Wednesday, January 20, 2021
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Careers
  • Contact
Pension Changes
  • Home
  • Government Policy
  • Pension Changes
  • Pension Information
  • Pension Rights
  • Retirement Pension
No Result
View All Result
Pension Changes
Home Retirement Pension

LaMonica Loses Town Pension – Winthrop Transcript

September 17, 2020
in Retirement Pension
LaMonica Loses Town Pension – Winthrop Transcript
0
SHARES
2
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Related posts

Further Insight Into Deductibility Of Collateral Benefits – Employment and HR

January 20, 2021
Beijing House Church Pastor Denied Pension Amid Ongoing Crackdown on Worship — Radio Free Asia

Beijing House Church Pastor Denied Pension Amid Ongoing Crackdown on Worship — Radio Free Asia

January 20, 2021

A three-judge panel of the Massachusetts Appeals Court has upheld the 2016 decision of the Winthrop Retirement Board that strips the pension of former Winthrop police chief Angelo LaMonica, who pled guilty in 1995 in federal court to charges of filing false tax returns. 

The Appeals Court’s decision reverses the judgments by a judge of the Boston Municipal Court and a judge of the Superior Court that had overturned the Winthrop Retirement Board’s decision.

The board also is seeking to recoup the almost $1 million of retirement payments that have been paid to LaMonica over the past 25 years since his retirement in 1995. However, the Appeals Court’s decision orders that consideration of this issue be remanded “to the Boston Municipal Court (BMC) for consideration of any additional challenges LaMonica makes, including the constitutionality of the assessed penalty under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (The Eighth Amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”)

The Appeals Court’s decision lays out the long and, at this point, tortured history of the seemingly-endless saga involving LaMonica and the Winthrop Retirement Board. In sum, the background is as follows:

Angelo LaMonica was a popular, well-respected, and decorated police officer in Winthrop for 31 years, rising through the ranks from patrolman to sergeant to lieutenant before he became the chief in 1989. 

However, LaMonica’s long career of service and his six-year tenure as chief came to an abrupt end when he resigned from the department in 1995. The impetus for LaMonica’s resignation was a probe by the FBI, reportedly with information provided by officers of the Winthrop P.D., into allegations that fraternal and social clubs in the town were being allowed to operate video poker machines and to make cash payouts to the winners.

Although the machines themselves were legal, cash payouts were not allowed at that time. Federal authorities charged in a multi-count indictment, spanning a six-year period, that LaMonica was receiving payoffs from the provider of the poker machines in order to allow these illegal gaming operations to operate without police interference. He also was charged with income tax evasion for not reporting the bribe money he had received as income on his tax returns.

According to the Appeals Court’s decision, the timeline and original charges were as follows: “On April 5, 1995, LaMonica was indicted on several Federal charges:  (1) extortion under color of official right in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; (2) conspiracy to obstruct enforcement of State gambling laws in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1511; and (3) filing false income tax returns for the years 1988 through 1993 in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206.[4]”

LaMonica was indicted shortly after he left office and eventually pled guilty to the sole offense of filing a false tax return.  An important aspect of LaMonica’s eventual plea bargain is that government prosecutors dismissed the entirety of their initial indictment, thereby removing all of the counts involving the extortion and conspiracy allegations, and brought forward a new complaint consisting only of the single criminal offense of filing false tax returns, which was the lone charge that formed the basis for LaMonica’s admission and eventual sentencing in federal court.

After admitting to filing a false tax return, LaMonica was ordered to serve 14 months in prison and pay a $20,000 fine.

On two separate occasions, in 1996 and 2002, the Winthrop Retirement Board considered whether LaMonica’s admission to filing a false federal tax return was sufficient under state law to take away his pension. On both occasions, upon the advice of the board’s then-counsel in those years (who were different attorneys), the board decided that inasmuch as LaMonica’s guilty plea to a charge of filing a false tax return was not directly related to his duties as a police officer, the board did not have a legal basis to revoke his pension.

However, in 2016 an investigative report on a Boston TV channel raised anew the issue of whether LaMonica should be entitled to collect a pension. The Winthrop Retirement Board revisited the matter and concluded that although the filing of a false tax return is not related to the position of police chief, the underlying basis for LaMonica’s admission on the tax charge stemmed from his acceptance of the bribes to allow the illegal video poker games to operate, which directly involved his obligation as police chief to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth.

In short, the Retirement Board concluded that there was a sufficient nexus between the filing of the false tax returns and LaMonica’s acceptance of the bribes such that he should forfeit his pension, a determination that was rejected by the judges of the BMC and Superior Court.

The Appeals Court summed up the issue before it as follows: “After press inquiries, the board gathered more information, conducted a hearing in 2016, and voted to order forfeiture of LaMonica’s pension.  The board concluded that the income LaMonica failed to report on his income tax returns was paid to him so that he, in his capacity as a police officer, would ‘turn[] a blind eye to the illegal operation of video poker machines in certain private establishments in Winthrop.’  This case thus requires us to consider whether, pursuant to G. L. c. 32, § 15 (4), LaMonica’s convictions for filing false income tax returns for the years stated require forfeiture of his retirement pension.” 

