George Norcross’ power: Real or imagined? Prosecutors highlight his reputation for hardball.

When the CEO of a Camden nonprofit faced pressure from George E. Norcross III in a real estate deal, the executive remembered the power broker’s boasting, in a secret 2001 recording, of his influence across New Jersey.

A prominent Philadelphia developer told investigators he’d swallowed his misgivings about getting into business with Norcross because he “understood him to be a powerful individual” in the region.

And another firm that held rights to develop waterfront real estate in Camden — property whose value stood to grow in the aftermath of the passage of a New Jersey tax incentive law — decided to sell its interests, offering a bleak assessment of its prospects in the city: “Political forces … will obstruct us at every turn.”

Those examples — drawn from the 111-page racketeering indictment unsealed last week against Norcross and five key allies — illustrate the means by which authorities say the New Jersey power broker’s reputation for hardball negotiations and cutthroat political maneuvering helped him to get what he wanted.

» READ MORE: ‘New Jersey politics is a blood sport’ and other key takeaways from prosecutors’ case against S. Jersey power broker George Norcross

While prosecutors have accused Norcross, 68, and his allies of making overt threats to shake down rivals and acquire valuable real estate in Camden, in some cases, they say, his notoriety spoke volumes on its own. The indictment details numerous instances of businessmen and politicians acquiescing to Norcross’ wishes at least in part because of the reputation he’d developed over a quarter century at the helm of the South Jersey Democratic machine.

Norcross and his allies used their “reputation for controlling governmental entities to intimidate and threaten those who held property interests that [they] wanted to acquire,” the indictment says.

» READ MORE: ‘Are you threatening me?’ Surprise recordings are at the heart of prosecutors’ case against George Norcross.

Legal experts say the indictment’s emphasis on how others perceived Norcross suggests prosecutors could be planning to introduce evidence at trial documenting how his reputation was built — including a now infamous 2001 recording known as “the Palmyra tapes” in which Norcross was caught boasting of his influence and demanding in crass terms the ouster of a South Jersey municipal official.

“That older evidence is critically important to understanding exactly why people would capitulate and take seriously threats from Norcross, as they did,” said Jim Walden, a former federal prosecutor who served as special counsel to a task force established by Gov. Phil Murphy to investigate New Jersey’s tax incentive program.

But it could also open an avenue for the defense to argue that Norcross can’t be held responsible for the decisions of people who acted solely out of fear of who they thought him to be. Norcross’ lawyers have already begun raising questions to discredit the Palmyra tapes and keep evidence like it out of court.

Norcross’ longtime attorney Michael Critchley said Friday that the investigation that produced the recording — which was publicly criticized in 2006 by then-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie — was tainted. He accused prosecutors of illegally taping a privileged conversation between him and Norcross during the course of the probe and noted that they falsely told a court that they hadn’t. The Attorney General’s Office later acknowledged it had in fact made a recording but chalked up the misleading statement to a mistake. Ultimately, Norcross was never charged with a crime.

» READ MORE: Who is George Norcross? A look at the indicted South Jersey power broker

Norcross’ true reputation, his lawyers argue, is as a civic leader who has poured countless hours and significant amounts of his own money into Camden’s revitalization.

“The Attorney General’s Office has a history of engaging in corrupt activity with regard to Mr. Norcross as evidenced by their documented wrongdoing in the Palmyra investigation,” Critchley said Friday.

Norcross was already an established kingmaker in state Democratic politics when John Gural came on his radar in the early 2000s.

Gural — a borough councilman in Palmyra, Burlington County, who also worked for a civil engineering firm — says he was summoned in January 2001 to a meeting at Norcross’ Cherry Hill offices at Commerce Bank.

Gural was facing pressure from his employer and Norcross allies at the time not to reappoint the municipal solicitor, Ted Rosenberg, after Rosenberg had campaigned to be chair of the Burlington County Democratic Party against a candidate Norcross preferred.

Gural secretly recorded the meeting — and Norcross did not mince words.

“I want you to fire that f—,” Norcross told him, according to the tapes of their 75-minute conversation, released under a court order in 2005. At another point, Norcross said: “You need to get rid of this f— Rosenberg for me. Teach this jerk-off a lesson.”

At another point, Norcross said he wanted to “crush” Rosenberg and boasted of having told another adversary that if he crossed him again, “you’re going to get your f—ing balls cut off.” And lest Gural doubt the pull Norcross held over politics in New Jersey, Norcross bragged that the state’s top politicians — including governors — “they’re all going to be with me.”

“Because not that they like me,” Norcross said on the tapes. “But because they have no choice.”

Unbeknownst to Norcross, Gural was wearing a wire as a confidential informant for the state Attorney General’s Office, which was conducting a corruption investigation. Gural later alleged that he was told in other conversations he’d get a share of a government contract steered to his engineering firm if he fired Rosenberg.

The AG’s office ultimately chose not to charge Norcross, who agreed to be interviewed by investigators. He denied any wrongdoing and said the tape simply showed his strong advocacy for South Jersey Democrats.

But Norcross’ tough talk and the influence he claimed to wield on the tapes, which circulated widely after they were released as part of a civil racketeering suit Rosenberg later filed against Norcross, had a lasting effect even though the case was ultimately dismissed.

Years later, when Anthony Perno, CEO of the community development nonprofit Cooper’s Ferry Partnership, faced his own conflict with Norcross, investigators say, the Palmyra tapes echoed in his mind.

Starting in 2012, Cooper’s Ferry began negotiating a deal to buy a 575,000-square-foot office complex on Camden’s waterfront known as L3 from the New Jersey Economic Development Authority.

