White Collar Crimes

June 13, 2014

Federal Healthcare Fraud Sentencing After Obamacare: Analyzing Title 18 USC 1347

Last week I wrote about the recent national healthcare fraud takedown by the Department of Justice and its Medicare Fraud Strike Force. We discussed the four cases brought in Brooklyn by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York – U.S. v. Onyekwere, 14 CR 274; U.S. v. Thornhill, Thornhill and Johnson, 14 CR 278; U.S. v. Margossian; and U.S. v. Ahmed, 14 CR 277.

While these cases concern different offenses and schemes to defraud; one thing in common is the analysis that will be employed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the defense attorneys during plea negotiations regarding a potential sentence.

In virtually all Federal criminal cases, the Judge must consult the United States Sentencing Guidelines – this is a book that determines the seriousness of each offense as well as the criminal history of the defendant through a point (or “level”) system. The idea is to make sure similarly situated defendants are treated virtually the same by all Federal Judges throughout the country.

In determining the seriousness of the offense, the Guideline establishes a “base offense level” for every Federal crime. It then calculates “specific offense characteristics” – things that may or may not be a part of each case.

For purposes of Healthcare Fraud cases, the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly referred to as “Obamacare”) changed, quite significantly, how that calculation is made. Continue reading

June 5, 2014

Can “Outside Traders” be involved in Insider Trading? A case study of Icahn, Mickelson and 18 USC 1348

by Peter Katz

Much has been written over the last week about the purported FBI “insider trading” investigation into the purchase of Clorox stock options by legendary golfer Phil Mickelson and infamous sports gambler William Walters. If this story didn’t involve famous people such as Mickelson and Carl Icahn, it wouldn’t be much of a story – or a criminal case – at all. Here’s why:

On July 15, 2011, billionaire Carl Icahn announced his interest in taking Clorox, a public company, private in a deal worth approximately $12.6 million. Four days earlier, there was unusual trading involving Clorox options; presumably involving Mickelson and Walters. After the announcement, Clorox’s stock price went up considerably – from about $70 per share to $75 per share — providing Mickelson and Walters (and presumably a lot of other people) with a quick, substantial profit.

June 1, 2014

Brooklyn Medicare Fraud Strike Force: Recent Cases from the May 2014 Nationwide “Takedown”

by Peter Katz

In our last post, we discussed the history and tactics of the Department of Justice’s Medicare Fraud Strike Force. We also talked briefly about the recent Healthcare Fraud nation-wide “takedown.” But as we also mentioned, this was not one giant case involving 90 defendants, but rather dozens of cases, scattered throughout six different cities. Each one of those cases has a different history; a different story. From a practical perspective, it can be instructive to take a look at all the cases charged in a particular Strike Force city to get a feel or a sense of what types of cases are being brought there and how the government investigates healthcare fraud differently in different places. In this installment, we’ll start off by looking at the four cases brought in the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn.

May 29, 2014

Medicare Fraud Strike Force: Healthcare Fraud Prosecutions in 2014

by Peter Katz

In March 2007 the Medicare Fraud Strike Force originated in South Florida as a ground-breaking joint effort between the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division Fraud Section, the U.S Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, as well as state and local law enforcement agencies to prosecute individuals and businesses that did not provide legitimate health care services, but existed and operated for the sole purpose of stealing money from the Medicare coffers.

Over the last seven years, this first-of-its-kind strike force in the health care arena has become a model of innovation in terms of strategy, methodology and practice, but also quite some controversy. According to the Department of Justice, as of early 2014, the Strike Force, now in nine cities, has charged more than 1400 defendants, who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $4.8 billion. In addition, hundreds of millions of dollars have been returned to the Medicare Trust Fund through restitution and forfeiture. The question has been asked, however, whether the government has overreached in some of these healthcare fraud investigations and prosecutions. This aggressive approach smells from governmental over-reach, and requires anyone charged in a Strike Force case to seek out a Federal Criminal Attorney well experienced in Healthcare Fraud matters to present an effective defense.

May 15, 2014

Can a New York Forgery Conviction Stand Where a Cardholder does not Testify & a Fictitious Name is Used by the Accused

by Jeremy Saland

I recently posted a blog entry briefly analyzing a Second Degree Forgery (New York Penal Law 170.10) conviction where one of the central issues was whether the defendant had the intent to “defraud, deceive or injure” the bank when a deceased man’s credit card was used and all principle and interest payments were made. Although there was more to that case (the blog entry is from May 11, 2014), the lesson learned is that intent to defraud has a very liberal, as opposed to conservative and strict, definition. Recognizing this fact is important for not only you, as an accused, but your criminal attorney identifying and implementing your best defense. Following up with further review of New York’s Forgery and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument crimes, statutes and laws, this entry will once again address these offenses.

