Fraud Related Offenses

October 7, 2011

Operation Swiper: Queens DA Notches 111 Person Indictment in International Identity Theft Scheme

Well before I became a New York criminal lawyer, I served for over seven years as a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. During that time, I was appointed to the Identity Theft Unit upon its creation as well as the Major Case section where I investigated criminal networks immersed in multi-million dollar Identity Theft schemes. Many of these schemes crossed continents and involved dozens of individuals. None, however, were as large scale in terms of the number of people charged and arrested in Queens County. In fact, according to the Queens County District Attorney’s Office, District Attorney Richard Brown may have the “honor” of spearheading the largest Identity Theft scheme in the history of such cases in terms of individuals involved. That number, to be precise, is one hundred eleven. These defendants were indicted by a Queens Count Grand Jury for their various degrees of involvement in forged credit card and Identity Theft rings. While the crimes of Forgery, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument and Identity Theft are all felonies with a serious bite, prosecutors have flexed their muscles by also obtaining indictments for Enterprise Corruption, New York’s RICO statute.

Although “only” eighty-six of the defendants are in custody, Queens prosecutors claim that fake and fraudulent credit cards were created and used by these individuals to steal well north of thirteen million dollars during a sixteen month period. Thousands of American Express, Visa, MasterCard and Discover Card customers were the alleged victims. Additionally, some of the crew are even alleged to have perpetrated burglaries and robberies at Kennedy Airport and the Citigroup Building in Long Island City where they allegedly netted close to a million dollars of ill-gotten gains.

September 28, 2011

Nassau DA Rice: Emory Student Sam Eshaghoff Paid Thousands to Use Fake Drivers License & Cheat SAT on Long Island

by Jeremy Saland

The pressure and drive to exceed in school never ends. Instead of studying a little longer and a little harder, however, the answer for some students is figuring out the best shortcut. According to the Kathleen Rice and the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office, Sam Eshaghoff, a former University of Michigan and current Emory student, was arrested after sitting for the SAT on behalf of at least a half a dozen high school students in exchange for thousands of dollars. Not a full fledged criminal enterprise, but more than an amateur operation, its further alleged that Eshaghoff sat for the SAT on Long Island at schools where administrators would not know the real students. Further, it is claimed that Eshagoff was armed with fake and phony New York State drivers licenses.

As interesting and as appealing as this case is, I have witnessed these types of scams on a much larger and even an international scale. As a Manhattan prosecutor, I led the investigation and prosecution of approximately two dozen individuals for either fraudulently taking or paying another person to take the GRE, GMAT and TOEFL. Education Testing Service (ETS) administers these examinations as well as the SAT. The Manhattan criminal enterprise, which extended well beyond the borders of New York and the United States, was extensive. Using faking passports at examinations centers and providing fraudulent diplomas, recommendation letters, transcripts, bank statements and other materials to universities and colleges throughout the United States, hundreds of students began their studies not on merit, but on fraud. In fact, the investigation revealed these students enrolled at NYU Stern School of Business, Columbia University Teachers College, Baruch College, UCLA, University of Michigan, Tulane Medical School, Canada’s McGill University and many other prestigious institutions.

September 13, 2011

Grand Larceny in New York: How to Ascertain Value of Stolen Property & Degree of Larceny – NY Penal Law 155.20

by Jeremy Saland

As both a New York criminal lawyer and as a Manhattan prosecutor, I have faced the issue of determining the legal value of property in a Grand Larceny case that was not readily apparent. While a theft of cash or certain property is easily ascertainable based on market value or the actual value of the currency, some items are not as clear. Fortunately, for prosecutors, criminal attorneys, victims and the accused, New York’s theft statutes set forth a guideline to follow. More specifically, certain written instruments, not including such items as some public and corporate bonds, have a value as calculated as established in New York Penal Law 155.20(2).

