Black Mass: The Irish Mob, the Boston FBI, and a Devil's Deal (59 page)
Read Black Mass: The Irish Mob, the Boston FBI, and a Devil's Deal Online
Authors: Dick Lehr,Gerard O'Neill
Tags: #Social Science, #Anthropology, #Cultural, #Political Science, #Law Enforcement, #Sociology, #Urban, #True Crime, #Organized Crime
Review and analysis of Finnerty and Bulger account records obtained thus far also establishes [
sic
] a number of other transactions involving Bulger and Finnerty. In particular are transactions involving one Richard McDonough, a former employee of the Mass[achusetts] Department of Commerce who is now a registered lobbyist in Massachusetts. Richard McDonough received $70,000.00 dollars of a $280,000.00 dollar legal fee apparently charged to Robert and Bruce Quirk by Finnerty and Bulger in late 1985 for Bulger’s efforts settling a civil suit and obtaining a $2.8 million dollar mortgage loan from the South Boston Savings Bank for the Quirk’s [
sic
] in connection with the settlement of that suit. When asked what role Richard McDonough had in connection with those services, neither the Quirks, Bulger nor McDonough could offer any specific information regarding Richard McDonough’s services for which he earned a $70,000.00 “consulting” fee. McDonough was immunized by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston and testified before the Federal Grand Jury concerning his relationship with Bulger, Finnerty and the Quirks. A copy of the transcript of his testimony is attached to this memorandum.
In addition to the Quirk fee, Richard McDonough and William Bulger each received over $50,000.00 dollars from a firm in California known as Herbalife reportedly for out of state “consulting” activities by McDonough and Bulger on behalf of that firm.
During 1985 and 1986, Finnerty and Bulger also purchased real estate located in South Boston via the Mount Vernon Realty Trust and appear to have made a number of joint investments in cable television companies and other investment firms.
Our efforts to ascertain the underlying facts gathered during the prior Federal investigation of Brown’s allegation that he paid Finnerty $500,000.00 dollars for or because of official acts or official influence which Finnerty could provide through William Bulger has been severely limited by the prior cooperation agreement between the Federal authorities and Brown which gives Brown the right to refuse access to his statements and documents. Without having access to Brown’s testimony and information regarding any communications he had with Finnerty, Bulger or their representatives concerning the true purpose of that $500,000.00 payment, it is impossible for us to evaluate whether Brown’s allegations could be successfully prosecuted.
With the information and documents that are available to us, it appears that Finnerty provided little or no substantive input, advice or services in return for his partnership interest in a multi-million dollar commercial real estate venture. In addition, the limited records and documents furnished to us pertaining to Finnerty’s law practice and his relationship with Bulger reveals [
sic
] a curious relationship in which Bulger appears to provide little or no substantive services in return for approximately one half of all fees generated by the Finnerty law firm. For example, during the last four months of 1985 the Finnerty law firm bank account records indicates [
sic
] that Bulger was paid over $50,000.00. In 1986 over $350,000.00 in checks payable directly to William Bulger were issued from law firm accounts. Copies of those checks payable to Bulger are attached to this memorandum. Of those monies paid in 1986 from the Finnerty law firm account, contrary to Bulger’s public statements, it appears that Bulger actually received less than half of the total legal fee paid by the Quirks ($280,000.00 dollars) in connection with the Data Terminal Systems and the South Boston Savings Bank mortgage. Analysis of the deposit of the Quirk legal fees into the Finnerty law firm account and subsequent withdrawals indicates that Bulger received approximately $110,000.00 dollars of the total Quirk fee while Finnerty received approximately $I00,000.00 of that fee with the balance ($80,000.00) being split between Richard McDonough ($70,000.00 “consulting fee”) and approximately $10,000.00 going to attorney James McDonough, an associate in Finnerty’s law firm who appears to have performed the bulk of the work relating to the litigation and the real estate closing. Besides those checks payable directly from the Finnerty law firm account to William Bulger, a series of other checks totaling in excess of $100,000.00 dollars during 1986 have been identified which appear to be paid to various investment firms which may also be for the benefit of William Bulger as well. In addition, at least $50,000.00 dollars in funds from the Finnerty law firm account were utilized to pay William Bulger’s one half share in the purchase of commercial property located adjacent to the Columbia Point project formerly owned by Mary Teebagy.
