New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

If there is any easy way to make a buck off the health care system, someone is going to make a go for it even if their final prescription calls for an enormous dose of law enforcement. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office just announced the arrest and indictment of 19 individuals (Linda Lai, Stephen Lai, Ibrahim Akdemir, Neil Akdemir, Jing Yao Wang, Zhao Ming, Kin Wai Kong, Wai Wen Mak, Steven Colucci, Sonia Mirizzi, Giulio Minella, Orsola Minella, Diana Downing, Brian Bomeiser, Gurbachan Dhami, Balijinder Kaur, Farhad Lahijani, Natakya Azarova and Eufrocina Caluag) for fraudulently obtaining medicaid benefits in the amount of $350,000. These individuals are charged with Welfare Fraud, Grand Larceny and Offering a False Instrument for Filing. 11 of the defendants allegedly misrepresented on paperwork that they were New Yorkers residing in Manhattan while 8 of the defendants allegedly misrepresented their income and financial resources. Without these misrepresentations, the defendants would not have been entitled to Medicaid.

Although the charges and degrees vary for each defendant, Grand Larceny in the Second Degree and Welfare Fraud in the Second Degree is a class C felony punishable by up to 5 to 15 years in state prison, Grand Larceny in the Third Degree and Welfare Fraud in the Third Degree is a class D felony punishable by up to 2 and 1/3 to 7 years in prison and Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree is a class E felony punishable by up to 1 and 1/3 to 4 years in state prison.

What happens to each of these defendants remains to be seen. Can they pay back what they allegedly stole? Was there a time where at least part of their claims were legitimate? Did they fill out all the paperwork or did someone do it for them? As I have said time and time again, these defendants need to identify their defense and implement it immediately.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a Manhattan based white collar criminal defense firm representing clients in the New York region. Founded by former prosecutors, the two partners at Crotty Saland, LLP served under Robert Morgenthau for nearly a combined 14 years.

Follow us on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

The Manhattan District Attorney's Office issued a press release involving the arrest and indictment of Adeniyi Adeyemi, a computer technician employed by the Bank of New York Melon. The 138 count Identity Theft and Grand Larceny indictment accuses the defendant of stealing the identities of 150 bank employees while perpetrating a $1.1 million dollar fraud. The fraud and thefts were alleged to have transpired from 2001 through 2009.

It is alleged that the victims of these crimes were many co-workers of Mr. Adeyemi who worked in the information technology group of Bank of New York Melon. According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Mr. Adeyemi "opened over 30 bank and brokerage accounts in their identities with several financial institutions, including E*Trade, Fidelity, Citi, Wachovia, and Washington Mutual. These accounts served as dummy accounts for the purpose of receiving stolen funds. Mr. Adeyemi then stole money from the bank accounts of charities and non-profit organizations and funneled it into the dummy accounts, later withdrawing the stolen funds or transferring them to a second layer of dummy accounts."

Much of the money that Mr. Adeyemi is alleged to have stolen was used to purchase goods and ship them to Nigeria as well as to cover his personal expenses such as rent and credit card bills. Moreover, it is alleged that Mr. Adeyemi purchased $100,000 in USPS money orders after transferring funds through the fraudulent accounts.

According to the District Attorney's Office, the police executed a search warrant at Mr. Adeyemi's apartment on April 30, 2009. There, "investigators found dozens of Bank of New York employees’ credit reports on his computer, along with many other documents containing personal identifying information of more than 150 Bank of New York employees. In a storage locker Mr. Adeyemi rented, the investigative team found notebooks containing hundreds of names, social security numbers, account numbers, and other personal data, along with numerous credit cards in Bank of New York employees’ names. Investigators also recovered $30,000 in cash from Mr. Adeyemi’s apartment. Mr. Adeyemi was arrested in the course of the search warrant execution, and has remained in custody since.

The Grand Jury indicted Mr. Adeyemi on one count of Grand Larceny in the First Degree (punishable by up to 8 and 1/3 to 25 years in prison), 138 counts of counts of Identity Theft in the First Degree (punishable by up to 2 and 1/3 to 7 years in prison), one count of Money Laundering in the First Degree (punishable by up to 8 and 1/3 to 25 years in prison), one count of Computer Tampering in the First Degree (punishable by up to 5 to 15 years in prison), two counts of Money Laundering in the Second Degree (punishable by up to 5 to 15 years in prison), three counts of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (punishable by up to 5 to 15 years in prison), two counts of Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree (punishable by up to 1 and 1/3 to 4 years in prison), and one count of Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information in the Second Degree (punishable by up to 1 and 1/3 to 4 years in prison).

Certainly, it is not favorable to the defendant that a search warrant executed at his home revealed an abundance of personal information belonging to employees of the Bank of New York Melon. Moreover, the defendant's IP address was likely tracked to a particular provider and then ultimately to his account (or an account used by him.) Certainly, others could have had access to his account and computer. Additionally, there are legal arguments to be made and potential challenges to the search warrant. However, regardless of the approach to this case, Mr. Adeyemi has a long road ahead of him and needs to decide the best defense to the accusations and implement that defense immediately.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a white collar criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. Jeremy Saland, has extensive experience prosecuting and defending Identity Theft crimes having served in the Identity Theft Unit and the Major Case Section when the unit was founded by Robert Morgenthau.

Follow us on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY

Robin Katz, a money adviser at JP Morgan Chase, pleaded guilty earlier today to Grand Larceny after admitting she stole over $100,000 from a client. According to reports, her scheme involved creating an ATM card for the client's account without his knowledge. At her sentencing, Ms. Katz will receive 5 years probation and be required to pay back her ill gotten gains by a specified date.

As a former Manhattan prosecutor who served under Robert Morgenthau in the same office that prosecuted Ms. Katz, I handled Fraud and Grand Larceny cases well into the multiple millions of dollars. As a criminal defense attorney I have represented clients in Grand Larceny crimes ranging from the tens of thousands of dollars to multiple millions of dollars. Even though I have handled cases on each side of the law, every case requires a unique defense. It is likely that the "paper trail" of evidence was overwhelming in Katz's case and her approach to the case was to try to mitigate her crime. Was Ms. Katz dealing with substance abuse or mental health issues at the time she perpetrated the crime? Did Ms. Katz show remorse for her actions? What was her ability to repay back the victim and was he "on board" with the plea? All of these issues, and many more, were likely addressed and presented favorably to the District Attorney's Office.

