White Collar Crime

Published on: March 23, 2014

Plaintiff-bank’s allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff-bank’s allegations:

Sometime in May 2003, three discounted non-interest bearing promissory notes were fabricated by defendant-bank and certain of its subsidiaries and sold to plaintiff-bank, each bearing the face amount of $ 5 million; the sale was part of a global fraud scheme orchestrated by defendant-bank to generate money to assist nonparty P1, an Italian food conglomerate, to repay loans made to it by defendant-bank; the notes were issued by nonparty P2, a P1 subsidiary incorporated in Uruguay, to defendant-bank’s New York branch (defendant-bank NY), which in turn sold them to nonparty P3, a defendant-bank affiliate; plaintiff-bank purchased the notes from P3; the notes were each accompanied by a guarantee of payment executed by P1 and a side letter from P2 to criminal defendant-bank NY; the side letter recites P2’s certification that the proceeds of the “advance evidenced” by the notes will be utilized to finance the expansion of P1 South American subsidiaries’ raw material supply sources and to further upgrade and refurbish P1’s industrial plants in Brazil and other South American countries; the side letter also refers to the funds advanced as “financing” and sets forth projections of the value of the goods expected to be exported by P1 companies based in South America from 2003 through 2008; P1’s financial stability worsened and the Italian and Brazilian governments began criminal investigations into P1’s financial structure; and sometime in December 2003, P1’s distressed financial condition and the governmental criminal investigations became public knowledge; on 4 May 2004, the notes matured but have not been repaid; and, soon after, plaintiff-bank sold one of the notes to one of its affiliates, referred to by the parties as, plaintiff-bank Luxembourg.

Plaintiff-bank filed a claim, based on the notes in bankruptcy proceedings commenced in Italy against P1’s parent company, nonparty P0, for common-law fraud and aiding and abetting fraud, and seeks to recover $ 14,566,388.37 in compensatory damages and $45,000,000 in criminal punitive damages.

Published on: August 24, 2012

Defendant Charged with Illegal Salary Payments

by Stephen Bilkis

During the 89th Congress, a Special Subcommittee on Contracts of the Committee on House Administration conducted an investigation into the expenditures of the Committee on Education and Labor, of which petitioner was chairman. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Special Subcommittee issued a report concluding that the defendant and certain staff employees had deceived the House authorities as to travel expenses. The report also indicated there was strong evidence that certain illegal salary payments (white collar crime) had been made to defendant’s wife at his direction. No formal action or criminal charges was taken during the 89th Congress. However, prior to the organization of the 90th Congress, the Democratic members-elect met in caucus and voted to remove the defendant as chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor.

When the 90th Congress met to organize in January 1967, the defendant was asked to step aside while the oath was administered to the other members-elect. Following the administration of the oath to the remaining members, the House discussed the procedure to be followed in determining whether the defendant was eligible to take his seat. After some debate, by a vote of 363 to 65 the House adopted House Resolution No. 1, which provided that the Speaker appoint a Select Committee to determine Powell’s eligibility. Although the resolution prohibited Powell from taking his seat until the House acted on the Select Committee’s report, it did provide that he should receive all the pay and allowances due a member during the period.

The Select Committee, composed of nine lawyer-members, issued an invitation to defendant to testify before the Committee. The invitation letter stated that the scope of the testimony and investigation would include defendant’s qualifications as to age, citizenship, and residency; his involvement in a civil suit, and matters of alleged official misconduct.

Published on: August 10, 2012

Court Looks at White Collar Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. or “MERS” as the nominee for the America’s Wholesale Lender and its successors are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendants in the matter are Carole Folkes, the New York City Environmental Control Board, Baront Associates, LLC, the Judication Bureau, the New York City Transit, and John Doe (name is being withheld). The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Judge Schlesinger is hearing the case.

Case Background

The action for this case started in 2005 and should have been a straightforward matter involving a foreclosure. However, there have been several issues that have come up in regard to the issue. The action has required an intervenor, Baron Associates, LLC. A New York Criminal Lawyer said Baron filed a cross claim against the defendant Carole Folkes and another counter claim against the plaintiff Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. The index number for the case is 2005, but a note of issue was not filed in the matter until December of 2009.

Published on: July 30, 2012

Court Awards Partial Summary Judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs in this case are the Auto Collection Inc, et al. The defendants in the case are Christopher Pinkow, et al. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Kings County.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiffs, the Auto Collection Inc. is a corporation of New York and is licensed by the State of New York’s Department of Motor Vehicles to operate a car dealership. Auto Collection is in the retail business of selling cars. Steven and Joshua Lever are members of the Auto Collection. Autoland and LOV Motors, Inc. are exporters of cars and they purchase high end vehicles and other vehicles to sell to customers located in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. They have not been licensed by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. Oleg Sakhontchik is a representative for LOV. Gleb Sakhontchik is a member of Autoland.

