that racketeering charges have not been filed with the US District Attorney against those who were busted at the Roache Street numbers operation. One arrest is a class c. The second arrest for the same falls under RICO. If Brizzi holds on to the Roache Street cases then he’s up to his nuts in this mess too.
Somebody reading the RICO differently that I am on this thing on Roache Street?

By: Shorebreak

Shorebreak — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:49:42 +0000

Abdul, Vic, LEO’s:

Here’s part two of the laundering primer. Again, you can see the original if you follow the link and click on “Printable Format”:

http://www.moneylaundering.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ID=1651

Step Three: Perform a Financial Analysis of the Target

There are two main tools used to determine if the target of a money laundering investigation exhibits spending habits that reflect an “honest living.” Both will determine if a target has acquired assets that exceed his “legitimate” income in order to determine if his income came from “illegitimate” sources.

The first is known as a “net worth method,” for which the IRS has become famous and whose most celebrated application was against the famed late mobster, Al Capone. The net worth method is generally used where the target has conspicuous assets. It is useful when his spending patterns reflect acquisition and disposal of tangible assets.

In United States v. Sorrentino, the U.S. Supreme Court described the method: “The government makes out a prima facie case… if it establishes the defendant’s opening net worth… with reasonable certainty and then shows increases in his net worth for each year in question which, added to his non-deductible expenditures and excluding his known not-taxable receipts for the year, exceed his reported taxable income by a substantial amount…. The jury may infer that [increases in his] excess net worth… represent unreported taxable income if the government either shows a likely source… or negates all possible non-taxable sources.”

If the target has conspicuous spending habits, investigators should conduct a “source and application of funds analysis.” That is useful when spending patterns are of a transient nature. The formula for an S&A analysis is simple: unidentified cash equals total cash expenditures less total cash income.

Step Four: Freeze and Confiscate Assets

The key to any successful seizure is timing, as most launderers – particularly those who are intermediaries in the laundering cycle – will accumulate funds over a period of time, then disperse them in blocks at the end of that period. It would not be fruitful to seize a business or other bank account, under pertinent asset forfeiture laws, immediately after large withdrawals. Good luck.

By: Shorebreak

Shorebreak — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:44:16 +0000

Abdul, Vic, LEO’s:

Here’s a basic primer from a good source on laundering. It’s the first of a two-part series. I’ll post part two next. If you follow the link to the story you can click on “Printable Format” to see the whole piece:

http://www.moneylaundering.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ID=1638

Expert gives pointers to state, local agencies on laundering probes

Dear MLA,

I am a police chief of a medium-sized city in the Midwest. As you know, the new U.S. National Money Laundering Strategy promotes improved cooperation among local, state and federal agencies in money laundering control efforts. I want my department to be involved in these new initiatives but we have very little experience in money laundering enforcement. What are the basic elements of a money laundering investigation?

Learning the ropes

Dear Learning:

Considering the federal grant money that the new U.S. money laundering strategy will facilitate to state and local agencies that have active laundering enforcement programs, we’re sure you’re not the only local official with a new-found interest in these matters.

To answer your question, we turned to James Richards, author of the book “Transnational Criminal Organizations, Cybercrime, and Money Laundering: A Handbook for Law Enforcement Officers, Auditors, and Financial Investigators.” Richards, who is now director of FleetBoston Financial Group’s newly-created Financial Intelligence Unit, previously directed the Asset Forfeiture Group of the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The following guidance, extracted from his book, discusses the first two steps that a laundering investigation should take. Next month, Dear MLA will report on steps three and four.

Step One: Identify the unlawful activity

Most local laundering investigations begin as an investigation into a target’s unlawful activity, whether it be drug dealing, gambling, smuggling, or something else. It is imperative that investigators ensure that this unlawful activity is one of the “specified unlawful activities” that give rise to a laundering or forfeiture case under the appropriate statute. All known money laundering and forfeiture statutes in the U.S. require that, in order to prove a laundering offense, the target must have engaged in a financial transaction using the proceeds of an “unlawful activity.” Under the federal laundering statutes (Title 18, USC Secs. 1956 and 1957), the government must prove that the funds were derived from at least one of about 175 “specified unlawful activities” that cover a wide range of crimes including drug trafficking, fraud, banking violations and racketeering.

Step Two: Identify and track the financial transactions

This is the “show me the money” part of the investigation. Most local laundering investigations arise from a narcotics arrest or investigation. Typically, a street-level dealer’s arrest leads to an investigation of his supplier’s drug activities. Investigators should identify and track the target’s financial trail using:

Documents seized during execution of search warrants. Look for money exchange receipts, brokerage statements (often the target will retain only envelopes with the broker’s return address, which is enough to start investigation of accounts the target might hold), wire transfer and postal money order receipts, safety deposit box records, automobile records, credit card statements, casino membership cards and documents relating to travel agents (who present laundering opportunities by allowing targets to purchase open return tickets and sell the tickets later).
Law enforcement databases. The database of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which can be accessed by state and local agencies through FinCEN’s Gateway system, should be the starting point for all financial investigations.
Commercial databases. Credit bureau reports and legal or court dockets, which may lead to witnesses who have been sued or who sued the target, may provide a wealth of information about the target.
Public records. Corporate records, social security, bankruptcy court files, divorce and probate court records, and real estate public records also can produce great dividends.
Licensing bureaus. Motor vehicle records, marriage licenses, liquor licenses, and notary public records may also yield good results.
Often the target will launder dirty money through a storefront business, such as a pizza parlor, towing business, money transmitting business or any other cash-intensive business. Investigators should be alert to money transmitters that also sell pagers, beepers, and cellular phones because they are often a “one-stop” shop for drug dealers. If the target has some connection to a small business, the investigator should consider reviewing the business’s books to see if legal revenues are being commingled with illicit money and to compare sales and profit ratios with other similar businesses, determine the volume of business by observing traffic patterns, checking with suppliers and wholesalers to see if the products purchased are consistent with the reported sales, analyzing bank records and deposit patterns, and comparing deposits with sales. Good luck.

By: Shorebreak

Shorebreak — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:06:08 +0000

Abdul has just reported that the Dems on the CCC are going to pursue a bi-partison investigation into Gray’s abuses.
My take on the Dems action following th Repubs is damage control. Gray will take the fall for the higher ups that are really running the gambling operations.
Brizzi needs to back off and call the US District Attorney in on this. This thing runs a lot deeper than just Gray and can’t help but smell a coverup in the making.

Posted by Anonymous at March 20, 2007 09:31 AM

You’re not the only one. Have you noticed that none of the other peashakes are being busted? At this point I can only consider the recent busts a small part of a larger PR effort to take the heat off of the peashakes. Gray stuck his neck out in other ventures and he’s gonna take the fall because of it. And he knows it, too.

I won’t be surprised if at least one more lackey - like Senator Howard - is handed over if things get any hotter. The folks running the peashakes are struggling to keep their operation going and they’ll sacrifice all loyalty to their supporters for the sake of keeping the profits moving.

If I were a Howard or a Gray I’d be making a few quiet phone calls to authorities - from my attorney’s office. From what I’m seeing, these two are gonna go down anyways. They may as well take the initiative and quietly get involved in the process, to make it easier on themselves. They may even salvage some semblance of honor in the process.