Certainly, we do not know what transpired between the defense attorney and the prosecution, but it is not likely in this set of facts that the defendant "challenged" the prosecution to go forward with the case while Ms. Katz insisted on her innocence. Instead, it is likely that Ms. Katz did quite the opposite by presenting every reason why she should be afforded leniency.

As I have stated numerous times in my entries, sometimes our clients benefit when we fight with "vinegar" and other times we get tremendous results with "honey." Regardless of our approach, over the past year we have obtained, among many other dispositions, an ACD (dismissal after 6 months) on a Grand Larceny case of $20,000 and a misdemeanor on a Grand Larceny theft involving $25,000. Moreover, two other clients received conditional discharges (no jail or probation) on two Grand Larcenies involving $5,000,000 and $52,000 respectively. Recently, another client had his case "dropped" by prosecutors after he had been investigated for tax fraud in the tens of millions of dollars.

Although the above results avoided criminal records and / or jail for each of our clients, each case is unique, and as noted, requires its own analysis to ascertain the appropriate defense. After all, what might work in one case could hinder your defense in another. Whatever her tactic, however, Robin Katz will remain a free woman and a woman who will be able to move past this terrible incident.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a white collar criminal defense firm located in New York. Founded by former prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Crotty Saland, LLP represents clients throughout all stages of the criminal process.

Follow us on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

Perjury has become a part of everyday vernacular in New York and throughout the United States. Whether you sign something under "Penalty of Perjury" or you watch Law and Order, Perjury pops up everywhere. So, instead of rushing out to a criminal defense attorney after you have been charged, the following is a "primer" on the law of Perjury in the Third, Second and First Degrees (NY Penal Law Sections 210.05, 210.10 and 210.15) in New York:

210.05 Perjury in the Third Degree:

A person is guilty of Perjury in the Third Degree when he swears falsely.

Perjury in the Third Degree is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail.

210.10 Perjury in the Second Degree:

A person is guilty of Perjury in the Second Degree when he swears falsely and when his false statement is (a) made in a subscribed written instrument for which an oath is required by law, and (b) made with intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official functions, and (c) material to the action, proceeding or matter involved.

Perjury in the Second Degree is a class E felony punishable by up to 4 years in state prison.

210.15 Perjury in the First Degree:

A person is guilty of Perjury in the First Degree when he swears falsely and when his false statement (a) consists of testimony, and (b) is material to the action, proceeding or matter in which it is made.

Perjury in the First Degree is a class D felony punishable by up to 7 years in state prison.

More information after the jump...

Continue reading " Perjury in New York: NY Penal Law Sections 210.05, 210.10 and 210.15 " »

The New York criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP have vast experience both prosecuting and defending individuals accused of white collar crimes. While most of the crimes criminal defense lawyers handle in the white collar arena relate to Grand Larceny type offenses, the scope of white collar crimes in New York State and NYC goes well beyond large thefts. Today, I will address two of these offenses - Tampering with Public Records in the Second Degree (NY Penal Law 175.20) and Tampering with Public Records in the First Degree (NY Penal Law 175.25).

NY Penal Law 175.20, Tampering with Public Records in the Second Degree:

A person is guilty of Tampering with Public Records in the Second Degree when, knowing that he does not have the authority of anyone entitled to grant it, he knowingly removes, mutilates, destroys, conceals, makes a false entry in or falsely alters any record or other written instrument filed with, deposited in, or otherwise constituting a record of a public office or public servant.

Tampering with Public Records in the Second Degree is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

NY Penal Law 175.25, Tampering with Public Records in the First Degree:

A person is guilty of Tampering with Public Records in the First Degree when, knowing that he does not have the authority of anyone entitled to grant it, and with intent to defraud, he knowingly removes, mutilates, destroys, conceals, makes a false entry in or falsely alters any record or other written instrument filed with, deposited in, or otherwise constituting a record of a public office or public servant.

Tampering with Public Records in the First Degree is a class D felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison.

Although you may have missed it, the crucial difference between these two statutes - and facing up to one year in jail or seven years in state prison - hinges on only a few words. Those words are "intent to defraud." William Donnino states it best:

"The crime is divided into two degrees. The difference between the two degrees is that [T]ampering in the [F]irst [D]egree [§ 175.25], unlike [T]ampering in the [S]econd [D]egree [§ 175.20], requires an intent to defraud. The seeming intent of the revisers was to distinguish, for example, the culpability of a person who tears up a public record in anger, from the person who calculatingly tampers with a public record as part of a fraudulent scheme."

Because of the discrepancy between the two offenses as to potential punishment, it may be central to your defense to challenge whether or not you had the "intent to defraud." Even before that, however, your criminal defense attorney should examine whether the "public record" in question is in fact a "public record" under the law.

If you or a loved one is charged with or being investigated for a white collar crime such as Tampering with Public Records, contact Crotty Saland, LLP so we can work with you to preserve your rights, liberty and integrity.

I have routinely advised my clients that if they are questioned by the police they should always call me first. What may seem like innocent questioning may actually be the final steps of a law enforcement investigation that will leave them incarcerated for the foreseeable future. As former Manhattan prosecutors trained under Robert Morgenthau, my partner and I at Crotty Saland, LLP know how an admission by an accused can often be a nail hammered by a defendant into their own coffin.

We routinely file motions for our clients to obtain hearings to challenge the voluntariness of their statement to the police (this is called a Huntley Hearing). Yet, what role, if any, does sleeplessness or intoxication have on ones ability to voluntarily give a statement to the police even if you, the accused, believe you are giving a voluntary statement (did I lose you?!!?)? In other words, does sleeplessness or intoxication negate an otherwise voluntary admission?