Regardless of whether or not a written instrument has actually been issued or delivered, a value has to be placed on those items to determine not only the degree of the Grand Larceny charged in a New York court, but to also come up with a restitution number should “payback” be part of any disposition. Accordingly, NY PL 155.20(2) deciphers the calculations as follows:

August 31, 2011

Forgery, Falsifying Business Records & Fraud Crimes in New York: Defining “Intent to Defraud” & Your Criminal Defense

by Jeremy Saland

A critical element of numerous fraud crimes in New York is one’s “intent to defraud.” This specific language is often in the criminal statute itself and is an essential part of numerous crimes prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt including the crimes of Forgery (New York Penal Law sections 170.05 through 170.15), Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument (New York Penal Law sections 170.20 through 170.30) and Falsifying Business Records (New York Penal Law sections 175.05 through 170.10). More times than not, “intent to defraud” is associated with some form of theft or stealing. While larceny is often the criminal act or motivation behind the “intent to defraud,” the law is much more broad. In fact, “intent to defraud” is not defined in the New York Penal Law. Instead, it is defined through case law.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary (not the New York Penal Law), “intent to defraud” means an “an intention to deceive another person, and to induce such other person, in reliance upon such deception, to assume, create, transfer, alter or terminate a right, obligation or power…” The Court of Appeals, New York’s highest level court, has made it overwhelming clear that “intent to defraud” does not require an intent to steal, but can be formulated “for the purpose of leading another into error or disadvantage.” People v. Briggins 50 N.Y.2d 302, 309 (1980) (concurring opinion)(Jones, J.). Taking this even further, other legal decisions have fortified that “intent to defraud” need not be tied to an underlying Grand Larceny (Article 155 of the New York Penal Law) type scheme. In fact, in People v. Kase 53 N.Y.2d 989 (1981), “intent to defraud” was found where a defendant filed a false statement with a public agency. In that case, there was no desire or attempt to steal or obtain any amount of wealth. Instead, the defendant sought to interfere and disrupt the State’s ability to carry out the law.

August 27, 2011

Extortion in New York State: An Affirmative Defense to NY Penal Law 155.05(2)(e) and 155.40(2)

by Jeremy Saland

In an earlier entry relating to Extortion, a subset of Grand Larceny, I identified and differentiated the difference between the Grand Larceny Extortion statutes found in New York Penal Law sections 155.05(2)(e) and 155.40(2). This entry will deal with the criminal defense to the crime of Extortion in NY that is established by statute. Whether this affirmative defense is relevant or applicable to the Grand Larceny and Extortion allegation in your particular case, that is something to identify and asses with your New York criminal defense attorney and Extortion lawyer.

Pursuant to New York Penal Law section 155.15(2):

May 25, 2011

Forgery in the Second Degree & Criminal Possession of a Forgery Device: NY Court Limits Scope of Crime

by Jeremy Saland

Forgery in the Second Degree, New York Penal Law 170.10, contains specific statutory language. In substance, some of the critical elements are that the accused must have the “intent to defraud” and “falsely make[], create[] or alter[] a written instrument.” Moreover, in doing so, a defendant must also have “create[d], transfer[ed], terminate[d] or otherwise affect[ed] a legal right.” While the statute also sets forth some specific types of instruments such as wills, a relatively recent appellate court decision (the second highest level court in New York State) refused to elaborate or extend Forgery crimes into other areas. While the decision doesn’t necessary preclude Forgery crimes in New York from extending beyond the specific instruments in the statute, it does help set the parameters of how far assistant district attorneys can go when prosecuting Forgery offenses.

In People v. Carmack, 34 A.D.3d 1299 (4th Dept. 2006), the Appellate Division Fourth Department reversed a conviction at trial where the defendant was alleged to have perpetrated Forgery in the Second Degree. There, the accused was alleged to have spoofed email address and sent out solicitations to other email users. In other words, solicitation emails would arrive in one’s inbox and appear as if it came from another person or friend as opposed to a general “spam” email. Although the emails were sent from the defendant’s computer, a program made it appear as if other entities or people had sent the email when in fact they had not. Finding that emails for a dietary supplement, for example, were not the type of instrument set forth in the statute, the appellate level court reversed the conviction.