As noted in the grand jury testimony of Richard McDonough, an example of Bulger’s apparent ability to obtain lucrative fees for little or no substantive service can be seen in the transactions with Herbalife of California during 1985. McDonough’s grand jury testimony and other materials provided by Federal authorities indicates [
sic
] that McDonough and Bulger were retained “consultants” by that firm to advise them on unspecified legislative and other governmental affairs issues outside of Massachusetts during 1985. In return, Bulger and McDonough were each paid approximately $50,000.00 dollars by that firm.
A. 75 State Street
To [
sic
] respect to Brown’s allegations concerning his payments to Finnerty concerning the 75 State Street project, it is recommended that counsel for Harold Brown, William Bulger and Thomas Finnerty be contacted and a request to interview their client be made regarding their respective roles in that project and the payments and ultimate disposition of $500,000.00 paid by Brown. Richard McDonough’s counsel (Earl Cooley) has thus far failed to reply to our prior requests to interview his client.
A further recommendation regarding the appropriate follow-up action will be made after they have been contacted and responded.
B. Other Aspects of the Finnerty/Bulger Relationship
Further investigation is warranted regarding the payments made to Bulger through the Finnerty law firm accounts. In particular, the original sources of those funds should be identified and the true purpose through those payments should be ascertained including the precise nature of services provided in return for those payments. Identifying the source of those payments and ascertaining the person or persons having knowledge of those transactions will require the use of grand jury subpoenas for records and documents to trace the original source of those funds and obtain the testimony of persons having knowledge of those transactions.
FBI INTERVIEW WITH MASSACHUSETTS STATE SENATE PRESIDENT
WILLIAM BULGER, FEBRUARY 28, 1989
William M. Bulger, Senate President, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, was interviewed at the Boston law office of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, 1 Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts. In attendance during the interview was Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Ralph Gants, AUSA Alexandra Leake, Attorney Robert Popeo, Attorney William Homans, and William Bulger, Jr. At the outset of the interview, Bulger was advised of the official identity of the interviewing individuals as well as to the nature of the interview. Thereafter, Bulger furnished the following information:
Bulger advised that he and Thomas Finnerty grew up together in South Boston, Massachusetts. Bulger advised that he and Finnerty were close friends since early childhood. They both went to high school together and attended college together. Bulger advised that Finnerty was a 1960 graduate of the Boston College Law School and that he graduated in 1961.
Bulger advised that he and Finnerty formed a law partnership in either 1962 or 1963. Bulger advised that at that time, he had been elected as a State Representative. Bulger advised that the partnership lasted for approximately thirteen years until Finnerty was elected District Attorney for the County of Plymouth. Bulger advised that there was never a partnership agreement in writing between he and Finnerty.
In regards to billings for the above law practice, Bulger advised that they split the profits during this period of the partnership. When Bulger left his partnership with Finnerty he became “of counsel” with Finnerty. Bulger advised that this required him to bring in his own law business and that Bulger would only be paid for the amount of work he generated. He advised that his arrangement with Finnerty was an oral agreement. Bulger advised that he was not salaried by Finnerty’s office during that period of time. Bulger was not required to cover any of the office overhead expense incurred by Finnerty. If Bulger brought in any clients which were not represented by him, during this period of time, he would receive a percentage of the income derived from the clients. Bulger could not be any more specific regarding this agreement.
Bulger advised that he performed legal services for Robert and Bruce Quirk in their civil suit against Data Terminal Systems, Incorporated. This suit involved the ownership of property in Maynard, Massachusetts. Bulger advised that this particular client was brought to him by Richard McDonough who is an associate of Bulger’s. Bulger advised that he personally dealt with the matters regarding this civil case. Bulger advised that Finnerty did assist for a short period of time regarding this case. Bulger advised that James W. McDonough Jr., an associate of Finnerty’s law firm, also assisted in the work done on this case. Bulger advised that James McDonough accompanied him to all court appearances in regard to this case. Bulger advised that he does not keep records regarding the time he spent on this matter but feels that the fee that he charged the Quirk’s [
sic
] was fair for the effort put forth on their behalf by him. Bulger advised that he billed the Quirk’s [
sic
] on a sense of what was fair and had no documentation to support the charge.