The Appeals Court went on to conclude, “General Laws c. 32, § 15 (4), inserted by St. 1987, c. 697, § 47, provides that ‘[i]n no event shall any member [of the State employees’ retirement system] after final conviction of a criminal offense involving violation of the laws applicable to his office or position, be entitled to receive a retirement allowance.’[3]  Because there was a direct factual link between LaMonica’s position as a public employee and his criminal conviction of filing false tax returns, he is ineligible to receive a retirement allowance.”

Both the Retirement Board and the Appeals Court relied upon the pre-sentencing report offered by federal prosecutors to the sentencing judge as evidence of the nexus. The Appeals Court’s opinion states, “The sentencing judge adopted the factual findings in the presentence report, though not the recommended sentence.  As set forth in that report, ‘First as [l]ieutenant, then as [c]hief of the Winthrop Police Department, [LaMonica] received illegal payments including an initial payment of $1,000, then $100 per week, for the next [fourteen] years from Raymond Magee, to cover-up the video poker machines in the town of Winthrop’.”  

The Appeals Court’s decision states in conclusion, “There was substantial evidence to allow the board to find the direct factual link between the payments by Magee to LaMonica that were the basis for the convictions of filing false

income tax returns, as those payments were ‘inextricably intertwined’ with his position as a police officer.  The board did not rely on the dismissed indictment.  Rather, the board relied on a sentencing report that was adopted by the Federal

judge and that made the direct factual link between LaMonica’s position as a police officer and the illegal payments he received to cover up the video poker machines.  

“We therefore conclude that the board’s decision that there was a direct factual link between LaMonica’s position as a police officer and the crimes to which he pleaded guilty was supported by substantial evidence, and that G. L. c. 32,

§ 15 (4), and the case law interpreting it, mandate forfeiture.”

LaMonica still has the available legal avenue of filing an application for further appellate review to the full Supreme Judicial Court within 21 days of the Appeals Court’s decision.

— to winthroptranscript.com

Previous Post

Pensions Weekly Update – 9 September 2020

Next Post

The employment sector and the amount of salaries remain very attractive in Monaco

Next Post
The employment sector and the amount of salaries remain very attractive in Monaco

The employment sector and the amount of salaries remain very attractive in Monaco

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

RECOMMENDED NEWS

Provider calls for taskforce to solve small pension pots

Provider calls for taskforce to solve small pension pots

6 months ago

Women hit by pension age changes to appeal against court ruling | Business

10 months ago
Ball Corporation Announces Senior Leadership Changes | News

Ball Corporation Announces Senior Leadership Changes | News

2 months ago

Warning of DB transfer ‘gold rush’ next year

1 month ago

FOLLOW US

  • 79 Followers
  • 27.6k Followers
  • 40.7k Subscribers

BROWSE BY CATEGORIES

  • Government Pension Policy
  • Pension Changes
  • Pension Information
  • Pension Policy
  • Pension Rights
  • Retirement Pension
  • Uncategorized

BROWSE BY TOPICS

2021 2021 Pensions auto-enrolment age 18 auto enrolment pension contributions 2021/22 auto enrolment rates 2020/21 auto enrolment rates 2021/22 cashing in pension at 55 cashing in pension calculator cashing in small pension pots CCP retirement check my state pension Disabled pensions drawdown employer pension contributions 2021/22 government policy examples uk list of government policies uk minimum pension contributions 2021 minimum pension contributions 2022 new state pension Pension age pension issues pension ombudsman pension plan pension regulator Pensions Advisory Service Pensions Brexit pension scheme uk Pensions outlook retirement 2 million scams scheme funding Single mothers pensions State Pension State Pension age state pension changes state pension forecast State Pensions State triple lock taking pension at 55 the pensions regulator Therese Coffey uk pension age UK State Pension uk state pension age what is government policy uk

POPULAR NEWS

  • Multiemployer pension reform not happening this year

    Multiemployer pension reform not happening this year

    5 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Exit payment cap: Implications for the LGPS

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Public Service Pensions Update | October 2020

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • NEST: More than a pension | Country Report

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Builders were not self-employed, rules employment tribunal

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0

Follow us on social media:

Recent News

  • The big Brexit changes to Universal Credit, benefits and pensions starting this January
  • Pension Solvency Relief Gets Fresh Shot in Democratic Congress
  • Further Insight Into Deductibility Of Collateral Benefits – Employment and HR

Category

  • Government Pension Policy
  • Pension Changes
  • Pension Information
  • Pension Policy
  • Pension Rights
  • Retirement Pension
  • Uncategorized

Recent News

The big Brexit changes to Universal Credit, benefits and pensions starting this January

The big Brexit changes to Universal Credit, benefits and pensions starting this January

January 20, 2021
Pension Solvency Relief Gets Fresh Shot in Democratic Congress

Pension Solvency Relief Gets Fresh Shot in Democratic Congress

January 20, 2021
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Careers
  • Contact

© 2020 Please contact us on partnership@pensionchanges.co.uk if you would like to reach our audience.

No Result
View All Result
  • Home

© 2020 Please contact us on partnership@pensionchanges.co.uk if you would like to reach our audience.