Attorney General

  • NAAG - National Association of Attorneys General 
  • On the surface is the handbook operator. He makes a profit from the persons who place bets with him because he has an edge on every bet. He pays track odds but usually not in excess of 20 to 1.
  • The odds at the track are calculated after deducting the 15 percent to 18 percent of the total betting pool which goes to pay taxes and other expenses. The bookmaker pockets that amount.
    • However, he is not a man of unlimited resources.
    • He must balance his books so that he will lose no more on the winner than has been bet on the other horses in a race, after his percentage has been deducted.
    • He cannot control the choices of his customers and very often he will find that one horse is the favorite choice of his clientele.
  • His "action," as he calls it, may not reflect the "action" of the track.
    • Therefore, he must reinsure himself on the race in much the same fashion that casualty insurance companies reinsure a risk that is too great for it to assume alone.
    • To do this the bookmaker uses the "layoff" man, who for a commission, accepts the excess wager. (p3)

--  Statement of Hon. Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney General of the United States

1961 JUNE 6, 19, 20, 21, AND 26 - GOV (Senate) - The Attorney General's Program to Curb Organized Crime and Racketeering

Senate - Committee on the Judiciary

 

 

 

Annual Report of the Attorney General of the United States

  • 1966 - Attorney General - Annual Report of the Attorney General of the United States - [PDF-517p-GooglePlay]
    • (p232) - On February 15, 1966, in the Southern District of Florida, Mark H. Kroll and seven others were indicted for fraud in the sale of securities and mail fraud.
      • Operating as the American Bonded Mortgage Company, Inc., Pan American Surety Company and Michigan Surety Company, the defendants are alleged to have falsely represented the nature and safety of mortgage participations sold by them.
    • (p346) - (i) Life Insurance Company Cases.
      • Moving through the district courts are three cases raising numerous issues under the legislation adopted in 1959 to subject life insurance companies to a tax on both investment and underwriting income.These are
        1. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Company v. United States ( M.D. N.C. ),
        2. Franklin Life Insurance Co. v. United States ( S.D. Ill. ) and
        3. Occidental Life Insurance Company v. United States ( S.D. Cal. ).
      • Aside from the several million dollars involved, the importance of these cases is magnified by the facts that many of the issues are of "first impression" and their outcome will affect the taxation of life insurance companies nationwide.
      • For example, in Franklin Life Insurance Company, among the questions of first impression to be decided under the Life Insurance Company Act of 1959 are whether deferred and uncollected premiums are to be included in gross income, and whether the net valuation portions and the "loading" portions of these premiums are to be attributed to life insurance reserves and total assets of the company in determining taxable investment income.