New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Not to be mistaken with Rewarding Official Misconduct (New York Penal Law 200.20), Official Misconduct (New York Penal Law 195.00), is a unique crime prosecuted in New York associated with public servants (defined below). Official Misconduct occurs as follows:

When a public servant has the intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit, he:

1. Commits a particular act related to his office that is an unauthorized exercise of his official functions; or

2. Knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.

An "A" misdemeanor, Official Misconduct is punishable by up to one year in a county or city jail such as Rikers.

Defined under New York Penal Law 10.00(15), a "public servant" includes any public officer or employee of the state of New York.

It is very important to note that for a person to be guilty of this offense under subsection (1), that person must fulfill two prongs. That is, the act must be related to his office AND the act must be an official function. Although directly addressing the charge of Bribe Receiving and subsequently the offense of Official Misconduct, the Court of Appeals (New York's highest court) upheld the Appellate Division's decision that a corrections officer could not be guilty of either charge where he received payments for fixing traffic tickets. In that matter the Appellate Division found that the, "[t]he action taken by defendant, corrupt or not, was completely unrelated to his position, and not such as would be within the scope of his real or apparent authority." Clearly, fixing traffic tickets has no relation to the office of or the official functions of a corrections officer. See People v. Rossi 50 N.Y.2d 813 (1980). If this same offense was perpetrated by a traffic cop, the outcome would likely have been very different.

Like any other criminal offense, the legal language of the statutes and associated legal decisions must be reviewed and analyzed to see whether the accused's actions falls with in the parameters and prescribed conduct of the crime.

For further information on the crimes of Rewarding Official Misconduct and Bribe Receiving, please follow the respective links or review the New York Criminal Law Blog at NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com.

Crotty Saland LLP is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors.

You go into a restaurant in Manhattan or store in Brooklyn and pay with cash. It turns out, one of the $20 or $100 dollar bills is fake and a forgery. In the alternative, you are arrested for an unrelated charge in Queens and when you are searched, the police recover numerous counterfeit $50 dollar bills. Unfortunately, you find yourself under arrest and charged with a crime and in need of a New York criminal defense lawyer experienced in counterfeit money crimes, Forgery and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument. As you wrap your head around the turn of events you begin to wonder about the crimes you may now face, what the potential punishments are and what are your defenses.

New York Crimes for Possessing Counterfeit Money

In New York State, one may be charged with a few different crimes for possession of counterfeit currency. The most likely offense, and the one we will address in this entry, is the felony of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the First Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law section 170.30 (NY PL 170.30).

In general, one is guilty of NY PL 170.30 as it applies to counterfeit money when one possesses a written instrument which purports to be money with the knowledge that the currency is forged (not real) and with the intent to defraud another person with that counterfeit money.

Potential Punishment for Possessing Counterfeit Money

If one is convicted of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the First Degree in New York, one faces up to 15 years in state prison. If one has no prior criminal record there is no mandatory term of incarceration, but the maximum term is 5 to 15 years. If one is a predicate felon (generally has a prior felony in the last ten years), then one faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 to 6 years and a maximum sentence of 7.5 to 15 years in prison.

Potential Criminal Defense to NY PL 170.30 as it Relates to Counterfeit Currency

While this entry should not serve as advice or guidance for your particular matter, the following are some ideas or issues that can be discussed with your New York criminal defense attorney if you determine it is relevant and worthy to do so.

(1) A key element to this offense is the element of knowledge. You must know the instrument (currency) is fake or forged. Certainly, your lack of knowledge may be more believable to the prosecution or a jury if the counterfeit bill is only one or a couple out of many in your possession as opposed to each and every bill. It may also be difficult for the prosecution to prove the element of knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt depending on the quality of the alleged counterfeits. For example if you have two fake $20s amongst fifteen real $20s and they look good, how could you have know it was fake (that is an argument that needs a much deeper analysis and explanation)? Did you only try to pass those fake $20s and hold onto the real ones? Do you have a job or career that would give you access to that money? Do you have proof that you went to a bank or ATM? In the alternative, if the alleged counterfeits were so bad and would not likely fool anyone, how will the prosecution prove you had an intent to defraud?

(2) Another issue is the search of your person. What was the basis of your stop? Did the police have grounds to search you and recover the allegedly fake currency? This defense is applicable to many crimes beyond Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the First Degree as it relates to counterfeit money.

(3) Did you make any statements? If so, can you corroborate your claims? In the alternative, if your statement was not exculpatory, did you inculpate yourself by making some form of an admission? If you made an admission, was it the product of a custodial interrogation and, if so, were you advised of your rights?

The above defenses are very general and merely gloss over what would typically require an in depth analysis in each and every case. For further information on New York White Collar Crimes as well as New York Fraud Related Offenses, please review Crotty Saland's New York criminal lawyer blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerblog.Com) or review the the NY White Collar Crime section and subsections of the website.

Jeremy Saland and Elizabeth Crotty both served as prosecutors under Robert Morgenthau in the Manhattan District Attorneys office prior to starting the New York criminal defense firm. Crotty Saland LLP represents clients in all criminal matters throughout the New York City region.

In the first entry in the New York Gambling Crimes series, I addressed the crime of Promoting Gambling in New York (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, Westchester or any other County in New York State) as well as the dry, yet important, definitions underlying this and other gambling statutes. Today's entry addresses some cases that will help you further understand this offense and understand Promoting Gambling and related crimes from the perspective of a New York criminal defense attorney. More specifically, this entry will address who can be charged with Promoting Gambling pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 225.05 and 225.10.

To start things off, one cannot be charged with the crime of Promoting Gambling if one is merely a participant in that gambling. The Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, recently affirmed that position in the Matter of Victor M., 9 N.Y.3d 84, 845 N.Y.S.2d 771, 876 N.E.2d 1187 (2007). In that case, the Court found that a player in a game of dice (it could have been any other game for the purpose of this conclusion) could not be charged with this offense because merely as a player, that person did not advance or profit from the unlawful gambling activity. One has to look no further than New York Penal Law 225.00(4) and (5) for corroboration in the statute itself to support the Court of Appeals' determination. Keep in mind, that the terms "advance" and "profit" are both specifically defined in the statute.

Although a fact specific analysis is required to ascertain whether one is liable for Promoting Gambling, the following cases are good guides to assist one in determining criminal liability:

Ordinary betting as opposed to professional is generally not the type of gambling punishable under the statute (old gambling statute). See People v. Stedeker, 175 N.Y. 57 (1903)

Courts seem to disagree if games such as "Three Card Monte" and "Majhong" are games of "skill" and therefore are not considered gambling offenses. A bigger issues is which characteristic is greater, i.e., "skill" or "chance." See People v. Denson, 192 Misc.2d 48 (NY Cty Crim. Ct. 2002) and People v. Li Ai Hua, 24 Misc.3d 1142 (NY Cty. Crim. Ct. 2009)

The New York criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland LLP have successfully represented defendants investigated for and charged with gambling felonies involving search warrants and/or wire taps. For further information on the crime of Promoting Gambling in New York, contact one of our New York criminal defense lawyers for a consultation and review the prior NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com entry for a general understanding of Promoting Gambling in New York.

Crotty Saland LLP is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. Crotty Saland LLP represents clients throughout the New York City region.

The New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland LLP are pleased to announce that we recently expanded the New York White Collar Crime section of our website. While each case requires its own analysis and the information on the website and blog should not be used as advice, the New York criminal defense lawyers and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland LLP view the detailed New York Grand Larceny section and accompanying blog as a top source for information on New York theft and larceny crimes. Whether you are investigated or arrested in Manhattan for Grand Larceny by Embezzlement, Brooklyn for Grand Larceny by Extortion, Westchester for Grand Larceny of a Credit Card or Debit Card, the Bronx for Grand Larceny of a Vehicle, Queens for Grand Larceny of a Firearm or any other form of Grand Larceny (NY PL 155.30, 155.35, 155.40 or 155.42) in New York, the information contained in these sections are for your review. Certainly one's best defense to a charge of Grand Larceny is never getting involved in the crime in the first place, but educating one's self on the law of Grand Larceny so one can understand the nuances, degrees and punishment for the crime is also invaluable.

If you have been accused of or are being investigated for Grand Larceny anywhere in New York City or the metropolitan area, please review the New York Grand Larceny section found under the White Collar Crime topic area of Crotty Saland LLP's website at CrottySaland.Com. Additionally, please review NewYorkCriminalLawyerblog.Com and search for Grand Larceny or review the NY Theft Offense, NY White Collar Crime and the NY Fraud Related Offenses sections of the blog. For further information on the types of Grand Larceny cases handled by Crotty Saland LLP and the Grand Larceny results, please review the Case Results section of the website.

Although no substitute for a consultation with a New York criminal defense lawyer as to your particular set of facts, the above resources should be able to put you in a position to have a better grasp on this area of the New York Penal Law.

Crotty Saland LLP is a New York white collar criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors and is located approximately two blocks from the state and federal courts in New York City.

With the search by New York State to find money to plug the budget gap, prosecutors are continuing to come down hard on New York white collar crimes where restitution or asset forfeiture may be part of a disposition. Two sets of crimes, New York Insurance Fraud (Article 176 of the NY Penal Law and New York Grand Larceny (Article 155 of the NY Penal Law, are two such crimes. In fact, often times when one is investigated, arrested or indicted for Insurance Fraud in New York, the crime of Grand Larceny is an integral part of that investigation, arrest or indictment.

While I will not address the definitions of each of these crimes (extensive information on Grand Larceny in New York and Insurance Fraud in New York can be found through the respective links), an interesting question is as follows: If you are charged with both crimes, but ultimately you are acquitted of one of those crimes, can you still be convicted of the other or is it legally "repugnant" and invalid?

On its face, if you are alleged to have perpetrated Insurance Fraud and as a result obtained or "stole" money you were not entitled to, but a judge or jury acquits you of the Grand Larceny, how can the Insurance Fraud "survive?" After all, isn't it the purpose of the alleged criminal scheme involving Insurance Fraud to steal money and commit a larceny?

Unfortunately, law is not math or science. The answer to the above question is it "depends" on your jurisdiction since New York's highest court has not rendered a specific decision as to Insurance Fraud and Grand Larceny along with a repugnant verdict. Although the following is not an in depth analysis of the issue and should not be relied upon as a substitute to discussing the evidence in your case with an experienced New York criminal defense attorney, the following two cases certainly shed light on the question.

In People v. People v. Alfaro, 108 A.D.2d 517 (2nd Dept. 1985), the Appellate Court held that the verdict acquitting Alfaro on the attempted larceny offense did not render his conviction on the Insurance Fraud repugnant or legally improper. The Court stated that:

"In creating the crime of insurance fraud, the Legislature and the Governor obviously did not believe that it and the crime of larceny contained identical elements ( see, Insurance Law § 38; Governor's Approval Memorandum, 1981 McKinney's Session Laws, pp 2617-2618) and the statutory language itself shows this to be so. Larceny requires a finding of an “intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same” and a wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of property from its owner (Penal Law § 155.05 [1] ). On the other hand, insurance fraud requires a finding that the defendant “knowingly and with intent to defraud presents * * * any written statement as part of, or in support of, an application for the issuance of * * * a claim for payment or other benefit pursuant to an insurance policy” (Penal Law § 176.05)."

