July 1, 2009

Hedge Fund COO Invests in Self: 3V Capital Management LLC's Mark A. Focht Charged with Grand Larceny, Forgery and Falsifying Business Records

The Manhattan District Attorney's Office announced the indictment earlier today of Mark A. Focht, the former Chief Operating Officer of 3V Capital Management LLC. It is alleged that Mr. Focht perpetrated the white collar crime of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (PL 155.40) by stealing $250,000 from one of the funds that he managed. He is also charged with Forgery in the Second Degree (PL 170.10) and Falsifying Business Records (PL 175.10) in the First Degree for allegedly creating forged documents to both execute his thefts and to cover them up once he was done.

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

Mark A. Focht "stole $250,000 by using a forged authorization form to wire $250,000 out of a bank account of Pierce Diversified Strategy Master Fund, LLC, one of the funds managed by 3V Capital Management. Mr. Focht used the stolen money to make a personal investment to benefit himself. To conceal the missing $250,000, Mr. Focht created forged documents that falsely represented to both Mr. Focht’s employer and to the client hedge fund that the $250,000 had been invested on behalf of the hedge fund. In fact, the $250,000 was invested by Mr. Focht for his own purposes, in violation of the legal, fiduciary and ethical obligations he owed his clients."

If convicted of the Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Mr. Foch faces up to 15 years in prison. Forgery in the Second Degree is punishable by up to 7 years in prison and Falsifying Business Records is punishable by up to 4 years in prison.


As a former Manhattan prosecutor who served under Robert Morgenthau for seven years, I supervised white collar investigations and prosecutions with the NYPD, Secret Service, Postal Inspection Service, State Department and SEC. Many of these prosecutions involved multiple millions of dollars in theft through both forgery and the falsification of business records. The prosecutors who are handling this case are not merely diligent and methodical in their investigations, but experienced in these types of crimes. In fact, the bureau that is pursuing this case, Investigation Division Central, consists of many elite prosecutors and support staff who for years have handled similar crimes and obtained convictions for those crimes. In short, Mr. Focht and his criminal defense attorney have a lot of work ahead of them.

Whether you are charged with Grand Larceny, Forgery or Falsifying Business Records, a white collar criminal defense attorney with practical experience who has battled in the trenches on both sides is required in order to preserve your liberty and integrity. While no attorney can guarantee a particular result, the white collar criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP have the experience, knowledge and tenacity to assess your case and implement the right plan to zealously defend your rights, freedom and good name.

June 29, 2009

Top New York White Collar Criminal Defense Firm in the News: What is the Next Chapter in the Bernie Madoff Case?

Elizabeth Crotty, an attorney at the New York City and Manhattan based white collar criminal defense firm Crotty Saland, LLP, was interviewed earlier today for the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. As a former Manhattan prosecutor and a white collar criminal defense lawyer in New York, Ms. Crotty explained where she believed the Madoff case was heading after the sentencing of Mr. Madoff. Specifically, Ms. Crotty was asked about future indictments of other participants in Mr. Madoff's ponzi scheme. While Ms. Crotty is certainly not privy to the United State's Attorney's investigation, Ms. Crotty explained that assuming there are future indictments we should not expect to see those indictments for at least another six months. Ms. Crotty further stated that due to the magnitude of the case and the investigation, prosecutors still likely have many stones to overturn and a significant amount of work ahead of them to pursue other potential conspirators.

If you or a loved one is in need of legal representation and a criminal defense attorney for a white collar crime, contact the former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP. Whatever your best defense may be, Jeremy Saland and Elizabeth Crotty will take the time to address your concerns, explain the legal process and implement what is needed to zealously defend your liberty, integrity and future.

June 28, 2009

NY Criminal Defense: Criminal Liability of an Individual for Corporate Conduct

It is fairly routine to read or hear about a NY criminal defense attorney representing an individual accused of a particular White Collar crime due to the conduct of the corporation he or she works for. It is not merely the United States Attorney's Office who prosecutes these crimes, but state and local offices such as the Manhattan District Attorney's Office that aggressively pursue these cases and crimes ranging from Grand Larceny and Falsifying Business Records to Scheme to Defraud and Money Laundering. The power of New York State and local prosecutors to charge individuals with crimes based on corporate conduct is found in Penal Law 20.25. According to this section, "[a] person is criminally liable for conduct constituting an offense which he performs or causes to be performed in the name of or in behalf of a corporation to the same extent as if such conduct were performed in his own name of behalf."

Decisions rendered by the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, further fortifies the ability of state and local prosecutors. In People v. Sakow, 45 N.Y.2d 131 (1978), the Court of Appeals found that a "defendant could properly be held criminally liable for violation of city administrative code based on his willful neglect and refusal to comply with violation orders issued by fire department where there was adequate proof from which it could be inferred that defendant was the active manager and dominant controlling force in corporations, in each of which he was principal and, at times, sole shareholder, and for which he acted in the absence of minutes and without a meeting of the board of directors."

This "piercing of the corporate veil" is far from atypical. In fact, a Queens County Supreme Court Justice held that Penal Law Section 20.25 "eliminates the possibility that a culpable defendant might evade criminal responsibility simply because he was acting in a corporate capacity or in the interests of a corporation. The corporate veil can be pierced, if appropriate, in criminal as well as civil cases. The culpable actor can no longer hide behind a corporate curtain." People v. Aquarian Age 2000 Inc., 85 Misc.2d 504 (Queens County 1976).

Obviously, both history and the Penal Law tell us that federal and state prosecutors have and will continue to prosecute individuals for their activities in corporate settings as they relate to criminal activity. Therefore, it is imperative to protect yourself from getting into legal "hot water," limit your exposure and preserve your career and freedom if you have been arrested or you are the target of an investigation. As former Manhattan prosecutors who supervised prosecutions into multi-million dollar fraud schemes and criminal defense attorneys who have represented clients in alleged multi-million dollar thefts, Crotty Saland, LLP stands ready to zealously fight on your behalf to preserve your freedom, rights, livelihood and integrity.

