Mob FilesPublic-domain archive of American organized crime
Viewer page 19 of Part 04 of the FBI Vault's Meyer Lansky file: page 5 of a typed letter to the Director, with several lines blacked out under exemption b1, and a paragraph on the Havana daily newspapers of February 22, 1958 reporting that President Fulgencio Batista had prohibited Meyer Lansky's return to Cuba.
Open the full imageGIF, 1000 × 1313 px, 0.2 MB

FBI Legal Attache, Havana, letter and New York report, February-April 1958: the Cuban government 'by order of President Fulgencio Batista' bars Meyer Lansky's return

The Legal Attache in Havana reported that Havana newspapers of 22 February 1958 'published the fact that the Cuban Government by order of President Fulgencio Batista had officially prohibited the return to Cuba of MEYER LANSKY effective February 21, 1958,' and that the Minister of the Interior confirmed it.

Date
1958-02/1958-04
Kind
case-file
Source
FBI Records: The Vault, Meyer Lansky, Part 04
Retrieved
2026-10-12
Rights
A record of the Federal Bureau of Investigation released under FOIA. A work of the United States government, public domain under 17 U.S.C. § 105. The page image of viewer page 19 is stored here.

Viewer page 19 of Part 04 is a page of a letter from the Legal Attache in Havana to the Director; its date is not legible on the pages read, and several lines are withheld. It reports: “The Havana daily newspapers of February 22, 1958, published the fact that the Cuban Government by order of President Fulgencio Batista had officially prohibited the return to Cuba of MEYER LANSKY effective February 21, 1958. Inquiry by these newspapers of Cuban Minister of the Interior, Santiago Rey, resulted in confirmation of this order.” The stored image is that page.

A New York report that follows (pages 20-21) says in its synopsis that Lansky arrived in Florida from Cuba on 10 February 1958, arrived in New York on 11 February and was arrested for questioning, and that he was “interested in gambling in Cuba, recently barred from there by Cuban Government, but reported ready to return there.” Page 41 of the same report summarizes New York press stories, among them a Havana-datelined article, “Cuba to Bar Lansky,” quoting the Interior Minister, and a New York Mirror story of 22 February 1958 in which Lansky said he wanted to go back.

The ban is reported from Cuban newspapers and the minister’s confirmation, as relayed by the Legal Attache; the press summaries on page 41 are newspapers, not federal reporting. The record does not say when or whether the order was lifted.

itemFBI memorandum, F. L. Price to Mr. Rosen, 3 February 1958, and New York report on Meyer Lansky: 'now spending most of time in Havana, Cuba, where he has interests in gambling enterprises'A headquarters memorandum on the Lansky Anti-Racketeering case states that he is 'now spending most of time in Havana, Cuba, where he has interests in gambling enterprises' of variable extent, and that he has been connected with race track and gambling casino operations in Havana 'since at least 1938.' A New York report lists his Havana hangouts.itemFBI Miami airtel to the Director on Meyer Lansky, February 1961: 'prior to the revolution in Cuba, LANSKY was active in legalized gambling in Cuba'Reviewing all Lansky material in its files, the Miami office reported that past investigation 'has never established concrete evidence' that he directly violated a federal statute within the FBI's primary jurisdiction, and that 'prior to the revolution in Cuba, LANSKY was active in legalized gambling in Cuba,' returning to the United States after Castro took power.itemTime, Inc. v. McLaney, 406 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1969): Life's 1967 article on 'Havana gamblers' in the Bahamas, and the press reports the reporter relied onThe Fifth Circuit directed summary judgment for the publisher of Life in a libel suit by Mike McLaney, holding that the record showed no actual malice. The opinion quotes 1958-59 newspaper reports on Meyer Lansky and Havana gambling as material the reporter had before him; those quotations are not findings of the court.