[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 24, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E166-E167]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


           KEY DOCUMENTS PROVE INNOCENCE OF JOSEPH OCCHIPINTI

                                 ______


                      HON. JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR.

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 24, 1995
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, as part of my continuing efforts to bring 
to light all the facts in the case of former Immigration and 
Naturalization Service Agent Joseph Occhipinti, I submit into the 
Record a document I received from the Drug Enforcement Administration 
in response to a Freedom of Information Act request I filed last year 
for all DEA documents related to the Occhipinti case. The document is a 
memorandum written by a DEA special agent on April 16, 1991.

       On April 5, 1991 Special Agent [deleted] met with 
     Investigators [deleted] in the Southern District of New York 
     at the request of [deleted]. The 12 p.m. meeting was arranged 
     in order for [deleted] to meet with the two Assistant U.S. 
     Attorneys and above investigators handling the impending 
     trial after indictment of Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service Special Agent Joseph Occhipinti. He was charged with 
     various counts of violating civil rights through illegal 
     searches and theft of money found during certain searches.
       [Deleted] arrived for the interview and met with [deleted] 
     who was alone in the eighth floor office. He explained that 
     [deleted] and the two assistants were involved in other 
     business at that time. [Deleted] obtained a copy of the 
     twenty five page indictment and 
     [[Page E167]] briefly read through it as [deleted] asked 
     [deleted] about a company by the name of Sea Crest, a firm 
     that was under investigation by D.E.A. and the Manhattan 
     District Attorney's Office in a joint investigation of 
     Capital National Bank (C1-90-0101). [Deleted] explained the 
     role of Sea Crest in suspected skylocking, extortion, and 
     drug smuggling in the Bronx and Washington Heights area. The 
     scheme involved numerous ``bodegas'' in the aforementioned 
     areas and [deleted] explained how this led to his meeting S/A 
     Occhipinti. Occhipinti had started a project called 
     ``Operation Bodega'', involving the use of bodegas in the 
     illegal immigration of various Hispanics and their employment 
     by such stores which are also ``fronts'' for illegal gambling 
     money laundering, food stamp violations and drug dealing.
       [Deleted] stated that Occhipinti had been indicted on 
     several searches which he allegedly had performed without the 
     consent of the store owners but had reported them to INS as 
     consent searches [deleted] advised [deleted] that [deleted] 
     had briefly explained the background over the phone.
       [Deleted] had stated that Occhipinti was in charge of a 
     group of ``young kids'' and that they had very little 
     experience in such searches. [Deleted] further stated that 
     some ``green assistants'' handling the cases had raised 
     doubts about the validity of the searches. He said the cases 
     were then referred to the Department of Justice O.I.G. The 
     O.I.G. found no evidence of wrongdoing and returned the cases 
     to the Southern District of New York. The ``Southern 
     District'' felt that the O.I.G. investigation was inadequate 
     because they had done ``desk investigations'' rather than 
     ``field interviews''. [Deleted] said they then broke down the 
     cases into three groups. Cases involving arrests of those 
     with criminal records were put aside. Cases where no arrest 
     was made but a criminal record was found were put aside. Only 
     cases where no arrest occurred and no criminal record 
     appeared were selected for interviews. These people were 
     ``assumed'' to be ``legitimate'' bodega owners. [Deleted] 
     stated that it could also be assumed that these individuals 
     were possibly smart enough not to have born caught in the 
     past. This conversation occurred on April 4, 1991 over the 
     telephone with [deleted].
       As the interview with [deleted] continued [deleted] 
     referred [deleted] to the indictment. Count Six alleges that 
     on or about January 17, 1990, Occhipinti conducted a 
     warrantless non consensual search of a grocery store at 2262 
     Jerome Avenue and another count charges an illegal search of 
     the residence of the grocery manager [deleted] advised 
     [deleted] that [deleted] and I.R.S. [deleted] were present at 
     the grocery store and also accompanied the manager and 
