Chapter 5 - VICTOR DE SANTIS
Victor’s trial on the current hotel conspiracy lasted three weeks.
Amelia testified for thirty-two minutes.
Only about what she saw.
Mirror.
message.
Luca.
Enzo turning away from elevator.
The prosecutor did not ask about her father.
Different case.
Good.
Victor’s lawyer cross-examined.
“You never saw Mr. DeSantis send the message.”
“No.”
“You did not hear any conversation between Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Ferretti.”
“No.”
“You assumed the basement message meant an attack.”
“I believed it indicated danger.”
“Because Mr. Marciano is a mafia figure?”
Objection.
Sustained partly.
Amelia stayed.
Then:
“You recognized Mr. Ferretti and disliked him.”
“I recognized him.”
“Disliked?”
“Yes.”
“Could that have affected your interpretation?”
“Yes.”
The courtroom shifted.
Truth.
Then:
“Yet you still warned Mr. Marciano.”
“Yes.”
“Because you thought Mr. Ferretti was a traitor.”
“I thought the message was suspicious and that Mr. Marciano should know.”
Specific.
No hero performance.
Then Luca testified.
He admitted:
Rafael’s assault cover-up.
current betrayal.
money.
Victor’s recruitment.
Defense attacked cooperation deal.
Fair.
Then Ben Walsh.
Evidence showed he received the basement message but had not agreed to abduction.
He had replied:
You sure?
Then later:
I’m not touching him.
He froze in hall because he realized plan.
Prosecutors dropped major conspiracy charge after cooperation, pursued failure-to-report/internal violations? Not criminal maybe obstruction if lied. He admitted deleting message initially. He faced obstruction charge.
Again, not every suspect equally guilty.
Then Paul Rizzo and the SUV men.
They testified Victor’s intermediary hired them to detain Enzo and transport him.
They claimed they were told no killing.
One carried illegal gun “for protection.”
Still serious kidnapping conspiracy.
Then Victor’s assistant Rachel.
She described fake consulting payments and meetings.
Then corporate resolution.
Prepared by Victor’s lawyer? The lawyer said Victor asked for emergency succession options due “credible threats.”
Could be legitimate planning.
But timing:
draft finalized the morning of ambush.
That looked bad.
Then Victor testified.
Risk.
He admitted planning to force Enzo into a private meeting.
Not kidnapping, he claimed.
He said Enzo was about to cooperate with prosecutors in a way that could expose employees and destroy companies.
Victor wanted leverage to make him pause.
He authorized Luca to redirect Enzo.
But denied authorizing armed men or vehicle restraint.
He said an intermediary escalated.
Who?
A security consultant named Daniel Cross.
Cross had pleaded and said Victor knew.
Jury had to decide.
Then motive:
Victor believed Enzo had become reckless.
He listed:
selling cash businesses.
opening records.
agreeing to claims process.
removing family influence.
Some jury members may see governance.
Victor saw betrayal.
Then prosecutor asked:
“Who owned Marciano Group?”
“Shareholders.”
“Was Mr. Marciano the controlling shareholder?”
“Yes.”
“Did that entitle you to abduct him to protect your preferred strategy?”
“No.”
Simple.
Then old Rafael case was not fully tried there.
Limited evidence only where it explained Luca leverage.
Judge cautioned jury:
do not convict current charge based on old conduct.
Good.
Then verdict.
Victor convicted of kidnapping conspiracy and financial fraud tied to security-vendor payments.
Acquitted on one weapons-conspiracy count because evidence did not prove he agreed to gun possession.
Specific.
Then old case.
New Jersey prosecutors separately charged Victor with obstruction and conspiracy related to cover-up after Rafael’s death, not homicide.
Why not homicide?
No evidence he ordered assault or knew physical confrontation would happen.
Amelia hated and understood.
Mason Pike and Luca faced assault/obstruction charges more directly.
Vincent Rallo dead.
No one could charge him.
Then Victor eventually pled on old obstruction count.
Factual basis:
he knew Rafael had been injured during an unauthorized coercive meeting.
he approved payment and accepted a false internal report.
he failed to disclose material company evidence.
There.
No admission he ordered death.
Amelia gave victim statement.
She said:
“My father did not die because one man woke up evil.”
Then:
“He died because several adults believed fear was an acceptable way to solve a paperwork problem.”
The courtroom quieted.
Then:
“Mr. DeSantis did not strike my father. The evidence does not say he did. But after my father was hurt, he chose the company over truth.”
Good.
Then:
“I am asking the court to sentence what he did, not what I wish I could prove.”
Maya cried.
Amelia did not.
Not until bathroom.
Then Victor spoke.
“I told myself Rafael’s death was Rallo’s failure.”
