George Norcross racketeering case isn’t over yet, N.J. attorney general says

A day after a New Jersey judge delivered a sweeping rebuke to the team prosecuting the criminal racketeering case against Democratic power broker George E. Norcross III — dismissing all charges and siding with the defense on every legal issue presented — the state’s top law enforcement officer insisted the ruling wasn’t a fatal blow.

“Show me a corruption prosecutor who’s never suffered a setback, and I’ll show you somebody who has never taken on a tough and righteous case,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said in an interview Thursday.

“But that doesn’t mean they’re not worth doing. And in this case, we felt very strongly that there was a crime committed,” he said. “I believe the judge was wrong. I respect him. It’s certainly not personal. I believe he was wrong, and we’ll pursue our options for appeal.”

Platkin’s remarks came after Mercer County Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw on Wednesday dismissed the 13-count indictment against insurance executive Norcross, who was accused alongside five codefendants of using threats and his reputation as Camden’s political boss to coerce rival developers into surrendering their waterfront property.

The judge said that even assuming that all the allegations against Norcross, 68, are true, they do not constitute extortion. The Attorney General’s Office told the court it would appeal the decision.

“We’re not aware of a judge ever granting a motion like this one, without so much as even bothering to read the thousands of pages of grand jury testimony,” Platkin said. “And I think that’s extraordinary and sends a message that there are two systems of justice: one for the wealthy and well-connected and one for everybody else. … We’ll see how the appeal plays out. But obviously I strongly disagree with it.”

Platkin, a 38-year-old appointee of Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy, also pushed back against criticism from defense attorneys representing Norcross and five codefendants, who in addition to celebrating the judge’s ruling Wednesday took aim at what they called a “corrupt” investigation led by an attorney general who they said abused his power in hopes of advancing his political career. They said Platkin’s handling of the case was emblematic of broader problems in his office’s anti-corruption unit.

The attorney general said he’s “not running for anything” and accused the defense attorneys of using the same playbook as President Donald Trump, New York Mayor Eric Adams, and convicted former U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.) — each of whom has accused law enforcement agencies of engaging in politically motivated prosecutions.

“It’s very easy and convenient to create a narrative … that the misconduct that we’ve uncovered is because I have ulterior motives, when the reality is the misconduct that we uncovered and have prosecuted, not just in this case, but in many others, is a result of poor decisions made by people in positions of authority who abused that trust,” Platkin said.

Platkin declined to discuss his litigation strategy. The judge’s decision showed prosecutors will have to clear several obstacles to persuade the Appellate Division to reinstate the indictment.

Warshaw, an appointee of former GOP Gov. Chris Christie, listed several reasons for dismissing the charges, including that the alleged threats cited by prosecutors were examples of lawful economic bargaining, not extortion; the bulk of the conduct at issue took place years ago, outside the statute of limitations; and the six defendants did not comprise an enterprise — essentially a criminal organization — within the meaning of New Jersey’s racketeering law.

The attorney general is “going to have to contend with 96 pages of bulletproof findings that are based entirely on the statutes themselves,” Kevin Marino, an attorney for Norcross’ brother Philip, told reporters Wednesday.

“There will be a very deferential standard afforded Judge Warshaw’s very careful and detailed opinion in this case,” Marino said.

During oral arguments in January, Assistant Attorney General Michael D. Grillo told the judge that Norcross’ arguments “all require weighing the evidence or at least considering what evidence the grand jury had in front of it.”

If prosecutors convince an appeals court to overturn the judge’s decision, the state could face time constraints. The defense has already filed motions challenging certain evidence and alleging that the government misled the grand jury — arguments that would likely take months to litigate. The Murphy administration’s tenure ends in January 2026, at which point the case would be handled by an attorney general picked by the new governor.

Former New Jersey Senate President Steve Sweeney, a Democratic candidate for governor and Norcross’ childhood friend, called the judge’s decision “more proof that political prosecutions have no place in New Jersey or our nation.” Another Democratic candidate, Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop, has said he would retain Platkin as AG.

“My hope is that whoever is in this job sees the importance of having a robust state agency dedicated to prosecuting corruption,” Platkin said Thursday. “If that goes away, it is a tremendous disservice to the 9.5 million people of our state who are fed up with the wealthy and well-connected getting a better deal.”

Hours after the interview, Platkin faced a new fight. Republicans in the state Assembly on Thursday filed articles of impeachment against Platkin, taking issue with his investigation into state police traffic stops and accusing him of going after political opponents. The attorney general called the move a partisan attack.

Since Platkin announced the indictment at a news conference in June, Norcross and his lawyers have argued that two previous federal investigations effectively cleared him of wrongdoing and that in any case, Platkin was motivated by personal animus against the power broker over a scandal that enveloped the governor’s office early in Murphy’s tenure.

Federal prosecutors in New Jersey told Norcross’ lawyer in a 2018 letter that they had closed an inquiry related to his client and the “procurement of tax credits” — without elaborating on the scope of the probe, The Inquirer previously reported.

In addition, according to records made public late last year, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia in 2023 told an FBI agent that it would not seek to prosecute Norcross, citing a “review of the available admissible evidence, the applicable law, the probability of a successful trial and the prosecution standards of the office.”

Norcross lawyer Michael Critchley compared his client’s plight to that of Jean Valjean, the Les Misérables protagonist who was persecuted by an obsessed investigator.

“George Norcross became prey. I mean, he was investigated once, investigated twice, the same facts, and nothing ever happened,” Critchley told reporters Wednesday. “… What new facts did Mr. Platkin have? What new facts did he have? Zero, none.”

In court filings, Platkin’s office said its probe had “generated new evidence entirely distinct from” the earlier investigations.

“It’s false, plain and simple,” Platkin said Thursday of the notion that other agencies had already investigated the same case. He said he couldn’t discuss the evidence, citing grand jury secrecy rules, but added that if he’s successful on appeal, “the public will get to hear the evidence.”

“This case took years,” he added. “It started before my tenure, so this idea that, you know, seasoned prosecutors would spend years on something for anything other than to pursue what they thought was a crime is an insult to public servants in law enforcement in our state.”

Platkin said the career officials working the case include Assistant Attorney General Michael T. Breslin, a former head of the Philadelphia FBI’s organized crime task force; Drew Skinner, a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York; and Eric Gibson, a former federal prosecutor in Philadelphia who successfully convicted former U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.).

Norcross’ assertion that Platkin is bent on a political vendetta against him stems from the Murphy administration’s handling of rape allegations involving staffers on the governor’s 2017 campaign.

In 2019 a state legislative committee investigating the matter said Platkin — who at the time served as Murphy’s chief counsel — made “sloppy” legal decisions with regard to creating a safe workplace environment. The panel also questioned the credibility of his legislative testimony. According to Norcross, the episode left Platkin “humiliated” and bent on revenge against South Jersey Democrats, given that Sweeney led the Senate at the time.

In the interview, Platkin called that allegation “patently ridiculous” and said Norcross’ team hasn’t “produced a single piece of evidence” to back it up.

“The idea that these career prosecutors and law enforcement agents from multiple offices would go on a multiyear investigation based on some personal vendetta that I have is ridiculous, and they know it’s ridiculous,” he said.

Staff writer Chris Palmer contributed to this article.