New York

Published on: October 7, 2012

Plaintiff Alleges Bank Fraud Scheme

by Stephen Bilkis

The savings bank filed a motion for summary judgment in its action against the mortgage corporation and the guarantors for breaches of loan agreement and guaranty agreement, respectively, by the latter and for their charges against another defendant for the commission of bank fraud.

The plaintiff entered into a contract of loan at New Jersey with the mortgage banker wherein the savings bank extended a line of credit to the defendant for the purpose of closing the latter’s existing mortgage loans. In connection with the loan agreement, the officers, who are the owners of the mortgage corporation, executed individual guaranty contract which established their solidary liability of the mortgage banker’s obligation upon its failure to settle the obligations on time. A New York Criminal Lawyer said another guaranty was executed by the owner’s wife in relation with the loan agreement.

The stipulations of the loan agreement pertain to the grant of mortgage loans of the defendants’ borrowers where the line of credit shall be used to finance the mortgage contracts. Upon settlement of the mortgage loans by the borrowers, the proceeds of the loan would then be remitted to the savings bank and mortgage notes would be used as security in favor of the savings bank as part of their agreement. A Staten Island Criminal Lawyer said such mortgages would then be sold to potential investors and the plaintiff, as bailee, shall give the investors the mortgage notes where they shall pay the purchase price directly to the savings bank’s mortgage warehouse lenders who in turn would give the proceeds back to the savings bank as payment to the advances made by the defendants in their line of credit with the plaintiff. The defendants were responsible to the keeping of all the records pertaining to the loan agreement.

Published on: October 7, 2012

Court Listens to Bank Fraud Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A motion was filed by the defendant for summary judgment of the case in its favor. The plaintiff is a Swiss bank that filed a case against the New York Company who committed bank fraud, particularly, fabricated and sold the promissory notes of the bank amounting to $5 million. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Swiss bank further alleged that the notes sold by the company defendant was part of a global fraud scheme to raise funds in favor of an Italian food conglomerate as payments of loan by the former to the latter.

The bank fraud was conducted through issuance of the notes by one of the company’s subsidiary in Uruguay, which was then sold to a defendant’s affiliate where the Swiss bank purchased the promissory note. The note is with attachments of a guarantee of payment executed by the subsidiary company and a side letter from the affiliated company. The letter contained a certification that the proceeds of the notes will be used to finance the expansion of the Italian food conglomerate and for the upgrade of its industrial plants at various South American countries.

However, during the time of the purchase of the notes, the food conglomerate financial conditions were worsening and the governments of Brazil and Italy conducted criminal investigations of the Italian food conglomerate financial structure due to the financial distress status of the company and such became a public knowledge. The notes purchased by the plaintiff matured in 2004 but have not been repaid. One of the issued notes was then sold to the bank’s affiliate. The Swiss bank also filed a claim on the notes in the bankruptcy proceedings commenced by Italy against the Italian food conglomerate.

Published on: October 6, 2012

Defendant Convicted of Intent to Distribute

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant’s convictions arose from a series of drug transactions which began when a certain person contacted another person and informed the latter that he had heroin for sale. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the former was unaware that the latter was a confidential informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The parties and co-defendant agreed that the former would sell the informant 25 ounces of heroin for $6,000 per ounce. While the co-defendant was in Mexico he ran into the defendant who offered to drive him to Texas. He agreed and the two men drove to the border. As they approached the border the co-defendant told the defendant that he wished to walk across the border and would meet the defendant on the United States side. The defendant drove the vehicle across the border while co-defendant walked across carrying the one gram sample of heroin.

A Houston Heroin Possession Lawyer said that, the defendant and his co-defendant drove to the informant’s apartment where they met the informant and an Agent outside the apartment. The defendant and the Agent remained outside in their respective vehicles while co-defendant and the informant went inside. When the two men left the apartment the Agent saw co-defendant hand informant a piece of paper later found to contain .12 grams of heroin (heroin possession). The informant gave the paper to the Agent. Co-defendant, the informant and the Agent then discussed the purchase of a test ounce and the full 25 ounce shipment. The defendant drove the co-defendant to another apartment where he met with the certain John doe while the defendant remained outside in the vehicle.

