George Norcross III has never held elected office, but he is widely regarded as a shrewd businessman, philanthropist and political power player. The criminal case against him will establish a precedent that is much bigger than Norcross alone. Specifically, the issue is: do businesspeople and philanthropists put themselves in danger of criminal indictment if they are politically active?
Despite what New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin says, the case against Norcross is not a slam dunk. Corruption cases rarely are. The indictment includes 111 pages of evidence, but there is no smoking gun. Instead, prosecutors will need to show that Norcross and his co-defendants engaged in criminal activity rather than just political strong-arming.
The Criminal Charges against Norcross
The indictment against Norcross covers 13 charges, including first-degree racketeering. According to Platkin, the co-called “Norcross Enterprise” obtained “property and property rights on the Camden Waterfront for itself and others, collected millions of dollars in government-issued tax credits, and controlled and influenced government officials to further the interests of the enterprise.”
The charges revolve around a controversial New Jersey tax credit program launched in 2014 under former Gov. Chris Christie. The gist of the allegations is that Norcross and his co-defendants coerced Camden property owners to disgorge valuable waterfront property and associated tax credits, which were then transferred to Norcross associates. The indictment also contends that Norcross threatened a rival developer who held the rights to the property that would become Triad1828 Centre, which is the current home to Norcross’s insurance firm Conner Strong & Buckelew.
What Is Racketeering?
While racketeering laws were initially enacted to prosecute mafia bosses and organized crime members, they are frequently used to bring criminal charges against regular individuals and business enterprises. Unlike robbery or assault, racketeering isn’t a single crime. As defined under the state’s racketeering law, it involves engaging in a “pattern of criminal activity.”
In order to convict Norcross of racketeering, prosecutors must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
- That there was an enterprise
- That the enterprise was engaged in trade or commerce or that its activities affected trade or commerce
- That the defendant was employed or associated with the enterprise
- That the defendant participated directly or indirectly in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs
- That the defendant did so through a pattern of racketeering.
The first element that prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that there was an enterprise. A criminal enterprise need not have a formal structure, like the hierarchy seen in a traditional mafia crime family, but it does need to have organization. As the New Jersey Supreme Court has explained, the hallmarks of an organization include the “kinds of interactions that become necessary when a group, to accomplish its goal(s), divides among its members tasks that are necessary to achieve a common purpose.”
According to the indictment, the Norcross Enterprise included George Norcross, his brother Philip, former Camden Mayor Dana Redd, and three others. Their alleged goal was to promote the power, reputation, and profits of the Enterprise and its members, as well as to obtain lucrative tax credits that could be used to offset the costs of planning, constructing, and occupying property in Camden.
The indictment further contends that the purpose of the Enterprise was to promote compliance with its demands by retaliating against those in their way and to use the Enterprise’s reputation for controlling governmental entities to intimidate and threaten those who held property interests that the Enterprise wanted to acquire.
In order to convict Norcross of racketeering, prosecutors must also show a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1(d). This is often the most challenging hurdle. It requires the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants engaged in at least two incidents of racketeering conduct within 10 years of each other. It also requires the State to prove that the incidents of racketeering activity embrace criminal conduct that has either the same or similar purposes, results, participants or victims or methods of commission or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents.
According to the indictment, the Norcross Enterprise’s pattern of racketeering included:
- Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951
- Theft by Extortion, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-5
- Financial Facilitation of Criminal Activity, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25
- Misconduct by Corporate Official, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-9
- Conspiracy to commit these crimes, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2
In support of these crimes, prosecutors allege that the defendants obtained property and development rights through extortion and then sold the tax credits derived from criminal activity, among other allegations.
How Strong Is the Case Against Norcross?
Prosecutors have stated they have more than 13,000 pages of evidence and 2.5 million documents and audio files to support their allegations. Prosecutors have a great deal of evidence collected via electronic surveillance. For instance, the indictment states that Norcross was recorded admitting that he threatened a rival developer.
While this may seem damning, federal prosecutors have put wiretaps on Norcross several times and ultimately declined to bring charges. Attorney General Platkin maintains that state prosecutors can make their charges stick. Meanwhile, Norcross and his attorneys contend that there is no evidence of criminal activity.
“The indictment has a lot of words, a lot of pages, a lot of allegations,” Norcross’s attorney Michael Critchley said, “but one thing it does not have, it does not have elements of a crime.”