GangsterBB.NET


Funko Pop! Movies:
The Godfather 50th Anniversary Collectors Set -
3 Figure Set: Michael, Vito, Sonny

Who's Online Now
1 registered members (British), 111 guests, and 3 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Shout Box
Site Links
>Help Page
>More Smilies
>GBB on Facebook
>Job Saver

>Godfather Website
>Scarface Website
>Mario Puzo Website
NEW!
Active Member Birthdays
No birthdays today
Newest Members
TheGhost, Pumpkin, RussianCriminalWorld, JohnnyTheBat, Havana
10349 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
Irishman12 67,094
DE NIRO 44,945
J Geoff 31,284
Hollander 23,352
pizzaboy 23,296
SC 22,902
Turnbull 19,485
Mignon 19,066
Don Cardi 18,238
Sicilian Babe 17,300
plawrence 15,058
Forum Statistics
Forums21
Topics42,213
Posts1,056,153
Members10,349
Most Online796
Jan 21st, 2020
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Michael's wealth #973109
06/14/19 01:27 PM
06/14/19 01:27 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,485
AZ
Turnbull Offline OP
Turnbull  Offline OP

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,485
AZ
Michael was immensely wealthy in Nevada, and he flaunted his wealth via his huge estate, his big contribution to the state university, and the lavish party he made for Anthony with its thousands of invited guests. But, when asked at the Senate hearing if he had a controlling interest in three of the major hotels in Las Vegas, he replied, “No, it is not true. I own some stock in the hotels there, but very little.”

Why would he hide his ownership of the hotels? Gambling was legal in Nevada (so was the brothel), the licenses were “grandfathered in” as Geary reminded him earlier, and the hotels would provide perfect financial cover for his ill-gotten gains (like the tribute he was undoubtedly getting from the NY “olive oil business” and, I’m guessing, from loan-sharking the degenerate gamblers at his hotels). Living as high on the hog as he did would have invited IRS scrutiny, and the Gaming Commission could easily have uncovered his ownership interests—and yanked his licenses for failing to disclose them.

Your thoughts?


Ntra la porta tua lu sangu � sparsu,
E nun me mporta si ce muoru accisu...
E s'iddu muoru e vaju mparadisu
Si nun ce truovo a ttia, mancu ce trasu.
Re: Michael's wealth [Re: Turnbull] #973126
06/14/19 07:46 PM
06/14/19 07:46 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,325
MI
Lilo Offline
Lilo  Offline

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,325
MI
I think that the viewer's takeaway is supposed to be that Michael was trying and in this case failing to be like his Dad. Vito's "I'm just a minor league olive oil importer" has become Michael's "I'm just an investor in a few hotels."

Also like Vito, Michael is allergic to letting anyone know his full business. So he uses a lot of fronts (Johnny Fontane and others) to avoid disclosure and most likely avoid taxes. This is true even when in this case, the business was entirely legal. Privacy, even when nothing would be lost by disclosure was Michael's personal and business style.


"When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives."
Winter is Coming

Now this is the Law of the Jungle—as old and as true as the sky; And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk, the Law runneth forward and back; For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.
Re: Michael's wealth [Re: Turnbull] #973140
06/14/19 10:57 PM
06/14/19 10:57 PM
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,822
Where ever needed.
DuesPaid Offline
Banned
DuesPaid  Offline
Banned

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,822
Where ever needed.
Wealth to Michael was not relative to possessing anything he knew others had as far as their net worth. Wealth to Micheal was Power , he already had the money.

Power was his Treasure.



Last edited by DuesPaid; 06/14/19 11:01 PM.

Be Loyal, Be Loving, Be Quiet.
Re: Michael's wealth [Re: Turnbull] #973147
06/15/19 08:43 AM
06/15/19 08:43 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,463
No. Virginia
mustachepete Offline
Special
mustachepete  Offline
Special
Underboss
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,463
No. Virginia
There might be a long-standing cooperation with the state: bring construction money in, hold ultimate control, but do it all through respectable third parties so that regulators aren't constantly nagged about connections between the casinos and underworld figures.


"All of these men were good listeners; patient men."
Re: Michael's wealth [Re: mustachepete] #973170
06/15/19 03:26 PM
06/15/19 03:26 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,485
AZ
Turnbull Offline OP
Turnbull  Offline OP

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,485
AZ
Originally Posted by mustachepete
There might be a long-standing cooperation with the state: bring construction money in, hold ultimate control, but do it all through respectable third parties so that regulators aren't constantly nagged about connections between the casinos and underworld figures.

Interesting point, Pete. After gambling was legalized in 1931, the Nevada Legislature put oversight into the Tax Commission. Oversight was lax--they didn't look too closely at gaming license applicants as long as they were going to bring taxable income into the state. But, as you imply, the gangsters may have had a quid pro quo with the state to use front men for licensing purposes in order not to call attention to the cozy relationship. That changed in '58, when, after embarrassing revelations about OC involvement in Nevada gambling, the Legislature took control out of the Tax Commission and put it into a new Gaming Commission, which had real regulatory teeth. Harry Reid, former US Senate Majority Leader, was an early chief of the Gaming Commission.