Norcross and his brother Philip, according to the indictment, had other ideas. Though neither had any official role at Cooper’s Ferry or in Camden’s government, they demanded that the nonprofit partner with developers they preferred and insisted it sell its ownership stake for less than it was worth, the indictment says.

Prosecutors maintain it was Philip Norcross who directly threatened Perno during an April 2014 meeting after the Camden Mayor’s Office directed Perno to deal directly with him. The indictment does not mention George Norcross ever speaking directly to Perno about L3 but accuses him of relying on intermediaries to make his displeasure known.

Those weren’t the only factors weighing on the nonprofit executive, the indictment says. Perno was also aware of Norcross’ threats on the Palmyra tapes and — closer to home — he knew that his predecessor as CEO of Cooper’s Ferry, Tom Corcoran, had feuded with Norcross in the early 2000s.

Corcoran “believed” that fight caused the city of Camden to slash the nonprofit’s funding and subsequently led the CEO to leave the organization in 2009, the indictment says.

Prosecutors say it was Perno’s understanding of this history — combined with Philip Norcross’ threat — that prompted the CEO to acquiesce to the Norcross brothers’ demands and agree to partner with their chosen developers and eventually sell the nonprofit’s stake in the L3 complex for a fraction of what it might have earned.

Cooper University Health Care — the hospital network for which George Norcross is board chairman — later relocated office jobs to L3 and paid rent with state tax credits, which it was able to sell for cash. Cooper Health also acquired an ownership stake in the building.

In 2019, Cooper Health told The Inquirer that Cooper’s Ferry lacked financing and that the nonprofit’s plans to close the L3 deal hinged on forcing the hospital network into an above-market rental agreement.

Prosecutors now say that was among several false or misleading statements provided to the news media by “agents of members and associates of the Norcross Enterprise.”

Norcross’ reputation for control of government entities — real or imagined — would again prove a valuable asset, as he and his allies sought to acquire other property rights on the Camden waterfront in the years that followed, prosecutors said.

Columbus, Ohio-based developer Steiner & Associates redeveloped Camden’s aquarium in the 2000s and later acquired, with another partner, rights to develop about 30 acres of waterfront land, including parcels where Norcross and his business partners wanted to build an office tower and an apartment complex through the awarding of state tax credits.

In the summer of 2015, Steiner agreed to sell its redevelopment options to Malvern-based real estate investment firm Liberty Property Trust, which would go on to work with Norcross on other development deals in Camden.

The indictment says “a member of the Steiner group” explained its decision to sell in an email noting concern that “political forces will obstruct us at every turn.”

Though prosecutors did not specify what prompted the unnamed Steiner executive to believe this, they noted that about a year later, when Liberty sought an extension on its agreement with the Ohio developer, “a member of the Steiner group referenced ‘political land mines’ in attempting to close the deal.”

Around the same time, Liberty Property Trust (LPT) was also in negotiations with Philadelphia developer Carl Dranoff on another waterfront development.

Liberty CEO William P. Hankowsky at one point told Dranoff he’d “have to partner” with The Michaels Organization, a developer preferred by Norcross, the indictment says.

Again, Norcross’ reputation preceded him. Dranoff “had reservations” about the arrangement and was “wary of working with [Norcross],” the indictment says, but he understood him to be a “powerful individual in Camden [with whom] LPT intended to work.”

Prosecutors say Dranoff trusted Hankowsky, so he agreed to move forward with the negotiations.

But later, when those talks went south and Norcross allegedly threatened to make sure Dranoff never did business in Camden again, the developer took the warnings seriously. According to the indictment, Dranoff agreed to sell property rights he held to the Norcross-backed development team for less than he thought they were worth.

Prosecutors say that Dranoff believed that if he didn’t give in, his “ability to conduct business in Camden and his financial interests in general would be in jeopardy,” the indictment says.

Even still, in the five years that followed, Dranoff became ensnared in civil litigation with the City of Camden over other development projects. He admitted he failed to file legally required financial reports, and city officials accused him of bilking Camden out of millions of dollars in profits.

Last year, Dranoff agreed to a settlement in which he agreed to pay $3.3 million and relinquished his rights to develop another waterfront property known as Radio Lofts. The indictment says he opted not to go to trial in part because “he had concerns over corruption in Camden, which made him believe that he would not be treated fairly by the court system.”

In an interview Tuesday, Critchley described that allegation as an unfair attack on the judge and the judicial system. If Dranoff had indeed harbored those concerns, he could have asked the judge to recuse himself or requested a change of venue, the lawyer said.

Dranoff, Critchley noted, chose to settle the case instead.

As prosecutors tell it, the encounters Perno, Steiner & Associates, and Dranoff each had with Norcross and his allies amid their negotiations over waterfront real estate only added to the reputation Norcross had for crushing those who stood in his way.

As they laid out their indictment last week, bolstering Norcross’ reputation and political power was one of several objectives of the criminal enterprise they accused him of leading.

But if prosecutors thought Norcross would sit by quietly as they announced their case during a Monday news conference in Trenton, they underestimated the Norcross reputation they’d detailed so extensively in their indictment.

As Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin read out the charges to a room full of reporters, Norcross, flanked by a team of his lawyers, sat staring at him from the front row.

Asked later why he’d made the unusual decision to show up in person, Norcross replied: “Because I want to witness an extraordinary embarrassment and outrageous conduct from a government official who stands up there and tries to act like he’s holier than thou.”

Video editor Astrid Rodrigues contributed to this article.