"Thus, it is clear that the elements of the two are completely different and that an acquittal of a larceny charge does not negate an essential element of insurance fraud. While larceny provisions address the wrongful taking of property with the intent to deprive someone of that property, the essence of insurance fraud is the filing of a false written statement as part of a claim for insurance. Consequently, the trier of fact may have concluded that the defendant intended to defraud the insurance company but did not intend to steal property ( see, People v. Pisano, 105 A.D.2d 1156, 482 N.Y.S.2d 593). Though perhaps illogical, the verdicts may stand ( see, United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461; People v. Goodfriend, 64 N.Y.2d 695, 485 N.Y.S.2d 519, 474 N.E.2d 1187; People v. Pisano, supra ; People v. Gross, 51 A.D.2d 191, 198, 379 N.Y.S.2d 885; People v. Pugh, 36 A.D.2d 845, 321 N.Y.S.2d 504, supra )."

Despite the holding in Alfaro, a lower court in Ulster County confronted with similar facts found that the acquittal on the attempted larceny charge rendered a conviction on the Insurance Fraud count repugnant and therefore, invalid. In People v. Alfano, 131 Misc.2d 843, (Ulster Cty Ct. 1986), a County court sided with the dissenting justice in the Alfaro decision (names are close, but different). The Ulster County court, citing the dissent, reasoned that:

"[T]here does not appear to be any logical way that a person could engage in insurance fraud by knowingly and with intent to defraud submitting papers in support of a false claim for payment, without at the same time attempting to commit a larceny. That is, when one submits false papers in support of a claim for payment for his own benefit or that of another, he is concomitantly attempting to commit a larceny by wrongfully obtaining property by false pretenses from the insurer.... Thus, even though the language of the statutes is not the same, the underlying meaning clearly coincides."

While the two cases above are not from the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, they certainly give insight into the reasoning behind the respective decisions. Although neither the 2nd Department or Ulster County renders decisions that are controlling in a Manhattan courtroom, for example (the 1st Department is the appellate court for Manhattan), both of these cases may be applicable in your particular circumstances and are worthy of further discussion or review with your New York criminal defense attorney.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland LLP is a New York criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the New York City region. For further information on various New York Penal Law statutes, legal decisions and newsworthy cases, please review the New York criminal lawyer blog at NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com or our website.

Much like the New York Grand Larceny statutes, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in New York ranges from a misdemeanor (NY PL 165.40) punishable by up to one year in jail (often associated with New York shoplifting and Desk Appearance Tickets throughout Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx) to a felony punishable by up to 8 and 1/3 to 25 years in state prison. Before addressing the legal presumptions and defenses set forth in the penal law, I will briefly address each of the varying levels of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property solely as it relates to the value of the property.

Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in Fifth Degree - NY PL 165.40

A person is guilty of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree when he knowingly possesses property that is stolen and he also has the intent to benefit himself or another person or impedes the owner from recovering the property. New York Penal Law 165.40 is an "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in Fourth Degree - NY PL 165.45

The value of the stolen property exceeds $1,000. New York Penal Law 165.45 is an "E" felony punishable by up to four years in state prison.

Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in Third Degree - NY PL 165.50

The value of the stolen property exceeds $3,000. New York Penal Law 165.50 is a "D" felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison.

Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in Second Degree - NY PL 165.52

The value of the stolen property exceeds $50,000. New York Penal Law 165.52 is a "C" felony punishable by up to fifteen years in state prison.

Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in First Degree - NY PL 165.54

The value of the stolen property exceeds $1,000,000. New York Penal Law 165.54 is a "B" felony punishable by up to twenty five years in state prison.

Although there are four legal presumptions associated with New York Penal Law 165.55, the following is one of the more relevant and common ones:

A person who knowingly possesses stolen property is presumed to possess it with intent to benefit himself or a person other than an owner thereof or to impede the recovery by an owner thereof. This presumption, taken further and with a slight twist, is known as "recent exclusive possession." A tremendous body of case law addresses this presumption that stands for the position that if an accused has exclusive possession of the property shortly after a theft crime is perpetrated and there are circumstances such as the inability to explain where the property came from, a negative inference may be drawn. That inference is that the accused knew that the property he or she possessed was stolen.

In addition to the above presumption(s), there are statutory provisions that establish certain "non defenses" to the crime of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property. Pursuant to New York Penal Law 165.50:

In any prosecution for Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, it is no defense that:

1. The person who stole the property has not been convicted, apprehended or identified; or

2. The defendant stole or participated in the larceny of the property (the theft or taking); or

3. The larceny of the property did not occur in this state.

The above statutes and analysis are not substitutes for consulting with a New York criminal defense attorney as to the particular facts and application of the law in your case, but is a good place to start educating yourself on the crime of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property.

Crotty Saland LLP is criminal defense firm located in New York. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland LLP represents clients throughout the New York City region in white collar and theft related crimes and investigations.

For further information on Desk Appearance Tickets in New York or the varying statutes related to New York Grand Larceny, please follow the highlighted links.

Yet again, Manhattan prosecutors have come after another individual and his company for allegedly defrauding New York out of tax revenues. According to a press release by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Abdur Rashid Salaam and his companies, Safe & Secured Protective Services, Inc. and T.S.I. Special Services, Inc., have been indicted by a New York County Grand Jury for the crimes of Grand Larceny and Criminal Tax Fraud punishable by up to 25 years in state prison. It is alleged that Since 2003, "Salaam orchestrated the unlawful withholding of more than $1.2 million in collected sales taxes from New York State. More than $800,000 was stolen in the form of sales tax collected and kept by T.S.I. Special Services, Inc., and more than an additional $450,000 was stolen in the form of sales taxes collected and kept by Safe & Secured Protective Services, Inc."

This arrest and indictment is one of many recently prosecuted by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office including four separate restaurant owners who have either been indicted or have pleaded guilty in connection to alleged Grand Larceny and Criminal Tax Fraud in excess of $1.1 million dollars. Although some of these individuals and their companies are alleged by prosecutors to have stolen hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, prosecutors are not merely going after fraud in the "six figure" amount or greater. If anything, these investigations are a sign of things to come and a furtherance of former District Attorney Robert Morgenthau's dedication to prosecuting crimes in the streets as well as New York white collar crime in the "suites."

For further information on the degrees and levels of New York Grand Larceny crimes as well as Criminal Tax Fraud, please review the respective links.

Crotty Saland LLP has successfully represented individuals in Criminal Tax Fraud and Grand Larceny cases ranging from the tens of thousands of dollars to the multiple millions of dollars. While our past success and results is no guarantee of future results, the New York criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland LLP are dedicated to working through every criminal case to put our clients in the best possible position to protect their rights, liberty and future.

New York Forgery offenses, pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 170.05, 170.10 and 170.15, are not only distinct crimes within the realm of Forgery, but they are also separate from the crime of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 170.20, 170.25 and 170.30. In light of the fact that they are unique crimes, can prosecutors charge you with forging as well as possessing the instrument you are alleged to have forged? If you can be charged with forging and possessing the same forged instrument (such as a passport or counterfeit dollar), can you also be convicted of Forgery and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument as well?

New York Penal Law 170.35 gives the simple answer to this question. According to New York Penal Law 170.35, "[i]n any prosecution for [C]riminal [P]ossession of a [F]orged [I]nstrument, it is no defense that the defendant forged or participated in the forgery of the instrument in issue; provided that a person may not be convicted of both [C]riminal [P]ossession of a [F]orged [I]nstrument and [F]orgery with respect to the same instrument."

Applying the above statute to our hypothetical involving a forged passport, one could be charged with both Forgery and Criminal Possession of a Forged Insturment as to the passport, but ultimately one could not be convicted as to both offenses for the passport. It is one or the other.

It is important not to misconstrue the statute. For example, you may be charged with multiple counts of Forgery for the same instrument based on different theories or subsections of the statute. For example, the passport may violate different sections of the law. If, however, you charged with possessing and forging the one particular instrument, a conviction on both crimes cannot stand. If you believe this defense may be applicable to the crimes you are accused of, consult with a New York criminal defense attorney experienced in this body of law.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a criminal defense firm located in New York. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland LLP represents clients throughout the New York City region.

The felony crimes relating to Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in New York appear relatively straight forward whether the crimes is perpetrated by Embezzlement, Blackmail/Extortion or any other means. In general terms, if you steal property and the value of that property exceeds $1,000, $3,000, $50,000 or $1,000,000, then you may be charged and convicted of Grand Larceny in Fourth Degree (New York Penal Law 155.30(1), Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 155.35), Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 155.40(1)) or Grand Larceny in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 155.42) respectively. In the event you are alleged to have possessed stolen property with the values as mentioned, then the applicable offense are Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree (New York Penal Law 165.45(1), Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 165.50, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 165.52, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 165.54) respectively.

Each one of these statutes seems clear enough. For example, what if you steal or embezzle $7,500 in cash and you are caught with that money. Here, the value of the property obviously exceeds $3,000, but is less than $50,000. Prosecutors could therefore charge you with either or both crimes of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (NY PL 155.35) or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree (NY PL 165.50). Well, what if the theft or stolen property was a high definition 52 inch LCD television you bought for $6,000 four years ago, but you could get the same model now for $2950? What if the property does not have an easily ascertainable value such antique silverware that has been in the family for generations? Is it enough for the prosecution to merely state the value? If not, what is required to establish this value?

The first entry in this series will deal with measuring value of property to determine what, if any, statute is violated. A second entry will deal with the means by which the prosecution establishes that value whether it be from an expert, a store employee, an owner of the property, etc.

Continue reading "New York Grand Larceny & Felony Criminal Possession of Stolen Property: Establishing the Value of the Alleged Stolen Property Pursuant to NY PL 155.20 & Your Criminal Defense" »

I previously drafted an entry addressing the elements of the crime of Perjury in New York pursuant to NY Penal Law Sections 210.05 (Perjury in the Third Degree), 210.10 (Perjury in the Second Degree) and 210.15 (Perjury in the First Degree). This entry will address the affirmative defense set forth in the New York Penal Law pursuant to New York Penal Law section 210.25. Although just a brief discussion, if you are charged with Perjury in New York, you should discuss this affirmative defense with your NY criminal defense attorney.

210.25 Perjury; defense

In any prosecution for Perjury, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant retracted his false statement in the course of the proceeding in which it was made before such false statement substantially affected the proceeding and before it became manifest that its falsity was or would be exposed.

In People v. Ezaugi, 2 N.Y.2d 439 (1957), New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, addressed the defense of retraction and recantation and held that:

"...recantation as a defense is primarily designed to correct knowingly false testimony only if and when it is done promptly before the body conducting the inquiry has been deceived or misled to the harm and prejudice of its investigation, and when no reasonable likelihood exists that the witness has learned that his perjury is known or may become known to the authorities. Thus, as a practical matter, the use of recantation as a defense should always depend on the circumstances of the given case."

