Articles Posted in New York

The Facts of the Case:

Defendants stole people’s identities, committed bank fraud when opened fraudulent bank accounts in the victims’ names, and transferred money from the victims’ legitimate bank accounts to the fraudulent ones they controlled from an extensive enterprise which they oversaw. Thus, a New York Criminal Lawyer said they were indicted, among other things, eight incidents of grand larceny in the second and third degrees, based upon the transfer of funds from five separate legitimate bank accounts into five separate fraudulent accounts, after which the stolen funds were withdrawn; three instances of grand larceny in the second degree, based upon the deposit of stolen checks issued to an advertising firm into a fraudulent account defendants had opened in the firm’s name in order to steal the funds. Count one of the indictment charged defendants with grand larceny in the first degree which requires that the stolen property’s value exceed $1 million. Thereafter, on 2 November 2006, the Supreme Court of New York County rendered judgment convicting each defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree (four counts), grand larceny in the third degree (seven counts), forgery in the second degree (seven counts), criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (eight counts), identity theft in the first degree (six counts) and scheme to defraud in the first degree, and sentencing defendant-one to an aggregate term of 10 to 25 years and sentencing defendant-two to an aggregate term of 12½ to 25 years.

Defendants questioned the court’s decision and claim that their convictions for first degree grand larceny should be vacated because the prosecution achieved the statutory monetary threshold by improperly aggregating the amounts taken from five individuals on eight different occasions and one advertising firm on three different occasions. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the People oppose defendants’ contention and argue that the aggregation was proper because defendants’ thefts were made pursuant to a single intent and one general fraudulent plan.

Continue reading

The Facts of the Case:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on 16 May 1984, defendant was convicted by the County Court of Nassau County of grand larceny in the second degree (three counts), grand larceny in the third degree, petit larceny, commercial bribing or bribery in the first degree and scheme to defraud in the first degree or bank fraud, upon jury verdicts, and attempted grand larceny in the second degree (three counts), upon his pleas of guilty.

Defendant then filed an appeal from the aforesaid six (6) judgments of criminal convictions and contends that the Attorney-General was not properly authorized to conduct Grand Jury proceedings in accordance with Executive, and that the additional Grand Jury which returned the indictments against him was not impaneled in accordance with the rules of the court.

Continue reading

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the counts charge the defendants in conjunction with payments made by several corporation/parties. It is the theory of the prosecution that criminal liability attached to the actions of the defendants because the money which the defendants obtained as a result of the transactions involving several corporation / parties was paid as a result of either trick or device, false promise, or some combination of both.

In support of this contention the District Attorney adduced evidence before the grand jury to the effect that the defendants either acting directly or through others, made both oral and written presentations to the effect that their new process made “tremendous steps” toward reducing the impact of underground tank discharges so as to protect “our land, air and water” and to promote their services as “today’s solution to yesterday’s pollution”.

Upon examination of the record the court ruled that these generators only sought a disposition of their P.C.S. which would absolve them from liability both in terms of their obligation to remove the material from their premises pursuant to E.C.L. Article 17 Title 10, (CERCLA) 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. and other such similar laws and at the same time avoid the continuing sanctions pursuant to these laws which could follow if the material, having been taken off the sites owned or controlled by the generators, was improperly re-introduced into the waste stream.

Continue reading

The charges arose from alleged unlawful rent increases obtained from the New York Temporary Housing Rent Commission by the defendant as one of the owners or managers of a rent controlled apartment house property in Mount Vernon, New York, by falsely stating, or by aiding, abetting and inducing the false statement, in a verified application, that he and they incurred stated expenses for the installation of certain kitchen equipment, which expenses were in excess of the actual cost and consequently false.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said as evidenced adduced showed that the tenants in question paid the excess increase in rents and thus parted with their property (money) in reliance upon the false statements made by the defendant and his co-owners to the Rent Commission. Under the Rent Control Law, the tenants and their landlords were not free to negotiate and adjust rents by direct action–the Rent Commission became the interceding agent for the tenant, who became virtually the ward of the Commission in the tenant-landlord relationship. It is clear from the evidence that defendant and his co-owner defendants had deliberately set out to exploit this pattern of protectorship, by means of the falsely inflated bill device supporting his and their applications for increases in rents.

Thus, by defrauding their tenants’ agent and protector, they accomplished their primary criminal objective of defrauding their tenants. Defendant knew that if he and his co-owners sent false bills to the Rent Commission it would act upon their applications as the assertion of honest claims against their tenants for increased rents. He further knew that if, upon review of the applications and the false supporting documents, the Commission approved same in reliance upon such false representations, it would do what he and they intended it to do, viz., issue the Orders for increases in the maximum legal rents, with which orders the tenants would comply; and indeed they did, and thereby parted with property they would not have otherwise parted with.

Continue reading

Defendant was indicted on two counts of assault in the second degree, one count of robbery in the third degree, and one count of reckless endangerment in the first degree based on an incident early New Year’s morning 1985 near Times Square.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said it was argued that defendant removed the knapsack from the person of the unconscious woman lying on the sidewalk without the use of force–a grand larceny, not a robbery. Penal Law § 155.30(5) provides:

A person is guilty of grand larceny in the third degree when he steals property and when * * * the property * * * is taken from the person of another.