Judge to rule on Botti trial evidence, witnesses

Written by Tom Giordano
Thursday, 29 October 2009 09:23

U.S. District Court judge Charles S. Haight Jr. said that Shelton developer James Botti was “always welcome in my courtroom,” although he’d probably prefer not having to go there at all.

Botti was not in the courtroom in New Haven federal court Oct. 27 for the pre-trial hearing when Haight ruled that Botti, accused of lying to the IRS to circumvent laws governing bank deposits, did not have to attend the hearing.

Prior to the hearing, Botti’s lawyer, William F. Dow III, had inquired if his client had to be in court during the hearing, pointing to a rule that says a defendant’s presence is not required where the subject matter deals only with questions of law.

The hearing, held in Haight’s court on the 17th floor of the Financial Center in downtown New Haven, was conducted to consider a motion in limine filed by Dow asking the court to rule that certain evidence may or may not be presented at Botti’s trial, which begins next Monday.

A motion in limine (pronounced lim-uh-nee) is usually heard prior to trial out of the presence of the jury. It’s aimed at preventing unfair and prejudicial evidence from being offered at trial.

Haight, who said he was required to attend a judicial retreat before the trial, promised lawyers on both sides that he would rule on the various questions of which evidence and witnesses would be allowed at trial, probably today, to give them time to study his decisions.

But the judge didn’t have to wait until today to rule that evidence presented to a federal grand jury via testimony given by Botti’s ex-wife, Kelly, an unindicted co-conspirator, would be admitted. She is expected to testify about what she saw and heard in her husband’s office, and the advice she gave him about structuring bank deposit transactions.

Botti is charged with “conspiracy to structure” and “structuring” bank deposits in amounts less than $10,000, allegedly to circumvent federal reporting laws.

Federal law requires financial institutions to report transactions of $10,000 or more to the government. Structuring is when someone divides the amounts into smaller transactions to evade the reporting requirement. The rule is included in the Bank Secrecy Act and is meant to “detect and report criminal, money-laundering and terrorist financing activities in the financial system.”

Botti, 46, has also been charged with conspiracy to defraud the citizens of Shelton, bribery of a public official, and mail fraud, but those charges will be heard at a separate trial, the date for which has yet to be set.

In another ruling yesterday, Judge Haight said that various sealed documents in the case could be made public. But federal prosecutors, U.S. Attorneys Richard Schechter and Rahul Kale, said they should be redacted and the names of un-indicted co-conspirators, as well as material about the continuing grand jury probe, blacked out.

During yesterday’s hearing, there was a dispute between Dow and prosecutors over how much cash Botti had when the bank deposits were allegedly “structured” in 2006, and the relevancy of cash payments he made to certain individuals.

He asked the judge to disallow evidence the prosecution wants to introduce through government witnesses, Albert Papa, Stanislav Skripek, Andre Czaplinski, Joseph Dierna and Idalina Neves.

Dow claims that Manuel Neves, Idalina’s husband, did masonry work on a shopping plaza for Botti, as well as at Botti’s Maple Avenue home. She is expected to testify that her husband received $45,000 in cash from Botti in 2007.

He also allegedly gave Papa $65,000 in 2007 for work he did on his home, and allegedly told him not to disclose that he had been paid in cash, and allegedly gave Skripek $14,500 in cash in January 2007.

Schechter also claimed that Botti gave Papa the cash after learning that he was being investigated and specifically asked him not to mention it to investigators.

Dow said he wanted to know how, if the alleged structuring occurred in June and November of 2006, it was relevant that there was a cash transaction months later.

Schechter argued that it is relevant when “he gives people cash; it shows he was in possession of cash.” He said it’s also relevant since the government has to prove that he had access to huge amounts of cash because Botti allegedly lied to the IRS about how much cash he had on hand.

Botti, according to the indictment, allegedly told IRS investigators in the summer of 2006 that he had just the cash in his pocket and less than $5,000 at the end of the year.

But Schechter and Kale said they would show that Botti had hundreds of thousands of dollars in his office safe.

“The [cash] payments [Botti made] show that he had cash and intended to prevent the IRS from learning about it,” Schechter said.

Botti was indicted by a federal grand jury on the heels of a five-year investigation by federal agents with the FBI and IRS. He was arrested in November 2008 and charged with seven counts of criminal conduct, including giving false statements to the IRS.

A couple days after Botti’s arrest and release on $200,000 bail, his father, Peter Botti, then 80, was charged with two criminal counts; conspiring with his son to structure, and structuring two deposits for less than $10,000 each, allegedly to avoid the IRS reporting laws.

Several months later, Peter Botti pleaded guilty to one count and remains free on bail pending sentencing, which was postponed until after the outcome of his son’s trials. The elder Botti is listed by federal prosecutors as a witness in his son’s current trial, according to Schechter.