Although the above holding pre-dated the affirmative defense established by the statute, it is a good guide to the foundation of the rule. However, a closer reading of NY Penal Law 210.25 reveals that one must not merely act "promptly" as set forth in Ezaugi, but retract the false statement during the course of the proceeding, before it substantially affects the proceeding and before the false statement was or would be found out. Again, as noted above, if this defense is viable in your particular case, discuss the facts of your case with your criminal defense lawyer to ascertain whether or not, for example, you retracted your statement before it "substantially affected" the proceeding.

Crotty Saland LLP, a New York white collar criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, represents clients in all stages of their criminal cases throughout the New York City region.

Pursuant to Article 177 of the New York Penal Law, Health Care Fraud in New York is one of the more serious offenses handled by New York criminal defense lawyers that almost mimics the Grand Larceny Statute. Depending on the amount of the fraud, like varying degrees of Grand Larceny, the crime can be elevated from a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail to a felony punishable by up to twenty five years in state prison (follow this link for further analysis of NY Health Care Fraud in the First Through Fifth Degrees and your criminal defense). Although this crime is certainly one that can have devastating impacts on one's liberty and career, there is a an affirmative defense found in the New York Penal Law that may protect certain people.

According to New York Penal Law Section 177.30:

"In any prosecution under this article, it shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant was a clerk, bookkeeper or other employee, other than an employee charged with the active management and control, in an executive capacity, of the affairs of the corporation, who, without personal benefit, merely executed the orders of his or her employer or of a superior employee generally authorized to direct his or her activities."

Somewhat similar to the statutory defined defense to Falsifying Business Records (a possible crime that one might face if charged with Health Care Fraud), this potential defense may be set forth if one is an employee, as described above, was following the orders of a superior and obtained no personal benefit such as compensation, time off, etc.

What is important to note, however, is that the above affirmative defense does not mean that one who fits the description above automatically cannot be prosecuted or convicted of Health Care Fraud. Instead, this defense can be presented and established by a defendant at trial where the statute would ultimately permit an acquittal if established.

The analysis of this affirmative defense is very brief and vague. If you are charged with Health Care Fraud pursuant to Article 177 and you believe this defense may be applicable to you or your circumstances, consult with your attorney to assess if and how this defense may assist you in your particular case.

The NY criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland LLP represent clients throughout the New York metropolitan area. Founded by two Manhattan criminal defense lawyers who served in the New York County District Attorney's Office, Crotty Saland LLP is located in downtown New York City.

New York white collar crimes are found in all different shapes and sizes. From misdemeanor to felonies and from crimes involving individuals to large multi-party schemes, Mortgage Fraud, pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 187.05, 187.10, 187.15, 187.20 and 187.25, is one of the growing areas of white collar crime. Although not as common as "regular" Mortgage Fraud, a crime associated with real estate transactions and this particular offense is Fraudulent Disposition of Mortgaged Property pursuant to New York Penal Law section 185.10.

NY PL 185.10, Pursuant to Fraudulent Disposition of Mortgaged Property:

A person is guilty of Fraudulent Disposition of Mortgaged Property when, having theretofore executed a mortgage of real or personal property or any instrument intended to operate as such, he sells, assigns, exchanges, secretes, injures, destroys or otherwise disposes of any part of the property, upon which the mortgage or other instrument is at the time a lien, with intent thereby to defraud the mortgagee or a purchaser thereof.

Fraudulent Disposition of Mortgaged Property is a class "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

Briefly, for one to perpetrate this crime, one must possess an "intent to defraud." In fact, it has been held that one is not guilty of this crime if one does not possess this fraudulent intent. See People v. Staton, 79 A.D. 634 (2 Dept. 1909) (There was no "intent to defraud" where a mortgagor shipped his mortgaged goods to his spouse who was in another state. The mortgage stipulated this could not be done without the consent of the mortgagee. The mortgagor did not attempt to conceal anything and made voluntary payments on his mortgage. Therefore, there was no "intent to defraud.")

Even if one is found to have the "intent to defraud," it is likely that the crime of Fraudulent Disposition of Mortgaged Property is the least of one's concerns. If one obtains money or property, for example, valued in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, one may also face the crimes of Grand Larceny in the Third and Second Degrees where the punishment may be up to seven or fifteen years in prison respectively. Moreover, a defendant may face additional felonies including, but not limited to, Falsifying Business Records, Forgery and Offering a False Instrument for Filing.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a criminal defense firm representing clients in white collar criminal matters. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland, LLP is located in New York, NY.

Cyrus Vance, Jr., the District Attorney of New York County (Manhattan), has announced one of what will likely be numerous changes to the office run by Robert Morgenthau since the early 1970s. According to a press release issued by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, District Attorney Vance has created the Major Economic Crimes Bureau. In doing so, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office is combining both the Frauds Bureau and Investigation Division Central (IDC). Richard Weber, currently the Chief of the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) of the United States Department of Justice, will be the lead prosecutor and chief of the newly created bureau.

Both the Frauds Bureau and IDC, formerly called DANY (District Attorney New York) Over Seas, is staffed by exceptionally experienced and seasoned prosecutors. Although IDC has had more involvement in international crimes and has had some of the largest settlements and forfeitures in recent history, both of these bureaus already were at the forefront of white collar prosecutions. Now, the Major Economic Crimes Bureau will specialize in prosecutions relating to securities, commodities, and investment fraud, mortgage fraud and financial institution fraud commercial, bribery and kickbacks, bank fraud, structured investment schemes, internet fraud, international money laundering and terror financing.

It will be interesting to see how the Investigation Division of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office continues to morph under the new leadership. What will become of the Rackets, Money Laundering and Special Prosecutions Bureaus? Will there be overlap in their prosecutions with the Major Economic Crimes Bureau or will they too be restructured into new entities? Regardless of the form or name they take, there is no doubt that the units and bureaus under District Attorney Vance, like Robert Morgenthau, will continue to forge ahead and remain leaders in the arena of white collar criminal investigations and prosecutions.

Crotty Saland LLP is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. Crotty Saland LLP represents clients in white collar criminal investigations and prosecutions throughout the New York City region.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. announced the arrest and indictment of Steven Mandala, a former stockbroker with the Maxim Group and Merrill Lynch. According to the District Attorney's Office, Mr. Mandala stole $780,000 from Merill Lynch after he allegedly told Merrill Lynch that he was not only a partner at Maxim Group (he was merely an employee stockbroker making $100,000), but that he was in charge of managing $300 million of clients' assets. As a result of his work with Maxim Group, prosecutors allege that Mr. Mandala claimed he generated $1.5 million in revenue. Due to Mr. Mandala's claims, alleged "improvements" to his resume, and his assertion he was compensated in the neighborhood of $765,000 a year by Maxim Group, Merrill Lynch hired the stockbroker and advanced Mr. Mandala $780,000. As a result of his chicanery, which was somewhat less successful, Mr. Mandala was charged with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Money Laundering in the Second Degree, Identity Theft in the First Degree, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree and Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

Despite Mr. Mandala's alleged claims that he managed $300 million and generated $1.5 million in revenue, it is alleged that Mr. Mandala not only rarely went to work, but that he brought in only $20,000 in new business. During he approximately two months as an employee at Merrill Lynch, it is alleged by prosecutors that Mr. Mandala deposited the $780,000 into his parents' account and purchased a Ferrari under his father's name. Mr. Mandala's employment came to an end when he allegedly sent an email to Merrill Lynch indicating that he was not only resigning, but that all his personal effects should be discarded.

Unfortunately for Mr. Mandala, Merrill Lynch employees did not toss all of his "stuff" and an investigation revealed numerous credit cards in the name of Mr. Mandala's girlfriend in the office. Digging further, prosecutors ascertained that tens of thousands of dollars were allegedly billed to these credit cards without the true owner's knowledge.

Although Mr. Mandala faces up to fifteen years in state prison on the counts relating to Grand Larceny and Money Laundering, seven years in state prison on the counts relating to Identity Theft and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, and four years in state prison on the count relating to Falsifying Business Records, one thing truly stands out. Beyond the alleged magnitude of the theft, were was Merrill Lynch's due diligence? Who failed to verify or confirm Mr. Mandala's history and experience? How does anyone - especially a firm entrusted with clients' hard earned money - fail to contact the prior employer or spend a few dollars on a background check? Where is the oversight? Stop me before I get on a roll...

Crotty Saland, LLP is a criminal defense firm representing clients in white collar criminal cases ranging from alleged embezzlement in the tens of thousands of dollars to multi-million dollar tax fraud schemes. Prior to starting Crotty Saland, LLP, both founding partners served in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office's Trial Division as well as the Special Prosecutions Bureau and Identity Theft Units.

It is very easy in New York State to compound a bad mistake and inadvertently roll it into a felony case. To find an example of this, one needs to look no further than the Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 155.40(4) and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 165.45(2). These two statutes address the theft and possession of stolen debit and credit cards and are "E" felonies punishable by up to four years in state prison.

Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, New York Penal Law 155.30(4):

A person is guilty of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree when he steals property and when the property consists of a credit card or debit card.

Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree, New York Penal Law 165.45(2):

A person is guilty of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree when he knowingly possesses stolen property, with intent to benefit himself or a person other than an owner thereof or to impede the recovery by an owner thereof, and when the property consists of a credit card, debit card or public benefit card.

It is very important to note that a conviction for these offenses will stand even if the particular credit card that is stolen was previously canceled or revoked. See, People v. Peterson, 216 A.D.2d 10 (1st Dept. 1995); see also, People v. Winfield, 145 A.D.2d 449 (2nd Dept. 1988). Even more importantly, one may be convicted of either Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree (NY PL 165.45(2)) or Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree (NY PL 155.30(4) even if one does not know that one stole a credit card. In other words, if you steal a wallet hoping to get some quick cash, but it turns out there was a credit card there, your crime can potentially be elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony. See, People v. Mitchell 77 N.Y.2d 624 (1991) (Prosecution "not required to prove that defendant was cognizant that the stolen property she possessed was a credit card because the statute imposes no such burden. Rather, the correct burden...is only that she knowingly possessed stolen property which, in fact, consisted of a credit card, and which she intended for her own benefit.")

Although other elements of these statutes must be established and your criminal defense attorney may be able to successfully challenge those elements, make not mistake. The law does not require that you are aware that you are possessing the stolen credit, but only that you possessed or stole property that was in fact a credit card.

Crotty Saland LLP is Manhattan criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the New York metropolitan area. The NY criminal defense lawyers who founded Crotty Saland LLP previously served as Manhattan prosecutors in the Trial Division and prosecuted complex fraud cases in the Identity Theft and Special Prosecutions Bureaus.

You have been arrested with a print out of checking account numbers or a list of maiden names of ten different people. Although it is crumpled up in your wallet, you had not actually used the information or attempted to use that information. Well, is the mere possession of that personal information a violation of New York Penal Law Section 190.81, Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information?