Well, a Supreme Court judge sitting in the Criminal Term in Brooklyn (Kings County) New York just dealt with this particular issue as to whether drug use and a lack of sleep could render an otherwise voluntary statement involuntary. In People v. Jeanine Harrington, decided in July 2009, the court found that "[t]he mere fact that a confession is made under such circumstances...does not necessarily render the admission inadmissible. It is a factor to be considered in determining whether the confession was, in fact, the product of a rational intellect and a free will."

In this particular case the defendant admitted to smoking crack and being up all night. Even during the interview the defendant fell asleep. That being said, the defendant may have been "strung out," but was consistent in her answers, did not request that questions be repeated and appeared aware at the time of her questioning.

Although the decision rendered by the court was not analyzed extensively from a legal perspective, it did give genuine insight into the fact that intoxication and sleep deprivation may not render your statement involuntary. The lesson any accused person should take from this case is that instead of regretting what you said and trying to legitimately fight the admissibility of your admission after the fact, it is a "wiser" move to consult with an attorney beforehand. In the event you are unable to do so, asking to speak with an attorney will legally prevent the prosecution or police from questioning you further.

While each case requires its own unique analysis as the best way to protect an accused's rights and liberty, one thing is consistent across all cases. Retaining experienced and knowledgeable criminal defense lawyers, such as the former prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP, may mean the difference between maintaining your freedom or compounding the already terrible situation you find yourself in.

Follow us on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

Kew Gardens certainly isn't nearly as fun as Vegas. Heck, it makes Atlantic City look like paradise. A 38 month long gambling investigation by the Queens County District Attorney's Office came to a screeching halt yesterday after 27 people were indicted and arrested for Money Laundering, Enterprise Corruption, Promoting Gambling and Conspiracy. Called "Operation Betting it All," the Queens County District Attorney's probe is also seeking $125 million dollars in asset forfeiture from 20 of those defendants after it was determined that the ring allegedly took in $567 million dollars during a 28 month period leading up to the arrests. This is the second gambling investigation conducted by the Queens County District Attorney's Office in recent months. In August, the Queens County District Attorneys Office took down another ring in an 86 count indictment involving perfectwager.com.

In a press release issued by the Queens District Attorney's Office, District Attorney Brown stated that the 131-count indictment filed in Queens County Supreme Court claimed that the gambling ring promoted illegal sports betting in Queens County and elsewhere. The top two defendants – alleged bookmakers Joseph J. Fafone and Eric Davis Harp – set up and ran numerous websites, including betallsportshere.com, justwagers.com, betmsg.com, betonline.com, and betrr.com, as well as toll-free telephone numbers as a means for gamblers to make bets. "The defendants also allegedly controlled a non-traditional 'wire room' in the form of an off-shore, Internet gambling service used by bettors and runners to actually place their wagers. It is alleged that the ring used the off-shore wire room – located in Panama – to maintain the gambling accounts of numerous runners and bettors through the Internet websites in an effort to evade law enforcement detection through traditional methods."

The alleged "book makers" include Joseph J. Fafone and Eric Davis Harp. The alleged "money collectors" include Joseph P. Fafone, Thomas P. Farley, Gail R. Harris, Edward P. Kenny, Lester J. Klein, Louis P. Lippa Jr., Amanda L. Mercer, Robert J. Rasmussen and David Valerio. The alleged "master agents" include Jerry Dicresce, Edward LaRocco, Robert Wehnert and
David Strickland. The alleged "agents/runners" include Robert Aglialoro, Andrew Berg, John Bowling, Louis Cassero, Joseph Catalanotto, Philip Cesario, David Goldman, Jonathan Piansky, Joseph Pontarelli, Michael Rizzi, Matthew Schmalacker, Robert Stampf and Louis Todisco. The alleged "wire room manager" is Mike Sheridan and the alleged "wire room accountant" is Andrew Lepiz. The alleged corporation operating the scheme is JJF Consulting Services.

Although the defendants listed above are paying the price for their alleged betting ways, there is one bet they certainly can count on. They need experienced criminal defense attorneys to work with them to identify and set forth their defense to these charges immediately. Otherwise, if convicted, the defendants face up to 25 years in state prison on the Enterprise Corruption and Money Laundering charges. If convicted of the charges of Conspiracy or Promoting Gambling, the defendants can serve up to 4 years in state prison.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a New York based criminal defense firm handling white collar crimes. Crotty Saland, LLP is founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors who served under Robert Morgenthau. We can be followed on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

Crotty Saland, LLP, a Manhattan based criminal defense and complex civil litigation law firm, is now on Twitter. In addition to our blogs (updated at least once every four days), we will now keep our readers updated on New York legal decisions, provisions of New York's Penal Law, case results and updates about our law firm.

Our Twitter page can be found here.

A crime that has been on the rise as of late is the offense of Criminal Diversion of Prescription Medication pursuant to Article 178 of the New York Penal Law. While street level dealers are often involved in this crime, Criminal Diversion of Prescription Medication can arguably be viewed as the "white collar" crime of the narcotics world. Recently, in a case pending in Manhattan Supreme Court, a judge addressed the issue regarding the means by which the prosecution must establish the presence of a particular prescription medication. The question raised was whether or not it is sufficient to establish that a particular substance is a prescription medication if that fact is established solely by the statements of the accused and without further corroboration. In other words, has the prosecution met its burden by using the statements of a "seller" who says the drugs are a particular prescription medication without expert testimony or a laboratory report?