Later that evening co-defendant and the informant took one ounce of heroin to the Agent’s motel room and sold it to him for $5,000 cash. Co-defendant returned to Mexico where he processed the remaining ounces of heroin. The defendant came into the apartment while this processing was being done. The next morning co-defendant secreted heroin in the stereo speaker of his vehicle. After doing so he asked the defendant for help in replacing the screws. The two men then drove to the informant’s apartment in the United States. While en route into town co-defendant advised the defendant that what he was doing was not honest and that he should not get involved in similar “deals”. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said when co-defendant and the defendant arrived at the informant’s apartment the defendant carried the heroin into the apartment. Later the three men left for the Agent’s motel with the defendant driving. Co-defendant, believing they were being followed, directed the defendant to return to the informant’s apartment. Co-defendant and the informant then drove to the Agent’s motel to deliver the heroin and the defendant left. Co-defendant was arrested as he delivered the heroin to the Agent. Defendant was arrested near Hidalgo, Texas.

Published on: October 6, 2012

Defendant Claims He was Denied a Right to a Speedy Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

In this drug offense, petitioner was a 21 year old heroin addict. On September 18th, two agents of the Sheriff’s Department of Louisiana, accompanied by a paid informant, and encountered petitioner. Aware of petitioner’s addiction, they asked him whether he had any heroin. He answered that he did not but agreed to “score a bundle” for them. A New York Criminal Lawyer said this jargon describes the purchase of 25 packets of individual doses of heroin, a retail transaction. Petitioner telephoned his “connection” (i.e. his supplier), the agents provided the funds to enable him to make the purchase and he left to accomplish the transaction. He returned with 22 packets. The agents took 19 and allowed him to retain three.

Some months later, a New Orleans Heroin Possession Lawyer said that petitioner was arrested, tried and convicted of distributing heroin (heroin possession). Petitioner testified at trial. He did not deny the facts set forth above, but contended that he was entrapped. He admitted that his addiction required five to six packets of heroin each day, but he was not able to afford that much. He paid $10 to $12 per packet. He was employed as a carpenter earning $3 per hour, but he did not work steadily. He admitted that he had previously been convicted of two felonies, burglary and theft by fraud. His wife testified that, while she also worked, her husband was a good provider for her and their one child. A New Orleans Drug Crime Lawyer said that petitioner was sentence to life imprisonment without parole for distributing heroin.

The issue in this case is whether petitioner’s sentence is grossly disproportionate to his crime as to contravene the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.

Published on: October 5, 2012

Court Discusses Blockburger Test for Theft Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for fraudulent sale of a counterfeit controlled substance, and felony petit theft. He argued that both charges arose out of the same acts, and that this double conviction should be barred by section 775.021(4)(a) and (b), Fla.Stat.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the record of this case established that Appellant told an undercover officer that he had rock cocaine for sale. He sold the officer a substance which proved not to be cocaine. For the fraudulent sale, he was sentenced as a habitual offender to ten years in prison. For the felony petit theft, he received a consecutive two-year term on community control followed by three years on probation.

The Florida Legislature has announced its intent that there should be separate and multiple convictions for each statutory offense that is committed during the course of a criminal transaction or episode. In section 775.021(4)(b) the Legislature set out basically only two exceptions to this policy. Subsections 1 and 3 are encompassed by the Blockburger test: statutory offenses which require proof of all of the same elements of proof; and those that require fewer, but identical elements of proof, which are necessarily included in the elements of the greater offense. Subsection 2 excepts “degree” crimes, such as the various forms of homicide.

Published on: October 5, 2012

Defendant Claims he was Denied a Right to a Speedy Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

On February 1986, there was a gathering of people in the apartment of a woman. The woman requested a man to bring to that event several glassine bags of a white powdery substance which the state asserts was heroin (heroin possession). At some time during the course of the evening the substance was injected into the body of the woman and her boyfriend. The next day, the substance was injected by two other men to their own body. One of the men took 11 envelopes after agreeing to help the man sell the substance. At about 4:00 p.m. that day, the woman became ill and died of causes apparently unrelated to the case and an investigation was conducted.

As a result of a search of the apartment, several items were seized including a piece of mirror with white powder residue, a box found in the medicine cabinet containing a black shoe lace, syringe, hypodermic needle and bottle cap cooker, an empty bottle cap found in the medicine cabinet, a syringe and needle found in a dresser drawer, and a plastic bag containing white powder which was found in a kitchen drawer. A New York Criminal Lawyer said after testing by a forensic scientist, only the bottle cap cooker tested positive for the presence of narcotics. The forensic scientist who performed the autopsy of the woman’s body found the presence of substances including quinine but no traces of the presence of either heroin or morphine.

The man and his companion were indicted for three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal injection of a narcotic drug. The man’s motions for severance were denied and a joint trial was held wherein the other man chose not to testify but the man testified on his own behalf.