Pursuant to NY PL 190.81, Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information:

A person is guilty of Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information in the Third Degree when he or she knowingly possesses a person's financial services account number or code, savings account number or code, checking account number or code, brokerage account number or code, credit card account number or code, debit card number or code, automated teller machine number or code, personal identification number, mother's maiden name, computer system password, electronic signature or unique biometric data that is a fingerprint, voice print, retinal image or iris image of another person knowing such information is intended to be used in furtherance of the commission of a crime defined in this

Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information in the Third Degree is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

Now that you have a general understanding, or at least definition, of the crime of Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information in the Third Degree, you are ready for more legal analysis after the jump...

Continue reading "Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information (NY PL 190.81, 190.82 & 190.83) & Your Criminal Defense: Does New York Law Require the Use of the Personal Information?" »

The pertinent part of New York Penal Law sections 170.05 & 170.10, Forgery in the Third and Second Degree, plainly states that one is guilty of Forgery when with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, a person falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument.

Depending on what a person forges, the level or degree of the offense may be elevated from a misdemeanor to a "D" or even a "C" felony. For example, if the item forged is deed, will or instrument created by the government, the crime can go from an "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in county jail (Rikers) to a "D" felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison. Moreover, if one counterfeits United States currency, the crime can be bumped up further to a "C" felony pursuant to New York Penal Law 170.15 and is punishable by up to 15 years prison. Well, what about knock off handbags, clothing or other items? Assuming the buyer is not knowingly buying a fake handbag (so, forget the shoppers seeking out "deals" on Canal Street) and the person selling the handbag or other property is presenting it as the authentic product with the intent to defraud the buyer, can the seller be charged with Forgery for making the knockoff handbag or Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument for possessing the same?

The answer is clear. These crimes would not be applicable. According to a Manhattan Criminal Court Judge in People v. Vu, 161 Misc.2d 692 (NY Cty Crim. Ct. 1994):

"Although it may not be impossible to squeeze the counterfeit handbag...into this definition by means of enterprising, if tortuous, parsing, it seems clear that these statutes were never intended to cover activity so far afield from the counterfeiting of written instruments, such as contracts and wills, and so manifestly within the ambit of those frauds which the trademark counterfeiting statutes (Penal Law 165.70 et seq.) were later enacted to encompass. However broad the language of the clause concluding subdivision one of section 170.10 of the Penal Law, the terms and examples which precede it logically limit its sense and scope to prohibit only the alteration of documents of like type under the principle of ejusdem generis (of the same kind)."

Although not a Court of Appeals (NYS highest court) holding and decision, it is safe to say that items beyond the scope of a "written instrument" do not fall within the territory of Forgery. Certainly, other crimes may be applicable that are as serious or more significant, but Forgery will not be established unless the elements and language of the statute is satisfied. If the law permitted prosecutors to squeeze fake handbags into this definition (it was obviously tried!), who knows what new "forgeries" would be prosecuted in the future.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a New York based criminal defense firm. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland, LLP represents clients throughout the New York City region.

According to the Westchester County District Attorney's Office, Yves Archin, a home health aide working for a 79 year old woman who recently passed away, was arrested by Ardsley (Westchester County) detectives. It is alleged that Ms. Arching perpetrated Identity Theft and other crimes on an unwitting woman under her care who had suffered from a stroke. According to news sources, Ms. Archin not only used the now deceased woman's credit cards, but opened up fraudulent accounts using her personal information. As a result, it is alleged that Ms. Archin charged approximately $59,000 at stores including Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdales and Target.

According to various news websites, the defendant is charged with Identity Theft in the First Degree (NY PL 190.80). Moreover, Ms. Archin is charged with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (NY 155.40) for the aggregation of her alleged thefts that exceeded $50,000 and Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree (NY PL 190.65(1)(c). Grand Larceny in the Second Degree is a "C" felony punishable by up to 5 to 15 years in state prison. Identity Theft in the First Degree is a "D" felony punishable by up to 2 and 2/3 to 7 years in state prison while Scheme to Defraud is an "E" felony punishable by up to 1 and 1/3 to 4 years in state prison.

It is interesting to note that the Scheme to Defraud statute was amended in 2008 to include the defrauding of one or more "vulnerable elderly person." According to New York Penal Law 260.30(3) a "vulnerable elderly person” means:

"[A] person sixty years of age or older who is suffering from a disease or infirmity associated with advanced age and manifested by demonstrable physical, mental or emotional dysfunction to the extent that the person is incapable of adequately providing for his or her own health or personal care."

While I have not seen the complaint or indictment (if in fact she has been indicted), something is missing from the various reports. Regardless of the subsection, Scheme to Defraud requires that a defendant have the intent to defraud either ten or more people or more than one person. Although only one person need to be identified, at least two people need to be the target of the scheme. It may be that there is another alleged victim or target or that there is an error in the reporting of this offense or charging of this crime by law enforcement. Unfortunately for Ms. Archin, this potential error would only apply to the Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, the lowest level offense she is facing.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland LLP is a criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the New York City region. Jeremy Saland, one of our attorneys, has extensive experience and training in Identity Theft related crimes having served in the Identity Theft Unit and Major Case Section upon its creation by Robert Morgenthau.

Crotty Saland LLP, a Manhattan based white collar criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the New York City region, is pleased to announce another tremendous result for a client in the arena of fraud and theft allegations. Our client, charged on two separate dockets, allegedly defrauded approximately $35,000 from one individual and approximately $35,000 from a second individual. Prosecutors charged our client with twenty-five felonies in the two criminal court complaints including Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (NY PL 155.35), Forgery in the Second Degree (NY PL 170.10), Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree (NY PL 170.25) and Identity Theft in the First Degree (NY PL 190.80). Prosecutors alleged that our client stole these monies through drafting checks without permission and using credit cards, including a corporate business card, without authority to do so.

Despite the large value of the alleged theft, approximately $70,000 between two people, Crotty Saland LLP attacked the veracity of one of the complainants as well the length of time between the incident and the reporting of the theft. Moreover, investigation revealed that this complainant may have been trying to "hide" money from his spouse. After further investigation and challenging the prosecution regarding their ability to prove the $35,000 theft beyond a reasonable doubt, prosecutors dismissed all of the charges.

Although we were not as successful with the second felony case as we were with the first case, Crotty Saland LLP negotiated a tremendous disposition on the second matter as well. In the second case, prosecutors agreed to a misdemeanor plea for Petit Larceny (the "shoplifting" statute) as well as Criminal Possession of Stolen Property. Although the complainant and prosecutors presented us with documentation for a significant portion of the $35,000 as well as a signed stipulation by our client that she in fact owed these monies, we successfully argued that despite the admission and documentation, the facts of the case would establish that the complainant was not being forthright. Even if true, the value of the alleged loss was exaggerated and our client signed the agreement under duress. Fortunately, through our investigation and diligence, we were able to corroborate our position thereby weakening the ability of the prosecution to prove the theft and the loss amount beyond a reasonable doubt. After all of our efforts working with our client for over a year to avoid a felony or jail, the court sentenced our client on the misdemeanor plea to three years of probation (no jail) and $20,000 in total restitution.

As this client learned, each case is unique and requires its own analysis and defense. Whether it takes one month or one year, some felony fraud cases can be negotiated to a lesser offense while others ultimately may not. Furthermore, some cases may require a trial to prove one's innocence where a real risk may be present of a conviction and accompanying jail. Whatever result you are seeking and whether or not it is actually attainable, it is imperative that your counsel be a knowledgeable and a zealous advocate who keeps you informed throughout the process as it unfolds.

It has happened to the best of us....even those who check their accounts daily. Maybe you just inadvertently went over your limit on your credit card or debit card. Well, in New York if you knowingly try to use that credit or debit card and it is "no good," i.e., revoked or canceled, you may be charged with Unlawful Use of a Credit Card or Debit Card pursuant to New York Penal Law Section 165.17. While not as serious as the felony of possessing a stolen debit or credit card, this offense is still a crime.

According to the New York Penal Law 165.17 - Unlawful Use of a Credit or Debit Card:

A person is guilty of Unlawful Use of a Credit Card, Debit Card or Public Benefit Card when in the course of obtaining or attempting to obtain property or a service, he uses or displays a credit card, debit card or public benefit card which he knows to be revoked or canceled.

Unlawful Use of a Credit Card, Debit Card or Public Benefit Card is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail.

It is important to note that a "sister" law, New York Penal Law Section 165.15(1), Theft of Services, is very similar and also punishable by up to 1 year in jail. One of the distinctions between the two crimes, however, is that Theft of Services involves the use of a stolen credit or debit card while Unlawful Use of a Credit Card or Debit Card involves the use of a canceled instrument. Additionally, beyond these two crimes, other related offenses may be perpetrated if you obtain property with that canceled credit card such as Petit Larceny and Grand Larceny. As noted above, mere possession of a stolen credit card is a felony as well.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a Manhattan based criminal defense firm representing clients in New York City and the surrounding suburbs. Crotty Saland,LLP was founded by former Assistant District Attorneys who served in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

Crotty Saland, LLP, is pleased to announce that another client has benefited from our experience, knowledge and advocacy. Our client, a movie "middle man" who procured funding for multi-million dollar projects, met with prosecutors after being contacted about a disgruntled client. Prior to retaining Crotty Saland, LLP, and without any legal representation, our client met with law enforcement officials and made statements that could be construed as admissions relating to Grand Larceny and Forgery crimes. More specifically, prosecutors accused our client of stealing, through false pretenses, approximately $17,500. Moreover, prosecutors alleged that our client created and displayed fraudulent bank documents and contracts that were used to "fool" the movie companies that utilized his services.

After months of legal wrangling our client's case is over. Through our diligence, our client avoided the embarrassment of being arrested at his home or place of business. On the same day we had our client voluntarily turn himself in, prosecutors arranged to have him see the judge and have his charges dropped down from felony Grand Larceny and Forgery to lesser misdemeanor offenses. At his arraignment, only a few hours after his voluntary surrender, our client pleaded to one count of Petit Larceny, a misdemeanor of pursuant to NY Penal Law section 155.25 (otherwise known as the "shoplifting statute"). Moreover, the judge sentenced him at that time to a conditional discharge. This plea not only saved our client from the humiliation of any felony, but our client avoided jail (he was facing up to seven years in state prison), probation and community service while finishing his case only hours after he voluntarily turned himself into detectives.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a New York based white collar criminal defense firm. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland, LLP represents clients throughout the New York City region.

Prior results do not guarantee future success.

Issuing a False Financial Statement, pursuant to New York Penal Law 175.45, is certainly not the most severe crime amongst its brethren in the arena of white collar crimes, but one that has serious ramifications beyond the criminal context. First of all, this crime is often associated with or is a part of a larger scheme. Therefore, you may not merely find yourself being investigated for or charged with Issuing a False Financial Statement, pursuant to New York Penal Law 175.45. Other crimes may be lingering right around the corner. However, before addressing those other crimes, let me present the statute of Issuing a False Financial Statement so you have a general understanding of the law.

Issuing a False Financial Statement New York Penal Law 175.45:

A person is guilty of Issuing a False Financial Statement when, with intent to defraud:

1. He knowingly makes or utters a written instrument which purports to describe the financial condition or ability to pay of some person and which is inaccurate in some material respect; or

2. He represents in writing that a written instrument purporting to describe a person's financial condition or ability to pay as of a prior date is accurate with respect to such person's current financial condition or ability to pay, whereas he knows it is materially inaccurate in that respect.

