Miske concealed his control of the M Nightclub

Here’s a little something that turned up while I was writing my latest Civil Beat story on the Miske case (“The Miske Files: Accused Murderer, Crime Boss And … Used Car Dealer?).

Here’s what I wrote in that story, looking back at the formation of Leverage Inc.

A month later, Yokoyama registered Leverage Inc., which opened the M Nightclub in downtown Honolulu’s Waterfront Plaza in 2012. Yokoyama held 70% of the authorized 100 shares of Leverage Inc. stock, while Miske held 20%, and Aqui held 10%, according to Honolulu Liquor Commission records.

However, in March 2015, Aqui told the commission in writing that he had never owned any shares in Leverage.

“I have had no association with the establishment since May 2011 and was purely brought on as a consultant/Manager and never had any ownership of the business,” Aqui wrote.

First of all, this was all smoke and mirrors. It was clear that Miske was in full control of the business.

And in the original application, Yokoyama assured the commission, in writing, that while Miske was a minority shareholder, he “has no decision making powers with the company.”

In any case, the commission appears to have accepted the reported change, dropping Aqui from the list of owners, without questions being asked.

Here’s the problem. In its original liquor license application back in 2011, and continuing with annual renewals each year through 2014, Jason Yokoyama–who was registered as the president of the corporation–submitted a stockholder list that included Aqui.

And each submission was signed by Yokoyama, attesting to the truth of the included information.

Here’s the issue. State law appears to provide that the person who submits a liquor license application or other document containing “any false statement” is guilty of a criminal offense (see §281-52 HRS).

If any false statement is knowingly made in any application which is verified by oath, the applicant, and in the case of the application being made by a corporation, limited liability company, association, or club, the persons signing the application, shall be guilty of perjury, and shall be subject to the penalties prescribed by law for such offense. If any false statement is knowingly made in any application which is not verified by oath, the person or persons signing the application shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as in section 281-102 provided.

Four documents follow, drawn from Honolulu Liquor Commission public records. The first is the license renewal for 2014 submitted for the M Nightclub. Like the original application and several earlier renewals, it lists Richard Aqui as a stockholder. The second document is Aqui’s letter to the commission disavowing any such interest. The third is a brief handwritten note saying that the the company is changing officers/directors, without mentioning Aqui’s letter. And, finally, a copy with a commission staff note indicating “it looks OK” to make the change, and indicating Aqui’s shares went to Yokoyama.

Hello?! Aqui’s letter said he never held any shares in the company, so his shares couldn’t have simply been transferred to Yokoyama.

And, beyond all of this, federal investigators concluded Miske have full control of the company and the nightclub throughout this period. Although the commission had no way to have known this at the time, it certainly had evidence that a false statement had repeatedly been made. Why no further questions asked, or anything to explain their absence?

Of course, we have the benefit of hindsight given the indictment of Miske and his co-defenants, and an increasing amount of available information about the federal allegations.

Change of ownership submitted by Leverage Inc, owner of Mike Miske's M Nightclub by Ian Lind on Scribd


Discover more from i L i n d

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

6 thoughts on “Miske concealed his control of the M Nightclub

  1. WhatMeWorry

    Just reading this it seems pretty clear that the Feds now have a case to investigate the HNL Liquor Commission for suspected corruption, bribe taking, theft and any other misc. malfeasances. At the very least the commission can, for starters, be prosecuted for blatant incompetence. It’s how government rolls in the 808.

    Reply
  2. Officer Obvious

    Laws don’t mean squat unless they’re enforced. Hawaii keeps learning — and yet not learning — that simple lesson.

    Reply
  3. Kuleana

    Once the 1st letter was received to LC, action to remove officer should have included a letter to applicant that there is a discrepancy in the listing of officers. Please contact LC.
    The red flag should have been mandatory from that day forward.

    Reply
  4. George & Frank

    The useful intent of the Liquor Commission is no longer relevant. They failed to control operators for taxable liability.
    No big deal in City History, the Big Uncle could have just blinked an eye to allow this.
    In the 1980 / 90’s Hostess Bar Liquor Licenses we’re charged a well known flat fee of $25,000.00 it was common knowledge in the industry.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to George & Frank Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.