U.S. Seeks 7-Year Term for Young on Fraud Conviction

Contending that he is guilty of “crimes that strike at the heart of both the governmental and political process,” government prosecutors Thursday recommended a prison term of up to seven years for former Norwalk Assemblyman Bruce E. Young.

In seeking one of the stiffest sentences yet handed out in the political corruption investigation surrounding fireworks manufacturer W. Patrick Moriarty, prosecutors argued that Young committed perjury during his testimony and ignored his obligations to the public.

Sentencing Memorandum

“He placed his own financial interests above his legal and ethical obligations to the state of California and its citizens,” Chief Assistant U.S. Atty. Richard E. Drooyan said in a sentencing memorandum prepared for U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian.

“A public official’s misuse of his office for his own benefit, in and of itself, is undoubtedly a serious crime deserving of a significant sentence,” Drooyan added. “In this case, however, Young also engaged in a . . . scheme to defraud the public relating to the political process.”

Young, once one of the most powerful members of the Legislature, was convicted Feb. 10 of five counts of mail fraud for concealing outside earnings while a legislator and laundering campaign funds to other politicians.

The government’s case against the former Democratic legislator stemmed from thousands of dollars in laundered campaign contributions Young funneled from Moriarty to Assembly candidates in 1982 and his failure to disclose nearly $30,000 he received as a consultant from cable television firms while supporting legislation to deregulate the cable television industry.

The 28-count indictment also accused Young of failing to report that Moriarty provided him with a leased Ford Bronco and a condominium in Hawaii at a time when Young was promoting legislation that would have legalized the Anaheim fireworks manufacturer’s Red Devil fireworks throughout the state.

Neither Young nor his attorneys could immediately be reached for comment Thursday.

“Young’s scheme to defraud the public involved more than mere non-disclosure,” prosecutors said in their sentencing recommendations. “By entering into nebulous consulting arrangements with clients who were directly involved with and concerned about legislation, Young most certainly violated the standards of conduct expected of legislators . . . even if he was not actually barred from voting on these matters.”

The money he funneled to other Assembly candidates, its true source hidden from both the public and the candidates themselves, “demonstrates Young’s disregard for honesty and openness in the governmental and political process,” the memorandum suggests.

In seeking a sentence of five to seven years, Drooyan was particularly harsh in his assessment of Young’s testimony, which he called “false or misleading” in several respects.

While Young testified under oath that he learned only during his trial that Moriarty was going to provide insurance for the Bronco, Young had himself prepared a back-dated letter in which he acknowledged that one of Moriarty’s companies “will provide licensing and insurance,” Drooyan’s memorandum said.

Young also testified that he first learned during Moriarty’s testimony that he was going to receive a 100% return on the $50,000 he invested through Moriarty in a Baldwin Hills condominium project.

“Aside from the inherent implausibility that Moriarty would not tell Young about the 100% return when he directed his accountant Dave King to double Young’s investment,” prosecutors said, Young’s testimony was inconsistent with his previous statements to investigators in 1984, when he reportedly said he “believed (the return) would be 100%, or $100,000.”

Moriarty was sentenced to seven years in prison in the three-year-old graft and corruption case spawned by his lobbying efforts, a term reduced earlier this month to five years at the request of federal prosecutors in recognition of Moriarty’s cooperation in testifying against other targets of the probe.

But Young so far has provided no evidence to assist the government in prosecuting other public officials, Drooyan said in his memorandum.

“Prior to trial, he claimed that the prosecution was politically motivated, that he had been singled out for prosecution and that he had evidence of wrongdoing by other public officials that the government would not consider,” Drooyan said. “In fact, Young has never offered to provide any of this evidence to the government.”