Chacon Probe Finds Insufficient Proof of Bribery, D.A. Reports

An investigation into Assemblyman Pete Chacon’s receipt of $7,500 from a check-cashers organization in 1988 has failed to find sufficient evidence to support charging Chacon with accepting a bribe, prosecutors said Tuesday.

Chacon, a San Diego Democrat, took the money from the California Check Cashers Assn. after he abandoned legislation opposed by the group, according to a report released by Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp.

More than half of the money--$4,000--came on the same day the bill was shelved, with Chacon’s acquiescence, by an Assembly committee.

“The timing of these honoraria certainly raises suspicions,” Sacramento County Dist. Atty. Steve White wrote in a letter released by Van de Kamp. But White added: “There is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the contributions amounted to a bribe.”

Van de Kamp’s office conducted the investigation and then referred its findings to White and San Diego County Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller. All three officials agreed that no charges should be filed against Chacon, according to Deputy Atty. Gen. W. Scott Thorpe.

Chacon was on vacation Tuesday and could not be reached for comment.

In earlier interviews, he insisted that the timing of the payments was a coincidence and said that the money did not prompt him to drop the bill.

The payment was to compensate Chacon for touring several Los Angeles-area check-cashing businesses and later meeting with the trade association’s Board of Directors, according to Chacon and Tom Nix Jr., the president of the organization. Nix said the group invited Chacon to see the businesses because it was believed that the lawmaker knew little about the check-cashing industry.

Chacon’s bill would have limited the fees that check cashers could charge to 1% on government checks, payroll checks, traveler’s checks, money orders and cashier’s checks. Fees for cashing other checks would have been limited to 1.5%. Nix said most check cashers charge 1.5% to 2%, although some charge much more.

The bill was also opposed by the Department of Corporations and had no recorded supporters other than Chacon. This prompted Assemblyman Patrick Johnston (D-Stockton), chairman of the Assembly Finance and Insurance Committee, to suggest that Chacon send the bill to “interim study,” effectively killing it.

White’s letter quoted Johnston as saying he noticed “absolutely nothing unusual or out of line about the behavior of any of the parties.”

There is no law prohibiting state legislators from receiving money from a trade group supporting or opposing their legislation. Such payments constitute a crime only if the parties agree that the money is in exchange for some sort of legislative action, according to the attorney general’s office.