Michele Sindona, la lettera al presidente Reagan (1981)
«Ho studiato il modo per evitare che la sinistra italiana prendesse il controllo della stampa e della televisione. Per questi miei tentativi la sinistra italiana ha fatto di me un bersaglio e ho rischiato la vita in più di una occasione».
Michele
Sindona
September 7, 1981
The President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Mr. President:
My name is Michele Sindona. I am an Italian citizen and I am 61 years old. I have been an inmate of the federal prison of the United States of America since February 7, 1980.
Presently I am at the U.S. Medical Center for federal prisoners in Springfield, Missouri. My number is 00450-054. I have been indicted twice: the first time for bank fraud and other related crimes (65 counts) and the second time for bail jumping and other related crimes (3 counts). Federal judge Thomas Griesa of the Southern District of New York sentenced me to 124 years of prison; but because he considered some counts concurrent, I have been sentenced to serve 25 years.
Federal Judge Leval, also of the Southern District of New York, sentenced me to 2 ½ years of prison to be served concurrently with the 25 years of the previous sentence.
Over the course of my trials, I retained several American lawyers in my defense to help me prove my innocence. However, all of my efforts were futile in the singular climate of my case. In the first trial, my defense collided with widespread negative publicity, opportunistically fabricated by my political enemies. I met with prejudice, dishonesty and misunderstanding and found myself up against a system that does not prove itself worthy of a great democratic nation. I have not committed any of the crimes for which I have been convicted in either trial. I was unjustly found guilty based on the following reasons:
A. The Italian government, for solely political reasons which I will detail later, sent false and incomplete documents to the United States which led to my indictment.
B. My attorneys did not allow me to testify, entirely against my will and for reasons they never really made clear to me.
C. The jury was misinformed about the intricate details of my case, which prevented them from penetrating the complexity of facts of international finance which after 5 years of work have been barely and only partially understood by my lawyers.
D. Tens or perhaps hundreds of years of prison were lifted from people who have really committed serious crimes as a reward for providing false testimony against me. Most unforgivable is the fact that both the judge and the U.S. attorney knew perfectly well that such witnesses were lying.
E. Judge Thomas Griesa was petitioned by me in vain to be disqualified at the beginning of the trial because of attitudes he displayed towards me during the previous extradition proceeding. He proved to be so openly prejudiced against me that he blatantly demonstrated, without even trying to save face, that he had already decided to convict me long before examining the evidence and listening to the argument of the defense.
F. The Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Kenney, who for years made futile attempts to find a job in a private law firm, based the only possibility of his professional career on my trial, which was enjoying great publicity. Therefore, he was in a position to let himself be easily corrupted, ideologically if not materially, by the Italian prosecutor, a known member of the Italian Communist Party. John Kenney held press conferences in Italy about my case so ostentatiously that, upon his return, my attorney, Robert Kasanof, asked him if he went to gather evidence for my trial or in hopes of running for mayor of Milan. Kenney deliberately hid evidence that could have been useful to my defense. He suborned testimonies by threatening criminals and by bribing them with reduced sentences if they would only make baseless statements and accusations against me.
I now appeal to you, Mr. President, since I recall that during the last days of your campaign, you declared that you were roused to shame and pity by the Vietnamese who, in attempting to escape from Communist persecution, had written on the outside of their fragile crafts: “Is this what happens to the friends of the United States of America?” You assured the world that this country would not permit an episode like this to be repeated – that never again could one say that the United States of America respects its enemies and abandons its friends.
I feel that I have always been a friend of the United States. I have been persecuted by the Italian Left just because I have struggled with all my might for the respect of the Italian constitution and for the election of a truly democratic government, which could honor the treaties of alliance with the western countries, especially the United States. Many important figures in the U.S. government are aware of my struggles for the preservation of freedom in Italy and in the western world. I now wish to list below some of these people so that, if you so choose, you will be able to verify that what I say is the truth:
1. The former U.S. Ambassador to Italy, Mr. Graham Martin, has declared to my lawyers, John Kirby and Robert Kasanof, that I am an Italian patriot and a loyal friend of the United States. He is quite aware of my efforts and how I fought for many years to spare the United States the loss of Italy as an ally, which could mean the strategic loss of the entire Mediterranean region. He knows that in 1971 I purchased, upon his suggestion, the only Italian newspaper in the English language, “The Rome-Daily American”, in order to prevent its falling into the hands of the Italian Left and he knows that, in order to keep such publication alive, I bore serious financial losses. Mr. Martin knows that I was given the Man of the Year award by the American Club of Rome for the efforts I made to increase political and economic relations between Italy and the United States. The award was delivered to me in 1974 by then Ambassador Volpe, who had replaced Martin a short time before in Italy. Mr. Martin knows too that I maintained and caused to be maintained contacts between Chiefs of Staff of the two countries to consolidate an alliance that was being substantially undermined by the Italian leftists, who from the late 1960’s, were a driving force in the Italian government, primarily deciding on its economic and military policies.
Mr. Martin and I together studied the possibilities for taking away control of the press and television from the Italian leftists, and the resulting plan was submitted to the White House. He knows that I was harassed be the Italian leftists for efforts such as these and that I risked my life on several occasions, as happens among those who strongly oppose their ideology.
2. Former Secretary of the Treasury and former Ambassador David Kennedy, who followed my financial activity directly or through his employees, often told me that he always considered my work to be carried out above reproach. Continental Illinois National bank and Trust Company of Chicago, of which Kennedy was chairman, was for many years a partner of Banca Privata Finanziaria of Milan, which I controlled. A representative of Continental was elected executive officer of Banca Privata Finanziaria and Kennedy himself was a director of Fasco International, the holding company owned by me, which purchased 21% of Franklin National Bank of New York and 53% of Talcott Corp.
After a long period of active and close cooperation, David Kennedy can verify that I always acted in accordance with the law, not only State law, but also moral law.
He knows that I fought to maintain, or better to advance Italy as a democratic country, a faithful ally of the United States. To David Kennedy I proposed positive plans to reach this goal, among which was one to gain, with the help of the United States, control of some important press organs.
When Kennedy was Secretary of the Treasury, I told him in Washington, in the presence of Mr. Aldo Samaritani, Vice President of the Italian Industrialists Association (Confindustria), that the Italian entrepreneurs were willing to cooperate with the United States government in the fight against the Italian Left, in reaching agreements to guarantee free enterprise to Italy, and in giving the United States the reassurance of being able to rely on a loyal ally in Europe. Kennedy knows that I fought to avoid the total collectivization of the Italian economy; he knows, because he told me this himself: that Mr. Guido Carli, then Governor of the Banca d’Italia (corresponding to your Chairman of the Federal Reserve), stated during a meeting of the International Monetary Fund that he would owe it to me if he was able to maintain a certain balance between private and public enterprise.
Kennedy knows of my series of lectures at important American universities, aiming to convince students and teachers that the defense of the dollar was a necessity that could not be disregarded, that aid to developing countries was to be given without jeopardizing the solidity of the American banking system, and that it was necessary to demand that country-members of the International Monetary Fund abide by all agreements reached for the preservation of an orderly international monetary system.
On many occasions I recalled to my audiences what was said appropriately enough by Lenin, that is, that the disintegration of capitalism (and of western civilization) will originate with the fall of the monetary system.
Through Kennedy, then Secretary of the Treasury, I advised the Nixon administration against the devaluation of the dollar in 1971. But the devaluation was subsequently carried out, with the result that the Soviet Union and the other Eastern-bloc countries reaped huge profits (mainly earmarked for weapons development.) I know that the Soviet Union sold or gave orders to “sell short”, mostly through a brokerage company controlled by me, about 20 billion dollars in the three-week period preceding the devaluation.
In addition, the sale of wheat, already made with a very favorable price and long-term payment plan for the Soviet Union, would have allowed the Soviet Union, because of the devaluation, to repay the debt with devalued dollars. I also pointed out that just with these transactions (and I could list many others in this interminable “cat and mouse” game, where the Soviet Union played the cat), the U.S.S.R. and its satellite states would realize a profit of 4 billion dollars. And, as you know, this did substantially occur.
