New Jersey AG is fighting efforts to dismiss charges against NFI CEO Brown

Norcross has never held or run for office. But his influence on Democratic politics in South Jersey is legendary, and it was his indictment — not Brown’s — that made headlines when it was released in June.

The 133-page response, filed Nov. 22 in Superior Court for Mercer County, home of the state capital Trenton, is actually longer than the original 111-page indictment. The indictment includes 13 counts, only eight of which are against Brown, and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act is the basis for several of the counts.

NFI is not a defendant in the indictment. A request for comment from Brown’s legal team had not been responded to at the time of publication.

“The defendants now argue that, even if one accepts all of the prosecution’s allegations as true, this was all legal – so patently legal that it does not require a grand jury trial or even a review of the evidence by this court. ” the state said in its filing.

But the indictment isn’t everything, Attorney General Matthew Platkin says in the filing. Many of the allegations in the various motions to dismiss the case were not substantiated enough to end the prosecution against Norcross and the company before any testimony was heard, Platkin’s brief said. “Rather than actually accepting every grand jury statement as true, (the defendants) overlook inconvenient allegations, push for fact-specific conclusions, and sometimes add new facts – all of which may be capable of persuading a trial jury, but certainly are.” It is misplaced to ask this court to quash a grand jury,” the brief states.

Rejecting Brown’s specific arguments for the CFI boss

Brown’s arguments are met with mild resistance from the AG’s office. (Platkin is a Democrat, like Norcross, but some data on evidence collected through wiretaps suggests that the investigation into Norcross and his allies dates back to the administration of Republican Gov. Chris Christie, whose term ended in early 2017.)

At the heart of the indictment are actions in what prosecutors called the “Norcross Enterprise,” which attempted to defraud Camden developer Carl Dranoff – named only as Developer 1 in the indictment, but a separate civil lawsuit against the Norcross defendants – to push for certain development rights to be given up to allow new construction on the Camden waterfront that would benefit from newly approved tax credits. Dranoff eventually caved to the pressure, and one of the buildings that benefited from the tax credits – the Triad1828 Center – is now NFI’s headquarters.

Former Camden Mayor Dana Redd was also charged. The attorney general’s summary of the case gives him an opportunity to reiterate some of the heated statements that emerged from the wiretaps, including Norcross calling Dranoff a “puss” and his statement that “you can never trust (Dranoff). , until a baton was put over his head.”

As outlined in the indictment and reiterated in the most recent AG report, NFI received $7.8 million in tax credits by moving its headquarters to Triad, where Brown is also a co-owner. NFI sold these loans for $7.1 million. The tax advantages remain.

The AG’s filing also took the opportunity to reiterate that Brown made $60 million from NFI between 2012 and 2023, although this is not relevant to the prosecution and reads more like an attempt to garner any sympathy, that Brown could have coming his way. Brown is also a member of NFI’s founding family, which still owns the airline.

No supporting role, says AG

Brown’s argument is also that he played a minor role in the standoff between Norcross and Norcross’s also-indicted brother Philip, on the one hand, and Dranoff, on the other.

The AG disagrees. “To the extent that Brown argues that the indictment improperly alleges that he agreed to participate in a business that would engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, his argument improperly attempts to cast the evidentiary argument in a facial expression to be presented sufficiently,” the AG writes. “The indictment clearly alleges a pattern match. “Brown ignores the prosecution’s allegations that, among other things, he agreed, not to a single phone call, but to a plan to take away Dranoff’s rights through extortion and coercion, and then to cash out the plan using Brown’s own capital and business to obtain tax credits and sell them.”

Another part of the AG’s response takes issue with arguments that not only Brown but also John O’Donnell, a real estate developer who, like Brown, is a partner in Triad1828 and other Camden waterfront buildings, played only a minor role he has his company headquarters in the office tower.

“O’Donnell and Brown were businessmen who, among other things, directly participated in the conspiracy to use a municipal corporation to file a condemnation lawsuit to obtain pressure against or punish Dranoff, provided financial capital and in return used their “Various entities do this by collecting the tax credits that are at the heart of their conspiracy,” the AG writes.

Regardless, the AG’s office says: “O’Donnell suggests, without supporting authority or developed argument, that this court should not consider the receipt and sale of tax credits as part of the charged conspiracy because the credits are received and sold directly by uncharged entities.” were.” Companies controlled by (the Norcross defendants) and not directly by them…. However, the indictment alleges that the defendants controlled these companies for criminal purposes and details how their control of these companies to commit the alleged crimes resulted in millions of dollars in profits for the defendants personally.”

Ultimately, however, the AG’s order boils down to one overriding argument: It is too early to dismiss the case and the charges should be tried in court.

“The defendants refuse to examine their actions further, claiming that these are all just ‘everyday politics,’ ‘how business is done,’ and even ‘a feature of democratic self-government,'” the attorney general’s office wrote. “But the grand jury did not think so, and there is nothing obviously or palpably wrong with their view. This court should deny defendants’ face dismissal motions.”

More articles by John Kingston

The Werner Atom verdict case in Texas is hugely important, says F3’s lawyer

UPS faces SEC fine over UPS Freight’s internal valuation prior to TFI sale

Another win for brokers: No liability for Echo Global in fatal crash in South Carolina