Judges may face forfeiture

By Terrie Morgan-Besecker tmorgan@timesleader.comLaw & Order Reporter

The businesses and properties that judges and Michael Conahan allegedly utilized to conceal the source of illegally obtained money could potentially be subject to forfeiture under the plea agreements they signed.

This condominium in a Jupiter, Fla., complex figured into the elaborate scheme uncovered by federal prosecutors into the investigation of the two judges.

Chris Matula/For The Times Leader

Related headlines

Pa. court relieves judges of duties

Powell’s yacht tied to condo linked to judges

More and more parents considering civil rights suits

The businesses, Beverage Marketing Inc., of Hazleton, and the Pinnacle Group LLC, of Jupiter, Fla., figured prominently in what prosecutors say was an elaborate scheme to conceal the source of $2.6 million in kickbacks the judges received in exchange for judicial rulings.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office alleges part of the money was falsely characterized as rental and boat slip payments for a Florida condominium that was owned by Pinnacle Group. The business is owned by Conahan’s wife, but prosecutors allege it was under the control of Conahan and Ciavarella.

Other payments were funneled through Beverage Marketing, which mischaracterized the nature of funds that were wired to bank accounts controlled by Ciavarella, prosecutors say.

Ciavarella and Conahan are scheduled to appear before Senior U.S. District Judge Edwin M. Kosik on Feb. 12 to enter pleas to charges of tax evasion and devising a scheme to defraud the public of their honest services.

Federal law allows the government to seize any property that was utilized in the commission of a crime. It can also seek to seize assets and/or property purchased with ill-gotten funds.

The Florida condominium, located at the Jupiter Yacht Club in Jupiter, was purchased by the Pinnacle Group in 2004 for $785,000.

Whether the government could seek to seize that property or Beverage Marketing would be dependent upon a number of issues, said William Costopoulos, a Harrisburg criminal defense attorney who has extensive knowledge of federal forfeiture law.

Under the plea deals signed last week, Ciavarella and Conahan agreed the U.S. Attorney’s Office could, at its discretion, file forfeiture actions, but only to help aid in the recovery of restitution the judges have agreed to pay.

That’s a key distinction because it limits the government in that it can file a forfeiture action only to recover restitution, Costopoulos said. That differs from a typical forfeiture action, which allows the government to seize property and use the assets for whatever purpose it chooses, most typically fighting crime, he said.

There’s also the issue of the amount of restitution that will be ordered. That figure has not yet been determined.

The government would not need to file a forfeiture action, if, for instance, the judges had cash or other assets available to pay the restitution, he said.

“We don’t get to that issue if restitution can be made by judges in full,” Costopoulos said.

Terrie Morgan-Besecker, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 570-829-7179