Bonanno Long Island gambling bust

[Wiseguy]

While a usurious loan can be independent of gambling, I would imagine they also can come in the form of, for the sake of reference, what we saw with David Scatino and JT Dolan in The Sopranos. Both had a gambling debt they couldn't pay. The debt was turned into a loan, of sorts, where instead of being required to pay the whole thing immediately, Tony/Chris were content to charge them a weekly vig they would conceivably have to pay indefinitely (never coming of the principal) until they were able to pay the full debt, which may be never.

But that then brings up another point that I think Cheech or someone brought up before (and gohn too in a way above) where, if the bookie is using money from the losing players to pay off the winners, while keeping the vig, that doesn't serve the bookie well to have to go into his own pocket to pay his winners while playing loan collector with his losers.

I remember Roemer in his books would frame where, if a bettor couldn't pay, the bookie would send him over to the loanshark, the bettor would borrow from the shark to pay the bookie, and the loanshark would deal with the weekly payment collections.

[gohnjotti]

But that then brings up another point that I think Cheech or someone brought up before (and gohn too in a way above) where, if the bookie is using money from the losing players to pay off the winners, while keeping the vig, that doesn't serve the bookie well to have to go into his own pocket to pay his winners while playing loan collector with his losers.

Exactly, it seems like a few deadbeat customers could really throw off the profit margins of a smaller book. And in cases like these, where the defendants simultaneously run an illegal loansharking business that ostensibly utilizes extortion, why wouldn't that apply to their bookmaking enterprise too?

I don't know... This is maybe a bad example but it's like if a violent drug dealer gets ripped off by a customer, i.e. he gives the person drugs on consignment to sell & never receives the money, is he going to say "That's okay, only pay me half the debt, I value your business." No, he's going to use extortionate measures to collect his money and the guy will probably remain a customer afterwards anyways. I understand the majority of bookmakers aren't also extortionate, but when the Mafia is so heavily involved, such as this indictment, in seems like it goes without saying. I mean, we've seen plenty of instances where deadbeat gamblers are roughed up, etc., and have to appeal to a Mafia figure from a rival family to represent them in the sitdown. Then, you get the knockdown payments that Cheech mentions, but it seems there's a few extra steps before you can simply tell your bookie "Sorry bud, I'm only paying half of that $3,000 bet I placed with you."

[CabriniGreen]

I love the strict guidelines for “legal books”. These guys take bets collect half the money, and if you can’t pay tell you give a few dollars a week till your caught up. Fan duel and then let you swipe your account till it’s empty and offer you a 5$ no sweat bet when you lose your house. Offshore books don’t sound to bad

Thats exactly what happens. @ghon

Like I said in the other thread that caused you to go nuts, I believe you. It does seem like a slightly problematic business model, but as you made clear in the other thread, I'm incapable of ever truly understanding.

I'll try and tread lightly here, but for the sake of argument @Cheech, do you think loansharking book referenced in the indictment operated in a vacuum completely independent of the gambling operation? With zero overlap? Yes, I know this case only references "at least one individual", but I guess the question goes for all the joint gambling/loansharking indictments where the defendants maintain both.

In addition to operating the illegal sports book, Pellegrino and Frascone also allegedly engaged in illegal loansharking activities, issuing a usurious loan to at least one individual for thousands of dollars and penalizing him three points, or three percent interest, each week over the life of the loan. The interest rate equates to an annual interest percentage rate of approximately 156%.

And if it's indeed operated separately, with zero overlap, it begs the question; why would they give usurious loans, under a presumed threat of violence, at interest rates of 3% a week, while simultaneously being unable or unwilling to enforce on unpaid gambling debts?

These are all simply questions, not accusations or assertions of fact. I know the bookie wants customers to keep coming back and playing, so it makes more sense to negotiate a knockdown payment rather than charging interest, but if the gambler is already welching on debts, why keep him on as a customer anyways if he's only going to affect the profit margins of the business when he fails to pay his debts but is happy to collect money he wins?