Kennedy knows that I have pointed out that Italy, even if ruled in substance by the communists, never officially became a communist country, because the Soviet Union did not want it. An officially democratic Italy is used by the U.S.S.R. as a financial bridge. This means that the Soviet Union, once it exhausts the U.S. line of credit, is financed by Italy, which in turn plunges into debt in dollars. This scheme was often perpetrated with the cooperation of the Italian communists by selling Italian manufactured goods and technology to the Soviet Union at favorable terms and at highly favorable interest rates, which was presented to the Italian electorate as a great achievement for the balance of trade, but which in fact was fully financed with loaned American dollars. If Italy were to become an officially communist country, the Soviet Union would lose an important source of financing, without any benefit either of a political or military nature. The Soviet Union knows it could at any time transform Italy into an “officially” communist country, just by engaging the hundreds of thousands of communist party members who are already organized and armed. One could easily picture the consequence for the NATO military bases. Kennedy knows that all of my warnings, shared by him, were known by the Italian communists who decided to try to assassinate me, or at least ruin me and block my influence in the political and financial communities. Kennedy was one of the few, or maybe the only U.S. Secretary of the Treasury in the postwar period, who had the courage to refuse to go begging in Europe for economic and monetary cooperation from those allies who should have considered it their duty to support the politics of a country that always generously gave to them economic assistance and military protection.
And Kennedy knows that I always approved of his ideas and preached the same in the course of several of my lectures given to various European-American communities. Only now, Mr. President, did your intervention in the recent meeting in Ottawa finally restore the right values and give back prestige to your country.
3. Rear Admiral Max Morris had the opportunity to read my lectures, which were given at American universities and to know my ideas on the international political, financial, and military situation. I stated my plans to free Italy from the yoke of the leftists, and he told me that he agreed that the United States, by losing Italy, would lose control of the entire Mediterranean region.
Morris told me, in a letter dated September 20, 1978, that he had shown my remarks on communist monetary manipulations to Admiral Stanfield Turner, then head of the C.I.A. He later told me that he spoke of my case and about my projects both with Admiral Turner and with the present Secretary of State, Alexander M. Haig, Jr., at that time Commander in Chief of NATO. In a letter dated December 13, 1978, Admiral Morris mentions a high-ranking military figure and a similarly high-level person in the intelligence field (which he verbally confirmed to me to be Haig and Turner) as having demonstrated an attentive interest in my ideas and plans and says that he certainly urged them to carry the matter further and to contact him or me for further details. He then ended the letter with these words: “all of us, I know, appreciate your efforts on behalf of this country and of the West.”
Since at that time I was under request for extradition and unfortunately was, due to a slanderous press campaign, what you would call a “highly controversial figure”, I am convinced that the three gentlemen I just named would not have shown any interest in me, had they not received, through their reliable sources, overwhelming evidence that the Italian warrant of arrest for bankruptcy was a sham, masking the real cause of my persecution: my anticommunist activity.
4. Former President Richard Nixon, a few years before his election, told me he knew and loved my country, Italy, and that he had the opportunity while in Venice to meet politicians and entrepreneurs who made him aware of the realities of the political situation in Italy. He stated his belief in the opportunity or rather, the necessity of helping my country, because he saw that in helping Italy the interests of the United States could also be protected.
When Nixon run for re-election, I recalled his friendly sentiments for Italy, and I personally raised funds within the Italian business circles for his campaign. I offered him one million dollars through the chairman of the Finance Committee to Re-elect the President, Mr. Maurice H. Stans. However, I pointed out that I could not declare the sources of the funds, so as not to subject the donors, including myself, to persecution by the Italian Leftists. The chairman, Mr. Stans, asked me if I intended to ask for compensation for this financing. I answered him: “Tell Mr. Nixon not to forget Italy; I have nothing else to ask.” (I think Mr. Stans has already related to the interested authorities the nature of my connection with Mr. Nixon’s campaign). A few days after the offer, Mr. Stans answered me, in a letter dated November 9, 1972, thanking me for the offer of support, but regretfully declining because of current laws regarding disclosure of contributors. I showed this letter to my Italian friends, pointing it out as an example of uncommon honesty (compared to typical unethical behavior of many Italian politicians). This offer to Nixon was eventually filtered to the press, certainly not by me, and was strongly criticized in my country, where leftists started a violent attack, saying that I was exporting capital from a “poor” Italy to support a capitalist, an enemy of the people.
5. The Iranian Ambassador at the United Nations, Mr. Oveida, presented to the Shah, in 1977, my economic and financial plan that could have solved some of the more serious social problems of that country. I prepared such a plan when I was maybe the only one to foresee a possible revolution in Iran and when the American insurance companies considered the political risk in Iran to be almost zero.
This plan, approved in principle by the Shah and supported by his friend Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia (claimant to the throne of Italy), who explained it to him on my behalf, was boycotted or not understood by his advisors and was postponed sine die.
Ambassador Oveida then said, at a dinner I was invited to, that if the Shah had carried out my plan, Khomeini would not now be the dictator of Iran; and I added that the United States would not have lost a precious ally and important strategic and military resources.
Afterwards, when I was already imprisoned, I gave my lawyer, Mr. Marvin Frankel, former Federal Judge and long time advocate of human rights, an economic plan for the rescue of the 52 American hostages in Teheran, which involved no risk for the United States. It was a best possible solution that would not have humiliated either country; that would have favored the Iranian economy (with the unofficial help of the United States); and that would have retained Iran as a stable ally of the Unites States. The only counterpart asked in exchange was the safe return of the hostages. Frankel promised me he would show the plan to his friend, Cyrus Vance, but he never did. In light of what happened, I think my plan could have avoided a prolonged instability in Iran in which the current regime is vulnerable to collapse, and in which now the only organized group – who might eventually inherit the power – is the pro-Communist faction who could bring Iran under the Soviet sphere of influence.
Driven by the conviction that I could prove that I had not committed any crime, and confident in the justice of a country for whose ideals I always fought, I submitted myself on my own free will to a public trial in a federal court, and did so twice – the second time even at the risk of my life (when I returned from a complicated political situation in Italy, for which I was to be accused of bail-jumping in the second trial).
The first time, in 1974, in order to escape the unjust warrant of arrest issued by the Italian authorities, I found shelter in Taiwan where I was well received. I had some personal connections with members of the Chiang Kai-Shek family.
David Kennedy, who had been in Taiwan as a representative of the White House, spoke about me to the President of the Republic of China: he told him that I was a friend of his country and that I could have been of help as a financial advisor.
When I was informed that the U.S. government had requested my appearance in this country, in order to bring to light the matters concerning the failure of the Franklin National bank, and after having been assured, through my attorneys John Kirby and Robert Kasanof, by the pro-tempore Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mr. Cahill, that my constitutional rights would be guaranteed, I went to New York. During the time that I was under questioning by the U.S. Attorney and the Securities and Exchange Commission, I was notified of the request for extradition made by the Italian government. Mr. Cahill was then replaced by Assistant U.S. Attorney John J. Kenney who, in spite of my guarantees from Mr. Cahill, tried by every means possible to have me incarcerated. He realized that, owing to my notoriety, he was presented with the only chance in his lifetime to build a reputation for himself at my expense.
After a long struggle, my lawyers were able to convince Judge Griesa to allow me to remain free on bail, although the amount requested was very high and disproportionate to my financial means. In fact, the Italian authorities had, by illegal means, confiscated all my assets. My wife was forced to pledge her apartment in New York, in order to obtain my freedom.
