Scope and Impact

• Alleged losses: Over $14.6 billion in false claims, with $2.9 billion confirmed loss to government programs  .
• Assets seized: $245 million in cash, luxury vehicles, cryptocurrency, and real estate  .
• Schemes exposed:
  • Operation Gold Rush: $10.6 billion scheme using shell supply companies and stolen identities to bill for medical supplies (e.g., urinary catheters)  .
  • Opioid “pill mills”: 44 professionals allegedly prescribed over 15 million opioid pills improperly  .
  • Telehealth/genetic testing fraud: $1.17 billion in fraudulent telehealth and lab claims  .
  • COVID testing scams: $293 million in false COVID-19 test reimbursements  .
  • Unnecessary wound care & hospice billing: Examples include $87 million hospice fraud in Texas and $900 million wound-graft schemes in Arizona.

Alleged Criminal Statutes

The Indictments rely on multiple federal statutes, including:

1. Health Care Fraud (18 USC § 1347)
   • Prohibits schemes to defraud any health care benefit program.
   • Penalties: up to 10 years imprisonment; if serious bodily injury occurs, up to 20 years; any term of years to life if death results  .
2. Wire Fraud & Mail Fraud (18 USC §§ 1341, 1343)
   • Target schemes using electronic or postal systems to defraud, charged in cases like telehealth and medical supply fraud.
3. Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud (18 USC § 1349)
   • Covers planning or attempt to commit health care fraud, often charged alongside substantive offenses.
4. False Statements Relating to Health Care (18 USC § 1035)
   • Addresses false or misleading certifications in health care submissions.
5. AKS–Linked False Claims
   • Under False Claims Act and Anti‑Kickback Statute, claims tainted by illicit payments become false claims  .
6. Money Laundering (18 USC §§ 1956, 1957)
   • Alleged in cases involving laundering of illicit proceeds (e.g., COVID lab reimbursements) ().
7. Controlled Substances Violations (21 USC § 841)
   • Charged against those prescribing or distributing opioids without medical justification ().

Potential Criminal Penalties

Persons convicted under these statutes face significant consequences:

• Health Care Fraud (18 USC § 1347):
  • Up to 10 years in prison, fines up to $250,000 (individuals) or $500,000 (organizations).
  • If serious injury: up to 20 years.
  • If death results: up to life imprisonment  .
• Wire/Mail Fraud (18 USC §§ 1341, 1343):
  • Up to 20 years imprisonment (30 years if federally funded program affected).
  • Fines up to $250,000 (individual), $500,000 (organization).
• Conspiracy (18 USC § 1349):
  • Equivalent penalties to the underlying crime.
• False Statements (18 USC § 1035):
  • Up to 5 years imprisonment.
• Money Laundering (18 USC § 1956/57):
  • Up to 20 years imprisonment; potential mandatory asset forfeiture.
• Controlled Substance Distribution (21 USC § 841):
  • Varies—could range from 5 years to life, particularly with death or addiction consequences.
• False Claims Act liability:
  • Civil, but can lead to treble damages plus $11,665–$23,331 per false claim; whistleblowers can receive 15–30% of recoveries  .

In Summary

This unprecedented DOJ action marks the largest single-day health care fraud indictment in U.S. history:

• 324 defendants spanning medical professionals and criminal networks.
• $14.6 billion in intended billing; $2.9 billion confirmed losses.
• Schemes included opioid pill mills, telehealth, fraudulent supplies, COVID testing, hospice, and genetic testing.
• Charges include health care fraud, wire/mail fraud, conspiracy, false statements, money laundering, and controlled substance violations.
• Convictions may bring decades behind bars, hefty fines, restitution, and forfeiture.

This operation—dubbed the “2025 National Health Care Fraud Takedown” and part of “Operation Gold Rush”—headlined by high-level prosecutors, accuses a staggering number of people of various frauds against health care programs and allegedly vulnerable patients.