Issuing a False Financial Statement is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail

As I noted above, this crime is often associated with other offenses. If the purpose of your fraud, for example, is to obtain monies or property and in doing so you file or fill out additional paperwork you may be charged with Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, Grand Larceny or other crimes. While only a few of the potential crimes, these offense are both felonies. Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree is an "E" felony punishable by up to four years in prison while Grand Larceny ranges from an "E" felony to a "B" felony and is punishable by up to four and twenty-five years in prison respectively.

Even assuming you were not successful in your "intent to defraud" as stipulated in the statute, i.e., you did not reap the benefit of your alleged fraud, you can still be charged with this crime. It goes without saying that if you work in finance, for example, while you may have dodged a more serious felony, a conviction for Issuing a False Financial Statement would have devastating ramifications to your career.

Regardless of the white collar crime you are being investigated for or charged with, contact the former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP so that your career, integrity and liberty are protected and preserved.

A Manhattan building manager has managed to get himself into hot water with the Manhattan District Attorneys Office. According to Robert Morgenthau's prosecutors, Mark Modano, of Mark Modano LLC, was arrest and indicted in connection to an alleged five year fraud beginning in 2003 and ending in 2008. It is alleged that during this period Mr. Modano siphoned $1.3 million from clients for his own personal use.

Charged with three counts of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (NY PL 155.40), a class C felony, three counts of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (NY PL 155.35), a class D felony and one count of Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree (NY PL 190.65), a class E felony, Mr. Modano faces up to 15, 7 and 4 years respectively if convicted.

Prior to his arrest and indictment, Mr. Modano was a general "all purpose" guy whose services ran the gamut. His duties included anything from collection of rent and renovation of vacated apartments to payment of property taxes associated with the building and overseeing building maintenance and repairs.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office:

"The investigation leading to the indictment revealed that [Mr.] Modano continuously mingled his clients’ money into large “master” accounts. [Mr.] Modano slowly misappropriated his clients’ money, via his master accounts, for his own personal expenses. Whenever a potential shortfall occurred with respect to one of his client’s expenses, he simply used money from one of his other clients to make good on the outstanding expense and continue to conceal his crime."

"The victims most affected by [Mr.] Modano’s misconduct were those who entrusted him with the payment of their property taxes. In approximately 2006, and again in 2008, without informing his clients, [Mr.] Modano entered into in rem installment agreements with the City’s Department of Finance which enabled him to pay his clients’ property tax obligations on an installment basis while continuously accruing interest to the detriment of those clients. At the time in question, all tax-related correspondence was sent directly to [Mr.] Modano; therefore, the owners of the buildings were unaware that they owed property taxes and that [Mr.] Modano had entered into such agreements."

"[Mr.] Modano distributed monthly financial statements, which purportedly accounted for all monthly income and disbursements, to the owners of each building. Most of [Mr.] Modano’s clients had worked with him for several years and solely relied on these statements to keep updated on the finances of their buildings. In November and December of 2008, in an attempt to control the damage, [Mr.] Modano caused an attorney to contact some of his clients. These clients were informed that, contrary to what [Mr.] Modano’s monthly financial statements indicated, their building operating accounts were nearly empty. The loss with respect to each building ranged from $25, 219.20 to $634,978.04. In total, [Mr.] Modano stole in excess of $1.3 million."

Without knowing all of the facts in this case, there is an interesting issue here. As a general rule, prosecutors can aggregate the total loss from a victim over a period of time when charging a defendant with those larcenies. Additionally, there are some court decisions that stand for position that if the scheme is a common one, loss can be aggregated amongst different victims as well. In other words, if an accused stole from one victim multiple times, instead of each theft being a separate lesser offense, the thefts could be added up to make one greater offense. In the alternative, while less commonly charged, prosecutors may also be able to add up the total loss amongst multiple victims in the same scheme. Here, despite the fact that the alleged theft is in excess of $1 million, the prosecution has charged Mr. Modano with multiple lesser Grand Larceny crimes instead of aggregating the theft to Grand Larceny in the First Degree, a class B felony, that has a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment and a maximum term of 25 years. Beyond these offenses, it appears that other applicable crimes could include Falsifying Business Records, Forgery and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument for his alleged activities of creating fraudulent invoices and supplying false business information.

Despite the above analysis, it is somewhat easy to speculate about charges without having all of the facts. Even if my analysis is correct, there are numerous reasons why prosecutors don't charge each and every offense in an indictment especially where it is redundant or other charges bring in the necessary evidence and facts. Regardless, Mr. Mondano has a long road ahead and should ascertain with his attorney the strongest defense in this case before he finds himself in much hotter water.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a white collar criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. Representing clients throughout the New York City region, Crotty Saland, LLP has had tremendous results advocating for clients in fraud and theft crimes ranging from the tens of thousands to the multiple millions of dollars.

He may have loved the book, theatrical performance or even the movie, but Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau is not a fan of real life Oliver Twists. According to reports, the New York County District Attorney's Office unsealed a 639 count indictment involving the arrests of 15 alleged pickpocket crew members. The defendants, including Arthur Franklin, Jospeh Simms, Vincent Franklin, James Mannix, Kathleen Miller, Carol Dibitetto, Larry Ford, Kandra Lysland, Tina Barboza, Mary Bennett and Yvonne Harris are alleged to have stolen over $600,000 and compromised at least 60 bank accounts. The 639 count indictment includes numerous felonies such as Grand Larceny, Identity Theft, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, Conspiracy, Scheme to Defraud, Attempted Grand Larceny, Forgery and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property. It is interesting to note that prosecutors did not charge the defendants with Enterprise Corruption. While there could be numerous reasons, it is possible that the crew had no ascertainable structure, but was alleged to be more consistent with a loose knit band of thieves. Regardless, the scheme is purported to have operated for at least one year before the arrests and indictments.

According to the District Attorney's Office, vigilant investigators at Chase Bank reviewed video surveillance of fraudulent transactions and noticed a common theme of women wearing wigs and glasses. Further investigation revealed that Arthur Franklin, Vincent Franklin and Joseph Simms were present either inside or outside the bank when the transactions occurred. Chase Bank put the dots together when they learned that many of the victims of the fraudulent bank transactions were also victims of pickpockets.

More than merely a pickpocketing crew that made a quick buck, some of the defendants are alleged to have worked at a Pennsylvania collections agency where victims' personal information including addresses, social security numbers and dates of birth were harvested and provided to other defendants. With this information, the defendant then conducted their fraudulent transactions. At times, the defendants are alleged to have created fake identifications to appear as if they were in rightful owners of the accounts. All in, the defendants are accused of stealing $600,000 of which $74,000 in cash was recovered in a search warrant along with 200 stolen credit cards in another search warrant.

The defendants have been indicted on various charges, including Conspiracy in the Fourth Degree, Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Identity Theft in the First Degree, Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, Attempted Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree, Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, Attempted Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, Identity Theft in the Second Degree, Attempted Identity Theft in the Second Degree, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree, Forgery in the Second Degree, Petit Larceny, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree and Criminal Possession of Marijuana in the Fifth Degree.

Grand Larceny in the Second Degree is a class C felony, which is punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Identity Theft in the First Degree, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree, Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, and Forgery in the Second Degree are class D felonies, which are punishable by up to 7 years in prison. Conspiracy in the Fourth Degree, Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, Attempted Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, Identity Theft in the Second Degree, and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree are class E felonies, which are punishable by up to 4 years in prison.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a New York based criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the metropolitan area. The two principals, Elizabeth Crotty and Jeremy Saland, have extensive experience as both criminal defense attorneys and as former Manhattan prosecutors having served in the Special Prosecutions Bureau and Identity Theft Unit respectively.

The Manhattan District Attorney announced the arrest and indictment earlier today of Michael Batalias, Elisavet Batalias, Vassiliki Stergiou and EMB Contracting Corporation for defrauding employees in the neighborhood of $1 million dollars. The defendants are charged with Grand Larceny in the First Degree and Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree. Moreover, Elisavet Batalias was charged with eleven counts of Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office:

EMB Contracting Corp is a "general contractor providing labor in the rehabilitation/construction of 30 public schools throughout New York City. As provided by the New York State Labor Law, and under the terms of these contracts, EMB was required to pay all of the employees engaged in working on these contracts the prevailing wage and supplemental benefit rate. The Office of the Inspector General for the SCA began investigating EMB after receiving a number of complaints that the firm was not paying employees the required prevailing wage rate, but rather roughly a third to a half of the rate, and was not making appropriate contributions to the union pension fund."

Prosecutors allege the the contractors were not merely "cooking" the books, but also created a new set of "dummy" records as well. All of this, according to the Manhattan DA, was to hide underpayments. Additionally, EMB falsified payroll reports and completely omitted workers from records while adding those who did not actually work. In fact, when it came time to submit the payment applications, it is alleged that Elisavet Batalia provided sworn affidavits that the prevailing was was paid to employees when it had not. Vicky Stergiou also is alleged to have given cash "off the books" to employees by cashing EMB checks made payable to other people. The alleged fraud perpetrated by the defendants took another step towards criminality when Michael Batalias allegedly staged a accident at a different location after an employee was hurt elsewhere.

While I am certainly not privy to the facts of the case beyond the press release, the defendant's certainly have a difficult road ahead. The police executed a search warrant in 2008 and likely have subpoenaed bank and payroll records. Moreover, it appears that there are numerous employees, ie, witnesses, who could testify as to how they were paid, hours worked and conduct of the EMB. That being said, although it is not an affirmative defense as it is in the context of Falsifying Business Records, did any of the defendants offer the false instrument at the behest of a supervisor and without any personal benefit? Did each individual indicted by the Grand Jury have the intent to perpetrate these crimes? Are there documents supporting each of the defendants' involvements or is the indictment based on the general roles of the defendants at EMB? Whatever the defense may be, the defendants should implement it immediately.

Grand Larceny in the First Degree is a class B felony punishable by up to 8⅓ to 25 years in prison. Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree and Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree are class E felonies punishable by up to 1⅓ to 4 years in prison.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a white collar criminal defense firm located in New York City. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland, LLP has successfully represented clients in white collar criminal matters ranging from multiple million dollar Criminal Tax Fraud cases to crimes involving Forged Instruments, Identity Theft and Grand Larceny in the tens of thousands of dollars.

While your "average" white collar crime case may not include the offenses of Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 175.35) and Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 175.30), the former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP still believe it is important for our readers to have a grasp on this section of the New York Penal Law. Therefore, the following article will address these crimes.

Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the Second Degree (NY Penal Law 175.30):

A person is guilty of Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the Second Degree when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, he offers or presents it to a public office or public servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office or public servant.

Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the Second Degree is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree (NY Penal Law 175.35):

A person is guilty of Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, and with intent to defraud the state or any political subdivision, public authority or public benefit corporation of the state, he offers or presents it to a public office, public servant, public authority or public benefit corporation with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become part of the records of such public office, public servant, public authority or public benefit corporation.

Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree is a class E felony punishable by up to four years in prison.