The extradition trial was long and painful. The Italian authorities sent incomplete documents alleging that I had improperly used sums belonging to the Italian banks that I controlled, in order to finance personal activities. Kenney reported to Judge Griesa that I had embezzled sums from the Italian banks. The Italian prosecutor and the Italian examining judge, who came to question me in prison in New York in 1980, after the Franklin trial, with regards to the bankruptcy trial of the Italian banks, declared to me (in presence of, among others, my Italian attorney, Professor Giampiero Azzali and also Mr. Mariani, the attorney representing the interest of the Association of Minor Shareholders of Banca Privata Italiana) that they had never told Kenney that I stole money. Mr. Kenney had therefore lied flagrantly to the Court; nevertheless, Judge Griesa became so convinced that he was facing an international embezzler, that he went beyond just granting my extradition to the Italian government. After I was indicted in the United States on charges arising from allegedly having purchased Franklin National Bank and Talcott Corporation with funds belonging to my Italian banks, and therefore with having concealed from the American authorities the source of those funds, Judge Griesa took for granted Kenney’s insinuation that the funds were embezzled and did not want to admit in court the evidence introduced by my attorneys, which clearly demonstrated that those “embezzled” funds actually belonged to me.
We have offered to Judge Griesa publications and photographs of mural graffiti in which I was threatened with murder along with other Italian politicians. Included in this group was even Giulio Andreotti, the Italian Prime Minister at that time. I presented Judge Griesa with affidavits from prestigious figures in economic, political and judicial circles in Italy. These people unanimously agreed that I was a victim of a political persecution and could never have a fair trial in Italy, and that, if I were sent back to Italy, my life would have been endangered. The President of the Corte di Cassazione Italiana (Italian equivalent to the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) was Carmelo Spagnuolo, who reached his position by merit, not by political nomination as happens here in the United States, and after having demonstrated during many years of judicial activities that he was honest and extremely knowledgeable in the area of law. President Spagnuolo submitted an affidavit in which he stated that the Italian authorities illegally declared my banks to be bankrupt: that the warrant of arrest against me was unjust, that they had acted against me mainly for political reasons, and that I never could have obtained a fair trial in Italy.
I had not personally met President Spagnuolo before the collapse of my Italian banks and the subsequent warrant of arrest; but he was introduced to me by a mutual friend while I was already fighting the extradition proceeding in New York. During that meeting, he told me that he had been appointed by the Italian freemasonry (of which he was a member) to investigate my case. At the end of his long and scrupulous investigation, he finally submitted the affidavit mentioned above. Judge Griesa, with a superficiality certainly unworthy of a magistrate, declared that all the affidavits had been submitted by “friends” – his emphasis on “friends” connoting some type of corruption. I find it even more outrageous that he did not limit himself to generalizing the motives behind the aforementioned affidavits: he specifically questioned the affidavit of President Spagnuolo.
Whoever knows President Spagnuolo and his profound knowledge of the law, his publications, his sentencing, and his lectures cannot help but be repulsed by such statements by the likes of a Griesa, who is notoriously a mediocre judge, and who tried, and partially succeeded, to make a name for himself through the publicity of my trial. How ironic that Judge Griesa demonstrated his faith in the credibility of the Italian judicial system by granting my extradition while simultaneously he was doubting the integrity of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the same country!
All those people who submitted affidavits in my favor or who defended me in any way have been harassed: some have had their banking credit revoked, some underwent judicial investigation, and others were even incarcerated.
President Spagnuolo, in particular, after his affidavit in my favor became public, was the target of a very well orchestrated, slanderous press propaganda. He was accused of having been my associate in alleged financial schemes dating back to that period of my business activity in Italy at which time, as I said above, we had not yet met. The “Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura” (Supreme Justice Council), whose majority is constituted by members of leftist parties, fired President Spagnuolo and even cut off his retirement pension funds with an unconstitutional procedure unprecedented in Italian history.
By creating a special parliamentary committee to investigate my case, the Italian government further confirmed the political motives behind it. This committee is exclusively composed of members of the Chamber of Deputies and members of the Senate. The specific purpose of this committee was to assess my relationship with Italian political figures and parties. In spite of it all, Mr. President, Washington continuously rejected my appeal for political asylum.
All along, Kenney was seeking opportunities to press my extradition. He became fast friends with the Italian communist prosecutor, who kept up a steady stream of documents deceptively taken out of context, trying to prove senseless accusations. I easily disproved most of these charges through common sense or purely technical explanations; but, in order to disprove some other charges, my relatives and my lawyers had to travel extensively and at high expense throughout Europe to gather the necessary evidence. I showed the overwhelming falsity of these documents, deliberately meant to mislead the American authorities, which confirmed that I was the target of a political persecution in Italy. However, far from questioning the credibility of the Italian authorities, by that time totally destroyed by my repeated disprovals, Kenney, over and over again, turned to his receptive Italian colleague for more false evidence, hoping to find eventually something I would not be able to rebut. Ultimately, when Kenney understood from Judge Griesa’s one-sided behavior during the extradition proceedings, that he could obtain from him any conviction for any crime, however nonexistent, for which I was accused, he saw the possibility for using the same false Italian dossier to prepare an indictment against me for the Franklin National Bank case.
But knowing that he did not have nor could ever have any real evidence to support his accusations and knowing that I appealed the sentence with which Judge Griesa granted my extradition, he tried to guard himself from a possible defeat at the trial and presented to my lawyers the following proposal: “If Sindona accepts extradition to Italy, the United States government will withdraw the indictment.” I did not commit any crime and saw no reason to yield to blackmail. Therefore I rejected the offer.
FIRST TRIAL
This is not the proper place to remake a trial, which consisted of 8,000 pages of transcripts, and for which 30,000 more documents through rogatories from Italy and Switzerland were examined, and which was based principally on very sophisticated international banking transactions. Judge Griesa, absolutely incompetent in banking matters, improvised himself as a banker and commented upon facts and operations of which he understood absolutely nothing. On most complex issues, he repeatedly stated, “When I open an account at Chase Manhattan Bank…”. By means of this simplistic logic, he always tried to demonstrate that the evidence of Mr. Kenney was admissible and that his motions and objections were correct, while those of my lawyers were shown to be inconsistent and my documents were not taken into evidence. Once, when he was unable to understand a simple statement of account from Banca Unione (one of my Italian banks), which was presented into evidence by my attorneys, he looked right at me and declared, “In this room, nobody has understood anything about this statement”. He knew that I understood it perfectly, but that I have been forbidden to speak by my lawyers for reasons that I still do not understand. It would have been very easy for me, as it would have been for any bank clerk (but apparently not for Judge Griesa) to explain such a simple document. Eventually he did not allow it into evidence on the basis of it being incomprehensible. Throughout the trial, he continued to strike from evidence documents and facts, which clearly demonstrated that the theories of the U.S. attorney were unsustainable. Both Judge Griesa and Mr. Kenney throughout the trial made statement which, had they undergone a thorough technical scrutiny, would clearly be show up as foolish or totally false. By ruling consistently in favor of the U.S. attorney, Judge Griesa virtually piloted the trial according to his own preconceived beliefs. Therefore, the unaware jury received a fabricated “truth”, which was completely consistent with Mr. Kenney’s version. He often helped the prosecutor in crucial comments during debates by offering him arguments against the defense, which he would then uphold. It is interesting to notice that, after ruling in favor of the defense on a particular issue, which at the time seemed relatively unimportant to him and for which the defense’s argument seemed invincible, he returned to court the next day only to retract his ruling of the previous day after having realized that this decision, probably the only important one in favor of my defense, could have significantly helped me. How he “realized” the importance of that issue seems suspect. Did he dream it, or was he instructed by Mr. Kenney out of court? I do not like to make cheap accusations, but Judge Griesa’s behavior immediately following many recesses similar to the one mentioned have led me to believe that he and Mr. Kenney had more than one occasional dinner together during the trial period.