Matthew Galluzzo is a federal criminal defense attorney practicing in New York and Connecticut federal courts. A former Manhattan prosecutor, he has successfully represented numerous individuals accused of federal health care fraud crimes and wire fraud charges. If you or a loved one have been accused as part of Operation Gold Rush or the 2025 National Health Care Fraud Takedown, you should strongly consider contacting Mr. Galluzzo to discuss his legal services.

What Is a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT)?

A Desk Appearance Ticket is a written notice issued by law enforcement directing an arrested individual to appear in criminal court on a specified date. DATs are commonly used for lower-level offenses, allowing individuals to be released from custody without immediate arraignment. Failure to appear in court as directed can result in a bench warrant for arrest.

Charges and Potential Penalties

Obstructing Governmental Administration (Second Degree)

Under New York Penal Law § 195.05, this offense occurs when someone intentionally obstructs or impairs a public servant from performing an official function through intimidation, physical force, interference, or an independently unlawful act. This is classified as a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail, probation, and fines.

Resisting Arrest

Defined by New York Penal Law § 205.30, resisting arrest involves intentionally preventing or attempting to prevent a police officer from making an authorized arrest. This is also a Class A misdemeanor, carrying similar penalties of up to one year in jail, probation, and fines.

Trespass

Trespass charges can vary based on circumstances. In New York, criminal trespass ranges from a violation to a Class A misdemeanor, depending on factors such as the type of property and intent. Penalties can include fines, community service, or up to one year in jail for more serious offenses.

Criminal Mischief

Criminal mischief involves intentionally damaging another person’s property. Under New York Penal Law § 145.10, if the damage exceeds $1,500, it’s considered Criminal Mischief in the Second Degree, a Class D felony, punishable by up to seven years in prison. Otherwise, it is typically prosecuted as a misdemeanor.

Next Steps for Those Arrested

Individuals who received DATs must appear in court on the date specified in the ticket. Failure to do so can lead to additional charges and a bench warrant for arrest. It’s advisable for those charged to consult with an attorney to understand their rights and prepare for the legal process.

Legal and Community Implications

The arrests at Brooklyn College highlight the legal risks associated with protest activities, especially when demonstrations lead to confrontations with law enforcement or property damage. While the right to protest is protected, participants should be aware of the potential legal consequences of certain actions during demonstrations. These arrests can be especially problematic for foreign students on F-1 visas, as their immigration status can be placed in peril.

Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan prosecutor and experienced criminal defense attorney who has successfully defended many students accused of illegal actions during political protests. He has helped students keep their criminal records clean and remain in school without suspension or discipline. If you or a loved one have been arrested in connection with the Brooklyn College protests, you should strongly consider engaging Mr. Galluzzo.

On May 7, 2025, approximately 75 pro-Palestinian protesters were arrested at Columbia University’s Butler Library after occupying the reading room in a demonstration organized by Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD). The university cited safety concerns and the presence of non-affiliated individuals as reasons for requesting NYPD intervention. Two campus safety officers were allegedly injured during the incident.

Many of those arrested were issued Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs), a common practice in New York for certain offenses. A DAT is a written notice issued by a police officer directing an individual to appear in criminal court at a future date in connection with an alleged offense. It allows the individual to remain out of custody until their court date.

Relevant Statutes and Potential Charges

The protesters may face charges such as trespassing (Penal Law §140.05 or §140.10), disorderly conduct (Penal Law §240.20), or criminal mischief (Penal Law §145.00) if property damage occurred. There could also be charges of Obstructing Governmental Administration (Penal Law §195.05) or Resisting Arrest (Penal Law 205.30) for those individuals accused of fighting with law enforcement officers during their arrests. These offenses are typically classified as violations or misdemeanors.

Possible Penalties

Convictions for these offenses can result in prison sentences and permanent criminal records (which may impact future employment and education). These arrests are also particularly problematic for foreign students on F-1 visas, as they could negatively impact immigration status in the current environment.

Failure to Appear Consequences

If an individual fails to appear in court on the date specified in the DAT, the court may issue a bench warrant for their arrest. Additionally, under Penal Law §215.58, willfully failing to appear within 30 days can result in a separate violation charge. In some cases, Mr. Galluzzo has been able to appear in court for his clients in lieu of their personal appearances.

