Racketeering Charges Against George Norcross Have Been Dropped

A New Jersey judge has dismissed high-profile racketeering charges against Democratic power broker George Norcross, finding the alleged strong-arm tactics were simply part of business negotiations in a free market system.

Key Takeaways

Judge Peter Warshaw ruled that allegations against George Norcross did not constitute extortion or criminal coercion under the law.
The case centered on accusations that Norcross used political influence to gain tax credits and intimidate rivals for Camden waterfront development.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin has announced plans to appeal the dismissal.
The judge found that threats made during business negotiations are sometimes “neither wrongful nor unlawful” in a free market system.
The dismissal also applies to five co-defendants, including Norcross’s brother and former Camden Mayor Dana Redd.

Court Dismisses Charges Against Powerful Democrat

A significant legal victory has emerged for George Norcross, one of New Jersey’s Democratic power brokers, as Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw dismissed racketeering charges against him and his co-defendants. The indictment had alleged that Norcross and his associates strong-armed political and business leaders to secure property rights on the Camden waterfront. The judge’s ruling represents a major setback for prosecutors who had pursued the case against this prominent figure in New Jersey politics.

Judge dismisses racketeering indictment against New Jersey Democratic power broker George Norcross, co-defendantshttps://t.co/ZQaQCPbbCe pic.twitter.com/6JiFqNWw44

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) February 26, 2025

Judge Rules Alleged Actions Not Criminal

In his decision, Judge Warshaw determined that the allegations detailed in the indictment did not meet the legal threshold for extortion or criminal coercion. The indictment had included quotes of Norcross allegedly threatening a developer over waterfront property rights. However, the court found no evidence of a racketeering enterprise as prosecutors had claimed. Instead, Judge Warshaw characterized the alleged actions as part of normal business negotiations in a competitive market environment.

The court further clarified that in economic negotiations between private parties, certain types of pressure tactics do not cross into criminal territory. Judge Warshaw explained that threats made during business negotiations are sometimes neither wrongful nor unlawful when occurring within a free market system. This interpretation effectively undermined the prosecution’s central argument that Norcross’s alleged actions constituted criminal racketeering.

Case Allegations and Political Implications

The original indictment accused Norcross and his associates of using their political influence since 2012 to craft legislation for personal gain. Specifically, prosecutors alleged that the defendants extorted businesses and sold tax incentive credits worth millions of dollars. The case focused on a development project on the Camden waterfront, with claims that Norcross improperly used his considerable influence to secure state-issued tax credits and intimidate potential competitors.

The dismissal also applies to five co-defendants: Norcross’s brother Philip A. Norcross, lawyer William M. Tambussi, former Camden Mayor Dana L. Redd, NFI CEO Sidney R. Brown, and development executive John J. O’Donnell. All had previously pleaded not guilty to the charges. Defense attorneys for the accused had argued that previous investigations into the same waterfront development by various agencies did not result in charges, suggesting the current case lacked merit.

State Plans to Appeal Decision

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin has announced plans to appeal Judge Warshaw’s ruling. In a statement following the dismissal, Platkin emphasized the importance of state officials pursuing corruption cases, particularly at a time when he believes federal authorities have backed away from such prosecutions. The announcement signals that despite this significant setback, state prosecutors remain committed to pursuing the case against Norcross.

Defense attorneys have pushed back against the prosecution’s efforts, with lawyer Michael Critchley accusing Attorney General Platkin of pursuing a personal vendetta against Norcross. This case highlights the often complex intersection between business, politics, and the justice system in New Jersey, where powerful figures like Norcross have long wielded significant influence. As a former Democratic National Committee member and major financial backer for Democrats, Norcross’s legal battles carry substantial political implications.