On May 8, 1998, Luskin agreed to forfeit to the federal government $245,000 of $674,296 he received in “legal fees” from Saccoccia.  Luskin said he received 45 gold bars valued at $505,125 and $169,171 in wire transfers from a Swiss bank account.  DOJ, led by then-U.S. Attorney Sheldon Whitehouse, went after Luskin and four other Saccoccia attorneys for the money paid to them out of profits laundered by Saccoccia.  The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that attorneys cannot be paid with funds acquired as result of the crime.  Whitehouse charged Luskin with “willful blindness” in accepting the gold bars and wired funds -- after all, Whitehouse noted, Saccoccia’s crimes involved precious metals, including gold, and Swiss bank accounts.  Whitehouse further stated, “Luskin had reasonable cause to know that these funds were the proceeds of Saccoccia’s money-laundering activities.  Luskin, however, chose not to know the true origin of these funds.”

The first issue against Luskin is his character. DOJ does not take such an action lightly. U.S. attorneys must check with DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section and the Criminal Division before seeking such forfeitures. Gerald McDowell, head of DOJ’s asset forfeiture section, said it was very rare for DOJ to seize attorneys’ fees saying it occurs maybe two or three times a year.  Should someone who DOJ believes wrongfully and willfully took attorney fees from organized crime’s profits (apparently including profits from LCN) be trusted at the same time by the same DOJ to root-out organized crime (including LCN) from one of America’s most corrupt unions?  The DOJ’s answer should be “No.”  Luskin, who de facto admitted that his acceptance of funds from Saccoccia was wrong with his settlement, should not be trusted by DOJ to continue the LIUNA “internal reform effort.”

The second and more important issue is the inherent conflict of interest regarding the relationships of Luskin, Saccoccia, the Patriarca crime family and Coia.  Coia is no stranger to the Patriarcas.  DOJ’s draft RICO complaint stated that “The New England or Patriarca family...is headquartered in the areas of both Boston, Massachusetts and Providence, Rhode Island and operates there and in various other locations. The New England family is [connected to] the Genovese family.”  The draft RICO complaint, which named Coia as a defendant, also identified the late Raymond L.S. Patriarca as a co-conspirator.  In 1981, Coia was indicted for bribery and racketeering along with his father, the late Arthur E. Coia, and Patriarca. The charges were later dropped on a technicality.

In addition to the obvious and direct connection of Luskin-Saccoccia-Patriarca-Coia, other questions exist.  The former Rhode Island bank, Heritage Loan and Investment Company, was the only financial institution to have reportedly aided in Saccoccia’s money-laundering schemes.  Heritage Loan and Investment was the home of the North American Laborers Defense League which solicited funds to aid LIUNA officials, including Coia, with legal defense expenses.  This same bank figured prominently in the 1990-91 collapse of Rhode Island’s banking system.

Further, Luskin’s services for Saccoccia raise questions. Luskin did not represent Saccoccia at trial.  He reportedly helped on sentencing and appeals as well as with frozen assets around the world.  For this he received almost $700,000?  According to Whitehouse, the $169,171 in wire transfers from Switzerland were made between December 4, 1994 and February 23, 1995.  November 4, 1994 was the day DOJ delivered the draft RICO complaint to LIUNA.  The controversial Operation Agreement by which LIUNA averted a Government takeover and Coia saved his job, was signed on February 13, 1995.  It was during this period that Coia hired Luskin to negotiate LIUNA’s case with DOJ.  The confluence of these dates, this money and these individuals at the very least should raise serious questions about Luskin and the trust DOJ has placed in him to run the “internal reform effort.”

Saccoccia and his connections to the Patriarca crime family and possibly to Coia, make Luskin a walking conflict of interest.  Between the Patriarca crime family, Coia and Luskin, the opportunities for improper influence and tampering with the “internal reform effort” are endless. It is as if Luskin was charged with overseeing a corrupt organization’s reform effort and at the same time receiving payment from the corrupt entities of the organization in order to go easy on the organization and its leaders.  Without an oversight offical who is, and is perceived to be, totally and unquestionably independent, the reform effort is a joke.  Luskin has an obligation under the Agreement to perform his duties with the utmost integrity and independence.  But, his financial ties to Saccoccia and possibly to LCN and the Patriarca crime family, render him incapable of performing his duties under the Agreement.
 

Return to the index of this report.

Organized Labor Accountability Project