Legal Considerations

Given the potential legal ramifications, individuals issued a DAT are advised to consult with a criminal defense attorney to understand their rights and options. Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan prosecutor and experienced criminal defense attorney. He has represented many students arrested and accused of crimes relating to political protests, with an excellent track record of success. If you or a loved one have been arrested for the protests at Columbia University on May 7, you should strongly consider engaging Matthew Galluzzo.

News links:

Protesters arrested as Columbia calls in New York police to clear Gaza solidarity sit-in – as it happened

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators clash with security guards at Columbia University

Dozens of pro-Palestinian protesters arrested after Columbia calls in police

Reasons for Overturning the Conviction

The appellate court’s 4–3 decision centered on the trial judge’s allowance of testimony from women whose allegations were not part of the formal charges against Weinstein. The court determined that this testimony served no material non-propensity purpose and prejudiced the jury, effectively putting Weinstein on trial for his character rather than specific alleged criminal acts. 

This ruling emphasized the importance of adhering to evidentiary rules that protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial, particularly concerning the admissibility of prior bad acts.

The Retrial

Following the overturning of his conviction, Weinstein’s retrial began on April 23, 2025, in Manhattan. The retrial includes charges related to the alleged assaults of Miriam Haley in 2006 and Jessica Mann in 2013, as well as a new charge involving an unidentified woman from 2006.  Prosecutors argue that Weinstein exploited his significant influence in the entertainment industry to manipulate and assault women. 

Weinstein has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The retrial is expected to last up to six weeks and is being closely watched as a significant case within the broader context of the #MeToo movement. 

Despite the overturned New York conviction, Weinstein continues to serve a 16-year sentence from a 2022 rape conviction in California. 

Despite the negative media perception of Mr. Weinstein, he could actually win this retrial. The witnesses will have to testify again and be cross-examined by skilled attorneys who have access to the transcripts from the prior trial. Inconsistencies in their testimony will be pounced upon by the defense. The defense intends to paint these complaining witnesses as opportunists who only claimed to be victims after their Hollywood dreams fizzled. They will be mercilessly asked about their pursuit of relationships with Mr. Weinstein after the alleged rapes, as evidence that they simply wanted something in exchange from him that they never received. Without the Molineux witnesses that prejudiced the jury at the last trial, there is at least a chance that the jury will have some reasonable doubt this time.

Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan sex crimes prosecutor and experienced criminal defense attorney. He has earned acquittals at trial in sex crimes cases in state and federal courts across New York, and he has frequently commented on the Weinstein case in television and print media. 

The trial judge will now be responsible for sentencing Mr. Majors. The defense lawyers may ask that the trial court overturn the jury’s verdict, but those sorts of motions are rarely granted. Instead, the defense lawyers will need to concern themselves for now with persuading the judge to impose a non-jail sentence. The court could sentence Mr. Majors for as much as one year in jail, which he would have to serve at the notorious prison on Rikers Island. However, the court could instead impose a sentence of up to three years’ probation (which would restrict his ability to travel, even for work), or other conditions like anger management or counseling. The defense attorneys will likely propose some sort of counseling program with community service and beg the court to not sentence him to probation so that he can travel to filming locations without interruption or complication. Obviously, this conviction may ruin his Hollywood career, as certain projects have already been put on hold or suspended as producers awaited the outcome of this trial.

If one had to predict, one would not expect the court to impose a jail sentence in a reckless assault case. First, Mr. Majors has no criminal history, which tends to militate strongly against jail sentences in relatively minor cases. Furthermore, the injuries sustained by Mr. Jabbari appeared to be relatively minor on the spectrum of assault cases; certainly, many assault trials involve much more serious injuries resulting in hospitalizations and/or permanent disabilities. Mr. Majors is a prominent person and the court might want to make an example of him, but he is also potentially able to do something positive for the community, as well. So, I would predict some sort of combination of anger management and community service, along with an order of protection in favor of Ms. Jabbari. The big question really is whether Mr. Majors will be sentenced to a period of probation, which would be a huge hindrance for his career.

