B. wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:06 pm
Salvatore Mangiaracina stole money from the Bonannos' numbers operation he supervised. Bill Bonanno said a member can't be killed over financial indiscretion so he was shelved and sent back to Sicily (Bill calls him "Sal Amari" in his book but it was Mangiaracina). He was later killed because he secretly moved back to NYC without approval.
Any detail on whether it was him moving back and setting up operations in NYC that got him killed, or was it simply moving back that was the reason?
Fascinating how the mafia utilizes a technicality sometimes.
According to Bill the murder was because Mangiaracina moved back despite being shelved and told to remain in Sicily. Before killing him they verified that the Sicilian mafia hadn't approved his return. There is strong reason to believe Mangiaracina was once a high-ranking Bonanno leader so him ignoring their orders may have been seen as a bigger problem waiting to happen beyond this infraction alone.
He doesn't address it in his book and we lack sources from that era, but the old line Partinicesi didn't fare well under Joe Bonanno's leadership in the 1930s and 40s despite those guys having immense stature between the early 1900s and early 1930s.
Teflon Dom wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:36 pm
I mean most of them probably do. Not like there are receipts. They bring in 50 K and say they brought in 30.
Yeah but I mean situations where the administration actually sat down and grilled the member about it.
InCamelot wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 1:19 pm
Technically speaking if the administration (all 3 positions) alleges that a member is not kicking up his full share, would that member be allowed to have an objective set of ears in the room during that sort of sitdown with his bosses?
This is cool, theoretical discussions like this. I think it's subjective depending on if an admin member (one or more) has a relationship with the member already, prompting him to try to save the member by shelving instead of offing them. Another factor to think about is if this family has a counsel to intervene and have say on the verdict. I believe that if an entire administration alleges an infraction such as stealing on a member, he's probably a goner without being included in any decision making. But if there is a member say on the counsel or a member from the administration then it would be possible for them to bring in the member to the sit down with that counsel or admin member representing them. Or it could be more simple where the admin calls in the member for an explanation which I find unlikely, which is why I say the member would probably not be included in that sit down to defend himself. Would love to hear other peoples theories.