The key witness, Carlo Bordoni, was promised by Kenney the gift of avoiding decades of prison and also was allowed to keep at least $ 40 million that he stole from my Italian banks, part from my personal account (proven unequivocally in document possessed by both the U.S. attorney and my lawyers, and also in a report made by an independent Swiss auditor). So Bordoni declared everything that the U.S. attorney asked him to declare even when his statements contradicted certain documents or regulations. Bordoni even accused me of committing crimes in Italy, which were not crimes at all, since they abided by Italian banking regulations. He did so knowing that Judge Griesa would not know (or would pretend not to know) the inconsistencies in his statements. The jury to which Mr. Kenney, on behalf of the U.S. government and by means of the U.S. Marshal, sent flowers and sweets, naturally could not have understood in a few hours financial transactions that would have taken the experts several years to decipher. Kenney accused, in the name of the U.S. government, Michele Sindona, Italian born in Sicily (breeding ground of the Mafia), in a courtroom in which an American flag waved over everyone and where a judge had clearly shown the will to convict me. The guilty verdict had therefore to be taken for granted. Judge Griesa – who did not have the honesty to disqualify himself when I asked him, in light of his unseemly behavior during the extradition trial – then sought revenge in any way possible and, as was seen in his bizarre rulings, did not even try to save face. While he delivered the sentence in which he inflicted me with 25 years of prison, a female assistant of Kenney was blocking Judge Griesa’s view of me, which prevented his seeing my reaction to his sentencing. He was not to be denied this great pleasure (a pleasure he might not have received, had my attempted suicide succeeded): he therefore abruptly invited the woman to move, and looking me straight in the eyes, completed the delivery of the sentence. This sentence was declared “barbaric” by former Judge Frankel and many others. I was the only one who was not astonished by the length of the sentence. The chairman-chief executive officer and the president-chief operating officer, who were really running the bank in question (I was not a member of the board of directors, was not an officer, nor did I have any power in the bank) were found guilty and were sentenced by Judge Griesa to 3 years of incarceration each. Therefore, everyone had assured me that I was not going to get more than 5 years. But by that time I had already understood the perversity of Judge Griesa and I was counting on taking at least 20 years.
The special commission of the U.S. Congress nominated for examining the Franklin matters, concluded their report by stating that the Franklin National Bank was in serious difficulties prior to my purchase of 21% of the stock. These difficulties were due to losses accumulated previous to my acquisitions, under the guidance of Chairman Harold Gleason (sentenced to 3 years of prison) and during the period in which the effective control of the bank was held by Larry Tisch, who, unlike me, was a member of the board of directors and the executive committee of the bank. The losses mentioned in the congressional commission’s report did not appear in the statement of the bank at the time of my acquisition. Therefore, it can clearly be concluded that I was delivered a false balance sheet when I bought a 21% share of Franklin National Bank. However, Larry Tisch belonged to the American financial establishment. He was therefore immune and practically authorized to cheat an Italian who, convinced of the honesty of American entrepreneurs, relied on the statement submitted to him. Such statements by Gleason and Tisch had also been audited by the prestigious firm of Earnst & Earnst and also by the Comptroller of the Currency and, despite all of this, they were false. Once the reports had revealed the large scale abuses and falsified records at Franklin National Bank (that existed prior to my acquisitions), one would assume that the zealous Assistant U.S. Attorney John Kenney would have leapt at the opportunity to investigate the possible role that Tisch played in the matter. But he did nothing of the sort. I was already destined to be used as the scapegoat for what was widely publicized as the largest bank failure in the history of the United States. Therefore, I now have to express a serious doubt: Was his behavior driven only by an uncommon prejudice against me, or did special interests influence Mr. Kenney?
SECOND TRIAL
Judge Leval conducted this trial in fairness. After the jury had found me guilty, he found himself in a moral quandary when it came time to sentencing. A man of moral strength and profound humanistic culture, Judge Leval could not figure out, and asked many times during the trial, why should I have jumped bail with the accompanying grave risks of a judicial and financial nature, merely to postpone for a few days the trial for which I would eventually return on my own free will. There could only be one answer: I did not jump bail. The judge understood this, but after the verdict he was forced to deliver a punitive sentence, which he did deliver with an attempt to not cause me any further harm. What a difference between his behavior and that of Judge Griesa!
The conduct of my defense attorneys in this trial was incomprehensible. They, Joseph Oteri and Martin Weinberg of Boston, knew perfectly well the truth regarding my disappearance; they knew that I had not left voluntarily, and knew that I never had anything to do with organized crime. They also knew that, in this instance, I had functioned as a patriot for my country against Italian Leftists. They subpoenaed real Admiral max K. Morris; former Director of the C.I.A., Stanfield Turner; former Commander in Chief of NATO forces and now Secretary of State in your administration, Alexander M. Haig, Jr.; former Ambassador to Italy, Graham Martin; former Secretary of the Treasury, David Kennedy and other renowned and powerful figures of economic and political importance. These men all would be able to testify for my firm and long-standing commitment to the democratic ideals and for my continuous efforts with the U.S. government against Soviet expansionism. Haig and Turner in particular would have been asked to disclose the details of the conversation they had with Admiral Morris in my regard and to discuss the results of the research I know they did on my background.
According to our mutually agreed strategy, I should have taken the stand in order to illustrate the facts and introduce into evidence documents important for my defense. I could have rebutted all the foolish insinuations of the U.S. attorneys that poisoned the judges during both trials, when they talked about my alleged activities relating to organized crime and took great pains to let them know that the liquidator of my Italian bank had been “strangely” assassinated on the eve of my first trial.
Mr. President, with the power entrusted in you, you could easily obtain any F.B.I. or C.I.A. files that might exist about me. You will easily discover that I was never involved with or even suspected of being involved with racketeering, drug smuggling, prostitution, or other crimes usually related to organized crime. The Mafia-related accusations against me were simply inferred by the press and instigated by my enemies, on the basis of my being Sicilian and having acquired great wealth during my career. The U.S. attorney knew perfectly well that no files existed neither with the F.B.I., nor with the local New York police, nor with the Italian police that could connect me in any way to organized crime. They investigated me for five years with countless trips to Italy. They learned there that I started my career as a tax and corporate lawyer and I soon became the tax advisor for many influential Italian families; that I represented major industrial and commercial associations in Italy and created a corporate law firm, which eventually became the largest and most prestigious in the country. They knew that, through my experience as a corporate attorney, I became an expert in mergers and acquisitions. They learned that I organized some of the largest acquisitions of major Italian public corporations in associations with members of the international financial establishment. They knew that throughout my professional career I earned, legally and by hard work, great sums of money and that eventually I became the largest private banker in Italy. My actual career can be easily traced. It is now history and cannot be altered or erased. My clients and my partners are also easily traceable. Some of the most prestigious firms were associated with me during my financial operations, including Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, Hambros Bank of London, Banque de Paris et des Pays Bas, The Vatican and others. Now, despite all they have learned over the years of investigation, the U.S. attorneys prefer to believe and to tell the courts the fictions of second-rate Italian tabloids, which narrate that I started my career selling fruits and vegetables, came to Milan with Mafia money, bought myself a law degree, but never really practiced the legal profession and got involved in a few dishonest, but successful speculations.
Suddenly, when the trial was already in an advanced stage and the government was close to resting its case, my lawyers reversed their strategy. They decided not to put up a defense, reasoning that this would have surprised the government. According to their theory, the government had not brought any evidence that could have proven my guilt “beyond reasonable doubt.” I agreed with the fact that the evidence was insufficient, but I also knew by then that it would not take any evidence con convince an American jury to convict Michele Sindona, the infamous “Italian bank swindler.” By the time my attorneys reached this decision, I had already begun to lose confidence in them. When I originally approached them, they had shown great understanding for my plight and appeared outraged by such injustices. After reading many documents germane to my case, they pledged their unconditional support for as long as it would serve me. They agreed to subpoena anyone whose testimony could have helped me. They also said to me: “Politicians, Pentagon officials, ambassadors and, of course, you, Michele will testify to show the world what you have done for the United States. We will win this trial and we will easily obtain a review of the first trial for bankruptcy. We will not be influenced by any political pressure and we will even subpoena Secretary Haig. This time you will finally have the chance to express your side and the public will finally know the truth. “ What salesmanship! They knew how desperate I was at that point; they knew that they were telling me what I wanted to hear. They received all their fees in advance, which I had to borrow from the few friends I have left. Believe me, Mr. President, it was a very large sum of money. But as soon as they were paid, their performance began to falter. I received only intermittent, brief periods of their time. They continuously lied to me about the work they were (not) performing and about the people they were (not) meeting. The three of them, Joseph Oteri, Martin Weinberg and James Lawson, each told me different stories that were invariably contradictory, and they almost never did what I asked them to do.
