Theft Offenses

April 7, 2010

New York Tax Cheats Watch Out! New York Prosecutors Cracking Down on Criminal Tax Fraud

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.”

April 2, 2010

Crimes for “Petty Theft” & Shoplifting in New York: Petit Larceny (NY Penal Law 155.25) & Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree (NY Penal Law 165.40)

by Jeremy Saland

You were either arrested and put through the arrest process or you were issued a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) for shoplifting (New York Penal Law 155.25 or 165.40) after store security stopped you with a pair of jeans hidden away in your bag at Macey’s or some makeup buried in your pocket at Bloomingdales. Although you have never been in trouble before, you now face the grim reality that you need to consult with a criminal defense attorney regarding your shoplifting arrest or Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) and the ramifications of the associated misdemeanor crimes.

Regardless of what you are alleged to have shoplifted (clothing, electronics, makeup, jewelry, etc.), the crimes you now face are misdemeanor offenses in New York as long as the value of the property stolen does not exceed $1000 (with some exceptions). That is right….whether the property was a $750 watch or a $5 pair of socks, the misdemeanor crimes of Petit Larceny (NY PL 155.25) or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the 5th Degree (NY PL 165.40) are the two charges you will be facing and addressing with your New York criminal defense lawyer. Make no mistake. The “shoplifting misdemeanors” are punishable by up to one year in jail and are just as serious under the law as misdemeanor Assault, Criminal Mischief and even Forgery.

March 21, 2010

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

by Jeremy Saland

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?

March 9, 2010

New York Penal Law 165.05 & 165.06: Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle & Your NY Criminal Defense

by Jeremy Saland

Whether a vehicle is stolen or being driven without permission of the owner, one particular crime that may be charged in New York is Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Second and Third Degrees pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 165.06 and 165.05 respectively. While other crimes may have been perpetrated, such as Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, an “E” felony punishable by up to four years in state prison, Unauthorized Used of a Vehicle, the “joyriding statute,” is defined as follows: NY PL 165.05(1) – Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Third Degree

A person is guilty of Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Third Degree when knowing that he does not have the consent of the owner, he takes, operates, exercises control over, rides in or otherwise uses a vehicle. A person who engages in any such conduct without the consent of the owner is presumed to know that he does not have such consent

March 5, 2010

Queens Identity Theft & Credit Card “Bust Out” Scheme Results in Indictment of Five PC Richards Employees

by Jeremy Saland

Only days ago, I published an entry regarding the new Cybercrime and Identity Theft Bureau in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Having served as a member of that bureau’s predecessor, the Identity Theft Unit, during my seven years as a prosecutor under Robert Morgenthau, I commented on the necessity of such a unit despite my adversarial role as a New York criminal defense attorney. I don’t think anyone could argue the significance of this expanded bureau as schemes involving Identity Theft and Computer Crime continue to flourish in New York and beyond.

Although the most recent arrests and allegations stem from the Queens County District Attorney’s Office, the purpose of such a unit or bureau has once again been made clear. According to the Queens County District Attorney’s Office, twelve individuals, including five employees at PC Richards and Sons, have been arrested and indicted in a fraudulent credit card “bust out” scheme. The 92 count indictment charges Raza Chaudry, Reema Chaudry, Tahir Chaudry, Azadar Chaudry, Zishan Chaudry, Shaheen Akhtar. Hemet Adnand, Mathew Alli, Mohammad Aslam, David Francis, Benzy Jonny and Sheikh “Naveed” Zaheer with crimes including Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, Falsifying Business Records and Offering a False Instrument for Filing. Although they are not charged with the technical crime of Identity Theft, it is alleged that the “bust out” scheme involved stolen social security numbers. According to the Queens District Attorney’s Office, a search warrant resulted in the recovery of “Pakistani passports belonging to several of the defendants and bearing multiple names and dates of birth, blank Social Security cards, Canadian and New York driver’s licenses and binders containing in excess of 300 credit cards.”

February 16, 2010

DA: Stockbroker Pads Resume and Portfolio – Former Maxim “Partner” Fools Merrill Lynch for $780,000

by Jeremy Saland

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.

February 16, 2010

Credit Card Theft & Fraud – New York Penal Law 155.30(4) & 165.45(2): Stealing or Possessing a Stolen Credit Card or Debit Card is an Automatic Felony in NY

by Jeremy Saland

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 155.30(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):

January 17, 2010

Manhattan White Collar Criminal Defense Firm Gets Dismissal & Misdemeanor After Client Accused of Two Thefts Totaling $70,000

by Jeremy Saland

Saland Law PC, 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, Saland Law PC 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, Saland Law PC 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.

December 20, 2009

When a Simple Petit Larceny or Petty Theft Becomes a Felony Grand Larceny in New York: Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree – NY Penal Law 155.30(5)

by Jeremy Saland

In New York, a misdemeanor theft or larceny can easily be enhanced to a felony in certain circumstances. In fact, pursuant to New York Penal Law Section 155.30(5), Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, it is a felony punishable by up to four years in state prison if you perpetrate the crime commonly known as “Grand Larceny from the Person.”

Pursuant to New York Penal Law Section 155.30(5), Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree:

November 28, 2009

New York’s “Wholly Inconsistent” Shoplifting Standard: NY Case Law & Applicability to Your Criminal Defense

by Jeremy Saland

Whether you were arrested or issued a New York Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) for Shoplifting pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 155.25 (Petit Larceny) or 165.40 (Criminal Possession of Stolen Property), the legal standard is the same. Regardless of the crime, police officers in New York City and throughout the state, must have probable cause to arrest you. If not, your criminal defense attorney or lawyer must file a motion for the dismissal and to request a Dunaway hearing (other hearings might be applicable as well). Beyond this basic legal right that you have to prevent unlawful arrests, there are other factors that should be addressed by your criminal defense attorney. The following is a brief analysis of one of such factor.

According to People v. Olivo, 52 N.Y.2d 309, 310 (1981), the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, has found that in order to sustain a conviction for shoplifting, one’s actions must be “wholly inconsistent with the rights of the owner.” Taken further, the Court of Appeals found that “[i]f a customer exercises dominion and control wholly inconsistent with the continued rights of the owner, and other elements of the crime are present, a larceny has occurred.”