Which thread by chance? Cheech gets into the nuts n bolts of gambling and sportsbooks? Sounds like a fun read.....

Gambling, I expect a Cheech post. Philly/Jersey, a Dante post. Sicily, a Felice post is always welcomed. Genovese, Wiseguy. Bonnano, B. Strax and Scaguinni keep up with Italy.

God forbid you talk about something you know a LITTLE about and someone gets offended....

[Cheech]

Thanks Cabrini. Any time international drug dealing comes up I always read your stuff.
The Scatino bust out in the Sopranos is a bad example. He took a loan at a card game and didnt have it the next day. Hence you owe plus points. He didnt call up and bet fairfield vs manhattan.

Often, gohn, bookmakers who have work in a cash business will also loan money out. The majority of the time these customers are different types of people. Due to the nature of your occupation you have cash on hand so you lend it out at a high interest rate since you have little or no collateral. To a few trustworthy people. Why would you not lend to a gambler? Because hes a gambler. He gonna play somewhere else. Believe me. Its like drugs. You give money out to regular people who need it. When I was in the mix I gave loans to all sorts of regular people and folks who owned businesses.
If you have a 100 players and 50 lose and 50 win you aint gonna want all 50 on a some juice loans. It doesnt make sense to do that.
I have lived it. Are there exceptions to the rule, sure? But i knew 20 bookies throughout my life i didnt know a lot that was really big into loansharking. You need cash on hand to be able to pay players. Despite what ppl may read or think, players do win at times.
Im italian from the northeast. Thats my experience growing up here. Maybe someone elses was different.
How was that ? Was I polite?

[gohnjotti]

Thanks Cabrini. Any time international drug dealing comes up I always read your stuff.
The Scatino bust out in the Sopranos is a bad example. He took a loan at a card game and didnt have it the next day. Hence you owe plus points. He didnt call up and bet fairfield vs manhattan.

Often, gohn, bookmakers who have work in a cash business will also loan money out. The majority of the time these customers are different types of people. Due to the nature of your occupation you have cash on hand so you lend it out at a high interest rate since you have little or no collateral. To a few trustworthy people. Why would you not lend to a gambler? Because hes a gambler. He gonna play somewhere else. Believe me. Its like drugs. You give money out to regular people who need it. When I was in the mix I gave loans to all sorts of regular people and folks who owned businesses.
If you have a 100 players and 50 lose and 50 win you aint gonna want all 50 on a some juice loans. It doesnt make sense to do that.
I have lived it. Are there exceptions to the rule, sure? But i knew 20 bookies throughout my life i didnt know a lot that was really big into loansharking. You need cash on hand to be able to pay players. Despite what ppl may read or think, players do win at times.
Im italian from the northeast. Thats my experience growing up here. Maybe someone elses was different.
How was that ? Was I polite?

That was perfect Cheech, thank you, and answers a lot of the unanswered questions left from the previous thread.

[gohnjotti]

I love the strict guidelines for “legal books”. These guys take bets collect half the money, and if you can’t pay tell you give a few dollars a week till your caught up. Fan duel and then let you swipe your account till it’s empty and offer you a 5$ no sweat bet when you lose your house. Offshore books don’t sound to bad

Thats exactly what happens. @ghon

Like I said in the other thread that caused you to go nuts, I believe you. It does seem like a slightly problematic business model, but as you made clear in the other thread, I'm incapable of ever truly understanding.

I'll try and tread lightly here, but for the sake of argument @Cheech, do you think loansharking book referenced in the indictment operated in a vacuum completely independent of the gambling operation? With zero overlap? Yes, I know this case only references "at least one individual", but I guess the question goes for all the joint gambling/loansharking indictments where the defendants maintain both.

In addition to operating the illegal sports book, Pellegrino and Frascone also allegedly engaged in illegal loansharking activities, issuing a usurious loan to at least one individual for thousands of dollars and penalizing him three points, or three percent interest, each week over the life of the loan. The interest rate equates to an annual interest percentage rate of approximately 156%.

