Why did Hyman Roth live in such a small home in an average neighborhood? You would expect him (with all his money) to have a compund such as the Corleone's surrounded by armed guards.

Remember Hyman told reporters at the airport that he was a retired businessman living on a pension. I would venture that Hyman kept a low profile; less suspicious. We don't know if had property holding in other places. He could have been renting the house as a base of operation for dealing with Cuba. He may have had a penthouse suite in one of the Las Vegas hotels.

Maybe he wanted to keep his expenses down, since he figured he was gonna live forever.

And he didn't need a posse of bodyguards, either.

Everyone loved the old bastard.

After all, he always made money for his partners.

Some smart mobsters, like Meyer Lansky upon whom Roth was based, and Carlo Gambino, deliberately lived modestly, the better to keep from attracting attention. Another reason: the low-profile lifestyle was consistent with the phony "jobs" they listed on tax returns, so that they could keep from being prosecuted for tax evasion. More dumb mobsters were sent away for tax evasion than for RICO and drugs combined.

Tax evasion is what they got Capone on, wasn't it? Yes, I would think that most of the men of that generation lived the sort of life that wouldn't call attention to them. Realistically, even the Sopranos McMansion is not beyond upper middle class, if you think about it. Certainly well-to-do, but not outrageous.

Just look at the scene from goodfellas when the guy pulls up to the bar in a brand new cadillac and they tell him to get rid of it not to attract attention.

Yeah there was no big robbery but if Roth was showing that he made $800/month from his pension on his tax return but lives in a 5million dollar house with 18 cars and solid gold shoes that might tip someone off that he might be involved in something more than just his pension.

I never thought about this before. But now it seems wierd that Roth did not have any bodyguards. Micheal could have easily killed Roth using his bodyguard(the guy in black suit and hat)at Roth's home. Why did he bother sending him to hospital undertaking so much of risk? Only other person at his home was a old lady.

At the time he probably wasn't 100% sure of Roth's intentions, and he wanted to keep Roth alive until he found out who the traitor in his family was.

Don't think Roth runs an organization but he got connections......

Yes, and plenty of other mobsters, too. Mobsters are greedy and stupid. Paying taxes is as obnoxious to them as having someone make off with their goumads. But tax evasion is a perfect trap. The government doesn't have to prove that you earned your money illegally, and it doesn't even have to explain how you made your money to a jury. All the prosecution has to prove is that you are "living beyond your means." Neil Dellacroce, Carlo Gambino's underboss, got five years because he lost $60k in a Puerto Rican casino at a time when he claimed he only "earned" a "legitimate" $10k/year. He was still in jail during Gambino's terminal illness, which probably cost him his shot at being named the new Don (the nod went to Paul Castellano instead). A prosecutor can bring even a weak tax evasion case to trial because it's easy for him to make a jury hate a "tax cheat." He points to the defendant and says, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: do you know why you're being crushed by the burden of high taxes? Because of criminal tax-cheats like the defendant--they laugh at honest taxpayers like yourselves." By the time the prosecutor gets through, the defendant feels lucky he wasn't strung up and hanged.

oh sure they get him for tax evasion but he gets aquitted of the murder charge

I should have said he got away with more than one murder

That's the point: Gangsters can get away with murder because the proscution requires witnesses and hard evidence to convict. But all they need to convict on tax evasion is to show that you were living beyond your means. From the government's point of view, five years in the can for Dellacroce was better than no years--a "bird in the hand."

turnbull, which trial was it that Dellacroce had Anthony Plate killed so he could get off?

bumping up, I'm trying to trace back the life of Anthony Plate but I'm stuck so if I knew the trial I might be able to take that route but I don't know what trial it was.

**thanks turnbull**

Dellacroce and Plate were on trial in Miami in '79 for killing a loanshark who was part of Dellacroce's Miami rackets. According to once source, Mr. Neil had him whacked (by Willie Boy Johnson) because Plate was so bad-looking that his presence as a co-defendant would prejudice the jury against Mr. Neil.

**you're welcome, DMC**