June 23, 2009

Promoting Gambling and Related Charges in NY: Penal Law 225.05 & 225.10

Throughout New York City from Manhattan to Brooklyn and from Queens to the Bronx, criminal defense attorneys and lawyers encounter a variety of crimes. A set of crimes that your criminal defense lawyer should be familiar with, even though the offenses do not regularly cross the path of a judge or prosecutor, are the crimes related to gambling (Article 225 of the Penal Law). Specifically, these offenses include the felonies and misdemeanors of Promoting Gambling, Possession of Gambling Records and Possession of a Gambling Device. The NY criminal defense attorneys and former Assistant District Attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP firmly believe that just because a prosecutor or judge may not deal with these crimes regularly does not mean that you should be unfamiliar with the law as well. Although not a substitute for a first hand reading and consultation on these crimes, this entry will deal with Promoting Gambling so that you can develop a basic understanding of this offense.

Pursuant to PL 225.05, a person is guilty of Promoting Gambling in the Second Degree when he knowingly advances or profits from unlawful gambling activity. Promoting Gambling in the Second Degree is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

A more serious offense, Promoting Gambling in the First Degree, pursuant to PL 225.10, a person is guilty of this crime when he knowingly advances or profits from unlawful gambling activity by:

(1) Engaging in bookmaking to the extent that he receives or accepts in any one day more than five bets totaling more than five thousand dollars; or (2) Receiving, in connection with a lottery or policy scheme or enterprise, (a) money or written records from a person other than a player whose chances or plays are represented by such money or records, or (b) more than five hundred dollars in any one day of money played in such scheme or enterprise. Promoting Gambling in the First Degree is a class E felony punishable by up to four years in state prison.

Be forewarned...the following is a list of terms and definitions applicable to the statutes addressed above. While an understanding of these terms are essential to have a working knowledge of gambling crimes - that doesn't make them easier to read. Please note, however, that the second entry in this series will deal with cases and legal decisions further defining these crimes. So...here we go:

Continue reading "Promoting Gambling and Related Charges in NY: Penal Law 225.05 & 225.10" »

June 15, 2009

Unemployment Insurance Fraud: 30 New York State Employees Charged with Grand Larceny and Falsifying Business Records

Thirty New York state employees from Albany to New York City have been arrested and charged with unemployment fraud after they allegedly claimed unemployment benefits while actually working for the state. According to Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the thirty defendants are charged with some variation of the crimes of Grand Larceny in the Third and Fourth Degrees, Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, and Petit Larceny. As a former Manhattan prosecutor and a New York white collar criminal defense attorney at Crotty Saland, LLP, I can confidently say that the Attorney General’s Office is going to send a loud and clear message to the public that unemployment fraud will not be tolerated at any level.

According to Attorney General Cuomo:

“New York’s unemployment insurance fund was created to help hard-working individuals who find themselves out of a job get back on their feet. In this economic climate, the fund is more important than ever, and we cannot allow it to be depleted through fraud, waste and abuse. Individuals who attempt to undermine the safety net we provide for New Yorkers will be held accountable.”

To qualify for unemployment insurance benefits in New York State, one must weekly certify by phone or the internet that one has not worked for more than four days a week or, in the alternative, earned more than $405 a week.

It is alleged that Maureen McGovern, 70, of Greenwich Street, New York, NY, Randy Destin, 45, of Pacific Street, Brooklyn, NY Kimberly Abrams, 42, of Watson Avenue, Bronx, NY, Ronald Antoine, 52, of Cruger Avenue, Bronx, NY, William Gee, 45, of 151st Street, Bronx, NY, Ani Leon-Marquez, 42, of 169th Street, Bronx, NY, Gail Miller, 32, of Elsmere Place, Bronx, NY, Phillip Lee, 24, of Channingway Court East, Columbus, OH, Nestloye Elliot, 50, of Bascolm Ave, Jamaica, NY, Martha Ulloa, 34, of 88th Street, Woodhaven, NY, Gaylord Beltran, 27, of Forest Avenue, Staten Island, NY, Aliesohn Reid, 27, of Caton Avenue, Brooklyn, NY, Renee Bridgeman, 36, of Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn, NY, Kira S. Young, 27, of Albany, NY, Jamie Viola, 31, of Latham, NY, Jean Davis, 53, of Albany, NY, Greg Askilden, 53, of Palenville, NY, Tracy Barber, 26, of Rome, NY, Wayne Earing, 36, of Rensselaer, NY, Deborah Girgenti, 55, of Rensselaer, NY, Charles McMillan, 53, of Hartwick, NY, Cesar Ferarras, Jr., 35, of Poughkeepsie, NY, Joel Babcock, 33, of Stony Point, NY, Dawn Chase, 49, of Peekskill, NY, Steve Lawrence, 46, of Mount Vernon, NY, Carmen Alvarez, 38, of Islandia, NY Aida Licata, 48, of Center Moriches, NY, Donna Ryall, 51, of Deer Park, NY and Jimmy Rodriguez, 48, of Williston Park, NY, all took part in this scheme.

If convicted, Grand Larceny in the Third and Fourth Degrees carry a maximum sentence of seven and four years in state prison respectively. Falsifying Business Records carries a sentence of up to four years in state prison while Petit Larceny carries a maximum sentence of up to one year in county jail.

If you or a loved one is accused of a white collar or violent crime, the criminal defense lawyers and former prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP are ready to put forth your best defense to maintain your integrity and freedom.

For further information on white collar crimes and other legal matters, please search and review our criminal law blog.

June 3, 2009

White Collar Update: M.A. Angeliades, Inc., Three Principles and Others Indicted for $600,000 Larceny

The Manhattan District Attorney's Office just released more information regarding the fraud indictment involving $600,000 in theft. The defendants, M.A. Angeliades, Inc., Merkourios Angeliades, Dimitri Malakidis and Irena Angeliades were indicted on the charges of Grand Larceny, Offering a False Instrument for Filing, Falsifying Business Records, Bribing a Witness, Bribing a Labor Official and Attempted Tampering with Physical Evidence. Additionally, three employees from Local 731, Anthony Graham, Harold Johnson and Eduardo Visone, were each indicted for Falsifying Business Records, Bribing a Labor Official and Bribing a Witness. It is alleged that their conduct resulted stemmed from 2005 through 2007.