And if it's indeed operated separately, with zero overlap, it begs the question; why would they give usurious loans, under a presumed threat of violence, at interest rates of 3% a week, while simultaneously being unable or unwilling to enforce on unpaid gambling debts?

These are all simply questions, not accusations or assertions of fact. I know the bookie wants customers to keep coming back and playing, so it makes more sense to negotiate a knockdown payment rather than charging interest, but if the gambler is already welching on debts, why keep him on as a customer anyways if he's only going to affect the profit margins of the business when he fails to pay his debts but is happy to collect money he wins?

Which thread by chance? Cheech gets into the nuts n bolts of gambling and sportsbooks? Sounds like a fun read.....

Gambling, I expect a Cheech post. Philly/Jersey, a Dante post. Sicily, a Felice post is always welcomed. Genovese, Wiseguy. Bonnano, B. Strax and Scaguinni keep up with Italy.

God forbid you talk about something you know a LITTLE about and someone gets offended....

It's not me who got offended, Cabrini. Maybe a little once Cheech started making weird homo-erotic Graveyard threads about me.

[Cheech]

Thanks Cabrini. Any time international drug dealing comes up I always read your stuff.
The Scatino bust out in the Sopranos is a bad example. He took a loan at a card game and didnt have it the next day. Hence you owe plus points. He didnt call up and bet fairfield vs manhattan.

Often, gohn, bookmakers who have work in a cash business will also loan money out. The majority of the time these customers are different types of people. Due to the nature of your occupation you have cash on hand so you lend it out at a high interest rate since you have little or no collateral. To a few trustworthy people. Why would you not lend to a gambler? Because hes a gambler. He gonna play somewhere else. Believe me. Its like drugs. You give money out to regular people who need it. When I was in the mix I gave loans to all sorts of regular people and folks who owned businesses.
If you have a 100 players and 50 lose and 50 win you aint gonna want all 50 on a some juice loans. It doesnt make sense to do that.
I have lived it. Are there exceptions to the rule, sure? But i knew 20 bookies throughout my life i didnt know a lot that was really big into loansharking. You need cash on hand to be able to pay players. Despite what ppl may read or think, players do win at times.
Im italian from the northeast. Thats my experience growing up here. Maybe someone elses was different.
How was that ? Was I polite?

That was perfect Cheech, thank you, and answers a lot of the unanswered questions left from the previous thread.

Salude!
And yes it was me who got my panties in a bunch. Enjoy your sunday. Lets go giants!

[gohnjotti]

Thanks Cabrini. Any time international drug dealing comes up I always read your stuff.
The Scatino bust out in the Sopranos is a bad example. He took a loan at a card game and didnt have it the next day. Hence you owe plus points. He didnt call up and bet fairfield vs manhattan.

Often, gohn, bookmakers who have work in a cash business will also loan money out. The majority of the time these customers are different types of people. Due to the nature of your occupation you have cash on hand so you lend it out at a high interest rate since you have little or no collateral. To a few trustworthy people. Why would you not lend to a gambler? Because hes a gambler. He gonna play somewhere else. Believe me. Its like drugs. You give money out to regular people who need it. When I was in the mix I gave loans to all sorts of regular people and folks who owned businesses.
If you have a 100 players and 50 lose and 50 win you aint gonna want all 50 on a some juice loans. It doesnt make sense to do that.
I have lived it. Are there exceptions to the rule, sure? But i knew 20 bookies throughout my life i didnt know a lot that was really big into loansharking. You need cash on hand to be able to pay players. Despite what ppl may read or think, players do win at times.
Im italian from the northeast. Thats my experience growing up here. Maybe someone elses was different.
How was that ? Was I polite?

That was perfect Cheech, thank you, and answers a lot of the unanswered questions left from the previous thread.

Salude!
And yes it was me who got my panties in a bunch. Enjoy your sunday. Lets go giants!