When I more than once did catch them in a contradiction or a shameless lie, they had the nerve to admit that they often lie to their clients, but that it should not distress me too much. Therefore, what could I do when they told me that they changed their strategy – that they would no longer “embarrass” all those important people by putting them on the stand – and that it would be best for me not to testify, because they had “inside information” that the prosecutor would bring false corrupted witnesses, graciously lent by the Italian government, who were instructed to contradict me on everything I said? It was too late at this point to hire new attorneys. I despairingly conceded, though I felt strongly opposed to their decision. What had happened to them? Was it laziness or had they been pressured “from the top”? For instance, why had they promised to “destroy” F.B.I. Agent Vizi on the stand, by accusing him of having committed a crime in Italy (Vizi has threatened my son-in-law and then graciously offered a plea-bargaining deal. Apart from the fact that he did not have the authority to do it in a foreign sovereign country, plea-bargaining is illegal in Italy)? But when the time came for the cross-examination of Vizi, they did nothing of the sort. Who pressured them?
One of the major pretexts used by my lawyers to justify their change in strategy was that the prosecutor had clearly manifested an intention to use the transcripts of my “confidential” conversation with Mr. Tendy during my attempted plea-bargaining. This would have jeopardized some of my friends. Previously, when I discussed the case with my lawyers (before they received their final payment), they clearly stated to me that the transcripts did not worry them because, had the prosecutor tried to use them, they would have discredited Mr. Tendy’s reputation throughout the legal community for having disclosed confidential material.
In another attempt to justify their decision to not let me testify, my lawyers explained to some members of my family that the real reason for their last minute decision was to avoid a cross-examination of me regarding John Gambino. I had never hidden my relationship with Mr. Gambino, the sole aim of which was political (we were introduced as recently as 1977 through Mr. Mario Salinelli or the Italian television network in hopes of establishing a newspaper for the Italian-American community). I had previously discussed this matter with my attorneys, and they knew that there was no reason for me to fear a cross-examination on this issue. This all came up the day before the U.S. attorney was to rest his case. Therefore, I had no chance to take steps toward my preferred action. I was found guilty. It is true that the government had not proven my guilt, nor could they do so, since I had not committed any crime. However, the jury, influenced by “anti-Sindona” propaganda, became convinced that they were facing a criminal – an Italian criminal at that – who apparently was afraid to take the stand (it is well known that the emphasis on the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution is hypocritical); and so, not perceiving the real meaning of “beyond any reasonable doubt,” and taking refuge in the knowledge that by law they were not required to account for their decision, they acted solely on their instincts and found me guilty. Unfortunately, the jury’s decision is incontrovertible; one is left to appeal the rulings of the Court.
My attorneys, Oteri, Weinberg and Lawson, since the day of the verdict, have practically disappeared from sight. They never returned numerous phone calls from my relatives. They have not continued to provide services for which they were paid in advance and which could still help my case at this point: gathering new evidence; bringing proof of unethical behavior of John Kenney, in order to obtain a new trial for the bankruptcy; assisting in improving my prison conditions; stopping harassment by the U.S. attorney’s office; and changing my prison classification from “dangerous and violent” to one where I would be entitled to some privileges, since my alleged crime was the nonviolent, white-collar one of bank fraud. I should be taken to a minimum-security prison and brought closer geographically to my family. But my attorneys have done nothing of the sort for me. Most recently, they did not respond when I was suddenly transferred from the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York to the U.S. Medical Center in Springfield, Missouri. Concerned by this abrupt move, I phoned my family and they immediately called Mr. Oteri’s office. They kept calling all the lawyers every day for eight days, but never found any of the three available. On the ninth day, Lawson finally accepted my son’s phone call and told him that I was temporarily in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania and that they were “closely following my itinerary.” My infuriated son informed him that for eight days they had been trying to reach the lawyers to alert them that I had been transferred to Springfield. From that day, there has been no more communications between my family and the lawyers. I was obliged to hire another attorney, Mr. Ivan Fisher. I was once again put into the position of having to ask friends to make financial sacrifices for me (I am afraid that I will soon have to ask the court to nominate legal assistance if I will still have to defend myself). The agreement between Fisher and Oteri was to cooperate to present an appeal for my second trial, which I would review for approval. Instead, Oteri and Weinberg prepared my appeal without advising Fisher or myself. We both received a copy of it after it has been presented to the Court. I ultimately denounced Mr. Oteri’s actions to the Bar Association in Boston.
In the summer of 1979, during my absence that eventually led to bail-jumping charges, I wrote to both my Italian and American lawyers denouncing, among other things, the dishonest behavior of John Kenney and of the Italian prosecutor. I conveyed in my letters that their statements to the media (with heavy insinuation of my alleged feelings of hatred toward Ambrosoli, the liquidator of my Italian bank), had furnished a perfect alibi for those who had interest in Ambrosoli’s elimination. Kenney was able to read these written accusations against him because my lawyers – exhibiting an incredible naivete – gave to the F.B.I. all of the letters that I sent them during my absence and, by doing so, broke the attorney-client privilege. The revenge of Kenney began shortly thereafter.
At the beginning of the trial, together with the other assistant U.S. attorney, Mr. Tendy, Kenney presented the request of my incarceration to Judge Griesa on the basis of evidence that was false, inconsistent, and in great part fabricated by them. They mentioned the existence of a witness, Mr. Roncisvalle, a renowned professional killer, who told the prosecutor that he was approached by an individual whose identity was unknown to him and who proposed to give him $ 200 (sic) if he would threaten a prosecutor’s witness and $ 100,000 if he would kill Kenney, an Italian judge and an Italian prosecutor. It is interesting to notice that: (1) this witness had been arrested for various crimes and was testifying under a plea-bargaining agreement, in order to obtain favorable treatment (which in fact he did receive); (2) according to the witness testimony, the person who approached him took great pains to keep his identity concealed, but was quite willing to offer the information that I, Michele Sindona, was behind this absurd request; and (3) according to some of my lawyers and to those crime figures who I have met inside the federal prison system, the U.S. attorney’s office of the Southern District of New York during my pre-trial period had spread the word throughout the underworld that their main interest was to convict Michele Sindona and, therefore, anyone who could come up with accusations, true or false, against me was guaranteed very good plea-bargaining prospects.
At the same time, the prosecutor mentioned my contacts with John Gambino during my disappearance, which was supposed to have been connected with my will to commit felonies in collaboration with organized crime during that period. What a spurious process of reasoning by one who claims to represent the law of this country! To allude that my relationship with John Gambino assures my involvement with organized crime is completely unfounded. As far as this country’s justice is concerned, John Gambino has never been convicted of any crime; his only “offence” was to have been born the nephew of the late, infamous Carlo Gambino – the alleged “Boss of all Bosses.”
