There's really no way the Feds can get a good count on associates. An associate is a guy on the record with a family. But a family can claim any guy that does business with them. Picture Elvis Dalessio and his 50 odd agents, Elvis was claimed by prisco, so Elvis is a west side associate. Now his agents may not even know who they report to, they are doing biz under a genovese associate. Which means by extension they're associating and working for a family. Associates aren't all the same, a guy who lost a lot in sports runs to a guy to protect him while he pays the debts back, TECHNICALLY he's an associate. But he's on the same level as a associate who has his own crew and has a million in loans on the street
Always felt a little sketchy on the law's definition of 'associate' and this is the perfect example of why. You nailed it.
There was another thread about the younger crews in the 90s (bath ave, tanglewood boys, etc..) earlier and you can use that as another example. Mike DeRosa was an associate, on the record of Jimmy Galione and helped manage the drug ring they had going. But were DeRosa's street level dealers who probably never even spoke with Galione associates? What about the dealers who dealt in even smaller quantities, who bought their weight from DeRosa's underlings... could they be associates? You get into that type of branching off and you'll come up with estimates of thousands of associates, which is ridiculous. Same guys with stuff like "x amount of associates per made guy." there could be a made guy with zero. it's impossible to pin down
I'd say a good definition of associate is an active, un-made member on the record with a made guy who is integral in that made guy's operations and has direct dealings
