tion, because of the size of syndicated crime, its trend toward commercial violations and the ever growing federal controls in the areas of commerce and social welfare, there is real criminal and civil enforcement jurisdiction in some of the federal economic and social laws. The antitrust and labor laws are good examples, but there are many others. The agencies charged with enforcing these laws are necessarily primarily concerned with matters of general economic and social significance. They should be assisted by a prosecution unit specializing in syndicate operations which can provide information to help them decide how and where to use their limited staffs to combat syndicated crime. 5. Syndicate leadership is insulated from prosecution by far-flung vertical operations. Just as with big business, management of the syndicate acts on a very different level and often miles away from operation. This separation has two important consequences to law enforcement. First, each level operates as insulation to the higher level, since criminal law enforcement loses effect the further it strays from the specific, physical criminal act. Second, the leaders can remove themselves from the subpoena power of any particular local prosecutor. Even the most vigorous local district attorney finds it virtually impossible to investigate where the real culprits are outside his subpoena jurisdiction. 6. Specialists are used to provide maximum protection against prosecution. Experience has taught syndicate members to acquire the services of highly qualified attorneys and accountants. Penetration of the cloak of legitimacy created by their efforts is sometimes almost impossible, and frequently requires years of painstaking digging into documents and records. 7. Effective public relations are used to create the atmosphere of legitimacy. Along with the graduation of syndicated crime into commercial areas has come an ever increasing use of the techniques of modern public relations to deceive the public, create the appearance of legitimacy and enable close relationships with important public officials. Substantial charitable and political contributions are the rule; membership in religious, fraternal and civic organizations a necessary part of life. The profits of criminal operations are being more and more channeled into legitimate investments in business and industry. The result is that some of the most important syndicate leaders are men of outstand**ing public reputation with no criminal records, or at least none for two or more decades. Effective prosecution of this kind of syndicated crime requires a redirection of federal criminal law enforcement effort into commercial areas, assisted by a federal prosecution staff specializing in syndicated crime and working closely with state and local law enforcement authorities. III. SPLINTERED LAW ENFORCEMENT MINIMIZES THE EFFECT OF PROSECUTIVE ACTION A fundamental characteristic of American criminal law enforcement is that it is broken down into a large number of small and independent units of strictly limited jurisdiction. This traditional "splintered law enforcement," long con-sidered a safeguard to freedom in our society, is at the same time a primary cause of our inability to deal with syndicated crime, which cuts broadly across jurisdictional lines. SPLINTERED STATE AND LOCAL ENFORCEMENT Law enforcement is administered by federal, state and local governments. In each, it is divided into two types of activity: investigation (police operation) and prosecution (court action). In the non-federal area, encompassing perhaps 90% or more of all crime, there are forty-nine states, plus the District of Columbia. Each of these subdivisions is broken down further into numerous smaller political units. Thus, there are thousands of state, city, county and special police units and state attorneys general, district attorneys and special prosecutors. 30-902 0-69—35 SPLINTERED FEDERAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION Splintered law enforcement also exists in the federal government. In the area of criminal investigation there are a great number of investigative units, each having very strictly limited authority. The most commonly known are: Alcohol & Tobacco Tax Division Customs Agency Service Federal Bureau of Investigation Immigration & Naturalization Service Internal Revenue Service Narcotics Bureau Secret Service But there are many more, such as investigative, intelligence or other law enforcement units within the: Defense Department Post Office Department Central Intelligence Agency Civil Service Commission Coast Guard Veterans Administration And as already indicated, such units of the economic and social agencies can and should have an important part to play in syndicated crime enforcement. The latter include units in the: Agriculture Department Commerce Department Labor Department Food and Drug Administration Small Business Administration Social Security Administration Federal Communications Commission Federal Housing Administration Federal Trade Commission Interstate Commerce Commission Securities and Exchange Commission Each of these investigative units has limited jurisdiction, and requires a specific lead to a matter within its assigned powers before it can move. As already indicated, this means that no federal investigative agency is authorized to act even where the existence of a crime syndicate is clear, unless there is also at least some evidence of the federal crime involved. On the other hand, it also means that each agency conducts investigations of the same subject where several federal crimes are suggested. FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROSECUTION ALSO SPLINTERED Federal criminal prosecution is also splintered, even though all federal crime is prosecuted by some part of the Department of Justice. Most actual court prosecution is delegated to the 94 United States Attorneys, each operating within a geographically limited district. In practice, United States Attorneys are limited in legal as well as in geographical jurisdiction. Most important, prosecution of antitrust cases is handled by the Antitrust Division, with headquarters in Washington and field offices throughout the country. The Department of Justice itself is broken down into legally specialized Divisions. The most important Divisions having