It is alleged that M.A. Angeliades, Inc., a general contracting firm, had four separate contracts with New York City and the MTA. Specifically, M.A. Angeliades, Inc. was to provide the labor to rehabilitate eleven subway stations. In doing so, the company was required to pay the prevailing wages for these jobs. Instead, it is alleged that the above named individuals in some capacity appropriated the wages to themselves and instead of the employees. This was hidden from the MTA through many means including creating false payroll reports.

The defendants face up to one year on the misdemeanor charge of Attempted Tampering with Physical Evidence, four years on the Falsifying Business Records and Offering a False Instrument for Filing, up to seven years on the charge of Bribing a Witness and Bribing an Official, and up to fifteen years on the Grand Larceny offense.

Regardless of the specific charges each of these individuals face, they need to act quickly and implement their defense strategy. As a former Manhattan prosecutor, I can tell you that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Rackets Bureau consists of top prosecutors who will not wait for a defendant to decide how he or she will proceed. Whatever the charge and allegation, the white collar NY criminal defense attorneys and former prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP know that time cannot be wasted. That is why we are ready to fight to protect your freedom and implement a plan to defend your rights as soon as possible.

June 3, 2009

Breaking White Collar Crime News: Manhattan DA to Announce Indictment of M.A. Angeliades Inc. - Company Allegedly Underpaid Employees

The New York white collar criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP have learned that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office is set to announce the indictment of the principles and three employees of M.A. Angeliades Inc. for underpaying employees. It is alleged that the underpayment of the employees was in the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars. The company, a construction firm based out of Queens, was a contractor for NYC that did construction work on and in the subway system.

Obviously, as we regularly do, Crotty Saland, LLP will keep you informed on the charges, penalties and other interesting facts of this white collar criminal matter as we learn more.

CLICK HERE FOR UPDATE

June 2, 2009

Operation Bracelet: Indictment of Brooklyn Jewelry Stores for Failing to Report Taxes

The Kings County (Brooklyn) District Attorneys Office announced the indictment today of Crystal Sparkse and its President, Alexander Shamayan, Golden Art Fine Jewelers and its President, Ghassan Maalouf, and Pavillion Jewelers and its President Saeed Azarfar, for Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree and other crimes. It is alleged that each of these stores under reported their sales tax or had a deficiency of approximately $550,000, $125,000 and $350,000 respectively. It is alleged that undercover officers went to some of the stores to purchase jewelry and they were informed that if they paid in cash no sales tax would be charged.

Former Manhattan prosecutors, the white collar criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP have worked on cases involving alleged tax and Grand Larceny crimes as they relate to New York State taxing authorities. In fact in one such case, our client received no jail and was able to civilly litigate whether he owed approximately 3.2 million dollars out of an estimated 5 million dollars prosecutors alleged he had illegally kept.

While each case requires its own analysis, the criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP work with all of our client to set a plan in motion to protect our client's freedom, livelihood and integrity.

May 27, 2009

UPDATE: Identity Theft and Check Fraud Ring May Get Bounced into Jail: Hundreds of Victims in Criminal Scheme

As a follow up to my earlier post, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office has announced a 227 count indictment of 18 individuals in an identity theft and check fraud scheme. As I correctly noted in the original post, these defendants are alleged to have perpetrated a scheme involving the crimes of Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, Identity Theft, Conspiracy, Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information and Scheme to Defraud. As a former Manhattan prosecutor who was one of the first assigned to the Identity Theft Unit upon its creation, I know the Identity Theft Unit will vigorously and thoroughly prosecute the alleged offenders. Depending on the individual and their applicable charges, the defendants face up to 25 years in state prison.

The defendants include:

Jasper Grayson, a/k/a “Lyte,” James Malloy, a/k/a “Sal” and a/k/a “Sah,” Lamott Matthews a/k/a “L,” Allahson Clay, a/k/a “Reefy,” Albert Paulin, a/k/a “AB,” Lance Paulin, a/k/a “LA,” Alvin Joseph, a/k/a “Scooter," Edward Johnson, Jr., a/k/a “Big Mike,” Larry Garcia, a/k/a “Spanish Larry,” Raymond Penn, a/k/a “Charlie,” Raven Moses, Sheena Poindexter, Renece Razor, Ilaura Walker, Keisha Polonio, Christopher Deboer, Tauheed Mitchell and Kelly Snider.

Prosecutors allege that:

"[T]he defendants obtained personal and bank account information belonging to 500 identity theft victims and used it primarily to manufacture thousands of counterfeit checks. By fraudulently cashing and depositing the counterfeit checks, the defendants stole over $1.4 million from one bank’s accounts and substantial additional sums from other banks. Victims of this scam included private individuals, corporations, religious institutions, hospitals, and schools, as well as city and state government agencies."

It is further claimed that:

"The defendants regularly acquired the necessary data to generate counterfeit checks with the help of bank employees recruited to participate in the operation. These employees, often tellers, had access both to the banks’ computer systems and to large numbers of valid checks processed during legitimate customer transactions. In return for cash payments, the recruited tellers photocopied valid customer checks and printed out copies of customer profiles, which contained the customers’ names, addresses, social security numbers, bank account numbers and account balances."

"Search warrants into two locations associated with the defendants revealed "a desktop computer, blank check stock, stolen customer profiles from various banks, payroll stubs, copies of legitimate checks, hundreds of counterfeit checks, ledgers with names of [individuals who cashed fraudulent checks] and amounts stolen on various dates, check-making software, fake state identification cards and credit cards issued in the names of identity theft victims."

As is the case for each of these defendants, those charged with a crime are innocent until proven guilty. An indictment is not evidence of guilt. However, it is imperative to recognize that an indictment is extremely significant and points towards an intense legal battle ahead for each of these defendants. Regardless of the crime, you should always retain experienced criminal counsel to fight to protect your rights, liberty and integrity. Crotty Saland, LLP is ready and able to do just that.

