Norcross Defense Team Pans Racketeering Case as ‘Crime Thriller With No Crime’

Lawyers for New Jersey insurance executive and political power broker George Norcross III say the state’s 111-page indictment against him and others for alleged racketeering is a “crime thriller with no crime.”

In calling for dismissal of the charges, Norcross ‘ defense team says the indictment is less like a legal document and “more like a screenplay for a putative summer blockbuster” as it seeks to turn routine politics and everyday business negotiations undertaken to revitalize an economically depressed Camden waterfront into crimes of extortion, racketeering, kickbacks and bribery.

“Although the indictment exceeds 100 pages and asserts over a dozen counts, it still fails to properly allege a single crime,” the defense filing asserts.

Furthermore, according to Norcross’ lawyers, the alleged crimes occurred more than a decade ago and are barred by statutes of limitations, which his lawyers suggest might be why federal prosecutors did not pursue them.

In June, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin charged Norcross with leading a criminal enterprise in the state for the past dozen years. Norcross, executive chairman of Camden-based insurance agency Conner Strong & Buckelew (CSB) and chairman of the board of trustees of Cooper Health, was among six people alleged to have acquired property rights and tax credits in Camden and elsewhere through coercion, extortion, and other criminal acts. Norcross and five alleged associates have been all charged with racketeering.

Platkin said the 13-count indictment came after a years-long investigation into the activities of Norcross and his associates in South Jersey and elsewhere. The indictment filed in Superior Court alleged that from about 2012 through the present, the Norcross Enterprise used coercion, extortion, and other criminal acts to tailor legislation to serve its interests, obtain property and property rights on the Camden waterfront, collect as much as $240 million in government-issued tax credits, and control and influence government officials including a former mayor of Camden.

The defendants include Norcross III, who now resides in Florida; his brother Philip A. Norcross, an attorney and CEO of Parker McCay, a New Jersey law firm; William M. Tambussi, a partner at the law firm of Brown and Connery and counsel to the Camden County Democratic Committee; Dana L. Redd, currently CEO of Camden Community Partnership and former mayor of Camden (2010 to 2018); Sidney R. Brown, CEO of NFI, a trucking and logistics company; and John J. O’Donnell, an executive with The Michaels Organization, a residential development company.

Norcross and the co-defendants entered not guilty pleas in July in state Superior Court in Mercer County.

According to the Norcross defense filing on Tuesday, all 13 counts rest on two types of supposed wrongs: criminal threats and official misconduct. “But the only ‘threats’ alleged are everyday economic ones—e.g., to cease doing business, or to breach a contract—that are not prohibited. If it’s a crime to warn of ‘consequences’ if a deal is not reached, or to use expletives in doing so, New Jersey needs to build more prisons,” the filing states.

As for “official misconduct” allegations, the indictment alleges that a former mayor of Camden “solicited stakeholders’ views, supported efforts to revitalize the city, and declined to meet an out-of-town developer who was standing in the way.” The defense argues that this is all normal conduct well within the discretion of an elected official. “The indictment seems offended that some private citizens have close connections with public officials, but that is a feature of democratic self-government—not a bug. And certainly not a crime,” the filing continues.

The defense says that what the indictment calls unlawful threats were just ordinary hard bargaining: “The Indictment tells a story of defendants hustling, cajoling, lobbying, and networking—all in an effort to push Camden’s Waterfront redevelopment past those who would stymie it. But all of that arm-twisting and maneuvering is routine in both business and politics. Much of it is constitutionally protected. None of it is remotely criminal.”

The defendants argue that the state never alleges that any defendant threatened anyone with violence or blackmail; nor does it allege any corruption of public officials; rather, the indictment alleges the defendants exerted “economic pressure and political influence.”

Many of the state’s allegations involve efforts by Norcross using the Camden Redevelopment Agency to obtain easements held by developer Carl Dranoff that limited the height of buildings. Norcross attorneys maintain he and his associates applied normal business leverage and threats that were not of physical harm or in any way criminal in nature.

“As the indictment itself details, all of Norcross’s alleged ‘threats’ were made in response to Dranoff using hardball tactics of his own in a commercial negotiation. In particular, Dranoff was leveraging his view easement to block much of the planned (and highly beneficial) redevelopment until he obtained a payout,” the defense filing maintains.

Mercer County Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw has given prosecutors until November 22 to respond with briefs in advance of a January hearing to consider whether the court should dismiss the charges

In a press statement, Platkin’s office said the motion to dismiss was expected and the state is “confident” in its charges and will respond with briefs to the court.