According to Judge Marcy Kahn, in People v. Khan, 3299/2008:

"'[I]n a drug-related prosecution, the People's case is legally sufficient if the evidence provides a 'reliable basis' for inferring the presence' of the drug. (People v. Swamp, 84 NY2d 725, 730 [1995], citing People v. Kenny, 30 NY2d 154, 157 [1972]). Expert testimony is sufficient, but not necessary, for this purpose. "More than conclusory assertions" are required, however, to meet the legal sufficiency standard. (Id., [additional citation omitted]). That said, the substance itself need not be produced at trial (People v. Czarnowski, 268 AD2d 701, 702 [3d Dept. 2000]), nor need it necessarily have been subjected to laboratory analysis, the results of which are introduced at trial. (People v. Houston, 72 AD2d 369, 379 [2d Dept. 1980]). The nature of the drug may be proved circumstantially (id.), and where the substance is not available for analysis, consumers who are familiar with the substance, from their own actual use of the drug, or from observation or study, may be competent to give testimony identifying it. (People v. Lynch, 85 AD2d 126, 128 [4th Dept. 1982]; see People v. Christopher, 161 AD2d 896 [3d Dept.], lv. denied, 76 NY2d 786 [1990]). 'The test…in situations where the illegal substance is not available for analysis, is the experience of the witness and the nature of [his or her] qualifications to identify the substance at issue.' (People v. Lynch, supra, 85 AD2d at 128). Where purchasers of prescription medication merely offer conclusory statements as to the nature of the drug, the evidence is insufficient to establish its identity. (People v. O'Neill, 285 AD2d 669 [3d Dept. 2001]). While a pharmacist may offer expert testimony identifying a drug by its physical appearance, based upon his or her training and experience (People v. Czarnowski, supra), the prosecution's reliance solely on identifying statements made by a defendant is insufficient to prove the nature of the drug, absent corroborating evidence. (People v. Ross, 12 Misc.3d 755, 760 [Crim. Ct. Kings Co. 2006] [citing CPL §60.50]).

Judge Kahn's assessment of the necessary requirements for corroboration are clear. A layperson alone can not establish the nature of the narcotic or prescription medication especially if belief is an unsupported conclusion. The basis of that conclusion, supporting testimony, laboratory tests, expert analysis or other elements are necessary for corroboration.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two form Manhattan prosecutors. We can be followed on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

A Queens County Supreme Court Judge acquitted Hiram Monserrate of felony Assault and convicted the embattled state senator of Assault in the Third Degree, a misdemeanor. More specifically, the judge found him guilty of New York Penal Law 120.00(2). According to the New York Penal Law, an individual is guilty of 120.00(2) when he or she recklessly causes physical injury to another person. This offense differs greatly from 120.00(1) which requires that a person intentionally causes physical injury to another person. Regardless of the theory of the case, anyone convicted of a misdemeanor Assault faces up to one year in jail. However, a judge has the discretion to sentence that person to no jail at all. While the court has not sentenced Senator Monserrate, a full order or protection was issued thereby preventing him to have any contact with the victim of his crime.

While I did not sit in the courtroom listening to the testimony, the decision rendered by the court does not surprise me. If Senator Monserrate had been convicted of the felony, the state would have been thrust into terrible turmoil and a horrendous stalemate. Removing Senator Monseratte from his seat would have resulted in 31-30 standoff in the state senate. Did this fact impact the court's decision? Did the judge "split the baby" by finding Mr. Monserrate guilty of a crime, but a significantly lesser offense? Are we over analyzing his decision and, at bottom, the facts just did not support the People's case?

What is slightly confusing, and in my opinion gives credence to the political and legislative implications having an impact on the court's decision is the following. If the court truly believed that the People did not prove the intentional Assault beyond a reasonable doubt, then why did the court issue a full order of protection preventing Senator Monserrate from having contact with the victim? If his actions were reckless, as opposed to intentional, then shouldn't the court permit the two, as consenting adults, to continue their relationship? If a person intentionally assaults another it is clearly understandable that a judge would want to make sure a victim, domestic or not, is safe. An order of protection or restraining order may be necessary in those situations. However, if the judge in the Monserrate trial found that the defendant acted recklessly, i.e., it was an accident, then there is an argument to be made that there is no real reason to issue an order of protection. Was there evidence presented that indicates he is a dangerous man who has hurt her in the past? Was there evidence that Senator Monserrate has injured her intentionally or did so in this case? If there was, then why was he not convicted of the intentional Assault crime?

Taking this theory further, one must understand that under New York law, if one perpetrates an intentional misdemeanor Assault, but uses a dangerous instrument (here a glass), then the crime is technically "bumped up" to a felony offense. Following this out further, if the judge found that Monserratte acted intentionally, then as a matter of law he would have to find him guilty of the felony Assault as a "bump up." One step further would lead us to the legislative implications in New York State as discussed above.

It is interesting to note that the judge found that Senator Monserrate did not act recklessly in slicing the victim, but acted reckless and caused physical injury when pulling her away from the railing and to the hospital. Hmmm....how is it that the court found that his actions cutting the victim were not criminal at all, but his alleged attempt to help her by dragging her to the hospital was criminal? Not only does that appear to be inconsistent, but how did his dragging her away cause her substantial pain or a physical injury? Wasn't that sustained by the fact that a glass cut up her face?

Despite my conclusions, It is very easy to be an arm chair quarterback of the criminal justice system after the fact. We all like to draw our own conclusions even though the vast majority of us were not in that courtroom. Certainly none of us were there the night Senator Monseratte assaulted his victim. All of us, regardless of the crime, should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. After all, it is the People who have the burden to prove their case and we are all safely wrapped in a blanket of innocence until they establish otherwise. All of us, including Senator Monserratte, rightfully deserved that same inference. Unfortunately for Senator Monserratte, however, a judge has stripped him of that presumption of innocence where he now awaits his fate at sentencing for recklessly assaulting a woman.

It seems like "immigration fraud" and individuals purporting to be attorneys is the crime du jour in Manhattan and New York City lately. The most recent individual accused of a fraudulent immigration scheme is Wilmer Rivera Melendez. According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Mr. Melendez purported to provide immigration services to New Yorkers as an employee of W&R Immigration Services. Mr. Melendez claimed that W&R, an alleged non-profit organization located in Covington, Georgia, could assist people in immigration issues. It is even alleged that Mr. Melendez filed applications and petitions with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) on behalf of undocumented individuals. These individuals were allegedly fooled into believing Mr. Melendez had practiced law for 20 years and, as a result, agreed to wire money into Mr. Melendez's bank account.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office:

" As a part of his representation, Mr. Melendez required his clients to fill out and sign a Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, which gave him the authority to represent them in court proceedings regarding immigration matters. Mr. Melendez then promised that he could obtain a green card for them within two years by filing for Withholding of Removal, a status which gives a holder permission to remain in the U.S. until further notice. This promise is false because a person granted Withholding of Removal can never obtain a green card."