May 27, 2009

Counterfeit Check Ring Bounced: Manhattan DA to Announce Eighteen Indictments in 4 Million Dollar Fraud Scheme

The white collar criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP have learned that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office will announce the indictment today of 18 people, including accused ring leader James Malloy, in an alleged counterfeit check fraud scheme that utilized forged NYPD checks to perpetrate a multi-million dollar theft.

According to media reports, up to 40 people may have been arrested. It is alleged that the scheme operated by having an individual deposit a forged check into a bogus account. A teller, who was in on the scheme, allegedly provided the fraudsters with accurate account and check information to enable the fraudsters to create the fake checks and deposit them. In all, it is alleged that hundreds of checks were drawn off the accounts of about 20 companies.

When James Malloy was arrested and a search warrant was executed at his home, sources have stated that they found hundreds of counterfeit checks as well as the profiles of customers at banks and the magnetic paper to create the forged checks.

Although the Manhattan District Attorney's Office has not issued a press release and an indictment has not been unsealed as of the time this entry was drafted, I anticipate that some of the charges these individuals will face may include Grand Larceny, Forgery, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, Falsifying Business Records, Identity Theft, Conspiracy and potentially Enterprise Corruption depending on the structure of the organization. More importantly, depending on which charge these people face and their criminal history, a sentence of state prison is a very real possibility.

To better understand the above mentioned charges and to educate yourself on the law, feel free to review the blog and its entries as they apply to Fraud Related Offenses, Identity Theft and White Collar Crimes.

*** UPDATE ***

May 20, 2009

White Collar Defense Update: Eleven Stockbrokers, Three Traders and Two Principal Owners of Joseph Stevens & Company, Inc. Indicted for Fraud

As a follow up to an earlier post, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office has announced that 17 individuals who worked at a now defunct securities firm have been indicted by a New York County Grand Jury for allegedly operating a racketeering scheme that scammed over six million dollars in unlawful commissions. The Manhattan Grand Jury indicted the defendants on the charges of Enterprise Corruption, Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, Securities Fraud and Falsifying Business Records. As a former Manhattan prosecutor who has supervised prosecutions of numerous multi-million dollar fraud schemes including a two million dollar "pump and dump" scheme with the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as a NY white collar criminal defense attorney who has represented individuals accused of multi-million dollar fraud crimes, I can say with confidence that these defendants and their criminal defense attorneys have a long road ahead of them.

The The Grand Jury indicted 17 defendants. Among them are Joseph Stevens & Company, Inc., Joseph Sorbara, Steven Mrakowiz, Craig Shapiro, John, Moraitis, Massimo Martinucci, Peter Orthos, Alan Ferraro, Charles Raspa, Scott Tierney, John Micciola, Steven Scarcella, Michael Tripodi, Douglas Costabile, James Rathgeber, Matthew Menies and Haradjin Mucovic. Because each of the defendants are charged with the top count crime of Enterprise Corruption, they all face a minimum of one to three years if convicted and a maximum of eight and one third to twenty five years in prison.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office:

"[T]he defendants defrauded 800 victims in more than 5,000 trades valued at $151,286,804.44. By manipulating the market value of carefully selected stocks, the defendants generated more than $6.2 million in unlawful, undisclosed commissions, in violation of New York law and the trust of their customers." Furthermore, "[t]he investigation further revealed that the defendants repeatedly worked to capture undisclosed compensation while trading stocks, often by manipulating the stock price higher after having pre-arranged orders from their customers. In some cases, the stocks the customers purchased on defendants’ recommendations lost significant value in the days and months following the transactions."

As this case unfolds it will be interesting to see what defense each of these individuals set forth. Was there an "ascertainable structure" in their crew as required under Enterprise Corruption? Do any of the affirmative defenses to Falsifying Business Records apply in this case? Whatever the defense may be, it is imperative that these defendants assess the case and implement their plan of action. Even a small delay could be fatal to their defense. If you or a loved one find yourself accused or investigated for any white collar crime, contact the former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP so that we can fight to preserve your liberty, rights and integrity.

May 20, 2009

Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau to Announce 17 Defendant Indictment: Fraud Investigation Nets Securities Specialists and Brokers

According to published reports, 17 brokers and securities specialists are to be arraigned today in Manhattan Supreme Court after a Grand Jury indicted each of them in a scheme defrauding hundreds of investors out of over $150 million dollars. As a NY white collar defense attorney who has represented defendants charged with multi-million dollar fraud schemes and as a former Manhattan prosecutor who supervised the prosecution of a "pump and dump" involving over two million dollars in theft, I know first hand how the assistant district attorneys likely investigated this case and will prosecute the alleged offenders. At a minimum, those defendants who are charged with the actual theft or acting in concert to perpetrate a Grand Larceny in an amount of one million dollars or more will be facing one to three years in prison, but as much as eight and one third to twenty five years. However these defendant's decide to proceed, they better act quickly or it has the potential to get significantly worse.

As I receive more information I will share it with you. Check back for an update.

UPDATED

May 12, 2009

Larceny By False Promise: Another Theory of Grand Larceny & Petit Larceny as it Relates to Your Criminal Defense

I previously discussed the various theories that top White Collar NY criminal defense attorneys may confront when representing their clients in a Grand Larceny or Petit Larceny Case. As previously noted, the theories could include Larceny by trespassory taking, trick or even extortion. In this entry, I will address a different theory of Larceny. That theory is Larceny by false promise.

According to NY Penal Law 155.05(2)(d), a "person obtains property by false promise when, pursuant to a scheme to defraud, he obtains property of another by means of a representation, express or implied, that he or a third person will in the future engage in particular conduct, and when he does not intend to engage in such conduct or, as the case may be, does not believe that the third person intends to engage in such conduct."

So, in other words...if you are involved in a Scheme to Defraud and you make a representation that future conduct will occur, but you have no intent that it will, you may be guilty of Grand or Petit Larceny by false promise. Cases based on this theory, however, are not so clear and often need a trained legal eye to review.

What is of great importance and central to these matters is that the facts and circumstances of the case must be "wholly" consistent with guilty intent and inconsistent with innocent intent to a "moral certainty." This "moral certainty" standard is key to any prosecution of Larceny by false promise and one which the experienced NY criminal defense attorney's at Crotty Saland, LLP are ready to grapple with. It is imperative for both the defense and the prosecution to recognize that it is not legally sufficient to establish the defendant's desire that the particular promise would not be performed by the fact alone that the particular promise was not performed (read it slowly...make sense?!?!?).