In People v. Lydon, 2006 NY Slip Op 7125 (1st Dept. 2006), the defendant was convicted after trial of multiple counts of Forgery (it is not clear from the decision whether the crimes were for the felony of Second Degree Forgery or the misdemeanor of Third Degree Forgery pursuant to New York Penal Law 170.05). The facts at trial established that the defendant would order pizzas over the phone for delivery using one of two credit card numbers, but then go to the restaurant and complete the purchase. When the defendant signed the receipts for the pizzas, he would write a relatively illegible name or “Mike.” Neither of the credit card holders, a husband and wife, were named Mike.

May 11, 2014

Second Degree Forgery & Credit Card Use: Are You Guilty of NY PL 170.10 Even if You Make Proper & Timely Payments to Another Person’s Credit Card

by Jeremy Saland

Regardless of the degree or level of the crime, Forgery is a very serious offense as defined in the New York Penal Law. While the misdemeanor offense of New York Penal Law 170.05 is punishable by a sentence of up to one year in jail, the Second and First Degree Forgery crimes can land a defendant in state prison for as much as seven and fifteen years respectively. Forgery in the First Degree, pursuant to New York Penal Law 170.15, is a class C felony and Forgery in the Second Degree, pursuant to New York Penal Law 170.10, is a class D felony. Irrespective of the degree of Forgery you are arrested or investigated for, there are certain traits or elements of the crime that you and your criminal lawyer will likely spend time assessing and analyzing. For example, one of the essential pieces of a Forgery arrest is whether or not you, as an accused, had the “intent to defraud, deceive or injure” another party.

Before addressing what it means to have an intent to defraud, let’s put this term into context. In People v. Martin, 2014 NY Slip Op 2469 (3rd Dept. 2014), the defendant, Martin, twice used a credit card in the name of another man (and signed the receipts) who was the domestic partner of defendant’s fiancee. This man died years earlier. At trial, the jury convicted the defendant of Forgery in the Second Degree, PL 170.10. During the trial, however, the accused’s fiancé, who was the domestic partner of the credit card account holder until his death, testified as follows:

January 12, 2014

Interpreting “Written Instrument” In a First Degree Offering a False Instrument for Filing Arrest & Indictment: New York Penal Law 175.35

by Jeremy Saland

Offering a False Instrument for Filing and Falsifying Business Records are two potential felony crimes in New York that are almost identical. While “almost” certainly is not “exactly,” one guards against the fraudulent filing of documents within the government and state while the other generally the falsification, deletion or alteration of the business records of a private enterprises. While both crimes involve an intent to defraud, one of the elements that stands out in crimes involving Offering a False Instrument for Filing in both the First and Second Degrees is that the filing of a “written instrument” must take place. What is a “written instrument” you ask? Your New York criminal lawyer or New York criminal defense attorney should be able to answer what a “written instrument” is in the context of New York Penal Law 175.35 (First Degree Offering a False Instrument for Filing) or New York Penal Law 175.30 (Second Degree Offering a False Instrument for Filing), but if not, there is always People v. Headley, NYLJ 1202571734975 (Kings Sup. Ct., Decided September 6, 2012) to provide some guidance.

In Headley, the defendant used a fictitious name to fraudulently obtain paid assignments of independent medical examinations of plaintiffs who sued New York City Transit Authority (“NYCTA”). In using the fictitious name, the defendant “conceal[ed] the fact that the assignments were being awarded to” his company (“Advance”)- someone who also represented NYCTA in defending personal injury lawsuits. As this was a conflict of interest, this would have “disqualified him from being paid to procure medical examinations.” The defendant was charged, amongst other things, with Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree (NY PL 175.35). Upon the defendant’s motion to reargue, the Court upheld the charge.

December 26, 2013

Rude & Unprofessional Conduct by Public Servants: When the Criminal Threshold for Official Misconduct is Breached

by Jeremy Saland

Official Misconduct, a crime codified as New York Penal Law 195.00, is not one of the more common criminal arrest charges in New York. While NY PL 195.00 is atypical in that it only a certain group of people can commit this offense, it is a crime that is equally serious in terms of its potential punishment of one year in jail as it is in its potential to derail careers and livelihoods. Very briefly, you are guilty of Official Misconduct if, as a public servant, with the intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit you either (1) commit an act relating to your office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of your official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized or (2) you knowingly refrain from performing a duty which is imposed upon you by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of you office.