"Mr. Melendez explained that USCIS would schedule an interview to question the client about his/her claim. While the petition for Withholding of Removal is pending, he explained, the clients could receive a work permit after 150 days had passed since the filing of the withholding petition. In order to ensure that the 150 days elapsed, Mr. Melendez rescheduled the interview numerous times. However, this rescheduling did not count towards the 150-day calculation because the petitioner, not the federal government, caused the delay. After the individuals failed to attend the interview a few times, their cases were sent to an immigration judge, and deportation hearings were scheduled. When individuals questioned Mr. Melendez about their cases, he refused to take their telephone calls and/or changed his telephone number."

"Mr. Melendez is not a licensed attorney in New York or Georgia. The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) confirmed that Mr. Melendez is not an accredited representative authorized to represent clients before USCIS or the immigration courts. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration Customs Enforcement has confirmed that Mr. Melendez has never been employed by DHS or the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). "

Mr.Melendez has been indicted on one count of Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree and one count of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, class E felonies punishable by up to 1 1/3 to 4 years in prison; one count of Attempted Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail; and six counts of Practicing or Appearing As An Attorney-At-Law Without Being Admitted and Registered, a Judiciary Law misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a full service criminal defense firm based in Manhattan. Former Manhattan prosecutors, the partners at Crotty Saland, LLP recognize that we are not merely protecting your rights, but your liberty, integrity and livelihood.

Follow us on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

The New York criminal defense attorneys and lawyers at Crotty Saland, LLP have successfully represented clients in a wide range of white collar crimes. While past success is no guarantee of future results, the former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP have had tremendous success representing clients in matters relating to New York State criminal tax fraud. In fact, we recently had a multi-million dollar tax fraud investigation by a NYC District Attorney's Office dropped where our client failed to file returns for over a half a dozen years. Whether the case was prosecuted as a Grand Larceny or pursuant to the tax code as New York State Criminal Tax Fraud, the ramifications to the accused is enormous in both terms of incarceration and reputation. Because we strongly believe that education is the best means to avoid getting involved in crime, the following is an overview of Criminal Tax Fraud in the Fifth Degree (NYS Tax Law § 1802), Criminal Tax Fraud in the Fourth Degree (NYS Tax Law § 1803), Criminal Tax Fraud in the Third Degree (NYS Tax Law § 1804), Criminal Tax Fraud in the Second Degree (NYS Tax Law § 1805) and Criminal Tax Fraud in the First Degree (NYS Tax Law § 1806):

Definition of "Tax Fraud Acts" (NYS Tax Law § 1801)

(a) As used in this article, "Tax Fraud Act" means willfully engaging in an act or acts or willfully causing another to engage in an act or acts pursuant to which a person:
(1) fails to make, render, sign, certify, or file any return or report required under this chapter or any regulation promulgated under this chapter within the time required by or under the provisions of this chapter or such regulation;
(2) knowing that a return, report, statement or other document under this chapter contains any materially false or fraudulent information, or omits any material information, files or submits that return, report, statement or document with the state or any political subdivision of the state, or with any public office or public officer of the state or any political subdivision of the state;
(3) knowingly supplies or submits materially false or fraudulent information in connection with any return, audit, investigation, or
proceeding or fails to supply information within the time required by or under the provisions of this chapter or any regulation promulgated under this chapter;
(4) engages in any scheme to defraud the state or a political subdivision of the state or a government instrumentality within the
state by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises as to any material matter, in connection with any tax imposed under this chapter or any matter under this chapter;
(5) fails to remit any tax collected in the name of the state or on behalf of the state or any political subdivision of the state when such collection is required under this chapter;
(6) fails to collect any tax required to be collected under articles twelve-A, eighteen, twenty, twenty-two, twenty-eight or twenty-eight-A of this chapter, or pursuant to the authority of article twenty-nine of this chapter;
(7) with intent to evade any tax fails to pay that tax; or
(8) issues an exemption certificate, interdistributor sales certificate, resale certificate, or any other document capable of evidencing a claim that taxes do not apply to a transaction, which he or she does not believe to be true and correct as to any material matter, which omits any material information, or which is false, fraudulent, or counterfeit.

(b) For purposes of this subdivision, "this chapter" includes any "related statute" or any "related income or earnings tax statute", as defined in section eighteen hundred of this article.

(c) For purposes of this subdivision, the term "willfully" shall be defined to mean acting with either intent to defraud, intent to evade the payment of taxes or intent to avoid a requirement of this chapter, a lawful requirement of the commissioner or a known legal duty.

Read on for the actual offenses of Criminal Tax Fraud

Continue reading " New York State Criminal Tax Fraud in the Fifth Through First Degree: NY Tax Law § 1802 through § 1806 & Your Criminal Defense " »

Crotty Saland, LLP, a Manhattan based criminal defense and complex civil litigation firm, is pleased to announce that Elizabetth Crotty is speaking at New York Sefl Storage Association's Annual Convention and Membership Meeting tomorrow in Westchester County.

Ms. Crotty will be discussing the ramifications of storing contraband in self storage facilities. Moreover, she will address nuisance abatement laws and how local police departments enforce those laws and ordinances.

NY criminal defense attorneys are always being confronted with indictments and complaints against their clients for a wide variety of alleged fraudulent schemes. One such scheme just resulted in the indictment of Henry Vargas for the sale of a commercial building he claimed to own, but in fact, according to the Manhattan District Attorney, he did not.

Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau issued a press release alleging that during the past two years, Henry Vargas claimed to be the owner of 21-41 Lenox Avenue, a commercial building near Central Park. Although Mr. Vargas was not the owner of the property, it is alleged that he present forged documents to fool attorneys, business developers and other professionals into believing he had a controlling interest in the property.

One particular "victim" of his alleged scheme, Pete Skyllas, entered into an operating agreement for the property where Mr. Skyllas was to pay $4.8 million for Mr. Vargas' ownership and rights which did not truly exist. As a result, Mr. Skyllas paid Mr. Vargas $1 million toward the purchase of the ownership rights.

