Skip to main content

Former Gitto/Global Executive Sentenced for Fraud

BOSTON—A Leominster man was sentenced today in federal court for conspiracy and wire fraud in connection with a multi-million-dollar scheme run from a former plastics company in Lunenburg, the Gitto/Global Corporation.

GARY C. GITTO, 49, of Lunenburg, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV to 59 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release, and was further ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $23 million. GITTO previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy, mail fraud and money laundering on October 4, 2010.

At the earlier plea hearing, the prosecutor told the court that had the case proceeded to trial, the government’s evidence would have proven that during the period 1998 through September 2004, the principals of Gitto/Global Corporation, a plastics manufacturer in Lunenburg, were engaged in a complex scheme to defraud the company’s secured lenders by systematically overstating the company’s sales and inventory, thereby inducing the lenders to advance millions of dollars that would not have been advanced had the company accurately reported its assets. In order to support the false claims, numerous Gitto/Global employees spent hours of every business day generating supporting false documentation including invoices, bills of lading, and packing slips. GITTO was an owner and officer of Gitto/Global. A co-defendant and company co-owner, FRANK MILLER, who was responsible for the day-to-day operation of the fraud, was previously sentenced to 87 months in prison. Two remaining co-defendants, WILLIAM DEAKIN and LOUIS PELLEGRINE, JR. are scheduled to be sentenced later this month.

United States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz; Richard DesLauriers, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation - Boston Field Division; and William P. Offord, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation - Boston Field Office made the announcement today. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Lori J. Holik and Auditor Thomas J. Zappala of Ortiz’s Economic Crimes Unit.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...