Suffolk County Sheriff Steven Tompkins wants extortion charges dismissed

Suffolk County Sheriff Steven Tompkins has required to have his extortion charges dismissed denying any wrongdoing and arguing that even if the accusations were true they are insufficient to sponsorship the charges Tompkins of Boston was indicted by a federal grand jury on two counts of extortion under color of official right He was arrested in early August in Florida where he made an initial appearance in federal court before returning to Massachusetts He has pleaded not guilty Federal prosecutors say that he used his official position to bully executives at a Boston cannabis company regarding his pre-initial masses offering outlay of Following the IPO his indictment states his outlay value ballooned to but then fell below his initial stake value Prosecutors say he used his position to demand his full initial funding back to help pay for campaign and personal expenses In a motion to dismiss filed in federal court in Boston Friday Tompkins lawyers stated his charges are predicated upon a number of factual infirmities which Mr Tompkins categorically denies The motion later adds that even if the accusations were true they are legally insufficient to sponsorship a quid pro quo agreement to exchange Mr Tompkins s official acts for payment Instead Mr Tompkins made an funding as did multiple others paid full value for it and received no financial benefit not conferred to other buyers The motion argues that Tompkins did not engage in schemes to extort the cannabis executive did not agree to an exchange of any equity interest in the cannabis company for any favorable action or inaction as the sheriff and did not cause Individual A to believe and fear that Mr Tomkins would use his official position as Sheriff to jeopardize Company A s partnership with the Suffolk County Sheriff s Department The motion says that a letter Tompkins sent to the company suggesting the company hire graduates of the SCSD s Common Ground Institute to work at its retain shops was sent in September a large number of months before the Indictment alleges that any benefit to the defendant was requested or even contemplated and more than a year before Tompkins secured equity interest in the company There is no allegation that the letter was part of an agreement in which Mr Tompkins would receive subsequent benefits a year-plus later an essential element of any quid pro quo bribery scheme the document argues It adds that mere charges of fear pressure and demands are not sufficient to establish extortion under color of official right This is a emerging story