Note: Although this is a criminal law case, it is included on Law of the Land to remind readers of the egregious behaviors still occurring in the land development arena.
The defendant, Dumitru Curescu, was found guilty of conspiracy to bribe and bribery of a Chicago zoning inspector, both of which being federal offenses. After his conviction, the defendant made post-trial motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied these motions.
The defendant, one with experience in residential remodeling, but limited experience in real estate development, sought out Ms. Romasanta, a “professional expediter at City Hall,” to assist him in getting the expedited approval of the addition of two residential basement units to an existing residential building. The defendant had used Ms. Romasanta for such a service before; however, the defendant was not aware that his expediter was cooperating with federal law enforcement in their investigation of bribery within the Chicago government. In fact, Ms. Romasanta had informed the federal government that over the course of the previous four years, she had passed funds between property owners and city employees in the amount of about $187,000 for faster approvals or the overlooking of code violations.
Over the course of four months, the defendant and Ms. Romasanta worked out the details of their plan, concerning the money the defendant would need to pay and the various stages of the approval process. In the end, the defendant paid $2,500 to Ms. Romansanta so that she could obtain a false computer read out from the City’s computer system stating that the additional residential units the defendant sought already existed. The defendant then agreed to pay an additional $5,000 per unit to obtain the zoning inspector’s approval of the additional two residential units.
After hearing the case, the jury convicted the defendant of conspiracy to bribe and bribery of zoning employees and officials. The defendant then made post trial motions for acquittal and a new trial. The District Court found acquittal was not warranted as when the evidence is viewed most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict. Addressing the motion for a new trial, the defendant stated such a ruling could be based upon three different reasons: that the court erred in its exclusion of “good acts” and its inclusion of Ms. Ramasanta’s testimony concerning the defendant’s knowledge of the bribery, as well as two acts of potential prosecutorial misconduct. The court explained that these assertions must amount to an error that was harmful to the defendant’s defense. In the end, the court found if any errors existed, they did not rise to the level of bring harmful, thus no new trial was warranted.
United States v. Curescu, 2011 WL 2600572 (N.D. Ill. June 29, 2011)
The opinion can be accessed here