April 21, 2011

New York Criminal Lawyer Information Page: Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First & Second Degree (NY PL 175.30 &175.35)

by Jeremy Saland

Whether you have been arrested in New York for Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 175.30) and need to consult with a New York Criminal lawyer or you are the target of a New York City theft scheme involving the crime of Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 175.35) and want a grasp on the law governing these crimes, Saland Law PC’s Offering a False Instrument for Filing information page is a good source for education. While no substitute for advice from the attorney with whom you thoroughly vet your particular case, the Offering a False Instrument for Filing information page can provide you with the basic understanding of the crimes in New York.

Generally, the crime of Offering a False Instrument for Filing occurs when you know that a written instrument has false information, but you still present it to a public office (or servant). Further, you must do so knowing or believing that it will be filed in some manner with that public office. The case is increased to the First Degree offense when you also have an intent to defraud. NY PL 175.35 is a felony punishable by up to four years in prison while NY PL 175.30 is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. It is important to note that many times, the crime of Offering a False Instrument for Filing is associated with other more serious felonies including Grand Larceny, Enterprise Corruption and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument. In other words, Offering a False Instrument for filing is potentially a serious felony, but may only be a smaller part of a more serious scheme.

April 17, 2011

New York Criminal Lawyers Keep Client Out of State Prison After Two Indictments Charging Enterprise Corruption, First Degree Grand Larceny and Other Crimes

by Jeremy Saland

The New York white collar criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Saland Law PC are pleased to announce a successful disposition for a client charged in an alleged Enterprise Corruption and Grand Larceny scheme involving multiple millions of dollars. Our client, a physician, had been indicted by a New York County Grand Jury for his alleged involvement in a scheme to perpetrate insurance fraud. It was claimed by prosecutors that phony patients would see the physician as well as his colleagues and that the physician would fraudulently bill medicaid. In all, the State of New York claimed our client, in concert with other physicians and specialists, bilked the government out of more than six million dollars.

Compounding matters, prosecutors alleged in a second indictment that our client had violated a restraining order after much of his assets were frozen. It was alleged that our client accessed certain monies without prior permission. The second indictment charged Contempt and Falsifying Business Records. Our client faced up to eight and one third to twenty five years in prison on the First Enterprise Corruption and Grand Larceny indictment and a consecutive one and one third to four years in prison on the second Contempt and Falsifying Business Records Indictment.

March 13, 2011

I Used a Credit Card that Belonged to Someone Else: Potential Criminal Charges in New York Part I

by Jeremy Saland

Do I need a New York criminal lawyer? I found a credit card in Manhattan and used that credit card to buy a pair of jeans at Macys for $175. I took my friend’s credit card and purchased $600 worth of makeup and other accessories in a Brooklyn store without my friend’s permission. I used a credit card that was fake and had another person’s account number programmed on to it. What is “credit card fraud” and did I commit it? Can I be charged with a felony or go to prison? What are the crimes and potential charges in New York City for credit card fraud?

The following blog entry is a brief analysis of the potential crimes in New York State relating to credit card theft and possession, use of a stolen credit card, counterfeit and fake credit cards and other offenses. These potential crimes range from “A” misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in jail to “D” felonies punishable by up to seven years in state prison.

February 2, 2011

Manhattan DA: “S3” Identity Theft Crew Uses Others’ Identity to Fraudulently Purchase and Fence Apple Merchandise

by Jeremy Saland

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. announced earlier today that his office’s Cybercrime and Identity Theft Bureau has taken down and arrested a 27 person Identity Theft ring based out of Brooklyn, New York. Prosecutors allege that “S3,” as the crew calls themselves, “compromised hundreds of bank accounts,and fraudulently purchased Apple products from stores around the country to resell for profit.”

It is claimed that these Identity Theft bandits obtained personal identifying information of their victims by purchasing this information online through people who trafficked the data. Once the alleged fraudsters obtained the information, including credit card numbers, the leaders recruited individuals who would shop in stores with the credit card numbers. The shoppers duped Apple employees after ring leaders allegedly created fraudulent and counterfeit credit cards and placed the stolen credit card number onto the magnetic strip of the counterfeit credit card. Armed with a counterfeit credit card in the name of a shopper, these hired guns allegedly made the Apple purchases for items including iPads and MacBooks.