In addition to agreeing to sell his ownership rights to Mr. Skyllas, Mr. Vargas allegedly agreed to sell the entire property to the New York Road Runners. The Road Runners placed $1 million dollars into an escrow account while spending an additional $300,000.00 in attorneys fees for the purchase of the building. The total price for the building was $8.5 million.

It was not until Road Runners notified the tenants of the building regarding the pending sale did the true owner learn of the scheme.

A Manhattan Grand Jury indicted Mr. Vargas on one count each of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree and Attempted Grand Larceny in the First Degree, both class C felonies. Because Mr. Vargas appears to be a "predicate felon," he faces a mandatory minimum of 3 to 6 years in prison and a maximum of 7½ to 15 years. The Grand Jury also indicted him on one count of Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree and two counts each of Forgery in the Second Degree and Criminal Possession of Forged Instrument in the Second Degree, all of which are class D felonies carrying a mandatory minimum of 2 to 4 years in prison and a maximum of 3.5 to 7 years in prison.

Follow us on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

Many New York criminal defense attorneys have handled cases with unique, if not “funny” sets of facts. While no criminal accusation is a laughing matter, criminal defense attorneys always have to be ready to handle situations that fall outside every day parameters. In the context of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1192.3, one criminal defense lawyer and the court were confronted with such a situation. In that case, People v. Krivak, a Rockland County, New York Village Justice addressed the following issue: Is one’s inability to urinate for the purpose of submitting to a chemical test a legal “refusal.”

Briefly, and by way of background, New York permits the prosecution of individuals who are deemed to be driving while intoxicated even if their BAC is not recorded. This offense is often referred to as “Common Law DWI” and is found in the Vehicle and Traffic Law under section 1192.3 Police and prosecutors establish this crime by asserting that the accused had certain characteristics such as watery and blood-shot eyes, the smell of alcohol, slurred speech and unsteadiness on their feet. If a person refuses to take a chemical test to ascertain if and the amount of alcohol in their system, their failure to do so may legally be construed as a refusal. This refusal can then be used at a trial as evidence of the defendant’s guilt.

Now for the issue addressed above…

According to the court, the police gave Mr. Krivak clear and proper refusal warnings after he was arrested on suspicion of DWI. After such warnings were given and he was asked to provide a urine sample, Mr. Krivak failed to urinate despite being given ample water. Although not an express refusal to provide a sample, Mr. Krivak contended he was unable to urinate. The court viewed Mr. Krivak’s failure as “deemed” refusal to submit to a chemical test.

In finding that Mr. Krivak’s refusal was no different than an express refusal, the court compared the actions of Mr. Krivak’s to other cases. For example, in People v. Bratcher, 165 A.D.2d 906(3rd Dept. 1990), a defendant was found to have refused to use the intoxilizer after giving an insufficient “blow.” But it was not the case law that the court relied on to make its determination that the defendant’s failure to void his bladder was in fact a refusal for the purpose of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. If the defendant had informed the police as to the reasons why he was unable to urinate or provided medical evidence at a hearing for that same purpose, the court may have concluded differently.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a New York criminal defense law firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors who served under Robert Morgenthau. Our criminal defense blog is updated at least once every four days and our readers can follow us on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

As long as the world's oldest profession is profitable, the police and prosecutors will continue to go on the offensive to busting up and tearing down escort and prostitution rings. Unfortunately for Kenneth Fuina and Shawana Smith, they were the targets of such an investigation by the Westchester County District Attorney's Office that spanned two years. Now, Fuina and Smith are sitting in a White Plains jail cell on $100,000 bail each and facing the charge of Promoting Prostitution in the Third Degree, a class "D" felony punishable by up to 2 and 1/3 to 7 years in state prison. A third defendant, Genevieve Peattie, was released from jail but is charged with a misdemeanor of Prostitution.

According to reports, it is alleged that Kenneth Fuina and Shawana Smith ran a website for high end call girls charging between $600 to $2000 for one or more hours of "GFE" or a full service sexual encounter otherwise known as "Girl Friend Experience." The girls were recruited and their services were offered through a website, www.discreetcompanions.moonfruit.com. Once a client contacted Fuina or Smith, it is alleged that the girls were sent out to hotels in Westchester cities such as White Plains, Rye, Rye Brook and Tarrytown.

As a former Manhattan prosecutor who worked on investigations including those relating to Prostitution and Promoting Prostitution, I can say without hesitation that law enforcement takes these crimes very seriously especially if the alleged operation is making significant profits. In fact, individuals charged in these rings often face additional charges that are far more serious than the offenses relating to Prostitution or Escort Services. These crimes can include Money Laundering, Enterprise Corruption and Falsifying Business Records depending on the scope of the criminal activity.

To educate yourself on the law and to prevent yourself from following the same road as these defendants, contact the criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP and read our Escort Crime Blog. There is no substitute for knowing your rights and knowing the law to avoid finding yourself in the headlines.

Crotty Saland, LLP can be followed on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

Convicted of Grand Larceny in the First Degree in Manhattan Supreme Court, a New York trial jury has sealed Anthony Marshall's fate. Prosecutors called over seventy witness during the course of the trial that addressed whether or not Marshall was involved in forging Brooke Astor's signature and stealing her fortunate as she suffered from dementia and lived in squalor. In the end, the jury found that Marshall had bilked his own mother out of millions of dollars.

Unfortunately for Marshall, a conviction for Grand Larceny in the First Degree is an enormous defeat especially for an 85 year old man. By law, the minimum sentence he faces will be 1 to 3 years in state prison while the maximum Marshall could face is 8 and 1/3 to 25 years. If Marshall had been acquitted of this charge and "merely" convicted of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Forgery in the Second Degree, Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree and other crimes on the indictment, he would have not faced mandatory prison. While we certainly can only speculate what a judge might sentence and individual to, by law Marshall could have gotten nothing more than a conditional discharge or even no probation and up to 1 and 1/3 to 4, 2 and 1/3 to 7 or 5 to 15 depending if he were convicted of the "E," "D," or "C" felonies respectively. Compounding an already ugly case, Marshall still faces a pending civil case.