Bulger advised that he was very instrumental in the negotiations which settled the above case. Bulger attributed most of his work in regards to this case to the negotiations that he handled. He advised that the period of time that he worked on this case was considerable and that he was entitled to receive the fee which he charged the Quirk’s [
sic
].
Bulger advised that Thomas Finnerty was aware of the fee that Bulger would be receiving from the Quirk’s [
sic
] in regards to this case. Bulger knew prior to his vacation to Europe in the Summer of 1985 the amount of money that Quirk’s [
sic
] would be paying him for services rendered. Bulger knew that he would be receiving $267,000. Bulger advised that he expected to get the entire $267,000 and there were no objections by anyone either associated with Finnerty’s firm or by Thomas Finnerty about Bulger receiving the entire amount. Bulger felt that he was providing 90% of the effort that went into this case resolution and felt that he was entitled to the entire amount. Bulger advised that the $267,000 was paid by the Quirk’s [
sic
] to the law firm of Thomas Finnerty. It was anticipated by both he and Finnerty that this amount would be received by the end of the year, 1985. Bulger advised that there was some discussion between he and Finnerty in regards to Bulger receiving 100% of this fee. Finnerty did not think it was fair and Bulger did. In any event, Bulger advised that it was resolved that he would receive the entire $267,000.
Bulger advised that sometime in 1986, Richard McDonough requested $70,000 for his referral of the Quirk’s [
sic
] to William Bulger. Bulger advised that it was his feeling that McDonough did deserve some fee but this amount was exorbitant. Bulger recalled telling Finnerty that although he did not think it was fair to pay Richard McDonough $70,000 that he thought the firm should in order to make McDonough go away. Bulger advised that he and Finnerty decided to pay this amount to McDonough and that fee would be allocated to the firm’s office expenses. Bulger advised that McDonough’s claim for this $70,000 was not made until after the $267,000 in fees had been collected from the Quirk’s [
sic
]. Bulger advised that he certainly absorbed some of the $70,000 paid to McDonough because the McDonough charge was partially taken from incoming fees he expected from other clients during 1986.
Bulger advised that he had many shared investments with Thomas Finnerty. He advised Thomas Finnerty was not his financial advisor but that he followed Thomas Finnerty’s lead on many investment opportunities. In regards to investments jointly made by Thomas Finnerty, Bulger advised that his first investment was in land purchased in the 1960s at the Fort Banks area of Winthrop, Massachusetts.
Bulger recalled a second investment that Finnerty involved him in with the purchase of a share in a limited partnership in American Cable Systems Midwest in 1985. Bulger thought that Finnerty made this investment on his behalf while Bulger was vacationing. Bulger advised that Finnerty had Bulger’s permission to invest on Bulger’s behalf if any investment opportunity looked promising and Bulger was not available to authorize it. Bulger could not recall ever objecting to any investment made by Thomas Finnerty on his behalf. Bulger stated that it was common for Finnerty to put up the initial investment funds and then to be repaid later by Bulger. Bulger advised that he had a “sense” there were other investments with which he was involved with Thomas Finnerty around this same period of time. Bulger could not be more specific regarding these investments.
Bulger advised that Finnerty brought to him the investment opportunity of purchasing a building on Mount Vernon Street in the Columbia Point area of Boston. Bulger’s recollection was that Finnerty brought this deal to him just prior to the actual closing date on the property in June, 1986. Finnerty put all the required money down on the purchase of this property and Bulger eventually repaid Finnerty with money Bulger and Finnerty had borrowed jointly from the South Boston Savings Bank (SBSB). Bulger and Finnerty borrowed $100,000 from the SBSB with the intention of using the proceeds to invest or purchase stock in Boston Telecommunications Group, Inc. Bulger eventually changed his mind regarding the above investment and decided to put the loan proceeds towards the joint purchase of the Mount Vernon Street property.