The chairman of a
local bank
repeatedly declined
to testify Monday
about his role in
secretly splitting
up an investment in
the now-defunct
Emerald Casino with
at least one man the
FBI has claimed
associated with
members of organized
crime.
For nearly 90
minutes, Rocco
Suspenzi, chairman
of Parkway Bank and
Trust, exercised his
5th Amendment right
during Illinois
Gaming Board
hearings at which
gambling regulators
are trying to strip
the riverboat
license from the
bankrupt casino
firm.
Gaming Board
attorneys asked
Suspenzi scores of
questions about the
agreement to divide
up an investment in
Emerald, all of
which he declined to
answer. At one
point, he even would
not say where he
lived or confirm his
job as head of
Parkway Bank, based
in Harwood Heights.
It is against
Illinois law to have
a hidden ownership
in a casino, and
revealing the secret
deal is a
significant part of
the state's case
that the Gaming
Board was correct in
2001 when it blocked
Emerald's efforts to
build a casino in
Rosemont. What's
more, the deal--made
public by the
Tribune two years
ago--also tries to
link investors to
Emerald and the mob.
Gaming Board
attorneys have
staked their case on
tying elements of
organized crime to
some investors in
Emerald, as well as
proving allegations
that casino
officials misled
gambling regulators
years ago while the
casino was trying to
move its riverboat
from the Galena
area.
Attorneys for the
state also are
questioning how
involved officials
in Rosemont,
including its
longtime Mayor
Donald Stephens,
were in the efforts
to move the
riverboat license to
the suburb and
whether any of that
involvement was
improper. Illinois
Atty. Gen. Lisa
Madigan has accused
Stephens of once
having extensive
business and
personal ties to
mobsters, an
accusation Stephens
has denied.
Emerald attorney
Robert Clifford,
though, argues that
it is wrong for the
state to try to
discredit Emerald by
raising questions
about Rosemont.
"This is not and
should not be a
hearing on the
suitability of the
Village of
Rosemont," he said.
As part of the
Gaming Board's case,
Asst. Atty. Gen.
Paul Gaynor
presented the secret
contract, signed in
September 1999, in
which named Emerald
investor Joseph
Salamone agreed to
divide his $375,000
share in the casino
with his brother
Vito Salamone;
Suspenzi; Suspenzi's
son, Jeffrey; and
Suspenzi Family
Corp.
A preliminary FBI
report presented
earlier in the case
stated that Vito
Salamone has
associated with
members of the mob.
Gaming Board
officials were
unaware of the deal
in 1999, and Gaynor
at one point asked
Rocco Suspenzi if
Joseph Salamone was
a "front" for the
investment group.
Suspenzi declined to
answer. Copies of
checks submitted
into evidence showed
three checks
totaling $125,000
were written from
accounts held by
Rocco and Jeffrey
Suspenzi, as well as
the family
corporation, to Vito
Salamone, even
though Joseph
Salamone was the
investor of record.
In trying to tie
Parkway Bank to
Rosemont and
Stephens, Gaynor
also asked Rocco
Suspenzi about tens
of thousands of
dollars in
contributions and
loans made from the
bank to several
political funds
controlled by
Stephens and his
relatives.
Afterwards, Abner
Mikva, the former
U.S. Court of
Appeals chief judge
and congressman
overseeing the
hearing, described
the "non-testimony"
of Rocco Suspenzi as
"seriously
damaging."
Vito and Joseph
Salamone, as well as
Jeffrey Suspenzi,
were called to
testify Monday, but
they did not show
up. If they don't
attend again, the
state could try to
force them through a
court order.
After Tuesday,
however, hearings
are expected to be
on hold until
mid-July to
accommodate
scheduling conflicts
between the lawyers
and Mikva. So the
men are unlikely to
be called until
mid-July. Mikva
wants to finish the
proceedings by
September.
Clifford
unsuccessfully
sought to end the
hearing because he
said the line of
questioning was
prejudicial and
criticized it as
doing nothing more
than creating
"sensationalistic
news."
Though Clifford
didn't dispute that
the state seemed to
have proven that a
hidden ownership
existed, he said the
$375,000 investment
accounted for only
one-quarter of one
share in Emerald.
And he said Emerald
officials would have
had no way of
knowing about the
secret deal,
especially since the
Gaming Board didn't
find out about it
until 2003 when the
information was part
of a federal
subpoena asking for
any documents it had
related to the deal.
"That was hidden
ownership," Clifford
said. "I don't have
a quarrel with that.
... [But] you're
telling me that the
Emerald Casino
people had the
ability to go out
and get that same
document?
"The answer to that
is a resounding,
`No.'"