After 12 days of trial and a potential mistrial waiting in the wings, the case serves as a stark reminder to all New Yorkers. Regardless of your wealth or connections, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office will prosecute crimes in the "streets" and in the "suites," pursue offenders in all social circles and fight to trial if necessary.

After correctly speculating as to some of the possible charges, the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office has issued a press release regarding today's announcement that 13 people have been indicted for a wide ranging criminal enterprise that spanned states and countries. As I have noted in the past, criminal defense lawyers in New York are seeing more and more of these types of crimes being swept up in large scale investigations. This certainly will not be the last of such investigations and prosecutions.

According to the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office:

"The first indictment, containing 164 counts including Enterprise Corruption, charges four defendants – Ryan Foster, Nathaniel Mahone, Jacques Sylvestre, and Yanira Santiago – with operating a credit-card fraud and identity theft ring, which at times netted as much as $10,000 per day, between 2006 and 2008. They are charged with purchasing credit card numbers from private Internet sites in Russia and the Ukraine and using the information to manufacture fake credit cards in various Brooklyn sites they called the “lab”. Then the defendants sent hired “shoppers” to stores, such as Game Stop, Best Buy, Home Depot, Lowe’s, Zales, Louis Vuitton and Ford’s Jewelers, where they would purchase items the ringleaders would later sell, according to the indictment."

"The Enterprise Corruption indictment also charges the defendants with purchasing properties through mortgage fraud and using the merchandise stolen from home improvement stores, such as Lowe’s and Home Depot, to increase the values of the homes. The properties could then be re-appraised at higher values, and the defendants could get the mortgages refinanced, according to the indictment. Another aspect of the scheme involved orchestrating fraudulent purchases and sales of the properties, by employing straw buyers and using crooked real estate brokers and loan officers to help them file false paperwork."

"In a second, 97-count indictment, Foster, Mahone, Sylvestre and nine others are charged with conspiring to make false accident, vandalism and theft claims on late-model luxury cars, such as BMW, Land Rover, Lexus, Mercedes Benz and Cadillac. The indictment charges that the defendants would remove undamaged interior parts, such as air bags, dash boards, door panels and seats, and replace them with damaged parts. Then they would report to police that the cars had been vandalized near their homes and file claims with their insurance companies to have the damaged car parts replaced, according to the indictment. The investigation revealed that the same damaged car parts were recycled and used repeatedly in separate claims. The defendants are also charged with staging accidents and car thefts to collect insurance payments."

"In the third indictment, Sylvestre is charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree, relating to a handgun found in his home during the execution of a search warrant in October 2008. "

According to reports, Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes has announced the indictment of 13 individuals with ties to Russia and Ukraine. The accused are alleged to have run or taken part in a multi-national credit card scheme where they purchased stolen credit card numbers online, crafted fake credit cards and then made purchases in the United States. These individuals are also alleged to have taken the scheme further into the arena of insurance fraud and real estate fraud. Working with the Secret Service, the take-down also netted some high-end automobiles including a Bentley, Mercedes and a Land Rover.

Although there has been no press release, it is likely that these individuals face charges relating to Identity Theft, Grand Larceny, Forgery, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument and potentially Enterprise Corruption if there is an ascertainable structure in their "crew."

Once Crotty Saland, LLP receives the information and facts regarding this case we will analyze and share this with our reader. As former Manhattan prosecutors under Robert Morgenthau who have handled identity theft and credit card fraud cases as both prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys, we will do our best to provide our readers with insight into these cases that may not be found elsewhere. Check back for updates...

***UPDATE***

The New York based criminal defense firm of Crotty Saland, LLP is once again in the news. Jeremy Saland, one of our top criminal defense attorneys and a lawyer who previously served as a prosecutor in Manhattan, was sought out by the Los Angeles Times for his legal insight into the David Letterman extortion and blackmail case.

The Los Angeles Times asked Mr. Saland to comment on Mr. Halderman's possible defense alleging that Mr. Letterman sexually harassed his female employees. Citing New York Penal Law section 155.15(2), Mr. Saland acknowledged that it may be relevant if done in narrowly crafted way. Relevant, however, does not mean it will necessarily be a winning argument.

Under New York Penal Law section 155.15(2) it is an "affirmative" defense to extortion if the accused "reasonably believed the threatened charge to be true and that his sole purpose was to compel or induce the victim to take reasonable action to make good the wrong which was the subject of such threatened charge." Applying that defense here, the evidence at trial trial will have to establish that Mr. Halderman reasonably believed that Mr. Letterman sexually harassed Ms. Birkitt, threatened to expose this harassment and that his sole purpose was to compel Mr. Letterman to take reasonable action to make good on the harassment. On its face, this is a very difficult task. It is one thing to threaten to report your neighbor to the police if he does not pay for scratching the paint on your car or breaking out the back window of your vehicle. It is another to demand 2 million dollars for sexual harassment that may never have existed. First, the defense will need to establish that Mr. Halderman reasonably believed that Ms. Birkitt, or another person, was the victim of sexual harassment. Assuming that he is successful in doing that, the next step would be to establish that his sole reason for demanding the $2,000,000 was not for self gain, but to "make good" on the harassment that the particular woman was exposed to.

The prosecution would certainly try to tear down this defense by, among other things, poking holes in how the Mr. Halderman went about demanding the money. Since Mr. Halderman was not a victim of harassment, was he doing it on the behalf of someone else? Why not mention this harassment outright as opposed to couching his demand in the term of "screenplay treatment?" These are just a couple of the angles the prosecution could use to attack this defense.

*LA Times Article*

*New York Extortion Primer*

On Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

Just about every NY criminal defense attorney has either represented a client charged with Disorderly Conduct or worked out a disposition where Disorderly Conduct was offered in lieu of a top count plea. In the criminal courts of New York City, “Disorderly Conduct” can be heard throughout the hallways and courtrooms before the judge bangs his gavel to start the day until the last cases are called in the evening.

