Indictments over Everett site give voters much to ponder




When members of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission awarded the Greater Boston casino license to Steve Wynn, they already knew there was something fishy about the ownership of the Everett parcel he plans to build on. The Globe reported last year that federal and state investigators were asking whether convicted felon and Mafia associate Charles Lightbody was a secret investor in the property that Wynn intended to buy, and the commission made the other property owners sign promises that no secret partners would get a cut of their proceeds. In the end, the panel concluded that, warts and all, the Wynn plan still fulfilled the goals of the state casino law better than a rival proposal at Suffolk Downs did. When Lightbody and two other men were indicted Wednesday on state and federal charges connected with the Everett property, it raised the question of whether the commission would reconsider. Ultimately, though, the indictments provide no grounds for revoking Wynn’s license.

Yet the five members of the gaming commission aren’t the only ones who must assess the significance of this criminal case. The indictments are also part of the picture confronting Massachusetts voters as they weigh Question 3, a measure to repeal the state’s 2011 expanded gambling law. A question for them to ponder — and for casino proponents to answer in these final weeks of the campaign — is whether a certain amount of seedy intrigue is an inexorable part of bringing the gambling industry to town, and if so whether the economic impact of casinos nevertheless outweighs it.

Continue reading below

The federal and state indictments treat Lightbody, Dustin DeNunzio, and Anthony Gattineri as co-owners of the property along with another man who was not indicted. Authorities accuse the defendants of defrauding Wynn by falsifying and back-dating documents related to the Everett parcel. Prosecutors say that the men concealed Lightbody’s role in the ownership group, since Lightbody had a criminal record and connections to organized crime. Because state regulators would have blocked Lightbody from having any role in a casino deal, removing his name was key to getting Wynn’s money, which prosecutors allege amounts to fraud.

The state gaming commission has reiterated its stance that it won’t hold the indictment against Wynn Resorts, since it isn’t the alleged perpetrator. The indictment appears to back up that characterization, showing that the co-owners sent e-mails containing false information to Wynn executives about the composition of the ownership group.

One could argue that the alleged crime in Everett is, counterintuitively, a sign that the Massachusetts law is working. The Everett landowners felt compelled to falsify paperwork, the indictments suggest, because they knew the state didn’t want people like Lightbody anywhere near Massachusetts casinos. Conversely, though, the fact that a Mafia associate was involved in a land sale raises the possibility that no matter how hard regulators try, corruption still finds a way to ooze into the process.

The experience of some other gambling states suggests that the risk of corruption and political manipulation is at its greatest during the licensing process; so much money rides on which plan the gaming commission ultimately chooses that some involved parties may evade or simply break the rules, but such temptation may abate once licenses are issued. Regardless, the indictments are likely to broaden a casino debate that’s been cast primarily in economic terms. Are casinos too corrupting? Advocates on either side of Question 3 have less than a month to make their case, and voters have less than a month to decide.


Open all references in tabs: [1 – 4]

Leave a Reply