     Occhipinti to the manager's apartment to obtain his passport. 
     [Deleted] noted [deleted] surprise on learning that [deleted] 
     were present [deleted] said he didn't know these facts, as he 
     was under the impression that another INS agent had gone to 
     the apartment. [Deleted] stated that the manager [deleted] 
     had voluntarily gone to the apartment and invited the agents 
     to accompany him in [deleted] own vehicle. [Deleted] further 
     stated that no search had been performed by Occhipinti at the 
     apartment.
       Shortly after this exchange [deleted] entered the office 
     and the interview continued following a summation by 
     [deleted] of the conversation up to that point.
       [Deleted] reiterated that the January 17th search had not 
     occurred and that due to the fact that Occhipinti did not 
     know [deleted] that well, it would be bizarre to believe that 
     Occhipinti would perform an illegal search in their presence. 
     [Deleted] expressed amazement that a charge was brought 
     against Occhipinti on the strength of an unsubstantiated 
     allegation without an attempt to verify the truth. [Deleted] 
     stated that allegations were made by several bodega owners in 
     the Washington Heights are [deleted] stated that the bodegan 
     in Washington Heights are very often fronts for gambling and 
     other
      criminal activity such as drug trafficking and money 
     laundering. [Deleted] stated that when one sees a huge 
     Pathmark Supermarket in the neighborhood and three bodegas 
     directly across the street, one can assume that they are 
     not just selling groceries. [Deleted] stated that it was 
     indeed possible. [Deleted] stated that gambling was a 
     common occurrence in Washington Heights and that [deleted] 
     should not make a blanket statement about the entire 
     neighborhood. When [deleted] asked [deleted] why he had 
     not interviewed law enforcement personnel prior to the 
     indictment [deleted] replied that they did not want to 
     come up against ``the blue wall of silence'' that occurs 
     where a ``cop'' is being investigated. [Deleted] replied 
     that [deleted] was now blanketing the law enforcement 
     profession in the same way he accused [deleted] of doing 
     to Washington Heights.
       Following this exchange it was revealed by [deleted] that 
     they had interviewed all of the complainants in regard to 
     their relationship with Sea Crest [deleted] expressed shock 
     and dismay that they had seen fit to compromise an official 
     investigation in the Southern District without any 
     consultation with the agencies conducting the investigation 
     [deleted] further stated that Occhipinti had apparently 
     caused much uneasiness on the part of certain interests in 
     Washington Heights and perhaps there was pressure exerted to 
     eliminate the threat. [Deleted] stated that both he and 
     [deleted] expressed their opposition to personally conducting 
     an investigation of Occhipinti due to the fact that they both 
     knew him previously but that they were overruled and ordered 
     to conduct the probe.
       [Deleted] asked if [deleted] had given an itemized list of 
     suspect bodegas to Occhipinti [deleted] said no, that the 
     Capital Bank case involved obtaining a list of Currency 
     Transaction Reports from the bank and these contained 
     numerous forms showing cash transactions in excess of $10,000 
     by several bodegas. Certain targets may have resulted from 
     referrals of such listed businesses to the Manhattan D.A.'s 
     detectives also involved in the case. [Deleted] one of the 
     detectives had stated that [deleted] implicated [deleted] in 
     cocaine trafficking. [Deleted] further stated that if the 
     rest of the indictment was based on the kind of reliability 
     attributed to [deleted] a grave injustice was being done by 
     indicting Occhipinti. Incredibly, at this point [deleted] 
     stated that ``he can be unindicted too.'' [Deleted] said he 
     had not realized in twenty years of dealing with the law that 
     such a phenomenon existed. [Deleted] then asked if [deleted] 
     would check D.E.A. files for records on the businesses listed 
     as complainants in the indictment. [Deleted] was also asked 
     if [deleted] could be reached at [deleted] office [deleted] 
     replied in the affirmative and the interview was terminated.
       It should be noted that although [deleted] was briefly 
     introduced to one of the two Assistant U.S. Attorneys 
     assigned to the case neither he nor the other A.U.S.A. took 
     any part in the interview. [Deleted] was also informed that 
     [deleted] was not a target of the investigation.
     

                          ____________________