Before continuing and analyzing this standard, it may be a good idea to re-read my entry regarding Scheme to Defraud (that crime is applicable to the theory of Larceny by false promise) so you can understand this offense in the proper context. Having done that, an examination of the Court of Appeals decision in People v. Ryan, 41 N.Y.2d 634 (1977) will further shed light on this issue.

In Ryan, the defendant was a partner is a bond brokerage business and he maintained an approved line of credit with a bank. In his business capacity, the defendant purchased retainage bonds that were to be held in custodial bank accounts for contractors that were doing work. In short, the defendant did not fulfill his promises and make his payments. In dismissing the charges against the defendant, the Court of Appeals found that "it cannot be said with any moral or reliable degree of certainty that...the defendant did not intend to complete the transaction."

Continue reading "Larceny By False Promise: Another Theory of Grand Larceny & Petit Larceny as it Relates to Your Criminal Defense" »

April 27, 2009

NY Criminal Defense Firm Crotty Saland, LLP Legal Analysts for CBS Evening News Madoff Coverage

The New York white collar criminal defense firm of Crotty Saland, LLP has once again been sought out for our experience and knowledge as criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors. On Friday, April 24, 2009, the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric interviewed Elizabeth Crotty in reference to the Bernie Madoff case. Specifically, the interview addressed the different ways to defend and represent Frank DiPascali, Bernie Madoff's "lieutenant" and CFO.

Whether we have been sought for our legal insight by CNNSI.Com in reference to the Plaxico Burres gun possession case, the AP, Times-Ledger, AM NY or the CBS Evening News, we at Crotty Saland, LLP always practice what we preach. That is, we know that the key to your criminal defense stems from our attorneys' advocacy and the partnership shared with our clients.

April 14, 2009

Aggregating Grand Larceny and Your Criminal Defense: Adding Up Larcenies Amongst Multiple Victims

As a NY White Collar criminal defense attorney and a former Manhattan assistant district attorney, I have prosecuted or defended Grand Larcenies well into the millions of dollars. One issue that often reared and rears it's head as a prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer was whether or not in a Grand Larceny prosecution involving numerous victims, the multiple thefts could be combined to increase the level of the offense. In other words, can the prosecutors aggregate the total loss and theft from all the victims and add it up as one count of Grand Larceny as opposed to multiple lesser larceny charges?

Generally, New York courts have ruled that aggregation is acceptable “[as] long as the larceny is held to be pursuant to a single intent, and one complete, illegal scheme, [and] it matters not the length of the period over which the takings continued.” People v. Cox, 286 N.Y. 137, 142, 36 N.E.2d 84 (1941). This principle, however, has generally been applied to multiple larcenies involving the same individual.

Although the above ruling is still applicable today, prosecutors are pushing the legal envelope to increase their ability to charge more significant levels of Grand Larceny. If the prosecution is successful in doing so, they can take what may be viewed as five separate "D" felonies of $10,000, for example, and charge the defendant with one "C" felony of $50,000. What was once five separate crimes punishable by up to seven years in state prison would become a one crime punishable by up to fifteen years in state prison.

Merely wanting to increase the potential crime and its punishment, however, does not make it permissible in the eyes of the law. Although no definitive answer exists as to whether or not the prosecution is permitted to aggregate in this fashion, many lower courts have allowed it. In fact, a Bronx County Supreme Court Justice found that "while no appellate court has set forth a standard for determining when larcenies from different victims may be aggregated, no decision has held that such aggregation is never permitted. This court's view is that the principles underlying the aggregation doctrine of People v. Cox, permit aggregation where the larcenies from different victims do not occur at a single place and time where the separate victims are sufficiently related to each other and to the properties taken as to be considered, in the eyes of the law, a single victim."

Regardless of this particular ruling, prosecutors will understandably push the bounds of the law as they are faced with new schemes involving Grand Larceny. Yet, a prosecutor's interest in protecting the public is no greater than a criminal defense attorney's interest - and obligation - to protect his client's rights and make sure laws are followed and the prosecutor's burden is met. The criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP know this and are prepared to review each case and implement a unique plan to make sure those rights are not violated and the prosecution follows the letter of the law.

March 26, 2009

Lawrence B. Salander's 100 Count Indictment: Salander-O'Reilley Gallery & 88 Million Dollar Grand Larceny Fraud

NY "white collar" criminal defense attorneys often have the chips stacked against them when their clients are alleged to be involved in a criminal case where a scheme alleging Forgery, Grand Larceny and Falsifying Business Records transpired over a period of years. Obviously, unlike the prosecution, when a client is first arrested or indicted on a long term investigation, criminal defense lawyers may not be privy to the extent of investigation that has taken place, the witness who have given statements or the records that have been subpoenaed. What makes a case even more "interesting" is when the alleged criminal actions occurred years ago. It is imperative that upon being retained, any criminal defense attorney immediately begins to conduct his or her own investigation starting with a lengthy and open conversation with the client. As former Manhattan prosecutors, the criminal defense attorney's at Crotty Saland, LLP can't stress enough how important this is and how it has helped our clients charged in these schemes.

A case directly on point was just announced today by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. According to the Robert Morgenthau's Office, Lawrence Salander, an art dealer, has been indicted on multiple charges of Grand Larceny, Securities Fraud, Scheme to Defraud, Forgery, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument and Falsifying Business Records. The crimes charged in the indictment occurred between July 1994 and November 2007. It is alleged that Salander stole from his victims by selling artwork not owned by him and keeping the money. Moreover, he is accused of luring investment money in fraudulent investment opportunities. If convicted of the top count in this indictment, Salander faces up to 8 and 1/3 to 25 years in state prison.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office:

"The fraud in each investment opportunity occurred when Salander did not own the work of art he offered for investment in whole or in part, or he misrepresented the actual terms of the investment. The misrepresented terms included: inflation of the purported cost (cost fraud), the sale of greater than 100 percent interest in a single work (oversale), the fabrication of the existence of the pre-sale (ghost investment), failure to pay the return when the money came in on the purported investment, or the misrepresentation of the amount payable to the investor (fraudulent retention)."

