State Cigarette Tax Evasion RICO Lawsuit Gets Green Light From Manhattan US Judge
In its second amended complaint the city claims the North Carolina wholesale distributor was fully aware cigarettes he was shipping were headed to NYC, making a profit off dodging New York taxes.
May 31, 2019 at 04:02 PM
4 minute read
A Manhattan federal judge on Friday allowed civil racketeering and other charges brought by New York City against a group of transporters and distributors of cigarettes from North Carolina to New York.
The decision was a victory for attorneys from the New York City Law Department who gained success at the third time of asking for their second amended complaint, which accuses the cigarette distributors of evading taxes aimed at lowering tobacco consumption and mitigating the costs of disease caused by smoking.
Civil charges were brought under federal statutes including RICO—or Racketeering-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.
In a statement provided to the New York Law Journal, New York City Law Department Deputy Chief Eric Proshansky, who leads the city's efforts in the suit, hailed the district court's decision.
“This important decision permits the City to seek damages from out of state cigarette suppliers who knowingly partner with New York-based cigarette bootleggers who evade taxes specifically enacted to curb the rate of smoking,” Proshanksy said.
On two other occasions since the suit was first brought in January 2018, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York found that the city's complaints against a North Carolina wholesale cigarette distributor, Amjed Hatu, failed to pass muster with the court.
In May 2018, Engelmayer directed the city to file an amended complaint or opposition order, after Hatu, his company and another defendant filed motions to dismiss the initial complaint. A few weeks later, the city complied, filing an amended complaint.
In June, Hatu filed another motion to dismiss, while the remaining non-movant defenders filed answers to the amended complaint. In September, Engelmayer dismissed the city's claims, finding the pleadings failed to sufficiently establish facts that the participants in the alleged scheme knew that what was being shipped from North Carolina was ending up in New York to be distributed illegally. Similarly, under the RICO claims, New York's long-arm statute was unsupported by the inferences drawn from the allegations.
All this changed Friday, when Engelmayer denied Hatu's motion to dismiss the city's second amended complaint, filed in January 2019.
The critical factor for the district court was the inclusion of affidavits of two other alleged co-conspirators, in which they describe numerous conversations with Hatu that provide the city with evidence to overcome Engelmayer's previous concerns.
These conversations, according to the affidavits, included discussions the parties had about the alleged scheme to transport cigarettes taxed in North Carolina at a fraction of the rate of New York's taxes, to specifically be sold for profit based on the margin of difference between the two states' tax rates. The affidavits also include claims that Hatu altered invoices to conceal the “suspiciously high volume of cigarettes he sold” to the middlemen, the district court said.
“The implication is clear, and the circumstantial inference is strong, that Hatu appreciated that the higher New York taxes would not be paid,” Engelmayer noted in his opinion. “These allegations alone provide a strong basis from which to infer that Hatu was aware of the scheme to sell under-taxed cigarettes in New York, and that he knowingly participated in that scheme anticipating financial gain from the sales there of under-taxed cigarettes.”
These findings supported the district court's conclusion that personal jurisdiction was appropriate in the case, and that the RICO claims, as well as federal claims against the defendants under the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act and Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act, as well as the state claims, to move forward.
Engelmayer set a June 11 deadline for the parties to submit case management proposals for discovery, which he hoped to see end by September.
Bleakley Platt & Schmidt partner William Murphy represents Hatu in the suit. He declined to comment on the district court's decision.
Related:
Queens Judge Green-Lights Claims Over Exploding E-Cig Battery
FedEx Settles for $35.3 Million with State and City Over Cigarette Shipments
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJustice Marguerite Grays Elevated to Co-Chair Panel That Advises on Commercial Division
Distressed M&A: Safe Harbor Protection Extends to Overarching Transfer
Trending Stories
- 1Midsize Firm Bressler Amery Absorbs Austin Boutique, Gaining Four Lawyers
- 2Bill Would Allow Californians to Sue Big Oil for Climate-Linked Wildfires, Floods
- 3LinkedIn Suit Says Millions of Profiles Scraped by Singapore Firm’s Fake Accounts
- 4Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Lawsuit Over FBI Raid at Wrong House
- 5What It Takes to Connect With Millennial Jurors
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250