Finally, the prosecutor concluded that since, in addition to all that had been brought out, Ambrosoli was killed in the period immediately preceding my scheduled trial, I had to be considered a dangerous element to the community, should have been immediately incarcerated and kept under strict and continuous surveillance. Judge Griesa was happy to accept the proposal, and within a few hours I was in prison. When my attorney, Marvin Frankel, asked the Court to allow me during the recesses to stay in the witnesses’ room so I could confer with him, since my trial was highly technical and I was the only one qualified to explain certain details, John Kenney stood up and said in a loud voice, clearly directed to the journalists present, “Sindona must be treated like any other prisoner.” Nobody had asked for special treatment, just for the Court’s acceptance of the fact that my trial, unlike most others, involved 30,000 documents from the United States, Italy, Switzerland and Luxembourg; and therefore, unlike most other defendants, I needed more time with my lawyers for consultation during the trial. I would like to note here that on most other cases involving prosecution of alleged international bank fraud, a white-collar crime, defendants were not incarcerated and therefore had time to calmly discuss all the details in their organized office setting with all the files available, able to review the trial proceeding daily. Mr. Kenney knew that his loud righteous statements would be heard and reported by the press. He would be presented as the fearless hero who dares to stand up to everyone, including even the rich and powerful banker, Michele Sindona. As a matter of fact, far from receiving special treatment, I have been and still continue to be discriminated against because I am considered a high-level, white-collar defendant who can never receive the more humane treatment given to the other relatively obscure prisoners; otherwise, as is often explained to me by prison authorities, the press would find out and there would be a scandal. The fact that I was accused by the U.S. attorney of having embezzled hundreds of millions of dollars in Italy, who then viciously classified me as a violent and dangerous individual and therefore sent me to the same prison with murderers, heroin smugglers and the like, has caused me grave problems. My life was often threatened by members of criminal gangs inside the prison system; but after they realized that I do not fear death, I found myself in danger of being crippled or mutilated. Many of my co-inmates have tried chilling scare tactics to extort money from me. I have been restrained up to now in talking about my dire situation here, because I fear the prison authorities will permanently put me into isolation, invoking the need to “protect” me.
After the conviction in my first trial, and prior to the sentencing, I attempted suicide by swallowing ninety Librax capsules, the contents of four bottles of Digitalis and by slashing my wrists. I was found unconscious by a prison guard at 3:00 AM on May 13, 1980 and was immediately admitted into a nearby hospital. I arrived at this decision rationally and certainly not out of fear of the impending sentence. The pressures on me were enormous: the authorities were starting to harass my family. My son-in-law in Italy had been arrested under false accusations received from the F.B.I., which seemed always to work in cooperation with – and perhaps actually on the orders of – Mr. Tendy. My death would have satisfied the persecutors and my family would have finally found serenity. Kenney, who initially thought I had only slashed my wrists, immediately stated to the press that my attempted suicide was a hoax. He prohibited my family from seeing me in the hospital. He also prohibited my being treated by an outside physician. A few hours after I was admitted, the head cardiologist, Dr. Schuman, advised my family that I had taken large quantities of powerful drugs and that my heart condition was unstable. Even with this information, Kenney maintained his stance prohibiting my family from seeing me. The physician told the U.S. marshal that it would have been appropriate to allow my children to see me in order to convince me to tell them, during the intermittent periods of consciousness, exactly what medicine I had taken, in order to find an antidote that could save my life. Once again, Kenney did not budge. At 7:30 PM that evening, when my condition was already considered critical, my son telephoned the office of the U.S. attorney. When no one answered, he tried to reach Mr. Kenney at home. Kenney’s wife told my son that he was not home. My distraught son begged her to please help him find Mr. Kenney, explaining the family’s predicament and saying that I might die before they were allowed to see me. The next morning, May 14, 1980, the U.S. attorney’s office hand-delivered a letter to Mr. Frankel’s office signed by John J. Kenney. It stated that my son’s phone call to his wife was “upsetting”, and it asked Frankel to speak to my family “so that repetitions of this unfortunate incident might be avoided.” In the afternoon of May 14, 1980, 36 hours after my admittance, my blood pressure dropped to zero and the physician declared me practically dead. Mr. Kenney finally allowed members of my immediate family to visit me. I was miraculously saved at the last minute by the ingenuity of Dr. Schuman who had a newly developed anti-toxin flown in from Boston. When I had just started to recuperate, a nurse of the hospital who brought me, upon authorization of the physician, some spaghetti, was threatened with firing by U.S. Marshal Oboisky if she served me. Oboisky even threatened to take me out of the hospital and return me to the prison. The doctor assured him that those decisions would be made by someone with medical expertise, and he requested that the U.S. marshal stop harassing me, because my physical condition could not bear it. A few days later, I was brought back to the prison infirmary and kept under 24-hours surveillance. Mr. Kenney personally came, accompanied by the warden, to inspect my room, and he confiscated a few bottles of medicine to prevent any further suicide attempts. After the sentencing, however, he permitted my medicines to be returned to me. In fact he did not care about the life of a man; he just wanted to reach the sentencing day when he would finally have received the reward of six years of inhuman and dishonest activity. As far as he was concerned, after that day I could have dropped dead!
After my appeal was unjustly upheld by the second circuit court, Kenney resigned as Assistant U.S. Attorney and entered that job in a prestigious law firm, which he craved for so long. Tendy was then appointed to my case, in particular, to investigate my disappearance. While I was still in the infirmary, he informed me, through me lawyers, that if I were willing to tell him the truth of the events of the past summer, he would recommend an overall review of my judicial standing. I was questioned twice, and Tendy assured me that my statements would not be relayed to anyone. My attorney, Mr. Rosner, also assured me that Tendy could be trusted and that I could speak freely during these attempted plea-bargaining sessions. Tendy was convinced that I had important information about organized crime – this again based on my relationship with John Gambino. I explained that my meetings with Gambino should be regarded as activity of a political nature, since our aim had been to reduce the communist votes in Italy, especially in Sicily. Gambino always behaved appropriately and never proposed to me any “deals” outside of the political realm, and he never made any proposal that sounded suspiciously illegal. After clarifying my position with Gambino, I testified regarding the major issue, that is, what had actually happened to me during the disappearance. I told Tendy all the details to the best of my recollection. In order to strengthen my statements, I told him of my relationships with important Italian and American figures, and I reminded him during this occasion that he must hold to his promise of confidentiality, because the lives of people dedicated to the fighting for freedom as well as the national security of both our countries were at stake.
Later, Mr. Tendy informed me, through me lawyers, that he did not believe a word of what I had said. He proposed the possibility of my taking a lie-detector test. I immediately replied that I was quite willing to take that test, and I volunteered also to be injected with sodium pentothal or any other “truth serum” of their choice. Caught off balance, Tendy immediately retreated and stated that such testing was no longer necessary, because he was so sure I had lied that he did not need to prove it further. I had of course heard of defense attorneys advising their clients against taking the lie-detector test, but I never heard of an investigative authority being unwilling to administer one to a cooperative defendant. Mr. President, to this day I remain willing to take these tests. The fact is that Mr. Tendy was not searching for the truth: he knew that what I had already told him was the truth. This colleague worthy of John Kenney sought evidence with which he might incriminate other people. When he realized that I had nothing to help his cause, he retracted his offer of an “overall review of my judicial standing”, because it seemed to him unfair to give me something for nothing. Not wanting to admit that this was in fact his line of reasoning, he stated that I was lying, in order to justify his breach of promise.
When my lawyer told me that Tendy after my first session did not believe me – that all of my plea-bargaining efforts had failed and that I had best resign myself to spending the rest of my life in jail – Mr. Tendy came back to the attack and informed me. Through my attorney Mr. Rosner (Mr. Frankel was also aware of this proposal), that I could, during my second and final scheduled questioning, have a chance to change all that: that he, Mr. Tendy, could provide me with a passport of the country of my choice, in a name of my liking, where I could live the rest of my life in peace…if only I could provide him with incriminating evidence against John Gambino. I again testified to Mr. Tendy and my position remained unchanged. How easy it could have been for me to accept the bait from Tendy and cooperate in fabricating stories against John Gambino, as was done by Bordoni and Kenney against me! Had I done so, Mr. Gambino would now be unjustly in prison and I would be free. Bordoni, who did agree to this offer, is now free, spending the $ 40 million he stole from my banks while I am incarcerated. Unfortunately for Mr. Tendy, my morality is not as flexible as Mr. Bordoni’s, and therefore his plan did not work.