As noted above, Salander and his criminal defense attorney have a long and difficult road ahead of them. The sooner they ascertain the best approach to handling this case, identify what, if any, evidence can be challenged or is beneficial to Salander's defense, and implement a course of action to defend his rights and liberty, the greater the likelihood for a positive result. Otherwise, Salander difficulties are just beginning.

March 10, 2009

NY Criminal Defense Update: New Crime of Residential Mortgage Fraud

The criminal offenses commonly referred to as White Collar and Fraud crimes recently added a new offense to their ranks. As of November 1, 2008, Residential Mortgage Fraud was added to New York's Penal Law. As I have mentioned numerous times before, it is imperative that your White Collar criminal defense attorney is aware of changes in the law, court decisions impacting those laws and the passage of new criminal statutes.

Penal Law 187.00(4) defines Residential Mortgage Fraud is committed by:

any person who, knowingly and with intent to defraud, presents, causes to be presented,
or prepares with knowledge or belief that it will be used in soliciting an applicant for a residential mortgage loan, or in applying for, the underwriting of, or closing of a residential mortgage loan, or in documents filed with a county clerk of any county in the state arising
out of and related to the closing of a residential mortgage loan, any written statement which he or she knows to:

(a) contain materially false information concerning any fact material
thereto; or

(b) conceal, for the purpose of misleading, information concerning any
fact material thereto.

Residential Mortgage Fraud is a crime punishable as an "A" misdemeanor with a potential sentence of one year jail to a "B" felony punishable by up to twenty five years in state prison.

According to Penal Law Section 187.05, Residential Mortgage Fraud in the 5th Degree, a person is guilt of this crime when he or she commits residential mortgage fraud. The crime of Residential Mortgage Fraud almost tracks the Grand Larceny statute in that the 4th through 1st Degree relate to the proceeds or any other funds received. Similar to Grand Larceny (not exactly), if an individual receives an aggregate in excess of one thousand, three thousand, fifty thousand or one million dollars as a result of this fraud, the crime increases in its severity and potential term of incarceration.

Whether you are charged with or investigated for Residential Mortgage Fraud, the criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP have the experience, skill and drive to zelously advocate on your behalf. Don't let any accusation of White Collar crime derail your life and integrity. Retain counsel who will implement the best defense to preserve your future.

March 5, 2009

Criminal Defense & Credit Card Fraud: Forgery, Identity Theft and Other Criminal Offenses - Part II

Consult with your NY criminal defense attorney...credit card and check fraud in New York routinely involves an enormous spectrum of crimes including Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, Identity Theft, Falsifying Business Records and Grand Larceny. While these are only a few of the associated crimes in NY, your criminal defense attorney should have the experience and training to navigate you through them. As I recently explained in Part I of this segment, while some of the crimes associated with credit card and check fraud are "only" misdemeanors, some of the offense are much more serious. For the purpose of this entry, I will deal with credit card and check fraud as it relates to a specific theory or subsection of Identity Theft.

To best understand the crime of Identity Theft I am going to pose a hypothetical scenario. In this scenario you go to Kmart with your roommate's debit/credit card. While there, you purchase $20 worth of "stuff," sign her name on the receipt, and take off. Although you did not have her permission you figure its only $20 and it was pretty darn easy...heck, the lady at Kmart didn't even check the signature or your identification.

So...what crimes did you just commit? Without explaining each offense in detail, here is the list of some of the potential crimes: Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree ("E" felony) for possessing a stolen credit card since you did not have your roommate's permission, Forgery in the Second Degree ("D" felony) for signing your roommate's signature, Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree ("E" felony) for causing a false entry to be entered into the records of Kmart while you are committing another crime, Petit Larceny ("A" misdemeanor) for stealing the "stuff" and last, the subject of this entry, Identity Theft in the Second and First Degrees ("E" and "D" felonies respectively). And you though that was too easy...

Identity Theft in the First Degree is committed when: a person "knowingly and with intent to defraud assumes the identity of another person by presenting himself or herself as that other person, or by acting as that other person or by using personal identifying information of that other person, and thereby commits or attempts to commit a class D felony or higher level crime or acts as an accessory in the commission of a class D or higher level felony." Identity Theft in the Second Degree differs in that the felony need only be an "E" felony.

Stepping back for a moment, the Identity Theft charge is "bumped up" to a "D", or "E", felony merely because that while committing the lesser Identity Theft you attempt or commit a "D" felony or greater. To put this in perspective, if you stole $20 worth of things from a store the crime would be a misdemeanor Petit Larceny. Once you add in the credit card that is stolen and you sign that person's name without permission or authority the crime has been "bumped up" to an "E" and / or "D" felony because of the Forgery relating to the signature and the Criminal Possession of Stolen Property relating to the stolen credit card.

While this scenario is an oversimplified description of one particular theory of Identity Theft, it is important to see how serious credit card fraud can be even where the offense seems relatively small. Imagine how much more serious the case would be if the value of the property was greater or multiple credit cards were used in an ongoing scheme. The above scenario is not meant as a guide to the charges you will face or what you should or should not do (well, you should certainly not intentionally defraud anyone!!!!), but at a minimum shed light on those potential charges. Whatever the charges may be, protect yourself and your rights by retaining counsel who not only has handled these matters throughout New York, but has the experience and training as both a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor. While the best way to avoid getting accused of Identity Theft is to refrain from the conduct described above or any criminal activities, you are always presumed innocent until proven otherwise and you should have someone at your side who is willing and able to advocate for you.


February 25, 2009

Criminal Defense of a Theft: NY Court Dismisses Grand Larceny and Scheme to Defraud in Connection to Lien Law

Whether you are alleged to have committed a Grand Larceny theft in excess of $50,000 or a Petit Larceny shoplifting, your NY White Collar criminal defense attorney knows that if the prosecution does not establish each element of the crime, the case should be dismissed. Recently, a New York State Supreme Court Justice in Nassau County followed this rule when it dismissed four counts of Grand Larceny and one count of Scheme to Defraud against a defendant in connection to New York State’s Lien Law.