Ntra la porta tua lu sangu � sparsu,
E nun me mporta si ce muoru accisu...
E s'iddu muoru e vaju mparadisu
Si nun ce truovo a ttia, mancu ce trasu.
Re: Michael's wealth [Re: Turnbull] #974105
06/29/19 02:58 PM
06/29/19 02:58 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 15,018
Texas
O
olivant Offline
olivant  Offline
O

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 15,018
Texas
Michael's appearance before the Senate committee was his first, it was documented, and it was public. He was inexperienced in such proceedings. In a criminal proceeding, even an honest mistake one makes when testifying can subject one to a perjury charge.

Why he testified at all or didn't invoke the 5th amendment is beyond me. Whatever information he provided to the committee would either be true or a lie, or would either be new information or would confirm what the Committee already knew or suspected. As is true of Mafiosi generally, government cannot confirm their ownership of anything since Mafiosi are not inclined to document such ownership unless it is legal ownership. There was nothing for Michael to gain by admitting his controlling interest in the hotels (Of course, he could have avoided answering any questions by invoking the 5th Amendment).

One thing I teach my classes is that whether you are simply a witness or a person of interest in a legal proceeding, you cannot be sure of law enforcement's strategy or your potential culpability.

Although he was living high on the hog, I give Michael credit for having the necessary and legal financial resources to sustain such a lifestyle just as Vito must have done.


"Generosity. That was my first mistake."
"Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us."
"Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."
Re: Michael's wealth [Re: Turnbull] #974109
06/29/19 04:15 PM
06/29/19 04:15 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,485
AZ
Turnbull Offline OP
Turnbull  Offline OP

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,485
AZ
Originally Posted by olivant


Why he testified at all or didn't invoke the 5th amendment is beyond me.

No doubt he was subpoenaed to appear and couldn't risk ducking the subpoena.

As for invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege: Suppose, after being asked if he planned the murders of the heads of the Five Families, he replied, "I decline to answer that question on the grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me." Sure, he'd avoid perjuring himself. But, everyone would know that the reason his answer "might tend to incriminate me" was that he did plan the murders.


Ntra la porta tua lu sangu � sparsu,
E nun me mporta si ce muoru accisu...
E s'iddu muoru e vaju mparadisu
Si nun ce truovo a ttia, mancu ce trasu.
Re: Michael's wealth [Re: Turnbull] #974110
06/29/19 05:04 PM
06/29/19 05:04 PM
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 246
G
Goldy Offline
Made Member
Goldy  Offline
G
Made Member
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 246
So how wealthy was he supposed to be?

Re: Michael's wealth [Re: Turnbull] #974123
06/30/19 12:14 AM
06/30/19 12:14 AM
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 750
Australia
L
Lana Offline
The Hunted One
Lana  Offline
The Hunted One
L
Underboss
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 750
Australia
My take, for what it is worth!

Extracts::
Originally Posted by olivant
Why he testified at all or didn't invoke the 5th amendment is beyond me

Originally Posted by Turnbull
As for invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege: Suppose, after being asked if he planned the murders of the heads of the Five Families, he replied, "I decline to answer that question on the grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me." Sure, he'd avoid perjuring himself. But, everyone would know that the reason his answer "might tend to incriminate me" was that he did plan the murders
Sure thing Turnbull It also gave Tom the ammunition to gloat, relish and even demand an apology from the senate committee!
“Sir, my client has answered every question asked by this committee with utmost sincerity [!] He has not taken the 5th amendment as it was his right to do. So in all fairness I think the statement should be heard”

The chairman was perhaps goaded and pressured into
“No, no I am going to allow Mr. Corleone to read his statement I'll put it in the record” against the advice of the senator and Questadt

Originally Posted by olivant
There was nothing for Michael to gain by admitting his controlling interest in the hotels
The committee was not able to pin anything nefarious on Michael and perhaps Michael gained that he was a legitimate business man! by admitting “Just own stock in some of the hotels there but very little Also in IBM and IT&T”

How Michael was able to “live high on the hog” on very little is for another senate hearing!

Re: Michael's wealth [Re: Lana] #974343
07/04/19 08:34 PM
07/04/19 08:34 PM
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 553
E
Evita Offline
Underboss
Evita  Offline
E
Underboss
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 553
Michael and Tom were supremely confident

He challenged the committee to produce any witness or evidence against him, believing Pentangeli was dead

Re: Michael's wealth [Re: Turnbull] #974366
07/05/19 08:34 AM
07/05/19 08:34 AM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,568
Sonny_Black Offline
Underboss
Sonny_Black  Offline
Underboss
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,568
TB keeps suprising me that after all these years, threads, questions and endless discussion, he is able to come up with yet another legitimate question even though the content is quite limited. It's too bad that there are just three movies and not an entire franchise with spin-offs and tv shows. Netflix should do something with this.


"It was between the brothers Kay -- I had nothing to do with it."
Re: Michael's wealth [Re: Turnbull] #975150
07/17/19 06:04 AM
07/17/19 06:04 AM
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 320
C
Capri Offline
Capo
Capri  Offline
C
Capo
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Turnbull
Originally Posted by olivant


Why he testified at all or didn't invoke the 5th amendment is beyond me.

No doubt he was subpoenaed to appear and couldn't risk ducking the subpoena.

As for invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege: Suppose, after being asked if he planned the murders of the heads of the Five Families, he replied, "I decline to answer that question on the grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me." Sure, he'd avoid perjuring himself. But, everyone would know that the reason his answer "might tend to incriminate me" was that he did plan the murders.


Exactly Turnbull

and how dare they besmirched his name


Moderated by  Don Cardi, J Geoff, SC, Turnbull 

Powered by UBB.threads™