Berkeley Landlord to Plead Guilty
Deal cut in sex, smuggling case
Matthew Yi, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, March 3, 2001
©2001 San Francisco Chronicle

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/03/MNW114650.DTL


A Berkeley landlord and two of his family members who are charged with smuggling in teenage girls from India for sex and cheap labor will change their pleas to guilty Monday in what appears to be a deal with federal prosecutors, according to court papers filed yesterday.

The move, if approved by U.S. District Court Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, will only settle part of the fascinating case that spanned the globe because it doesn't include the two sons of East Bay real estate tycoon Lakireddy Bali Reddy.

"The defense lawyers and I jointly request that the court (schedule a hearing) Monday . . . for entry of guilty pleas by three of the five defendants," Assistant U.S. Attorney John Kennedy wrote in a letter to the judge, which was filed in federal court in Oakland.

Reddy, 63, was arrested in January 2000 on charges that he illegally brought three teenage girls to the United States from his home village of Velvadam in India. Two of the three teenagers, who all worked in Reddy's downtown Berkeley restaurant, told police that the landlord kept the girls in one of his apartments nearby and regularly had sex with them, according to court records.

The case broke when one of the girls, Chanti Prattipati, 17, was found dead in November 1999 after she and her younger sister suffered carbon monoxide poisoning in a Reddy-owned apartment in Berkeley. The sister survived. She and her roommate blew the whistle on Reddy, court records show.

Authorities later arrested his sons, Vijay Kumar Lakireddy, 31, of Berkeley and Prasad Lakireddy, 42, of Lafayette, and the landlord's brother, Jayaprakash Lakireddy, 47, of Oakland, and Annapurna Lakireddy, 46, Jayaprakash Lakireddy's wife.

They all are charged with conspiring to illegally bring immigrants from India on fraudulent work visas since 1986. All are free on bail.

All but the two sons will change their pleas Monday, according to Kennedy's letter. It was unknown why Reddy's sons also wouldn't change their pleas Monday.

Originally, both sides had tried to agree on a package plea deal that would include all five defendants. They attempted to hold a closed-door hearing last October, but a media attorney intervened, charging that it's illegal to have a secret hearing on such a matter. Armstrong agreed, opening it up to the public,

but defense attorneys decided to pull out from the settlement and asked for more time.

Later, the entire package deal was nixed by Prasad Lakireddy, who changed his mind and didn't want to plead guilty. On Dec. 19, he told The Chronicle that he was innocent and that he needed to look after his wife and their three young children.

The terms of the latest plea agreement for the three defendants were unknown yesterday.

Kennedy and Reddy's lawyer, Ted Cassman, refused comment yesterday. The other defense attorneys did not return phone calls.

"We want to just put this behind us and move on," Reddy's other brother, Hanimireddy Lakireddy, a cardiologist in Merced, said yesterday. "We want to end this unhappy episode. . . . Only time will tell what's going to happen. That's all I'm going to say."

Also yesterday, Judge Armstrong agreed to unseal some of the documents in the federal case and ordered the U.S. attorney's office to redact the alleged victims' names from papers that will be released to the public.

That judgment comes after attorneys for The Chronicle challenged the sealing of 27 documents in the case involving Reddy and his family members, and nearly every document relating to separate charges against Venkateswara Vemireddy, who allegedly brought two of the teenagers to the United States illegally by posing as their father. He remains in custody.

Armstrong ordered 12 of the Reddy files to be unsealed. A hearing on the Vemireddy files was postponed.

In a 29-page ruling, the judge said unsealing all documents "would create a substantial probability of irreparable harm to defendants' fair trial rights."

Armstrong also wrote: "The names of all other alleged victims and witnesses also should be redacted from any records unsealed . . . because such an action is essential to protect the constitutional privacy rights of those individuals and their safety, and to protect against the trauma and embarrassment of public scrutiny . . . ."

"We're pleased with some aspects of it and disappointed with others," said Lisa Sitkin, a lawyer representing The Chronicle. "We're going to look into options for pursuing the matter further."

Michael Rubin, who filed a civil lawsuit in Alameda County against Reddy on behalf of Chanti's younger sister and their parents, called Armstrong's ruling to cross out the names excellent.

"I'm not surprised, given the protection provided by American law to the rights of the victims, particularly minor victims," he said. "I and the victims are quite gratified that (the judge) protected their anonymity in this matter."

E-mail Matthew Yi at myi@sfchronicle.com.

©2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page A - 15