In People v. Bryan Hateau , 2492N-2008, the defendant had received checks from his clients, homeowners, that he deposited legally in his business account. Those monies were held in trust funds and were to be forwarded on behalf of various clients within 31 days to sub-contractors. The evidence before the Grand Jury established that this was not done. Unfortunately for the prosecution, the evidence before the Grand Jury did not establish that the defendant misappropriated those funds.

In context with the Lien Law, the prosecution was required to establish certain elements. The Court recognized “that in order to obtain a conviction for any degree of larceny under the Lien Law, the People must prove that a defendant had the intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate same to himself or a third person.” See, People v. Hollowell, 168 A.D.2d 970. The Court further acknowledged that “the cases are unanimous in holding that there must be some modicum of either direct or circumstantial evidence of misappropriation or diversion of trust monies sufficient to allow a fact-finder to reasonably infer that a defendant charged under these sections, by virtue of the misappropriation or diversion, or by some indicia thereof, did, in fact, intend to deprive the homeowner of the trust monies and/or to appropriate them to himself or a third person.”

In the instant matter, the Court held that there was no Grand Larceny or Scheme to Defraud in part because, “[c]ommon sense and business practice instructs that failure to forward trust monies within 31 days may often constitute merely a non-larcenous business decision.” Not only did the Court acknowledge that failure to forward trust monies within a statutorily prescribed time frame was insufficient to establish the intent to misappropriate, the prosecution “presented absolutely no evidence of where the monies received went, if anywhere, and presented no evidence of any…diversion by [the] [d]efendant.” This complete failure on the part of the prosecution was insufficient to establish, even in the light most favorable to the prosecution, that defendant’s criminal and larcenous intent.

In the event that you or a loved one is charged with Grand Larceny, Scheme to Defraud or any criminal offense, contact the former Manhattan prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP to get experience and knowledge working on your side.

February 18, 2009

Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property: When a Theft Requires a Mandatory Prison Sentence

I have blogged extensively on the criminal law and specifically as it relates to New York criminal defense and the charges of Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property. In fact, as criminal defense attorney at Crotty Saland, LLP and a former Manhattan prosecutor, I have successfully handled these crimes more times than I can count. In the past year alone, I represented two clients in Manhattan Supreme Court both of whom avoided jail. One of those individuals was alleged to have stolen multiple millions of dollars while the other was alleged to have stolen property valued in the multiple tens of thousands of dollars. While the charges may be the same - Grand Larceny - each crime and each person accused requires a unique and individualized plan of attack to analyze and implement a formidable defense. These crimes are not going away any time soon.

Only yesterday, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office announced the indictment of Richard Garaventa, Jr. for stealing $2,514,519 from his former employer, Morgan Stanley. Mr.Garaventa is accused of issuing fifty checks that he ultimately funneled back to himself for a period of approximately seven years. The checks ranged in value from about $8,000 to over $70,000. Mr. Garaventa is charged with Grand Larceny in the First Degree, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the First Degree and Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

At this stage, Mr. Garaventa knows or should know how critical it is to put his defense into motion whatever it may be. The necessity of a implementing an aggressive defense is important in all matters, but is imperative in cases where the law requires a mandatory minimum sentence if you are convicted of the charges. In the area of Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, Mr. Garaventa has exceed that threshold.

Even if Mr. Garaventa's alleged theft does not require imprisonment if convicted, that does not guarantee he will not end up incarcerated. Although the law may not require a mandatory minimum a judge may still impose a significant jail sentence. Assuming you have no record, however, a theft must equal or exceed $1,000,000 before jail times is required by law. If you possess or steal that money then one to three years is the minimum sentence you will face and the maximum would be eight and one third to twenty five years in prison. Again, if you steal less - $1000 or more, $3,000 or more or $50,000 or more - you may not face a mandatory minimum sentence, but you do face up to four, seven and fifteen years respectively. Make no mistake, a prosecutor and judge will not throw their hands up in the air if you are accused of stealing $5,000, $15,000 or $60,000 merely because jail is not required by law if you are convicted. If you do not implement a plan with an experienced criminal defense attorney to defend your freedom and liberty you could, and likely will, find yourself behind bars for years to come.

January 28, 2009

NY Criminal Defense: Defending a Lawyer Indicted for Grand Larceny, Money Laundering and Scheme to Defraud

As NY criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors, the lawyers at Crotty Saland, LLP, have handled cases involving Money Laundering, Grand Larceny, Scheme to Defraud and Offering a False Instrument for Filing. However, there is always a little “twist” when the accused is a member of your own profession. Only a couple of weeks ago I mentioned how important it is to investigate and research your attorney before retaining him or her. Well, once again, some people made a big mistake in retaining the wrong attorney. According to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, an attorney and his firm have been indicted from the crimes of Money Laundering, Grand Larceny, Scheme to Defraud and Offering a False Instrument for Filing for defrauding clients.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office press release, it is alleged that over the course of approximately seven years, Steven Rondos and his law firm, Raia & Rondos, P.C, “engaged in a scheme to defraud 23 incapacitated victims, and the estate of one deceased individual.” It is further alleged that “Mr. Rondos was appointed by various Supreme Court Justices in the New York City metropolitan area and elsewhere as legal guardian of property of incapacitated individuals. In that capacity, Mr. Rondos was responsible for safeguarding and managing the assets of incapacitated people. Instead, Mr. Rondos took advantage of the trust placed in him by the courts and the wards’ families and stole their money. In some instances, Mr. Rondos continued to steal money even after the victims had died.” In total, Mr. Rondos is accused of pocketing millions of his clients’ money and law enforcement is seeking asset forfeiture from him in the neighborhood of $5,000,000.

Mr. Rondos is clearly in need of experienced criminal counsel if he wants to prevent a bad situation from getting significantly worse. If convicted of the charges, Mr. Rondos faces up to 8 1/3 years to 25 years in state prison on the charges of Grand Larceny in the First Degree and Money Laundering in the First Degree, 5 years to 15 years on the charge of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, 2 1/3 years to 7 years on the charge of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree and 1 1/3 years to 4 years state prison on the charges of Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree and Offering a False Instrument for Filing.

