United States v. Shapiro

531 F. Supp. 98, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11688
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedJanuary 27, 1982
DocketNo. 81-361-CR-EBD
StatusPublished

This text of 531 F. Supp. 98 (United States v. Shapiro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Shapiro, 531 F. Supp. 98, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11688 (S.D. Fla. 1982).

Opinion

ORDER

EDWARD B. DAVIS, District Judge.

The Defendant, Bernard Shapiro, was charged in a two count indictment on August 20, 1981. Count I accused the defendant of conspiring with others to violate Title 18, United States Code, Sections 19521 and 22; all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.3 Count II alleged that the defendant attempted to distribute more than 1,000 pounds of marijuana in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(b)(6) and 846.

A bench trial was conducted on January 12 and 13, 1982. After the government rested its case, defendant submitted no evidence or testimony.

Facts

From some time prior to June of 1981 until August 4,1981, the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted an undercover business under the name of “C.R.V. Associates” (C.R.V.) as a part of its investigation, known as “Operation Bancshares”, of the laundering of drug money in Southern Florida. The offices of C.R.V., located in Miami, were equipped with devices to record the transactions and activities at C.R.V.

C.R.V., which took customers by referral only, offered its customers numerous services for the conversion of customer’s cash into other financial instruments and transactions. One such service, employed by this defendant, consisted of the customer bringing cash to C.R.V. and C.R.V. having the money wire transferred to a bank account, per the instruction of the customer’s associates, for transmittal to Columbia, South America.

In the case at bar, C.R.V. charged a 2% commission for its services. C.R.V. kept a [100]*100part of this commission, equalling 3A% as earnings which ultimately accrued to the United States. C.R.V. had the balance of this commission, equalling lVi% forwarded to one Elias Facuseh. Of this 1V4%, 3A% was owed to Elias Facuseh for referring the customer. The remaining lh% portion was owed to Jorge Facuseh, the brother of Elias, for disbursing the money to the ultimate recipient in Columbia, South America.

On July 20, 1981, defendant Shapiro telephoned C.R.V. and spoke with Special Agent Antonio Franco, who was using the undercover name of Tony Fernandez. The defendant introduced himself as Barry, a friend of Jorge “F”. The defendant stated that Jorge Facuseh suggested that the defendant set up an appointment with C.R.V.; which he did.

Thereafter, on July 20, 1981, the defendant came to the premises of C.R.V. Defendant inquired about “Elias” and revealed that he had been working with Elias Facuseh to settle an account with an outstanding balance. Defendant stated further that he was receiving money from several Canadians, and that he would have about $100,000.00 the following day. In responding to a query as to whom would the money go to in Columbia, defendant indicated, “Jacobo de Andries ... they know him down there ... They done it before”. Defendant went on to reveal that he is a pilot who occasionally takes charters. When asked by an undercover agent if he flew “Marimba”4 in from Santa Marta, the defendant answered, “I used to. I’m retired”, and stated that he continued to do “other things” such as “fly people ... money. Translation. Surveillance”. The defendant, after informing the agents that he would call “as soon as these Canadians get here and bring me ... all the paper”, departed.

On Thursday, July 23, 1981, the defendant again telephoned and arranged to come to C.R.V. The defendant arrived carrying a shopping bag, supposedly containing $50,-000.00. However, upon counting the money in the defendant’s presence, the agents determined that it contained only $49,800.00. The defendant took $200.00 from his person to make up the shortage. Defendant Shapiro instructed the agents to send the money to Jacobo de Andreis. The defendant said that Jorge Facuseh knew Jacobo de Andreis, and that the agents probably would talk to Jorge Facuseh. Defendant Shapiro added that he had a $800,000.00 balance with Jacobo de Andreis and that if everything went well, defendant would owe Jacobo de Andreis an extra $4,000,000.00 by the end of the summer.

Agent Franco then asked the defendant whether this money was for “Marimba”. The defendant nodded his head. Agent Franco inquired further as to whether any was for cocaine. The defendant shook his head. Agent Franco next asked the defendant if he had any “Marimba” to sell in this area. Defendant Shapiro answered that he had 2,000 pounds of “good stuff” for sale at $210.00 per pound, which he could deliver immediately to C.R.V. The Defendant explained that the 2,000 was available because the Canadians had not purchased it. The defendant declared that the marijuana was “not brokerage deal .. [I]t’s mine”.

Before leaving, defendant asked the agents if they would care for a sample, to which the agents responded affirmatively. Defendant said he would return the next day with the sample as well as with the same amount of money. Defendant also mentioned that the marijuana was from the other side of Santa Marta, and that since he was so pleased with it, he planned to “do more business with these people .. another $50,000.00”.

The next day, defendant did indeed return with three small plastic bags containing 208.4 grams of marijuana. The first bag, according to defendant, was his merchandise; was the best, and was available for $210.00 per pound, with about 2,000 [101]*101pounds ready for sale. The second bag, which was his partner’s, was for $180.00 per pound, with about 2,500 pounds available. The third bag, which was a friend’s, was available for $170.00 per pound, with nearly 10,000 pounds ready for sale. Defendant requested that the agents promptly reply to his offer, and indicated that he would deliver the marijuana in installments.

Defendant also brought along $50,000.00 in cash to be sent to Jacobo de Andreis. Upon leaving, defendant Shapiro asked if the agents would send his regards to Elias Facuseh.

The defendant returned to C.R.V. on Monday, July 27,1981, and brought another $50,000.00 cash to be wired to Jacobo de Andreis. The agents at C.R.V. were apprised by defendant that the money he had delivered to C.R.V. on Thursday, July 23, 1981 had been received in Columbia on Friday, July 24, 1981. Moreover, the defendant requested that the agents provide him with a cashier’s check for $12,234.00 payable to “Airesearch”, to pay for the inspection of an airplane. The agents received cash for the check amount and a 1% commission. Defendant queried the agents as to the marijuana samples, to which they responded that their buyer was in Panama.

The final cash transmittal request of the agents by defendant occurred on Tuesday, July 28, 1981 at the offices of C.R.V. The cash transmittal was supposed to be for $45,000, but defendant had only $44,510, promising to have the shortage transmitted at the next transaction. Again, the money was for Jacobo de Andreis. Unlike before, the defendant registered a complaint with the agents that he had received a complaint that Friday’s money had not yet been received. He then asked if the agents would check into this with Elias Facuseh. A short time later, defendant’s cashier cheek arrived. In departing company with the agents, defendant informed them that although he would be out of town for awhile, he would call them about the buyer when he returned.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Roy Mandujano
499 F.2d 370 (Fifth Circuit, 1974)
United States v. Eligio Fermin Rivero
532 F.2d 450 (Fifth Circuit, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
531 F. Supp. 98, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-shapiro-flsd-1982.