Recently, a NY County Criminal Court judge addressed Disorderly Conduct in denying a defendant’s motion to dismiss. In People v. Derrick Diaz, 2008NY062928, the complaint alleged that the police “observed the defendants yelling and screaming and behaving in a violent, tumultuous, and threatening manner, as follows: pushing at police officers and causing a disturbance. Defendant's [sic] conduct created a public disturbance/inconvenience in that it caused a crowd to gather, disruption of the normal flow of traffic, and people to express alarm.”

Pursuant to subsection one of Disorderly Conduct, a person is guilty of this offense when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof he engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior.

The defendant argued that the alleged facts set forth in the complaint were insufficient to establish either that he intended to breach the peace or that he recklessly created such breach.

In denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the judge noted that “[e]ven if the defendant's conduct as alleged failed to establish his intent to create a breach of the peace, the complaint would be sufficient to the extent that it established that the defendant recklessly created a risk of such result. ‘A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists.’ PL §15.05(3). It is reasonable to infer from the facts alleged in the accusatory instrument that the defendant knew that his verbal outbursts and pushing of the officers created a risk that others would be drawn to the scene. As the court noted in People v. Tichenor, 89 NY2d 769 (1997), the statute in question 'applies to words and conduct reinforced by a culpable mental state to create a public disturbance.' Id at 775. A loud and violent confrontation with the police in a residential neighborhood late at night carries the potential of such a result. Whether or not the defendant's conduct actually caused a public inconvenience is irrelevant to a Disorderly Conduct charge." People v. Todaro, 26 NY2d 325, 328 (1970)

Clearly, the Court recognized that it is not the intent that matters, but whether an individual acted reckless with respect to Disorderly Conduct. Although a challenge to this, or any charge, may fail after one particular legal attack, that does not mean that your case is insurmountable. Let the experienced criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP examine your case and explore every legal avenue to mount a stronger or different challenge on your behalf.

Follow Crotty Saland, LLP on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

With the recent Extortion attempt of David Letterman by Robert "Joe" Halderman fresh in our minds, now would be a good time to share with my readers what constitutes Extortion under New York State law. As a New York criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor who supervised the investigation and prosecution of multiple individuals charged with the Extortion of an NBA All Star, I am intimately familiar with Extortion as it is defined under New York Penal Law section 155.05(2)(e) and under Grand Larceny in the Fourth and Second Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 155.30(6) and 155.40(2) respectively.

Before proceeding with an analysis of the Extortion statute, it is important to note that Extortion is specifically defined under section 155.05(2)(e) of the New York Penal Law. Like larceny by trick, false promise and common law larceny, Extortion is a means by which a larceny is perpetrated. According to NY Penal Law 155.05(2):

A person obtains property by Extortion when he compels or induces another person to deliver such property to himself or to a third person by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the property is not so delivered, the actor or another will:

(i) Cause physical injury to some person in the future; or

(ii) Cause damage to property; or

(iii) Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or

(iv) Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him; or

(v) Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or

(vi) Cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action injurious to some person`s business; except that such a threat shall not be deemed Extortion when the property is demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or

(vii) Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another`s legal claim or defense; or

(viii) Use or abuse his position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely; or

(ix) Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.

Again, because Extortion pursuant to NY Penal Law 155.05(2)(e) is a means by which a larceny takes place, the value of the property taken or attempted to be taken will determine the level of the offense. For example, if the value of the property is extorted is $10,000.00, then the applicable larceny offense would be Grand Larceny in the 3rd Degree, NY Penal Law section 155.35, because the value of the property exceeds $3,000.00, but is less than $50,000.00.

More definitions and analysis after the jump...

Continue reading " Extortion and Grand Larceny in New York: Your Criminal Defense & an Analysis of NY Penal Law 155.05(2)(e), 155.30(6) and 155.40(2) " »

There certainly is no proper or correct way to extort someone, but don't ever take a check...especially one that was specifically written to bounce once deposited. Unfortunately for Robert "Joe" Halderman, nobody told him that the 2 million dollar check he received from David Letterman was the set up for a punchline that led to his arrest. If convicted of Grand Larceny in the First Degree by Extortion, the television funny man could have the last laugh as Mr. Halderman watches Mr. Letterman in syndication for up to the next 5 to 15 years in state prison.

Having been a Manhattan prosecutor for 7 years and the lead prosecutor on the extortion attempt of an NBA All Star, I have handled the exact same case under similar facts. Instead of individuals seeking a multi-million dollar check in exchange for a video of the basket ball player, Mr. Halderman sought 2 million dollars for "screenplay treatment" and to keep a years old fling with a staffer secret.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office press release:

"The investigation leading to today’s indictment revealed that Halderman waited outside Mr. Letterman’s Manhattan home at 6 a.m. on September 9 to deliver a letter and other materials to him as he was leaving for work."

"Halderman wrote that he needed to “make a large chunk of money” by selling Letterman a so-called “screenplay treatment.” The one-page “screenplay treatment” attached to the letter referred to Mr. Letterman’s great professional success and to his “beautiful and loving son.” The document then related that Mr. Letterman’s “world is about to collapse around him” as information about his private life is disclosed, leading to a “ruined reputation” and severe damage to his professional and family lives. The package contained other materials supporting the “screenplay treatment” and directed Mr. Letterman to call him by 8 a.m. to make a deal."

"Mr. Letterman immediately contacted his attorney, who arranged an initial meeting with Halderman. During this initial meeting, Halderman demanded to be paid $2 million to avoid the disclosure of the private information in his so-called “screenplay treatment.”

"Following this meeting, Mr. Letterman and his attorney contacted the District Attorney’s Office and cooperated in the further investigation that led to the indictment. During subsequent meetings, Halderman repeated his demand for $2 million to prevent him from going forward with his threat to publicly disclose the personal and private information described in his initial delivery to Mr. Letterman."

Although this case is "sexy" and exciting, there may be numerous twists and turns as it progresses. Even if convicted it is highly unlikely that the defendant would receive 5 to 15 years in state prison. In fact, the law even permits a defendant charged with this offense to get probation on a felony conviction. I guess we will all stay tuned in to see what happens next...

** New York State Extortion Primer **

On Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.