You too Cheech, hope the Giants come back.

[Tonyd621]

Promoting gambling is a charge? As opposed to fanduel, draftkings and all the other sites that are promoting it on every medium you use to watch and or listen to something.

[Tonyd621]

Here we go...here. we. go.

[PolackTony]

I remember Roemer in his books would frame where, if a bettor couldn't pay, the bookie would send him over to the loanshark, the bettor would borrow from the shark to pay the bookie, and the loanshark would deal with the weekly payment collections.

Right, this set up was typical in Chicago back in the day, as Roemer was writing about the ~1960s. Often, it was different guys that handled juice vs gambling. In many cases, distinct operations. They weren’t even always with the same crew necessarily, either, as the gambling and juice territories weren’t always the same and of course guys with different crews might partner together or let a guy with a different crew give out loans to their gambling clients. And then, as you note, the debtor would be responsible to the juice collector for the loan, not to the bookie or gambling operator. At regular events like card and dice games also, there could be a juice agent around to give out loans, and again the juice guy wasn’t necessarily operationally part of the “casino” or even with the same crew in every case. Separate operations, even answering to different made guys, but partnered to work the same set of clientele. There may have been cases of bookies juicing clients, but they don’t seem to have been typical, at least with direct LCN-run operations (as opposed to independent operations just paying tax to the outfit).

[Cheech]

Promoting gambling is a charge? As opposed to fanduel, draftkings and all the other sites that are promoting it on every medium you use to watch and or listen to something.

Fanduel and dk have commercials going 24/7 on the radio stations like wfan here in tristate area. Its terrible. I agree. Not right.

[PolackTony]

Promoting gambling is a charge? As opposed to fanduel, draftkings and all the other sites that are promoting it on every medium you use to watch and or listen to something.

Fanduel and dk have commercials going 24/7 on the radio stations like wfan here in tristate area. Its terrible. I agree. Not right.

No no no, it’s ok, you see, because they also give you a hotline to call if you have a gambling problem.

[Stroccos]

Promoting gambling is a charge? As opposed to fanduel, draftkings and all the other sites that are promoting it on every medium you use to watch and or listen to something.

Fanduel and dk have commercials going 24/7 on the radio stations like wfan here in tristate area. Its terrible. I agree. Not right.

do you still bet with a local ? , I do but it only makes sense for straight bets , the payouts and options on paralays etc way better with the fanduels etc.

[Stroccos]

But that then brings up another point that I think Cheech or someone brought up before (and gohn too in a way above) where, if the bookie is using money from the losing players to pay off the winners, while keeping the vig, that doesn't serve the bookie well to have to go into his own pocket to pay his winners while playing loan collector with his losers.

Exactly, it seems like a few deadbeat customers could really throw off the profit margins of a smaller book. And in cases like these, where the defendants simultaneously run an illegal loansharking business that ostensibly utilizes extortion, why wouldn't that apply to their bookmaking enterprise too?

I don't know... This is maybe a bad example but it's like if a violent drug dealer gets ripped off by a customer, i.e. he gives the person drugs on consignment to sell & never receives the money, is he going to say "That's okay, only pay me half the debt, I value your business." No, he's going to use extortionate measures to collect his money and the guy will probably remain a customer afterwards anyways. I understand the majority of bookmakers aren't also extortionate, but when the Mafia is so heavily involved, such as this indictment, in seems like it goes without saying. I mean, we've seen plenty of instances where deadbeat gamblers are roughed up, etc., and have to appeal to a Mafia figure from a rival family to represent them in the sitdown. Then, you get the knockdown payments that Cheech mentions, but it seems there's a few extra steps before you can simply tell your bookie "Sorry bud, I'm only paying half of that $3,000 bet I placed with you."

once it becomes obv the guy cant or wont pay maybe you propose a settlement , willing to be pay but cant is allot different then outright refusing to pay ,
its not like you just offering settlements to every guy who loses that week