Then:
“It was easier to believe because I had not been in the room.”
He looked at Amelia.
“I signed the closure.”
No request for forgiveness.
Then sentences.
Victor received substantial custody across current and old cases, structured by courts.
No life.
Luca received lower but meaningful custody due cooperation and direct participation in Rafael cover-up/current conspiracy.
Mason Pike received sentence for old conduct after plea.
Ben Walsh received lesser obstruction consequences.
Different acts.
Different outcomes.
Then Amelia read Luca’s letter.
Finally.
Maya sat nearby.
Luca wrote:
I told your mother your father would be safe because I believed I could keep Rallo from hurting him.
Then:
That belief was arrogance. I brought Rafael into a room he did not consent to enter and helped stop him leaving.
Good.
Then:
After he fell, I was afraid of prison and chose myself.
No excuse.
Then:
I watched your mother cry on television after police called it robbery and said nothing.
That sentence broke Amelia.
She stopped reading.
Later finished.
Luca did not ask forgiveness.
He apologized for:
kitchen lie.
grabbing Rafael.
moving his belongings.
silence.
Specific.
Amelia wrote no reply.
Not yet.
Then Enzo.
After Victor sentencing, he asked again.
“Dinner?”
Amelia looked at him in the hotel lobby.
“Why now?”
“Because the criminal case connecting us is mostly over.”
“Mostly.”
“Yes.”
“And because you like me?”
He smiled.
“Yes.”
She considered.
Then:
“One dinner.”
“Good.”
“Public.”
“Good.”
“You don’t send a car.”
“I was going to ask.”
“I’ll take the subway.”
He nodded.
Then dinner.
He chose a small Spanish restaurant in Chelsea.
Not owned by him.
Not owned by cousins.
Amelia checked public records lightly then stopped herself.
A person can turn caution into occupation.
At dinner, Enzo asked:
“What did you want before the hotel?”
The question surprised.
Not:
what happened to your father.
Before.
She said:
“Hotel management training. Maybe university part-time. I wanted to run rooms operations somewhere big enough that the carpets are ugly on purpose.”
He laughed.
“You can do that.”
She looked.
“Don’t.”
“What?”
“Turn into opportunity man.”
He understood.
“Right.”
Then:
“What do you want?”
Enzo thought.
“To not have every person around me selected because they know how to manage danger.”
Interesting.
Then:
“I like hotels because people come and go without owing the building loyalty.”
Amelia smiled.
“That’s not how hotels feel when you work there.”
Fair.
Then they spoke about his mother.
His father.
Newark.
food.
No kiss.
At end:
“Again?”
Amelia said:
“Maybe.”
Enzo smiled.
“Good.”
Then she walked to subway alone.
No shadow security.
At least none she could see.
That thought annoyed.
She texted:
Did you put anyone behind me?
Enzo replied:
No.
Then:
Want hotel security to confirm route cameras only?
No.
Goodnight.
Goodnight.
She believed him.
Not because he was Enzo Marciano.
The first real argument Amelia and Enzo had after that dinner came over something embarrassingly normal.
He booked a table at a restaurant for the following Friday.
She was scheduled to work.
“You could have asked.”
“I thought Friday was your usual night off.”
“It changes.”
“I can move it.”
“That’s not the point.”
He paused.
Then:
“I made a plan that involved you before checking whether you agreed.”
“Yes.”
The similarity to larger betrayals was disproportionate.
Still real.
Enzo canceled without complaint.
Then Amelia felt foolish for being so angry.
Maya told her:
“You are allowed to care about small consent after a large violation.”
Good.
Two days later Amelia called.
“Saturday?”
Enzo smiled through the phone.
“Saturday.”
Then she added:
“And don’t make it some place with a private room.”
“I know.”
“Do you?”
“Yes.”
He did.
Small habits made larger claims more believable.
After Victor’s sentencing, Amelia noticed one thing about Enzo she had not expected.
He stopped asking for updates about every defendant.
Not because he stopped caring.
Because his lawyers told him victim status did not entitle him to private access to proceedings.
At first he hated it.
Then he adapted.
That mattered.
A man who had spent his life receiving information before everyone else was learning that not knowing could be part of fairness.
Amelia also asked Maya whether Victor’s conviction changed anything about her civil claim.
“Not automatically,” Maya said.
That surprised her.
Criminal guilt answered specific charges. Civil responsibility, company liability, and restitution used different questions and standards.
Again, no single verdict solved every layer.
Amelia was beginning to understand why people who wanted one courtroom to explain an entire life usually left disappointed.
The law could name acts.
Grief still had to live outside the judgment.
May you like
Because trust can begin with one verifiable answer and still remain small.
That mattered more than certainty.