It was not the first time that I received this sort of proposal from the U.S. attorney. At the beginning of the investigation of the collapse of the Franklin National Bank, Mr. Kenney immediately began to hunt for an important prey that would give him the prestige he so avidly sought. The name of David Kennedy presented the opportunity he was seeking. Mr. Kennedy’s prestigious position in the American financial community, in particular his having served as Secretary of the Treasury, made him a prime target. A conviction of such a high-caliber figure would secure a successful career for the aspiring defense attorney, John Kenney. I was only number two on his “hit list”, and he was more that willing to trade me for David Kennedy. In fact, through my attorneys, Mr. Kirby and Mr. Kasanof, he sent me a proposal to bring incriminating evidence against Mr. Kennedy and promised that he would, at that point, drop my case. This occurred several times during the fight to prevent my extradition to Italy, and the proposal was offered again after my indictment in this country. Here again I could have been a free man, peacefully living the last years of my life in the company of my family, if only I had decided to cooperate in fabricating evidence. The more I insisted to Mr. Kenney that I could not offer such evidence, since I firmly believed in the rectitude of Mr. Kennedy, which I was able to verify throughout our long-standing relationship, the more insistently he repeated his proposal. Was Mr. Kenney trying to tell me something? Was he trying to bribe me with my life and my freedom in exchange for my saying what he wanted to hear, even if it was utterly false? Is this the way in which he approached Mr. Bordoni, who eventually proved to be a much more cooperative participant than I was? Is this the way, Mr. President, that the plea-bargaining method for cooperative witnesses (originally established to fight organized crime) is presently being abused by ambitious prosecutors to obtain their prized convictions?
As to Mr. Tendy, I would like to point out to you, Sir, the most vile of all his actions. After my plea-bargaining session with him, he immediately informed the Italian press, and therefore, also the communists, of the details of the interrogation pertaining to facts and people that had nothing to do with common crime, but specifically involved political activity. By doing so, he broke his promise and betrayed a principle of loyalty upon which the legal procedures of an advanced country like the United States should be based. He had no right to jeopardize the freedom or perhaps the lives of patriots by playing of my faith in his words, which I trusted in regard with the official position he held in the U.S. government. Throughout the entire second interrogation, Tendy continued to openly threaten me, advising me that if I continued to “lie” he would send me to a prison far away from my family. He did indeed keep one promise, and a few days later I was transferred to Springfield, Missouri and was inexplicably classified at security level # 6 – usually reserved for mass murderers and their ilk. I thought that the use of threats by a U.S. attorney in order to extort information is considered a crime in the United States and especially so when those threats are actually carried out, as they were in my case. (Tendy should have requested his own indictment for his despicable actions).
During the interrogation, I accused him of being abusive of the powers entrusted in him by that flag, which he so undeservedly represented. Tendy apparently never forgot my words and subsequently sought to make my prison life miserable. I was abruptly transferred early one morning from the Manhattan Correctional Center in New York to Springfield, Missouri. I was not allowed to dress and wore my pajama during the entire trip. I was not allowed to advise my family or my lawyers of my departure and, worst of all, I was not allowed to bring my legal documents. A few days later, the documents were sent to my daughter, and a memo of mine written to my attorneys regarding delicate matters was missing from the documents that were returned. The official surely had ample time to photocopy the contents. So goes the attorney-client privilege!
As I told you before, the U.S. attorney had originally stated to the press that my suicide attempt was a hoax. He shortly thereafter received a medical report, which clearly documented that I miraculously survived a potentially lethal drug overdose. During the second trial, instead of retracting his original statement, he ridiculously stated to Judge Leval that my suicide attempt was still to be considered a hoax and that I had actually planned to be brought to an outside hospital, in order to escape, but had misjudged the drug dosage.
The U.S. attorney corroborated his theory by bringing into evidence the testimony of a young inmate of the MCC, who stated that I paid him $1,500 to organize my escape. The fiancée of this young inmate worked as a secretary in the law firm of John Kirby, which represented me; I discovered this coincidence when she visited him once in prison. She told me of the long hours she had voluntarily worked overtime on my case. Taking me into her confidence, she begged me to please give financial help to her fiancé who had been convicted of a bank robbery and could not afford to pay his attorney for his defense. I trusted these young people, and I was moved by her plea to ask my daughter to send her the amount they needed in an official check (and not cash, as it might have been if my intentions were anything but aboveboard). This same inmate relayed to me, while we were in prison together, that he heard the rumor that the U.S. attorney’s office was spreading through the underworld – that they sought testimonies of incriminating evidence against me, and that those so testifying would receive favorable treatment. After my suicide attempt, when I was in the hospital, the well-informed young inmate himself received this favorable treatment as a reward for his false testimony against me regarding the money I lent for his sake. In this case, as in the Roncisvalle case previously mentioned, the witness who lied so blatantly would have been punished and not rewarded by a truly dedicated U.S. attorney.
In view of all the facts above, which further demonstrate the unethical behavior of the U.S. attorney, I would now like to expand on a disturbing episode in my case history, which I have only touched upon so far.
The liquidator of the Italian bank that I controlled, an appointee of the Italian government, Giorgio Ambrosoli, was killed in July 1979. He had already finished his research and had just delivered his third and final report to the Italian investigative magistrate. A memorandum I sent to the Italian judge specifically related to two Ambrosoli reports, which I received through rogatories. I proved unequivocally, through details and points of fact, that the accusations of Ambrosoli against me were completely unfounded. I demonstrated that most of his statements were contradictory, evidently prepared by someone who had no banking or financial knowledge, but was jut a mediocre lawyer hired and well paid by my enemies. My friends and relatives can testify as to my delight at Ambrosoli’s incongruous reports. This could have been my ace in the hole: Ambrosoli had naively agreed to come to testify at my U.S. trial for the prosecution. I anxiously awaited the moment of his cross-examination where I could finally demonstrate that the Italian authorities were deliberately fabricating evidence against me to obtain my extradition or conviction in the United States. My memorandum to Judge Urbisci is available, and the validity of my arguments against Ambrosoli could be verified, if read by any banking experts. Imagine my distress at learning that this vital participant in my trial had been murdered! Charges that I might have had a hand in his death at this point, when his reports were all completed, were ludicrous. I was deprived of an opportunity to disprove his statements in court, and further, I realized that the outcome of my trial was now in jeopardy, because apparently I was to be the scapegoat for yet another crime. I also hinted to the Italian authorities as to who might have been interested in murdering Ambrosoli at that time. However, the Italian prosecutors had already decided that I had to be the only target of their investigation. The Italian press had already taken my guilt for granted, and therefore there seemed to be no need to search for any other possible suspects. The Italian prosecutor then sent a request to the U.S. attorney to gather evidence against me, in return for the favor of his helping to gather evidence for the bank fraud case. On July 15, 1981, the Italian authorities issued a warrant of arrest accusing me of being the instigator of Ambrosoli’s murder. The warrant of arrest clearly defines that all of the evidence against me has been gathered and relayed to the Italian authorities by the American judicial authorities, and it specifically mentions the existence of an unknown witness who stated that I personally knew the alleged killer (a man named Aricò) and that I paid him to commit the murder. I was shocked and profoundly hurt by this new accusation, which was the final blow in their attempt to destroy my reputation. However, I am not surprised: by now, I know that Tendy, by using sentence reduction as leverage, can find as many professional killers as he likes to come testify about my involvement in any crime.
