JAMES ZAGEL, District Judge
The Motion of Defendant Phillip Cozzo for an Order Dismissing Counts III through X, and Count XII is DENIED.
Defendant Phillip Cozzo has moved to dismiss Counts III through X, and Count XII.
Counts III through IX
Counts III through IX are various mail fraud counts. Mail fraud punishes the act of using the mails to further a scheme to defraud. Unlike the offense of conspiracy, agreement is not an element of the offense of mail fraud. Therefore, a party's "withdrawal" from a scheme is no defense because membership in the scheme is not an offense element. A defendant need only associate himself with the criminal venture and participate in it. United States v. Read, 658 F.2d 1225, 1240 (7th Cir. 1981); United States v. Beck, 615 F.2d 441, 448-49 (7th Cir. 1980). In addition, a defendant may be held liable for the mailing even if the mailings were only "caused by" his acts or the actions of one of his co-schemers, so long as the use of the mails was reasonably foreseeable. See United States v. Genova, 333 F.3d 750, 760 (7th Cir. 2003) (bribe payer held responsible for mailings of Economic Interest forms by bribe recipient which briber neither prepared, nor mailed because "the use of the mail was reasonably foreseeable to [the briber] as part of the scheme"). As to these counts, Cozzo argues that he had no role in the mailings because they occurred after he sold his interest in the business in May 1996. However, the Government claims that Cozzo, along with others, devised a scheme to defraud veterans and tax authorities by means of an illegal gambling business. The 1996 and 1997 mailings charged in Counts III through IX were used to further this scheme, which continued after May 1996 and ended in 1998. More specifically, the mailings involved applications for bingo licenses in the name of various Italian-American War Veterans posts. These licenses were necessary to continue the operation of the alleged illegal gambling business and thus were also necessary to implement the scheme to defraud. Accordingly, the mailings were an inevitable consequence of this scheme. Because Cozzo is alleged to have associated himself with the scheme to defraud via an illegal gambling business, he is (if the allegation is proved) criminally responsible for not only the acts of the scheme in which he personally participated but also for all acts of others undertaken in furtherance of the scheme, including fraudulent mailings sent after he sold his interest in the business in May 1996. He can "properly be found to be jointly responsible . . . for setting the scheme in motion . . . and thus causing the mailings." Read, 658 F.2d at 1240 (quoting United States v. Brighton Bldg. Maint. Co., 598 F.2d 1101, 1104 (7th Cir. 1979)). Accordingly, there is no basis for dismissing these counts.
Counts X and XII
Count X alleges a conspiracy where the defendants, among other things, deceptively used what appeared to be legal money transfers and legal bank accounts in order to conceal the true ownership of the proceeds of the games, and Count XII charges the movement of such illegal proceeds to Cozzo. As to these charges, Cozzo argues that any funds he received subsequent to May 1996 were derived from "legal compensation that the new owners were entitled to receive under Illinois law." However, the Government claims that the funds paid to all defendants were derived from the proceeds of the illegal gambling business. These proceeds were illegal because the gambling activity was being managed and operated by defendants rather than by the charities as required by Illinois law, the monies were controlled by defendants rather than by the charities, and defendants paid their employees to operate the games. If proved, all of these violations made the operation of the bingo hall illegal both when Cozzo had a direct role in the management and later when he only received proceeds from the subsequent managers. Accordingly, there is no basis for dismissing these counts.
For the reasons above, the Motion of Defendant Phillip Cozzo for an Order Dismissing Counts III through X, and Count XII is DENIED.
Comments