Published on: October 5, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

The complainant brought this action to recover damages for injuries he claims to have suffered as a result of being knocked down as he attempted to board a bus operated by the accused. At the time of jury selection, the complainant moved to preclude the accused from offering evidence of or in any way calling the jury’s attention to the facts of the complainant’s incontestable past use of heroin and his current participation in a methadone treatment program. A New York Criminal Lawyer said at the jury coordinating part, the judge determined that the accused would be precluded from any reference to the complainant’s current use of methadone or his participation in the treatment program. He reserved to the trial judge the issue of whether the complainant’s past use of heroin was admissible in the liability phase of the trial.

Following jury selection and prior to opening, the court granted the balance of the complainant’s motion and precluded the accused from mentioning or offering any evidence of the complainant’s past use of heroin. Given that there is a paucity of reported case law regarding the admissibility of such evidence in civil proceedings, the court files the decision to memorialize its opinion.

The motion does not question whether a complainant’s use of heroin is admissible in the damages phase of a civil trial where the jury is assessing a variety of health and life issues relating to the complainant, such as life expectancy. In that context, with an appropriate foundation, testimony regarding the complainant’s heroin use would surely be admissible. Nor is it about whether the complainant was under the influence of heroin at the time of the accident so that his powers of perception or recollection might actually have been impaired by his heroin habit; nor whether the complainant was under the influence of heroin at the time of his testimony. The use of heroin by the complainant in those circumstances would be admissible even in the liability phase to impeach his credibility as a witness. Indeed, in all of those situations, proof of heroin use and addiction even by extrinsic evidence would be proper. The lone issue decided by the court on the branch of the motion reserved to it was whether the complainant’s past use of heroin was admissible as an act of moral depravity offered only to attack his credibility as a witness.

Published on: October 4, 2012

Contractor Charged with Grand Larceny

by Stephen Bilkis

A job contractor entered into a contract with an elderly homeowner for minor repairs to his house. When the minor repairs were finished, the job contractor asked the man to sign a receipt. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the homeowner was functionally literate, that is he can only read and write his own name. He cannot read much else. The homeowner thought that the job contractor was asking him to sign a receipt to evidence that he had duly worked on and made minor repairs on his house for the amount of $700.

The truth of the matter was that the job contractor asked the functionally literate homeowner to sign a mortgage deed and a promissory note for the amount of $1795. The job contractor was going to induce the homeowner to apply for loan and to sign a deed of mortgage on his house as collateral to pay for the loan. The promissory note was proof that the homeowner intended to borrow money and to pay it.

The functionally literate homeowner pressed charges against the job contractor for forgery, and for grand larceny which was committed by defrauding another in an amount exceeding $100. The job contractor was found guilty of the crime of grand larceny.

Published on: October 4, 2012

Court Discusses Larceny Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

A man went to a house in a residential neighborhood. It was eleven thirty in the evening and all the three residents of the house were fast asleep. The man went up the roof and was preparing to enter the house through a bedroom with an open screened window.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said tne resident of the house was fast asleep in the bedroom as the man was trying to enter through the screen window. The noise made by the man outside the window woke the resident of the house. He had a .25 caliber hand gun in a drawer in his bedside table. He cried aloud and said “Who’s there?” When the man crouched down in an attempt to hide, the occupant fired a warning shot.

Another occupant called an emergency hotline and the man was unable to get down from the roof until the police got there. The man was charged with attempted breaking entering with intent to commit grand larceny. It was alleged that the three occupants in the house had cell phones, laptop computers and other valuables inside the house which could have been what the prowler intended to take.

Published on: October 3, 2012

Court Discusses the Elements of Burglary

by Stephen Bilkis

Sometime on July 14, 1995 at 11:30 pm two police officers were in a police cruiser and they were parked with the headlights turned off. They were observing two men outside an auto mechanic’s garage which was already closed for the night. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the two policemen were observing two men who were circling around a parked Chevrolet outside the auto mechanic’s garage.

A little later, the two men took out tools from a tool box they carried and they started removing the hub caps and the lug nuts of the parked car. A while later they were able to remove all the four tires of the car. They took the tires and the hub caps and loaded these into the trunk of their own car. Before they could start their engine the police officers came towards them and declared them arrested.

At the police station, the police officers charged the men for burglary, for possession of tools for burglary and for burglary of a conveyance. A New York Lawyer said the two men pleaded not guilty and they also filed a motion to dismiss the two charges for burglary and the possession of burglary tools.