To shed further light on these offenses, William Donnino, the commentator in the annotated code has stated:

"The basic crime of 'offering a false instrument for filing' is directed at the person who, knowing that a 'written instrument' [defined in § 175.00(3)] has false recitals, 'offers or presents' the instrument to a 'public office' or 'public servant' [defined in § 10.00(15)] with the 'knowledge or belief' that it will become part of the records of that public office or servant [§ 175.30]."

"Notably, the crime is limited to written instruments which contain false recitals as opposed to forged instruments; the instrument need only be offered or presented, not accepted or received, by the public office or servant; and the defendant need only have a subjective belief, not actual knowledge, that the instrument will become part of the records of the public office or servant."

Donnino further states that:

"The crime of offering a false instrument for filing is divided into two degrees.The basic crime is offering a false instrument in the second degree [§ 175.30] and that crime is predicated on 'knowing' that the written instrument offered for filing contains a false statement or false information. If that basic crime is also committed 'with an intent to defraud' the State or any political subdivision, public authority or public benefit corporation of the State, then the defendant is guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree [§ 175.35]. (The first-degree statute was amended in 1998 to overrule People v. Miller, 1987, 70 N.Y.2d 903, 524 N.Y.S.2d 386, 519 N.E.2d 297 by making the crime applicable to filings with a public authority or public benefit corporation. L. 1998, c. 99.)"

"By that two-degree structure, the drafters sought to distinguish the level of culpability between, for example, the person who, out of vanity, knowingly falsifies his or her age in an application for a license in which the age of the applicant is not significant, and one who corruptly defrauds the State out of huge sums through false documents submitted in connection with a building contract. See Staff Notes of the Commission on Revision of the Penal Law. Proposed New York Penal Law. McKinney's Spec. Pamph. (1964), p. 366."

It is worth noting that these offenses are very similar to the white collar crimes of Tampering with Public Records (note the same "intent to defraud" language that raises the level of the offense) and Falsifying Business Records.

If you or a loved one are charged with or are being investigated for any white collar crime contact Crotty Saland, LLP to start taking the steps to protecting your liberty, livelihood and good name.

To the untrained eye, Bribery, pursuant to New York Penal Law Sections 200.00, 200.03 and 200.4 and Rewarding Official Misconduct, pursuant to New York Penal Law Sections 220.20 and 220.22 (all Article 200 crimes), involve very similar elements. In fact, those individuals who are not NY criminal defense attorneys or lawyers may not fully grasp the distinction between these offenses. That being said, William Donnino stated it best when he wrote:

"[B]ribery...[is] concerned with what a public servant 'will' do. The crime of [R]ewarding...[O]fficial [M]isconduct [is] directed at rewards to public servants for having previously violated their duty as a public servant."

In other words, and in general terms, Bribery occurs when a payment (for example) is made to another person to alter that person's behavior while Rewarding Official Misconduct would occur where the payment is made after such person's behavior or action has already taken place.

Now, to the New York Penal Law:

§ 200.20 Rewarding Official Misconduct in the Second Degree

A person is guilty of Rewarding Official Misconduct in the Second Degree when he knowingly confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any benefit upon a public servant for having violated his duty as a public servant.

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

§ 200.22 Rewarding Official Misconduct in the First Degree

A person is guilty of Rewarding Official Misconduct in the First Degree when he knowingly confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any benefit upon a public servant for having violated his duty as a public servant in the investigation, arrest, detention, prosecution, or incarceration of any person for the commission or alleged commission of a class A felony defined in article two hundred twenty of the penal law or the attempt to commit any such class A felony.

Rewarding Official Misconduct in the First Degree is a class C felony punishable by up to 15 years in state prison.

Crotty Saland, LLP, is a New York City based criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. Crotty Saland,LLP represents clients in white collar criminal cases during the investigative and post-arrest stages.

Follow us on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

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.

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.

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 " »

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)" »

Chubb, Kemper, Allstate, Geico…the name of the insurance company makes no difference at all. It is your actions, regardless of the insurance provider, that may land you in an upstate prison cell for perpetrating Insurance Fraud. As we at Crotty Saland, LLP have said time and time again, we are available to assist our clients day or night. That being said, your best defense is not necessarily a top criminal defense firm, but knowing the law and keeping yourself from needing a New York criminal defense attorney in the first place.

Before dissecting the penal law, the following are some important definitions that are the basis to the charge of Insurance Fraud:

Section 176.05 Insurance fraud; defined

1. A fraudulent insurance act 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 presented to or by an insurer, self insurer, or purported insurer, or purported self insurer, or any agent thereof, any written statement as part of, or in support of, an application for the issuance of, or the rating of a commercial insurance policy, or certificate or evidence of self insurance for commercial insurance or commercial self insurance, or a claim for payment or other benefit pursuant to an insurance policy or self insurance program for commercial or personal insurance which he knows to: (i) contain materially false information concerning any fact material thereto; or (ii) conceal, for the purpose of misleading, information concerning any fact material thereto.

2. A fraudulent health care insurance act 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 presented to, or by, an insurer or purported insurer or self-insurer, or any agent thereof, any written statement or other physical evidence as part of, or in support of, an application for the issuance of a health insurance policy, or a policy or contract or other authorization that provides or allows coverage for, membership or enrollment in, or other services of a public or private health care plan, or a claim for payment, services or other benefit pursuant to such policy, contract or plan, which he knows to:

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

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

Such policy or contract or plan or authorization shall include, but not limited to, those issued or operating pursuant to any public or governmentally-sponsored or supported plan for health care coverage or services or those otherwise issued or operated by entities authorized pursuant to the public health law. For purposes of this subdivision an “application for the issuance of a health insurance policy” shall not include (a) any application for a health insurance policy or contract approved by the superintendent of insurance pursuant to the provisions of sections three thousand two hundred sixteen, four thousand three hundred four, four thousand three hundred twenty-one or four thousand three hundred twenty-two of the insurance law or any other application for a health insurance policy or contract approved by the superintendent of insurance in the individual or direct payment market; and (b) any application for a certificate evidencing coverage under a self-insured plan or under a group contract approved by the superintendent of insurance.

The statutes for Insurance Fraud after the jump (notice how the Insurance Fraud statute mimics the loss element of the Grand Larceny statute)…

Continue reading "New York White Collar Crime: Insurance Fraud in the Fifth Through First Degree (NY Penal Law 176.10 – 176.35) & Your Criminal Defense" »

A year long Westchester County investigation ended in the arrest of 21 people for their alleged involvement in the sale and transportation of untaxed cigarettes. It is alleged that during the course of the investigation, the defendants purchased $16 million worth of unstamped cigarettes from undercover officers. It is further alleged that a confidential informant assisted in targeting numerous individuals whose total sales and purchases exceeded nine million unstamped cigarettes. These illegal transactions equated to a New York State cigarette excise tax stamp fraud of approximately $21 million.

According to the Westchester County District Attorney's Office:

New York State imposes an excise tax on cigarettes in the amount of $2.75 per pack of twenty cigarettes. Additionally, New York City is permitted to impose an additional $1.50 per pack, bringing the total combined tax rate to $4.25.New York State collects the cigarette tax through the sale of tax stamps, which are sold to licensed New York State stamping agents. An agent must affix the stamps to packages of cigarettes in order for those packages to be sold in New York State. The stamping agent can then sell the cigarettes to wholesale or retail businesses.To circumvent the excise taxes, and earn more profit on cigarette sales, some cigarette dealers illegally purchase unstamped cigarettes from unauthorized sources.

The defendants - Ali M. Abadi, Ibrahim A. Ahmad, Mohamed Ahmed, Omar Nagib Ali, Ibrahim Althnaibat, Jamil H. Alzokari, Mohamed A. Benkhiyar, Ahmad Aldabesheh, Yin Sin Wu, Obrero Barrio, Andre Ford, Ronald Everett, Przaemyslw S. Holynski, Alou Keita, Mohamed Lemine Ould Sidi, Henry Polanco, Abdo Quhshi, Norman A. Saif, Mohamed O. Salick, John Taveras and Ri Q. Wu are facing significant prison with a mandatory minimum term of incarceration. The offenses are as follows:

Criminal Tax Fraud in the First Degree, a B felony punishable by a minimum of 1 to 3 years and a maximum of 8 and 1/3 to 25 years. Criminal Tax Fraud in the Second Degree is a C felony punishable by no incarceration and up to 15 years. Criminal Tax Fraud in the Third Degree is a D felony punishable by no incarceration and up to 7 years. The dollar amount associated with these offenses closely tracks, but not precisely, the Grand Larceny statutes in relation to monetary loss. For example, like Grand Larceny in the First and Second Degrees, Criminal Tax Fraud in the First and Second Degrees requires, among other things, a fraud of $1 million and $50,000 respectively.

Time will tell what happens with these defendants and whether they put forth their best defense. Whatever they determine their strongest defense might by, they should implement that plan before they compound their already precarious situation.

As a former Manhattan prosecutor and a founding white collar criminal defense lawyer at Crotty Saland, LLP, I can confidently assert that District Attorney's in NYC vigorously pursue all crimes. However, the reality of the financial crisis lends credence to the argument that white collar crimes, such as Money Laundering, are appealing targets of law enforcement due to the potential asset forfeiture or fines that can be levied against defendants. In the realm of Money Laundering, pursuant to NY Penal Law Sections 470.05, 470.10, 470.15 or 470.20, prosecutors have the ability, based on statutes, to "disgorge" those convicted of this crime. In fact, pursuant to NY Penal Law Section 470.25, individuals convicted of Money Laundering can be fined in a significant amount in addition to other penalties including terms of state prison.

According to New York Penal Law Section 470.25(1) a person convicted of Money Laundering under New York Penal Law Sections 470.05, 470.10, 470.15 or 470.20, may be sentenced to pay a fine up to "two times the monetary instruments which are the proceeds of specified criminal conduct." It is the court that makes the finding or determination as to the value of the monetary instrument(s).

In determining how much a fine should be, the courts may examine many factors including:
(1) the seriousness of the conduct, (2) whether the amount of the fine is disproportionate to the conduct in which the defendant is engaged, (3) the crime's impact on the victims, and (4) the economic circumstances of the convicted person including the effect of the imposition of such a fine on the convicted person's family.

It is important to note that according to NY Penal Law Section 470.25(2), that a fine levied against an individual based on NY Penal Law Section 470.25(1), "shall preclude the imposition of any other order or judgment of forfeiture or fine based on the same criminal conduct."

The New York State Attorney General and local District Attorney's Offices actively pursue fraud regardless of where it rears it's head. The heath care industry is not immune to such investigations by law enforcement. While numerous different criminal charges may stem from the same transactions, the common theme for fraud involving health care are the misdemeanor and felony crimes of Health Care Fraud in the First (PL 177.25), Second (PL 177.20), Third (PL 177.15), Fourth (PL 177.10) and Fifth Degrees (PL 177.05). While you may have a statutorily recognized defense, the following are the legal definitions for these crimes and ones that you need to familiarize yourself with in the event you are charged with any degree of Health Care Fraud in New York:

PL 177.05 - Health Care Fraud in the Fifth Degree

A person is guilty of health care fraud in the fifth degree when, with intent to defraud a health plan, he or she knowingly and willfully provides materially false information or omits material information for the purpose of requesting payment from a health plan for a health care
item or service and, as a result of such information or omission, he or she or another person receives payment in an amount that he, she or such other person is not entitled to under the circumstances.