Published on: July 29, 2012

Court Reviews Judiciary Law

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department. The matter at hand deals with the attorney and respondent of the case, Eric Alan Klein. The petitioner in the case is the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department.

The respondent was admitted to the bar on the 7th of March, 1984. This occurred during a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department. The respondent was admitted to the bar under the name of Eric Alan Klein.

Case Background

Published on: July 29, 2012

Court Decides Outcome of Fraudulent Transfer Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in this case is the Banco Nacional Ultramarino. The defendants in the case are Maria F. Chan et al. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in New York County. Justice Lorraine Miller is overhearing the case.

Case Introduction

This case deals with complex financial transactions in the amount of $6,580,150 in stolen funds (white collar crime) from the plaintiff. The transactions spread across four continents, U.S. Secret Service, IRS, Interpol, the FBI, the United States Drug Enforcement agency, the United States Customs Service and both federal and foreign tribunals as well as banking institutions located around the world. The motion in this particular case deals with approximately $1,000,000 of the funds that are in New York.

Published on: July 27, 2012

Defendant Seeking Funds from Sale of a Home

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in the case is Joachim Harris. The defendants in the case are Chandra M. Young, et al. The case is being heard in the New York State Supreme Court. The Honorable Melvin S. Barasch is the justice hearing the case.

Case Facts and Background

The action in this case comes from the sale of a real property that was owned by the plaintiff. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the property is located at 176 Malta Street in the city of Brooklyn. The plaintiff sold the property to defendant Michael Greene on the 24th of August, 2001. The price was $255,000. The plaintiff states that he was defrauded by the plaintiffs as they withheld all but $180,000 from the sale of the home.

Published on: July 26, 2012

Defendant Charged with White Collar Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

Ideal Steel Supply Corporation is the plaintiff in this case. The defendants in the case are Marshall H. Beil, et al. the case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Queens County. Judge Peter Joseph Kelly is presiding over the hearing.

The defendants have moved for an order to have the complaints made against them by the plaintiff dismissed.

Case Background

Published on: July 24, 2012

Court Orders a New Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves a defendant who was convicted by the jury for attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the second degree. Finding two errors of sufficient import, the court ruled that defendant was deprived of a fair trial. Thus, a new trial was ordered.

On January 4, 1977, at approximately 10:30 p. m. the victim was returning to his home at 515 West 174th Street when he was confronted outside his fourth floor apartment by a man standing four or five feet away, pointing a black handgun at him (possession of a weapon). The gunman demanded money to the victim and when the latter raised his hands and replied that he had none, the gunman fired a shot, hitting him in the face, and then fled down the stairs. The victim recognized the gun man as the defendant as the criminal.

The wife of the victim heard shots outside her apartment, she opened the door and saw defendant standing by the stairway. Two men were running down the stairs. One was on the third floor, the other on the second. The wife described the man closer to her as tall and skinny with light brown hair in a medium Afro, and wearing a long dark coat with “something white” in the collar. At trial the victim was also to describe the man with the gun as tall with a “like blond” Afro, and wearing a long, dark coat with a white collar. The wife testified that the other man was tall, slim, with short black hair and wearing “something dark.”

Published on: July 23, 2012

Attorneys Accused of White Collar Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

The rights that are provided to all citizens of the United States by the United States Constitution are considered integral to the operation of our government as a whole. One of these inalienable rights is spelled out in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A New York Criminal Lawyer said it is the right against self- incrimination in a criminal trial. The question of how far the right against self-incrimination extends can be argued as it was in 1960 when a group of attorneys were indicted for illegally soliciting legal business for their firm. They were later found guilty of criminal contempt of court and appealed their convictions.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the attorneys were charged with contempt of court for refusing to testify in a case against another attorney and invoking the Fifth Amendment protections toward that end. They contend that they could not testify against one of the attorneys that they worked with without incriminating themselves. They further contend that the Grand Jury was being used illegally by the office of the prosecutor to obtain statements from them that would be used in later cases to prosecute them. They were subpoenaed to testify before the Grand Jury in regards to a case against a co-worker involved in illegally soliciting business. The attorneys each appeared as they were subpoenaed, however, upon being called to testify, they each presented the court with a letter invoking their rights to remain silent in order to not incriminate themselves.

The prosecutor then asked to speak with them outside of the hearing of the Grand Jury. Each attorney was told that the Grand Jury was prepared to grant them immunity in the current case if they testified before the Grand Jury. Each one was called back in and the foreman of the Grand Jury was instructed by the prosecutor to direct each of them to answer the question. The question was posed and the order was given. The attorneys still refused to testify. A New York Criminal Lawyer said following the Grand Jury court, the prosecutor presented each of the attorneys with the charge of contempt of court. They were arrested, tried, and found guilty. Each of them filed appeals of the verdict stating that it was unconstitutional to charge them with contempt of court for failing to provide testimony that would tend to incriminate them.