jurisdiction over syndicated crime matters are Antitrust, Criminal and Tax. These Divisions are further broken down into Sections, each dealing in even more specialized legal areas. Nowhere in this mass of prosecutive units is there one having the necessary jurisdiction or staff to deal with syndicated crime. In Washington, each unit operates within limited and highly specialized legal areas; in the field, within limited geographical areas as well. Even the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section in the Criminal Division has no tax, civil or antitrust authority, limited criminal authority, no permanent field organization, and insufficient budget or staff to adequately deal with the problem. ADVANTAGES OF SLINTERED LAW ENFORCEMENT While presently resulting in ineffective prosecution of syndicated crime, splintered law enforcement itself has many advantages. On the prosecution side, it permits specialization, which is necessary in the complicated fields of modern law. On the investigation side, it serves also as protection against too great concentration of criminal enforcement power. The advantages of splintered law enforcement can be retained even in a modernized law enforcement structure, through the creation of a permanent unit charged with the mission of unifying federal, state and local law enforcement against syndicated crime. The new unit should be a true catalytic agent in this area, acting as a nerve center or clearing house permitting communication between existing law enforcement units, but assuming none of their jurisdiction. The new unit must be a federal one, even though most crime is state and local. Only the federal government has the necessary nationwide jurisdiction for all catalysis. ATTEMPTS AT UNIFIED EFFORT In the absence of the necessary new unit, federal, state and local agencies are doing their best to work out effective unification of effort. The FBI's fine fingerprint and criminal laboratory assistance to other law enforcement units, for example, is well known. Not so well known is its effort at cooperation through assigned liaison representatives making regular calls on law enforcement agencies. Other federal agencies also do their best to assist and cooperate. Similar attempts are being made on the state and local level through regional coordination groups such as the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit in the West. Helpful as these attempts are, it is impossible to obtain real communication without a unit having this as a primary mission, and also having nationwide jurisdiction. No matter how great his desire to cooperate, a detective in one city cannot know what an assistant district attorney in a distant city needs to piece together a complex syndicated crime pattern. DEMAND FOR UNIFIED EFFORT There clearly exists a real hunger for the Unified Prosecutive Effort against syndicated crime, particularly on the local level where law enforcement units are more isolated from each other. Evidence of this is not only in the words in law enforcement officials all over the country, but in the tremendous welcome and response given to the initial efforts of the Special Group on Organized Crime in this direction. Indeed, the only reluctance exhibited has been because the Special Group is a temporary task force, with neither the facilities nor the anticipated life necessary to produce the truly Unified Prosective Effort. IV. RECOMMENDATION FOR CREATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE ON SYNDICATED CRIME Prosecution of modern syndicated crime can never be really effective until all proper governmental power is focused into a single unified attack. This concentration should be carried out on a cooperative and not compulsory basis in order to retain the advantages of specialization resulting from division of criminal law enforcement into numerous units. The difficult task of concentration should be the mission of a unit having no other assignment. That unit should have the following functions: 1. Federal prosecution of the leaders of syndicated crime. Actual civil and criminal prosecution of the relatively few persons engaged in the top leadership of crime syndicates should be handled by a single group of prosecutors specializing in syndicated crime. As already discussed, syndicated crime is a most complicated subject, calling for just as expert legal handling as any tax or antitrust case. Grand jury investigation preliminary to indictment, for example, must be nationwide, and under all federal laws. The prosecutor must have the background and experience to recognize how an apparently innocent bit of evidence fits into the larger jigsaw puzzle which makes up the syndicate. The syndicated crime unit itself should only handle prosecution of the leaders of syndicated crime. The great bulk of federal prosecution of syndicated crime should continue to be handled as it is now. However, as part of its prosecution function, the new unit should assist other Department of Justice prose cutors in syndicated crime matters. Thus, it should advise the Antitrust Division of Industries apparently infested with persons engaging in syndicated crime, or advise United States Attorneys through the Department of local situations requiring action. 2. Cooperation with state and local authorities. A primary function of the new unit should be the creation of truly Unified Prosecutive Efforts against syndicated crime through cooperation between federal, state and local enforcement authorities. As already stated, on the state and local level there is real hunger for cooperation with federal authorities and with each other. But the cooperation must be on a reciprocal basis. In fact, because the overwhelming proportion of crime is state and local, the result of the new unit's operations should be many more non-federal than federal prosecutions. 3. Easing of access to criminal intelligence, Another function of the new unit should be to assist other federal, state and local law enforcement authorities to obtain criminal intelligence with respect to syndicated crime. There is an ever growing demand for the creation of a federal criminal intelligence unit to which prosecutors and investigators can turn for assistance. The new unit can satisfy this demand by placing agencies seeking information in direct and immediate contact with those best qualified to help. The new unit itself should only disseminate information where the source of the information has authorized disclosure. In this way current information can be exchanged between law enforcement agencies themselves, directly and quickly, in an atmosphere of true cooperative effort. 