Health Care Fraud in the Fifth Degree is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year a county jail (Rikers Island).

PL 176.10 Health Care Fraud in the Fourth Degree

A person is guilty of health care fraud in the fourth degree when such person, on one or more occasions, commits the crime of Health Care Fraud in the Fifth Degree and the payment or portion of the payment wrongfully received, as the case may be, from a single health plan, in a period of not more than one year, exceeds three thousand dollars in the aggregate.

Health Care fraud in the Fourth Degree is a class E felony punishable by up to four years in state prison.

Penal Law - 176.15 Health Care Fraud in the Third Degree

A person is guilty of Health Care Fraud in the Third Degree when such person, on one or more occasions, commits the crime of Health Care Fraud in the Fifth Degree and the payment or portion of the payment wrongfully received, as the case may be, from a single health plan, in a period of not more than one year, exceeds ten thousand dollars in the aggregate.

Health Care Fraud in the Third Degree is a class D felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison.

Penal Law -176.20 Health Care Fraud in the Second Degree

A person is guilty of Health Care Fraud in the Second Degree when such person, on one or more occasions, commits the crime of Health Care Fraud in the Fifth degree and the payment or portion of the payment wrongfully received, as the case may be, from a single health plan, in a period of not more than one year, exceeds fifty thousand dollars in the aggregate.

Health Care Fraud in the Second Degree is a class C Felony punishable by up to fifteen years in state prison.

Penal Law 176.25 - Health Care Fraud in the First Degree

A person is guilty of Health Care Fraud in the First Degree when such person, on one or more occasions, commits the crime of health care fraud in the fifth degree and the payment or portion of the payment wrongfully received, as the case may be, from a single health plan, in a period of not more than one year, exceeds one million dollars in the aggregate.

Health Care Fraud in the First Degree is a class B felony punishable by up to twenty-five years in state prison

Clearly, the New York State Legislature believes that any type of fraud involving health care is a serious offense. That being said, they also provided within the statute an "affirmative defense." Pursuant to Penal Law 176.30:

In any prosecution under this article, it shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant was a clerk, bookkeeper or other employee, other than an employee charged with the active management and control, in an executive capacity, of the affairs of the corporation, who, without personal benefit, merely executed the orders of his or her employer or of a superior employee generally authorized to direct his or her activities.

While this defense may not apply to your particular set of facts and circumstances, that does not mean a valid and legitimate defense does not exist. Therefore, contact experienced criminal defense attorneys, such as the former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP, to protect your rights, liberty and integrity.

Crotty Saland, LLP, a white collar criminal defense firm located in Manhattan, is pleased that we were able to assist another client in obtaining closure to a pending criminal case while preserving her liberty. Our client was charged with Grand Larceny in the 3rd Degree, pursuant to New York Penal Law 155.35, and faced up to seven years in prison for her alleged involvement in a "paper case." Prosecutors claimed that our client made unauthorized purchases using company credit cards totaling approximately $25,000.00. After reviewing the documents associated with the alleged felony theft, we were able to work out a disposition with prosecutors that departed far from the original accusation. Although the negotiations took some time, our client ultimately pleaded to a misdemeanor and stayed out of jail. Moreover, there was no probation or community service associated with her plea. Considering the real possibility of a felony criminal record and a term of incarceration, our client could not have been happier with the results.

While Crotty Saland, LLP cannot guarantee any particular result and each case must be handled differently, our experience as both former Manhattan prosecutors under Robert Morgenthau and as New York criminal defense attorneys gives us the experience, knowledge and understanding of the criminal justice system to ascertain and implement the best plan of attack to preserve our client's rights, integrity and freedom.

Some people should just keep white collar criminal defense attorneys on retainer. It seems that at least once every week or two, someone is arrested or indicted for Grand Larceny. While an arrest or an indictment certainly is not evidence of guilt, accusations of "sticky fingers" seems to be all the rage right now. Fortunately for the clients of Crotty Saland, LLP, top Manhattan based white collar criminal defense lawyers, our clients accused of these crimes have utilized our experience and knowledge to get tremendous results. In fact, in the past year each one of them has avoided jail and in some cases criminal records altogether for alleged thefts ranging from $20,000 to the tens of millions of dollars. As former Manhattan Assistant District Attorneys under Robert Morgenthau, we know how prosecutors build, investigate and prosecute these cases. Hopefully for Ms. Diana Lucretia Montague-Griffin's sake, she retains a criminal defense attorney who can keep her from spending from up to the next 25 years in state prison.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Ms. Montague-Griffin worked at Arcadia Investment Partners, a Manhattan-based private investment firm. While working as the office manager, Ms. Montague-Griffin allegedly made unauthorized wire transfers and forged signatures on checks totaling $1.7 million. From about January 2006 through December 2008, it is alleged that Ms. Montague-Griffin withdrew approximately $375,000 in cash, spent $250,000 to renovate her home and $59,000 for an in-ground pool. It is further alleged that Ms. Montague-Griffin spent thousands of dollars each month on personal items such as hair and skin products, dental care, dining and clothes. Her alleged spending of the firm's money included other purchases at department stores and online including Nordstrom, Macys, QVC, Amazon.com, Target, JC Penny, and Wal-Mart. It is nor clear how much, if any, of the money is still in Ms. Montague-Griffin's possession.

Although Ms. Montague-Griffin is currently in custody in New Jersey, she has agreed to be extradited back to New York on her indictment. While indictments usual occur after a person is arrested, in Ms. Montague-Griffin's case, the Grand Jury indicted her prior to her arrest in what is often referred to as a No-Arrest Indictment or "NA" Indictment.

The indictment charges Ms. Montague-Griffin with one count of Grand Larceny in the First Degree, a class "B" felony. This offense is punishable by up to 8 1/3 to 25 years in prison. Although less serious, but still felonies, the indictment charges Ms. Montague-Griffin with five accounts of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree,10 counts of Forgery in the Second Degree and 10 counts of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree. Each of these crimes are "D" felonies punishable by up to 2 1/3 to 7 years in state prison.

If Ms. Montague-Griffin has not done so yet, while she awaits being transported back to New York she should consider what her defense should be and how she will implement it. Giving up and throwing one's hands in the air is never the answer. Therefore, instead of compounding what is already a bad situation, Ms. Montague-Griffin should immediately retain experienced criminal counsel.

Robin Katz, the financial analyst at Chase Bank who was arrested for siphoning over $100,000 from a client, may have used a fake ATM card to perpetrate her alleged crime. As a NY criminal defense attorney at Crotty Saland, LLP who has had tremendous results representing clients in white collar crimes and as a former Manhattan prosecutor who spent years assigned to the Identity Theft Major Case Unit, it is clear that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. While that is not an assertion that more allegations will be made against Ms. Katz, it is likely that law enforcement has not released to the public or discovered all of the ways in which this crime was allegedly perpetrated.

A review of the charges against Ms. Katz reveals that she is currently charged with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree as well as Identity Theft in the First Degree. However, if the facts come out as the media has portrayed, I expect that Ms. Katz could be charged with additional crimes. For example, if the ATM card has been recovered or there is evidence that she wrongfully created it, she could be charged with Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree for physically having it or Forgery in the Second for creating it. Additionally, if she altered Chase records or deleted records to cover up her alleged theft, then prosecutors could charge Ms. Katz with Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree as well. Although Grand Larceny in the Second Degree is the most serious of the offenses and punishable by up to fifteen years in state prison, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument and Forgery in the Second Degrees are punishable by up to seven years in prison while Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree is punishable by up to four years in prison. Regardless of the amount of time she faces, I expect that her time in Rikers and $50,000 bail has made it overwhelmingly clear that any jail time is devastating.

Without knowing all the facts of the case it is difficult to assert what her best defense to these crimes is. Is it trying to mitigate what happened or is there a way to challenge the facts? Whatever the defense, Ms. Katz has a long road ahead of her. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office will certainly not be feeling overly generous with a woman who allegedly perpetrated a crime over a period of months and created an ATM card to do so. However, with an experienced and knowledgeable white collar criminal defense attorney at her side she may one day be able to sit back in her apartment (not a jail cell) recognizing that it could have been much worse.

On a regular basis, individuals in New York such as Robin Katz (the Chase banker recently arrested in Manhattan for Grand Larceny), Lawrence Salander (the Manhattan art gallery owner) and Anthony D. Marshall (the son of Brooke Astor) are accused of white collar crimes. As a result, the accused seek counsel from experienced white collar criminal defense attorneys and lawyers who will zealously advocate for their clients regardless of the circumstances they may face.

Crotty Saland, LLP, understands how important dedicated and experienced counsel is and believes in the philosophy that it is not merely working tirelessly that is crucial, but it is equally as critical to identify and set into motion a well orchestrated plan to preserve our client's liberty and good name. As New York white collar criminal defense attorneys and as former Manhattan prosecutors under Robert Morgenthau, we know how to not only construct a case from the perspective of law enforcement, but how to take it down as well. Certainly, each case requires its own distinct analysis, but our experience has paid off for our clients in white collar crimes involving offenses such as Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, Forgery, and Falsifying Business Records.

Over the past year, Crotty Saland, LLP has represented two individuals investigated for Grand Larceny crimes in excess of five millions dollars and tens of millions of dollars respectively. While one client was indicted, he was not incarcerated and permitted to civilly litigate a substantial part of that money due to issues raised in the tax code. While that disposition was tremendous because our client was kept out of prison despite a mandatory minimum state prison sentence required by statute, the District Attorney's Office agreed to drop the investigation and case against our other client after he agreed to file numerous old tax returns and negotiations revealed a financial assessment was incorrect.

Every white collar crime does not involve thefts in the millions of dollars, but are still pursued vigorously by law enforcement. In fact, Crotty Saland, LLP has represented multiple individuals accused of thefts ranging between twenty thousand dollars to well north of fifty thousand dollars. In each of the cases that we have resolved on behalf of our clients, not one of them has been sentenced to jail or even probation. In fact, some of them have even received a misdemeanor or worked out a disposition where after the client returned to court a few times, the prosecution agreed to move for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (dismissal of the case after six months).

Although we have been very successful representing our white collar clients, no law firm can predict or guarantee a particular result. Certainly, a particular result on one case is no indication, guarantee or promise of success on a new and distinct matter. Each case is unique and an accused may face the grim reality of a felony and incarceration. That being said, there is one thing that Crotty Saland, LLP guarantees to all of our clients - we will fight on your behalf and pursue as many legal and ethical avenues as possible to protect your freedom, rights and integrity.

The crimes of Forgery (NY Penal Law 170.50, 170.10 and 170.15) and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument (NY Penal Law 170.20, 170.25 and 170.30) are crimes that White Collar criminal defense attorneys handle or deal with on a regular basis. Whether the facts revolve around counterfeit money, falsified mortgages or even fake credit cards, somewhere prior to committing the Forgery or Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, the item in question had to have been created. Although the police usually only get their hands on the finished product, i.e., the fake credit card, there is a distinct and separate crime of Criminal Possession of Forgery Devices that relates directly to the creation of these fraudulent items.