The verdict is somewhat surprising here. There was some evidence that tended to suggest that Mr. Majors was a victim of Ms. Jabbari’s aggression. Indeed, he filed a report against Mr. Jabbari that did originally result in her arrest, as well. Moreover, an Uber driver who shuttled the two of them together about the time of the assault offered the opinion that Ms. Jabbari was initiating the conflict. It’s always difficult to second-guess strategic decisions made by attorneys in the trial, but Mr. Majors’ decision not to take the stand almost certainly cost him. Courts also instruct juries not to infer guilt from a defendant’s decision not to testify, but the jury had to perplexed by the fact that a charismatic stage and film actor would sit silently at the defense table and let his attorney make the case that he was a victim, without saying it himself.

Mr. Majors will be able to pursue an appeal if he so chooses, but appeals courts are loath to overturn verdicts based upon the facts. Typically, questions of guilt or innocence are entrusted to the jury, as are assessments of witness credibility. Those decisions usually remain undisturbed. If the defense can make the argument that the trial court made an improper legal ruling that had a material effect on the outcome, then they may have a chance on appeal. But there’s nothing in the record here that stands out as particularly controversial, in terms of legal decisions made by the court during the trial. So, it is more likely than not that this judgment will be affirmed on appeal.

The author of this article, Matthew Galluzzo, is a criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor. As a prosecutor, he was a supervisor in the domestic violence bureau of the New York County District Attorney’s Office, the same office that prosecuted Jonathan Majors in this case. He was worked as an appellate prosecutor responding to criminal appeals, and later prosecuted murders and sex crimes cases. In 2023, in recognition of his service to the French government and his successful representation of dozens of French citizens, he was knighted by the nation of France and is now a Chevalier in the French Order of Merit.

According to the indictment filed in the Southern District of New York, Bob and Nadine Menendez were bribed by three Egyptian businessmen: Will Hana, Jose Uribe and Fred Daibes. The latter allegedly offered the couple several hundred thousand dollars in exchange for economic protection of their interests.

A years-long bribery scheme between the co-defendants allegedly led the senator heading the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to use his influence to promote arms exports to Egypt in exchange for bribes that benefited him directly and indirectly through his wife.

Robert Menendez and his wife are charged with several federal offences: Conspiracy to Commit Bribery[1], Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Fraud[2] and Conspiracy to Commit Extortion Under Color of Official Right[3].

Specifically, according to the indictment, Robert Menendez used his influence to provide the US government with sensitive information to help the Egyptian army. Robert Menendez also allegedly advised and pressured a US Department of Agriculture official to protect a commercial monopoly granted to Mr. Wael Hana by Egypt.

In addition, Bob Menendez allegedly promised to use his influence and power in seeking to interfere in a criminal investigation initiated by the New Jersey Attorney General’s office concerning Jose Uribe, one of the co-defendants who offered a Mercedes-Benz C-300 to Nadine Menendez.

Finally, Robert Menendez allegedly used his influence by recommending President Joe Biden to appoint an individual to the position of U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, potentially allowing Bob Menendez to interfere with the federal criminal prosecution of Fred Daibes, another co-defendant.

In June 2022, the FBI executed a search warrant in the couple’s house in New Jersey. The FBI reportedly found the alleged benefits of the bribery scheme : a luxury vehicle, household furnishings, over $480,000 in cash, much of it slipped into envelopes and hidden in clothing. Over $70,000 was also found in Nadine Menendez’s safe. Some of the envelopes contained Fred Daibe’s fingerprints and/or the DNA of his driver. Other envelopes were found in jackets bearing the name “Menendez” and hanging in his closet.

At a press conference, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian Williams, pointed out that the senator’s official website explicitly details the list of services he could not ethically provide to his constituents under any circumstances : “Compel an agency to act in your favor or speed up the processing of your case”, “reverse or influence decisions made by private companies”, “intervene in court cases…”.

The senator entered his not-guilty plea in federal court in New York on Wednesday, 28^th of September.