To help better understand the parameters and elements that constitute the crime of Official Misconduct in the New York Penal Law and New York courts, People v. Carlos Becker, NYLJ 1202633990493 (Sup. BX, Decided November 3, 2013), dissects what may be rude and unprofessional conduct but not the crime of Official Misconduct, PL 195.00. On or about March 11, 2013, Becker, a NYC police officer, pulled over and arrested Erica Noonan for driving while intoxicated. The facts leading up to the Official Misconduct charge included, amongst other things, that the defendant police officer touched Noonan’s breast; that the defendant gave Noonan his personal telephone number so she could call if she needed anything; and, finally, that the defendant made a video recording of Noonan while she was handcuffed, apparently because defendant believed Noonan had a “hot body” (stay classy, officer!). On March 14, Noonan texted the defendant, which resulted in regular communication between defendant and Noonan. During these conversations, defendant, amongst other things, offered to help Noonan with her case by speaking with the ADA and Noonan’s employer; defendant offered to check her DMV record; and defendant sent pictures of himself to Noonan’s cell phone.

December 1, 2013

Getting a Better Grasp on New York Computer Crimes: Understanding the Basics of NY Computer Crime Arrests

by Jeremy Saland

It is not uncommon for prosecutors to seek a prison sentence or term of imprisonment for a defendant accused of and arrested for a computer related crime in New York. Although the crimes are generally viewed as white collar crimes and the potential sentences are not as significant as violent or drug crimes, the growing view is that these crimes should no longer be treated with “kid gloves.” While I cannot cite any specific article, it is my opinion as a New York criminal lawyer who handles computer crime investigations and arrests, that prosecutors are taking computer crime offenses more seriously. I believe prosecutors are taking this position because they want to send a message to NYS legislators, as well as those who may commit these crimes, that the government should increase the penalties. If they do not, prosecutors will pursue significant punishment on their own.

With a little personal opinion behind us, the term “computer crime” is vast and encompasses many offenses in New York (each state and the federal government define these crimes differently). In People v. Puesan, 2013 NY Slip Op. 06530 (1st Dep’t 2013), an appellate court addressed four different computer-related crimes. In this case, the defendant, while on leave from his job, and therefore unauthorized to enter its offices or use its computers, entered his employer’s office and installed a keystroke logger computer program on three of the employer’s computers. As a result the defendant was able to use the information he wrongfully obtained with the keystroke logger to gain access to another company program that stored customers’ confidential information (danger, danger!).

November 21, 2013

Operation Finish Line: Queens Prosecutors Net Dozens of Defendants in Nationwide Trademark Counterfeiting Busts

by Jeremy Saland

What is likely being hailed as a major victory for law enforcement, Queens County District Attorney Richard Brown has announced the arrest of more than two dozen individuals involved in a Trademark Counterfeiting enterprise and the recovery of more than $500,000 in cash and fake goods with a street value of approximately $750,000. According to the Queens DA’s press release, the investigation that netted the haul of contraband and cash was dubbed “Operation Finish Line.” A three year investigation by prosecutors, Operation Finish Line netted the indictment of multiple crews as as well as businesses. These alleged organized crews imported imposter goods from China and distributed fake and fraudulent designer brands, including True Religion and Polo, throughout the United States. These rings generated approximately $10 million annually in their alleged counterfeit scheme.

While the individual and corporate defendants face a variety of crimes, many of the offenses are extremely serious that could result in as much as fifteen or twenty five years in prison. In fact, a dozen of those arrested in Queens face the charge of Enterprise Corruption (New York Penal Law 460.20). NY PL 460.20, is New York State’s version of the organized crime statute used by federal authorities to go after organizations such as the mob. Where there is a common goal, criminal scheme and ascertainable structure, prosecutors pursue this crime as the “hammer” in a criminal case for a very clear and obvious reason. It is certainly not missed by an experienced New York Criminal defense attorney who practices with regularity in criminal and supreme courts. Simply, if you are convicted of Enterprise Corruption as a person who has no prior brushes with the criminal justice system you will still face a minimum term of one to three years in state prison and as much as eight and one third to twenty five years.