January 21, 2009

Bribery Plea: Former Bellevue Director Avoids Jail on Felony Plea

Charged with Bribe Receiving in the Second Degree and Third Degrees (class "C" and "D" felonies punishable by up to 15 and 7 years in state prison respectively), Carlos Perez, the ex-director at Bellevue, recently pleaded guilty to the lesser Bribe Receiving offense. Today, present with his criminal defense attorney in NY County (Manhattan) Supreme Court, Mr. Perez was sentenced to five years probation for the scheme that he perpetrated. In addition to probation, Mr. Perez will also forfeit $25,000.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office's website, Mr. Perez's guilty plea "stems from Mr. Perez’s efforts to assist a company obtain a contract with Bellevue Hospital for the transcription of medical records."

Whether you are accused or the target of an investigation regarding Bribery, Falsifying Business Records, Grand Larceny or any other White Collar crime, contact the criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP so that we can preserve your rights, fight for your liberty, and maintain your integrity.

January 6, 2009

Deutsche Bank Scam: NY Contractor Indicted for Grand Larceny

You don't have to stick up a bank to steal over a million dollars. Well, at least that is what the Manhattan District Attorney's Office is alleging in an indictment for Grand Larceny that was handed down against Robert Chiarappa. Mr. Chiarappa, along with his criminal defense attorney, was scheduled to be arraigned in NY County Supreme Court on the Grand Larceny charges today.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Mr. Chiarappa was the purchasing agent for the John Galt Corporation and is alleged to have stolen $1.2 million from the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and Arch Insurance Group in connection to the abatement and deconstruction of the Deutsche Bank building.

It is alleged that from about September 2006 through October 2007, Mr. Chiarappa instructed some vendors to submit fraudulent invoices for products never delivered to the project. Mr. Chiarappa would approve of these transactions in exchange for jewelry, trips and even a car. It is further alleged that Mr. Chiarappa stole property such as clothing and boots by requesting that vendors provide him with these items and draft fake invoices. Mr. Chiarappa is even accused of being involved in approving false claims after the Deutsche Bank fire.

Although it appears that the value of the stolen property was not aggregated to be in excess of one million dollars due to the multiple victims (if it had been, the charge would be one count of Grand Larceny in the First Degree, a "B" felony punishable by up to twenty five years in state prison), Mr. Chiarappa still faces significant time in prison if convicted. Mr. Chiarappa faces up to fifteen years in state prison on the "C" felony counts of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree and seven years in state prison on the "D" felony counts of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree.

December 17, 2008

Enterprise Corruption in NY: The Necessity of an "Ascertainable Structure"

NY criminal defense attorneys know that the crime of Enterprise Corruption is often viewed as New York's RICO statute. Generally, a person is guilty of Enterprise Corruption "when, having knowledge of the existence of a criminal enterprise ad the nature of its activities and being employed by or associated with such enterprise," he either (a) "intentionally conducts or participates in the affairs of an enterprise by participating in a pattern of criminal activity," (b) "intentionally acquires or maintains any interest in or control of an enterprise by participating in a pattern of criminal activity" or (c) "participates in a pattern of criminal activity and knowingly invests any proceeds derived from that conduct, or any proceeds derived from the investment or use of those proceeds, in an enterprise."

Although the statute does not seem to complicated on it's face, the criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP, can tell you that not only is it a convoluted statute, but many of the seemingly simple terms in the statute have their own unique definitions. Each of these terms and the cases that define those terms must be analyzed and researched in order to successfully challenge an indictment for Enterprise Corruption.

One term that has its own meaning and that will be addressed in this entry is what constitutes a "criminal enterprise." At bottom, if there is no "criminal enterprise" then there can be no Enterprise Corruption. Therefore, challenging the existence of the alleged "criminal enterprise" is often the central piece to a motion to dismiss an indictment against a client.

Continue reading "Enterprise Corruption in NY: The Necessity of an "Ascertainable Structure"" »

December 9, 2008

Grand Larceny & Petit Larceny: Differing Criminal Theories of the Same Crime & Your Criminal Defense

As a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and as a NY criminal defense attorney I have handled too many crimes relating to Petit and Grand Larceny than I can count. As a prosecutor I supervised, among other cases, the investigations and prosecutions of a multi-million dollar “pump and dump” stock scheme in conjunction with the SEC and a multi-million dollar extortion attempt of an NBA All-Star. Over the past few months I successfully represented clients in two separate Grand Larceny cases. In one, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office charged my client with a “B” felony for allegedly “stealing” approximately $5,000,000 dollars of city and state taxes (including penalties). The District Attorney’s Office charged my other client with a “D” felony for allegedly stealing in the neighborhood of $25,000 in property from multiple people. Despite the significant amount of alleged theft, neither of my clients went to jail or prison as a result of their conduct. One of their dispositions even included an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD) despite an admission by the client as to the alleged criminal activity. While we at Crotty Saland, LLP can't guarantee any particular result in a criminal matter, we can certainly guarantee that we will work tirelessly on each case so that we give you the best opportunity to get you where you want, and need, to be.

While there are many good criminal defense attorneys, it is important that your criminal defense attorney will not only travel down any ethical and legal road on your behalf, but is familiar with the nuances of the statute or statutes you are charged with. That being said, we are going to address those nuances of the statutes relating to Larceny.

Generally, pursuant to Penal Law §155.05, “larceny occurs when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner” of that property. Larceny includes the wrongful taking in many different forms or theories. These can include theft by trespassory taking, trick, embezzlement, or false pretenses. Other theories prosecutors can follow to come after you include larceny by acquiring lost property, issuing a bad check, by giving a false promise or by extortion. Over the course of the next couple of months I will pepper the blog with entries about some of these different theories. Today, however, we will start with Larceny (Petit or Grand) by acquiring lost property.

Continue reading "Grand Larceny & Petit Larceny: Differing Criminal Theories of the Same Crime & Your Criminal Defense" »