4. Assistance to administrative enforcement. As part of its overall mission to concentrate governmental power on the leaders of syndicated crime, the new unit should furnish information to assist federal, state and local administrative agencies in law enforcement. The agencies themselves, of course, will then take such action within their jurisdiction as they deem appropriate. Assistance of this kind is essential, because administrative agencies today hold great civil, quasi-criminal and even criminal law enforcement powers. However, by and large they do not have the staffs and money to handle each complaint filed, license application submitted or request for aid as though syndicated crime were involved. It is essential that the new unit affirmatively undertake to place at their disposal the total of criminal intelligence elsewhere available. Only in this way can there be positive action to intensify administrative law enforce ment, and also keep syndicated crime from receiving government benefits to which it is not entitled. 5. Coordination of syndicated crime matters within the Justice Department. The new unit itself should be within the Justice Department, and should coordinate activity within the Department with respect to syndicated crime and its leadership. One specific assignment in this connection should be the maintenance of a central file index of criminal data within the Justice Department relating to syndicated erime. Nowhere does such an index exist. Nowhere is there even any overall central index of investigative reports submitted to the Department by the many reporting investigative agencies. 6. Preparation of legislative and administrative recommendations for combatting syndicated crime. The conclusion of this report is that the greatest need is for more effective prosecution under existing law through a modern law enforcement structure, not for new laws and regulations. That is not to say, however, that experience and study will not suggest many new areas of required legislation or regulation. to keep up with the rapid developments in this field. As syndicated crime, employing the services of its specialized attorneys and accountants, develops new techniques to avoid prosecution, government must develop counter techniques. The new prosecution unit would be best qualified to initiate legislative or administrative recommendations in this connection. 7. Initiation of investigation of syndicated crime. As earlier stated, there sometimes exists no apparent syndicated crime corpus delicti, with the result that no federal investigative agency has power to investigate. ་་། To avoid this law enforcement vacuum, the authority of the FBI should be enlarged to enable it to conduct syndicated crime investigations, in cooporation with the new unit. As such investigations proceed, any information or leads which may relate to crimes within the jurisdiction of other agencies can be turned over to them in accordance with existing procedures. CREATION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE ON SYNDICATED CRIME The new unit to carry out these syndicated crime functions should be the Attorney General's Office on Syndicated Crime, with jurisdiction nationwide and under all federal laws. The structure of an office in the Justice Department, with field offices as required, has been chosen over other possible types of unit for the following reasons: 1. The new unit must be within the Department of Justice to avoid separation of the criminal intelligence and investigation functions, from the obligation to prosecute, avoid duplication of the great effort already being conducted by the Department of Justice and eliminate unnecessary conflict with existing prosecution offices. 2. The new unit should be a field prosecution office first, operating as close to the cooperating federal, state and local agencies as possible. Cooperation can best be worked out on the scene, with a minimum of documentation and delay. 3. The new unit can have the subpoena power and access to current criminal intelligence needed to supplement the contributions of others in the unified effort. 4. The new unit should have the guidance of the Divisions and Sections in the Justice Department and access to their specialized legal competence. 5. The new unit must have the stature to deal with public officials whose cooperation is sought and attract outstanding attorneys for its prosecution staff. 6. The new unit will fill a well recognized place within the Justice Department's scheme of organization, thereby reducing possible jurisdictional conflicts to a minimum. SYNDICATED CRIME OFFICE SHOULD BE SMALL The Attorney General's Office on Syndicated Crime should be of the smallest possible size consistent with carrying out its mission. To remain small, it must adopt a strict policy of avoiding activity in any area covered by others. CONCLUSION Since its creation April 10, 1958, the Attorney General's Special Group on Organized Crime has been carrying out the recommended seven syndicated crime functions as a task force, spearheading the Department of Justice's overall drive against syndicated crime. The need for a permanent unit to continue and expand this work in the areas of unification of effort and establishment of communication between law enforcement agencies is certain, as attested by the pleas of law enforcement officials all over the country. Even in the single area of federal prosecution of the leaders of syndicated crime, the details of which are still secret, there is every reason to believe that important results will be achieved. There can be no excuse for delay in other areas of urgency to await the outcome of criminal investigation, prosecution and appeal, a process which usually takes many years. The function of the temporary syndicated crime task force is to point the way. That way is now clear. It is to create a new and permanent force in government, providing the catalytic action and unification of effort which can bring the leaders of the criminal underworld to the bar of justice. |