The F.B.I. has collaborated with the U.S. attorney and with the Italian authorities in their attempt to accumulate evidence against me for this case. After my voluntary return in October 1979, the F.B.I. started harassing my family. They first sent false evidence about my son-in-law’s alleged activity in organized crime. Subsequently, the Italian authorities issued a warrant of arrest for him as a result of which he readily returned to Italy and presented himself to the Italian judicial authorities. He was incarcerated based on the bizarre accusation of conspiracy with organized crimes figures to commit unspecified crimes. In the beginning of his incarceration, Mr. Vizi of the F.B.I. visited him in Italy and, as I mentioned previously, offered him an illegal proposition: if he offered incriminating evidence against the Mafia, my son-in-law would have been acquitted in Italy. My son-in-law had nothing to offer Mr. Vizi and at that point his pre-trial incarceration was extended to the limit allowed by Italian law. After eight months, he was released and the charges were dropped, due to “insufficiency of clues” (!). A few months later, my son-in-law was again arrested (I assume on other false information given by the F.B.I.), and he was again similarly charged with conspiracy to commit unknown crimes. He is still in prison today without ever having been tried.
What I find most irresponsible in the behavior of the American law enforcement agency and judicial authority involved is that they repeated to the Italian magistrate “here say” that, according to their informer, the killer was introduced to me by my son, Nino, or by my son-in-law. This careless statement asserting that one or the other of the two could have introduced me to the killer resulted in two “Comunicazioni Giudiziarie” (official notice of investigation) issued by the Italian authorities against my son and son-in-law. These notices were publicized in all of the major Italian newspapers and in the “Progresso Italo-Americano” in New York. The consequences of this action are easily imaginable: my son and son-in-law have become murder suspects according to the Italian media; my son, Nino, who works in Chicago in the import-export field, will no longer be able to do any business with Italian firms; and my son-in-law will probably soon be released, once again most likely on “insufficient clues”, but will gravely suffer in his business and social relationships. Additionally, using the pretext of murder as leverage, the authorities can more readily harass my family. (My son, Nino, has twice undergone extensive searches by U.S. customs officers upon reentering the United States during his last two trips abroad).
Upon arriving in Springfield, Missouri, I was kept in “the hole” (isolation) for 21 days. The psychiatrists at that institution pointed out to the prison authorities that this was not the advisable mode of dissuading a person from attempting suicide. The unit manager explained that, even if he agreed with the physician’s opinion, he was forced to subject me to this inhumane treatment by order of the U.S. attorney in New York. After speaking with me and reviewing my case history, the team in charge of security levels classified me at security lever # 2, not assigning me to the minimum-security level # 1 only because of the length of my sentence. Consequently, they recommended my being transferred to Danbury, Connecticut, which is a level # 2 institution and which is close to my family. The physician stated in their report that I was in good physical and mental health and that I could leave the medical center at any time. I was assured of a transfer within two to three weeks. After approximately ten days, my case manager advised me that the team had erred in their decision and that I should have been classified at level # 3. I strongly protested their decision, and he finally admitted that the change in security level was requested from the “East”. He told me, however, that a transfer to Petersburg, Virginia, a level # 3 institution, was proposed; this new destination was not as favorable as Danbury, but its proximity to my family made it more desirable than Springfield. A few days later, I was informed that the regional office in Philadelphia rejected the proposal of the Springfield team and decided that I would be permanently kept in Springfield. I was then moved from the hospital to the general population.
My case manager phoned Philadelphia in my presence and questioned the reasoning for their unusual decision, and the predictable answer was, “pressure from New York”. My attorney, Mr. Frankel, called and wrote to Philadelphia requesting again a possible transfer to Petersburg, stating two major reasons: (1) My wife, a 61 years old Italian with little knowledge of the English language, my daughter and my two granddaughters, who all leave in New York, needed the psychological comfort that they could at least visit me, and (2) I still have a large array of legal problems, which undoubtedly require recurrent discussion with my lawyers.
The response of Mr. Grzegiorek, representative of the Bureau of Prisons in Philadelphia, displayed the same false and perverse attitudes of his advisor, Mr. Tendy. His letter stated, “Due to his physical and emotional problems…attempted suicide…[Sindona] should be confined at a facility where comprehensive medical and psychiatric resources are readily available.” I immediately showed a copy of that letter to the physicians in Springfield who ha prepared my report, and asked them whether they had altered their diagnosis of my physical and mental health, or whether Mr. Grzegiorek had used a crystal ball to observe my health from Philadelphia. The physicians told me that, if I were to decide to sue the Bureau of Prisons, they would be willing to testify regarding the validity of their medical report. Unfortunately, Mr. Frankel refused to take such action, because he wanted to avoid making waves so close to the time of the appeal decision. In Springfield, I asked for facilities to store the thousands of documents pertaining to my case, which would help me prepare my Italian trial and also would aid me in my hopes of obtaining a new trial in the U.S. My request was denied. Here again, they wanted to prove that a rich and powerful banker (especially when he is no longer rich and powerful) is treated in the same way, or even worse, than common inmates. Disregarding the complexity of my case, they denied me the right to defend myself. A few months later, I was temporarily transferred to the Manhattan Correctional Center in New York. I was called by Judge Leval for the trial on bail-jumping charges. During my confinement in the interim in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, I was kept once again in “the hole” for two weeks. The official excuse fir this new harassment was the supposed loss of my travel documents. My attorneys asked for Judge Leval`s assistance. He immediately sent two U.S. marshals to pick me up, and they brought me to the MCC’s ninth floor south, maximum security level, and escorted me at all times, in spite of my classification reduction to level # 3 that I received in Springfield. Upon re-encountering officers whom I had met prior to going to Springfield, I asked why I was receiving such harsh treatment. They confirmed to me that they were ordered to “break my nerves”.
After the second trial, I was returned to Springfield, once again against the well-reasoned request of my new attorney. This time they classified me as a level # 2 and strongly opposed any pressure from New York. However, even if that is now my official classification, I am still kept in the general population of Springfield, which is a level # 3 institution; I cannot be transferred to Danbury near my family, owing to the precise orders of the U.S. attorney.
I have been assigned to a job in the laundry room. Apparently, they strictly adhere to regulations guiding job placement of an inmate according to his background: so it seems that, after having been a corporate lawyer in Italy for thirty years, after having lectured in the most important American universities on international economic and monetary issues, and after having been a banker and international financier (which, according to Judge Griesa, allowed me to mastermind “sophisticated crimes”), I am well-qualified to fold shirts and underwear.
I have described only a small part of the incredible moral, psychological, and sometimes even physical tortures to which I have been subjected by people who are unworthy of the American judicial system. In this country, I have been cheated, persecuted, and unjustly punished; I have even been deceived by those people who were supposed to defend me. I presently have no further hopes for receiving my due justice. Unfortunately all of my resources have been drained and therefore I will soon be unable to pay for attorneys to help me. I have presented to you an account of my startling case, and I encourage you to verify all that I have reported here. I turn now to you, Mr. President, with the hope of obtaining protection and serenity for my family. The United States have severely criticized dictatorships that persecute the families of those considered criminal by their state. As I said, I always fought for the principles of democracy and justice of this country and, because of this struggle, I have been persecuted, not only by the Italian communists, but also by this system here, the American leviathan. Despite the treatment I received, I am still convinced that the United States is the only nation capable of protecting my country and the entire free world from the communist threat.
Italy has a vital need to restore the three values that Gilbert defines in Wealth and Poverty as indispensable elements for the survival of a democratic country: work, family, and faith. In Italy the leftist influence and propaganda has destroyed these values and, along with them, has destroyed democracy and the fabric of the state itself. No one wants to work anymore, since they are confident that the welfare state will support them (with debts in American dollars). The once healthy Italian family is now just a memory. And faith, once a significant stabilizing factor, has been lost by the Italians: corruption, pervading every facet of Italian life, has destroyed the belief in any moral value, human or divine.
It heartens me when I see that finally you are trying to curb the threatening advance of Marxist ideas, and most of us know that you need loyal allies in the struggle. But this loyalty must be earned and deserved. As long as unlimited power in this country is given to the likes of the Griesas, the Kenneys, and Tendys – to people who, by their actions, desecrate the beautiful American flag –you may again soon witness other boats of refugees stranded in stormy seas, and hear their plaintive cry: “Is this what happens to the friends of the United States of America?”
Respectfully yours,
Michele Sindona
Commenti
Posta un commento