Russia's federal tax body could join a $22.5 billion lawsuit filed by Russian customs against the Bank of New York if a criminal case is launched against bank's representatives, a Tax Service spokesman said Tuesday.

The Federal Customs Service on May 17 accused the bank of laundering untaxed profits of Russian exporters in 1996-99 and said it had filed a damages lawsuit with the Moscow Arbitration Court.

"The Russian Federal Tax Service will get involved only if a criminal case is launched," the spokesman said.

Andrei Belyaninov, the head of the Federal Customs Service, said earlier he was optimistic about the prospects of his service's lawsuit against the bank, and saw no reason to give it up.

Experts doubt that customs authorities will recover the entire sum claimed, but lawyers acting for the service say their claim is legitimate, as the bank has admitted that $7.5 billion was laundered, and under U.S. law the plaintiff can demand compensation three times greater than the original loss.

The bank, which pleaded guilty to violating U.S. laws on control over financial flows in 2005 and was fined $38 million, dismissed the new claim.

A lawyer for Vice President Dick Cheney told the Secret Service in September to eliminate data on who visited Cheney at his official residence, a newly disclosed letter states.

The Sept. 13, 2006, letter from Cheney's lawyer says logs for Cheney's residence on the grounds of the Naval Observatory are subject to the Presidential Records Act.

Such a designation prevents the public from learning who visited the vice president.

The Justice Department filed the letter Friday in a lawsuit by a private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, seeking the identities of conservative religious leaders who visited Cheney at his official residence.

The newly disclosed letter about visitors to Cheney's residence is accompanied by an 18-page Secret Service document revealing the agency's long-standing practice has been to destroy printed daily access lists of visitors to the residence.

Separately, the agency says it has given Cheney's office handwritten logs of who visits him at his personal residence.

Because of pending lawsuits, the Secret Service says it is now keeping copies of all material on visitors to Cheney's residence. According to the Secret Service document, Cheney's office has approved the agency's retention of the records, while maintaining they are presidential records subject to Cheney's control.

''The latest filings make clear that the administration has been destroying documents and entering into secret agreements in violation of the law,'' said Anne Weismann, CREW's chief counsel.

The case looked much milder at the end than it did 15 months ago, when it appeared it might inflict a serious blow to a sport that was struggling to regain fans after a season-long lockout the year before. But the worst suspicions were not substantiated. There didn't seem to be mob ties or betting on hockey. No other hockey figures are being charged or will have to testify in a criminal trial.

"I'm sure everyone recalls the manner in which the case was initially announced and described," said Kevin Marino, the defense lawyer for Tocchet. "I think (Friday's) proceeding speaks for itself." It was two days after the 2006 Super Bowl when State Police Col. Rick Fuentes announced the charges against Tocchet, Trooper James Harney and a third man, James Ulmer.

Fuentes said that during a 40-day stretch that had just ended, they had handled bets totaling $1.7 million from a list of gamblers that included a movie star and other hockey figures.

Quickly, the prospect developed of a trial featuring a cavalcade of hockey players as witnesses. Even Gretzky, hockey's greatest player and a friend of Tocchet's, was caught on an investigative wiretap discussing how his wife could avoid being implicated.

It turned out Jones didn't have much to worry about. Authorities didn't charge her, or any other bettors, because placing bets - even with a bookmaker - is not illegal in New Jersey.

The 19-page complaint alleges the Daily Gazette Co. bought the Daily Mail in May 2004 intending to shut it down and create a newspaper monopoly in Kanawha County. The Justice Department said the Daily Gazette Co. suspended those actions in December 2004 but only after the company learned the federal agency had launched an investigation into the newspaper company's maneuvers.

The Justice Department's suit seeks to undo completely the 2004 sale and restore the Daily Mail to its previous competitiveness.

"When the Daily Gazette Co. acquired the Daily Mail with the aim of shutting it down, readers in the Charleston area and the advertisers who valued access to them, were denied the benefits of competition," Assistant Attorney General Thomas O. Barnett said in a news release. Barnett works in the Justice Department's Antitrust Division.

"The Department's investigation saved the Daily Mail from this unlawful termination, and this action seeks to remedy the competitive damage already done and to prohibit the parties from resuming an anticompetitive course in the future."

Trip Shumate, chief financial officer for Charleston Newspapers, which serves as the umbrella company handling the business side of the Gazette and Daily Mail, said the Daily Gazette will "vigorously defend" the Justice Department's lawsuit.

"We will win in court if it goes there," he said.

Messages left for Dean Singleton, MediaNews' vice chairman and CEO, and MediaNews President Joseph Lodovic IV were not returned.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the convictions except for the guilty verdict on one count of bank fraud apiece.

"We reverse defendants' conviction on (that count) and we remand for an entry of a judgment of acquittal on this count and for resentencing," the court said.

The Rigases, who both have been sentenced by a Manhattan federal court judge to lengthy prison terms, have remained free on bail while they have pursued their appeals.

Last May, the House passed a similar bill, the Federal Energy Price Protection Act, that would have required the FTC to define price gouging within six months of the bill's final passage. That bill failed in the Senate.