According to Penal Law 170.40, Criminal Possession of a Forgery Device, a person is guilty of this crime when (1) he makes or possesses with knowledge of its character any plate, die or other device, apparatus, equipment, or article specifically designed for use in counterfeiting or otherwise forging written instruments; or (2) with intent to use,or to aid or permit another to use, the same for purposes of forgery, he makes or possesses any device, apparatus, equipment or article capable of or adaptable to such use. This crime is a "D" felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison.

As stated above, this offense is far less common than the crimes of Forgery or Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, but is potentially the same level offense. Regardless of the particular Forgery or Fraud related crime you find yourself being charged with or investigated for, contact the criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP so you can arm yourself with our experience and knowledge while protecting your liberty and integrity.

The Manhattan District Attorney's Office has painted a very bad picture of Lawrence Salander, Leigh Morse and the Salander O'Reilly Galleries after they obtained a second indictment in connection with Mr. Salander's alleged theft from and defrauding of the estates of numerous artists.

As I previously noted in the first two blog entries, Mr. Salander has already been arrested and indicted in connection to an 88 million dollar fraud. This second offense involves the alleged theft of an additional 5 million dollars from numerous estates. These estates had given their works of art to Mr. Salander and his gallery so that they could be sold or exhibited.

It is alleged by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office that one of the victims is the estate of Robert De Niro, Sr., an American abstract expressionist painter, who is the father of actor Robert De Niro, Jr. It is claimed that artwork provided by Mr. De Niro's estate was sold by the Saldner O'Reilley Gallery without notice or, in the alternative, without proper payment.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office:

"[T]he investigation revealed that the Estate of Robert De Niro, Sr. formally began a relationship with defendants in 1994 when the Salander-O'Reilly Gallery was made the exclusive representative of the Estate. As such, the Gallery was tasked with the promotion, sale, and exhibition of Robert De Niro, Sr. works. Throughout their 14-year relationship, Mr. Salander and other dealers of the Salander-O'Reilly Galleries, including Ms. Morse, repeatedly sold De Niro, Sr. works, did not inform the Estate of the actual volume of sales, and did not pay the Estate for the majority of those sales. The investigation further revealed that Mr. Salander repeatedly used the stolen funds or the works of art themselves to satisfy Salander-O'Reilly Galleries’ debts. For instance, in June 2006, Mr. Salander and the Gallery entered into a settlement agreement whereby the Gallery relinquished full title and ownership of several works of art owned by the Estate of Robert De Niro, Sr. and other artists to a gallery in Italy, to satisfy the Salander-O'Reilly Galleries’ multi-million dollar debt to that Italian gallery."

While Mr. Salander still faces up to twenty five years in prison on the new charges relating to Grand Larceny in the First Degree, Ms. Morse "merely" faces up to seven years in prison due to the indictment charging her with Grand Larceny in the Third Degree and four years in prison for the charge of Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree.

If you or a loved one is charged with any fraud or white collar related crime in New York, contact the former Manhattan prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP to preserve your freedom and good name.

Crotty Saland, LLP has learned that Lawrence Salander, the famous owner of a well know art gallery in Manhattan that was recently closed, faces new charges in association with an 88 million dollar fraud scheme. A Manhattan Grand Jury has already indicted Mr. Salander for Grand Larceny in the First Degree, Securities Fraud, Falsifying Business Records, Forgery and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument. Although it is unclear whether the new indictment is for separate and distinct crimes or for activities associated with the first indictment, Mr. Salander faces up to twenty five years in the first case. He is due back in Manhattan Supreme Court before Judge Obus on July 31, 2009.

The former Manhattan prosecutors and New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP will keep you informed as we learn more.

***UPDATE***

The Manhattan District Attorney's Office announced last month the arrest and indictment of Marc A. Bernstein for Grand Larceny in the Second Degree as well a other charges for an alleged scheme where he stole over $600,000 from client escrow accounts. Well, unfortunately for Mr. Bernstein, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office announced once again that he had been re-arrested (he was out of custody on $250,000 bail) and charged with multiple counts of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree for stealing $1,500,000 from five clients' escrow accounts. In total, the alleged theft is approximately $2,200,000.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office:

"In the typical case, Mr. Bernstein negotiated a settlement on behalf of the victim, took control of the incoming settlement money and then stole it. In one instance that has now given rise to charges, Bernstein, acting as an escrow agent, received $900,000 in real estate deposit money on a contract of sale for the purchase of a building in lower Manhattan and stole that money from the intended purchaser of the property."

In the current case involving the $1,500,000, as opposed to the previous theft case involving approximate $600,000, the Grand Jury indicted the defendant for Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Grand Larceny in the Third Degree and Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree. Grand Larceny in the Second Degree is punishable by up to 5 to 15 years in prison, Grand Larceny in the Third Degree is punishable by up to 2 1/3 to 7 years in prison and Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree is punishable by up to 1 1/3 to 4 years in prison.

It is interesting to note that since these scheme involve different clients and different times, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that the sentences can run consecutive, as opposed to concurrent. Moreover, although it is commonly done where the scheme involves the same victims as opposed to multiple victims, there is case law permitting an aggregation of the total amount to raise the level of the crime as opposed to making each theft from each victim a distinct and separate lesser offense. Regardless, Mr. Bernstein faces serious challenges ahead.

Whatever the challenge is before you or a loved one, contact the white collar criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP.

It seems like every day you open the newspaper some crew or group of individuals is either being arrested, investigated or indicted for Enterprise Corruption in New York City. Well, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced the indictment of 12 people and 9 corporations for Enterprise Corruption and other crimes. According to the Attorney General "The Levy Enterprise" paid hospital employees for confidential patient information, lured patients into receiving unnecessary treatment, and then submitted over a million dollars in phony personal injury claims to insurance carriers.

The 147 count indictment unsealed yesterday charges Daniel Levy, Dr. Hoi Yat Kam, Alex Levy, Desmond Connell, Daniel G. Madrid, Ronald J. Schwartz, Dr. Salvatore Lentini, Yan Yan Yu, Dr. Haroutyoun Tiikranian, Lai Fan Xue, Cheng He, and Dr. Aleksandra Gashinskaya, in varying capacities with Enterprise Corruption, Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, Money Laundering in the Second Degree, Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, Insurance Fraud in the Third Degree, Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree and other charges. These men and women, some of whom are doctors and lawyers, face not only the potential sentence of 25 years in prison on the Enterprise Corruption and 4 years on the "lesser" charge of Falsifying Business Records, but also face the real risk of being disbarred from their particular practice areas. Mary Jimenez and Lloyd Modeste, both hospital employees, were charged with Bribe Receiving on a separate complaint, but do not appear to have been indicted by the Grand Jury.

If you find yourself under investigation, arrest or indictment for a white collar or violent crime contact the criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP. As former prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorneys Office who served under Robert Morgenthau for more than a combined thirteen years, the white collar criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP stand ready to fight to protect your name and liberty.

Crotty Saland, LLP a top white collar criminal defense firm, has learned that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office has announced the indictment of thirteen individuals and a mortgage company in connection to a mortgage fraud scheme allegedly perpetrated in the New York City region over the past four years. Charged with Enterprise Corruption (PL 460.20), Grand Larceny in the First and Second Degrees (PL 155.42 and PL 155.40), Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree (PL 190.65) and Conspiracy in the Fifth Degree (PL 105.05), it is alleged that:

AFG Financial Group, Eugene Culbreath, Eric Shields, Matthew McDermott, Marc Zirogiannis, Kenneth Law, Kathleen Scanlon, Jeffrey Phelan, Jerry Strklja, Marilyn Mateo, Darlita Bostic, Allyson Hinds, and Rajmohan Autar, in varying roles, "...located distressed residential real estate properties in New York City and surrounding counties. They then engaged in a fraudulent scheme to steal millions of dollars from lending banks in Manhattan and elsewhere using sham sales of those properties. The conspirators caused the banks to front millions of dollars to finance purchases of the properties. They then walked away with most of the cash, leaving behind over-valued properties and worthless mortgage papers." The Manhattan District Attorney's Office further claims that recruiters found straw buyers who would be paid to enter into a real estate transaction where they were informed that the true homeowner would benefit from they service. Moreover, the straw buyers were told they would receive further compensation. After the mortgages and transactions were completed, the straw buyers did not receive any compensation and were left with possession of the mortgages which they could not pay. As a result, not only did the straw buyers lose money, but their credit went drastically south.

Not only is it alleged that fraudulent mortgage documents, falsified W2s and and inflated appraisals were created to perpetrate this crime, but is is further claimed by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office that lawyers for AFG Financial Group would, among other things, be present at closings in order to make sure the scheme ran smoothly.

In total, it is believed that the sum of the mortgage scheme was in the neighborhood of one hundred million dollars.

If convicted of Grand Larceny in the First Degree or Enterprise Corruption, the defendants face up to 8 and 1/3 to 25 years in prison. Grand Larceny in the Second Degree carries a sentence of up to 5 to 15 years in prison and Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree has a potential term of imprisonment of 1 and 1/3 to 4 years in prison. Conspiracy in the Fifth Degree is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year on Riker's Island.

As a former Manhattan prosecutor who served under Robert Morgenthau supervising multi-million dollar fraud schemes and as white collar criminal defense attorney who has successfully represented clients in Manhattan for alleged million dollar theft schemes, I must say that these defendants need to act quickly to ascertain and implement their strongest defense. I have mentioned in the past that Investigation Division Central, the bureau handling this case, consists of prosecutors who are not merely aggressive in their pursuit of criminal activity, but made up of individuals who are thorough in that pursuit. Delays on the part of the defendants could be costly.

If you or a loved one is the target of an investigation, under arrest or facing and indictment, contact the white collar criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP so you can put forth your best defense to preserve your rights, liberty and integrity.

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.

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.

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.

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 our readers can develop a basic understanding of this offense.

New York Penal Law 225.05 - Promoting Gambling in the Second Degree

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.

New York Penal Law 225.10 - Promoting Gambling in the First Degree

A person is guilty of Promoting Gambling in the First Degree 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" »

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 ***

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.

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

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" »

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.

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.

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.

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, pursuant to New York Penal Law Sections 187.05 (Fifth Degree), 187.10 (Fourth Degree), 187.15 (Third Degree), 187.20 (Second Degree) and 187.25 (First Degree), was added to New York's Penal Law. In addition to this crime involving Mortgage Fraud, another statute related to this offense and addressed in another entry is Fraudulent Disposition of Mortgaged Property, an "A" misdemeanor pursuant to New York Penal Law section 185.10.

Penal Law 187.00(4) defines Residential Mortgage Fraud as follows:

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 to violations of Residential Mortgage Fraud in the Fourth (NY PL 187.10), Third (NY PL 187.15), Second (NY PL 187.20) and First Degrees (NY PL 187.25).

Crotty Saland LLP is criminal defense firm located in New York. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland LLP represents clients throughout the region in both white collar and non-white collar crimes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"" »

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" »