Sen. Menendez, is facing three different counts, each of which carries serious potential penalties. In addition to significant financial penalties, the first count of conspiracy to commit bribery carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, the count of conspiracy to commit honest service carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and the last count of conspiracy to commit extortion under color of official right carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

This article was written by Marie-Lou Serna, of the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC, with the assistance of Matthew Galluzzo.

[1] In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 201(b)(1)(A) and (C)

[2] In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349

[3] In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951.

Matthew Galluzzo has successfully applied for resentencing in other 18 USC 3582 cases, including modifications of sentences based upon US v. Davis and other changes in the law. He is an experienced federal criminal defense attorney and appellate lawyer and he offers a reasonable flat fee for an application to modify a federal sentence. Contact him today to discuss whether such a petition might benefit you or your loved one.

Matthew Galluzzo is a former sex crimes prosecutor who now represents both plaintiffs and defendants in civil sex abuse cases. He also regularly defends individuals accused of white collar crimes and fraud in federal court.

The link to the interview is available here.

Donald Trump: ¿puede llegar a la presidencia de Estados Unidos? | La FM

As a preliminary matter, it seems reasonably likely that a trial will in fact happen. Having indicted a former president on numerous felony counts, it seems unlikely that they will make Mr. Trump a plea bargain offer to anything less than a felony. To anyone who knows Mr. Trump at all, it seems inconceivable that he would admit to any guilt of a crime, especially with a looming presidential election. Thus, in the absence of a plea bargain (which resolves most cases), a trial should happen.

That being said, it is quite likely that the trial might not happen before the presidential election next year. One can only imagine what would happen to the indictment if Mr. Trump were elected president prior to the trial taking place.

However, in the event that the trial actually takes place on Manhattan soil, the selection of the jury will undoubtedly be one of the most difficult aspects for Trump’s trial team.

To reach a verdict in a felony case, a jury of twelve must be unanimous in its decision. To convict, the jury must agree that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In the event that one or more jurors disagrees with the others, then the judge must declare a mistrial (or “hung jury”) and the case has to be retried, as it is neither a conviction nor an acquittal.

From the defense perspective, a hung jury represents a victory. Certainly, Mr. Trump would tout it as such on social media and in his political campaign. Also, the delay in scheduling the re-trial would likely propel Mr. Trump past the election date. So, the defense team will likely employ a common defense strategy of searching for a rogue or contrarian juror who will disagree with the other jurors just to disagree, or to prove a point, or to seek fame and fortune on the speaking circuit for himself/herself. In short, the prosecution needs a unified team of twelve, but the defense just needs to persuade one juror. Frankly, it might be impossible for the defense to find twelve jurors in Manhattan who want to acquit Trump, so they will likely be aiming for a hung jury. That might mean finding one juror who hopes to make a name for himself/herself by making a controversial decision of national importance in the hopes of attracting the spotlight.

Potential jurors will be drawn from the island of Manhattan – they will all be residents of New York County. Jury service is a duty of citizenship and cannot be refused. People are selected to receive jury summonses randomly through the mail. Normally, hundreds of people are called down to 100 Centre Street every week and told to wait in a jury waiting room until (or if) they are needed by a judge starting a trial. There is no requirement that people have a certain level of education or familiarity with the law. Generally, it is only required that jurors be able to speak and read English and be healthy enough to sit through the trial.

In this case, the courts might elect to bring more people than usual down to 100 Centre Street for the date of Mr. Trump’s trial. Then, as Mr. Trump’s trial is set to begin, about 100-200 of them (maybe) will be brought into the courtroom and made to wait in the audience. Certain general instructions about jury service will be given to them by the judge, and then they will be made to swear under oath that their answers to questions will be the truth.

From there, about 14-20 of the potential jurors (panelists) will be randomly picked to sit in the front of the courtroom and endure questions from the attorneys on the case (both prosecution and defense). Usually, a wireless microphone is passed from panelist to panelist so that they can answer certain pedigree questions about themselves: their name, the neighborhood in which they live, their profession, their educational background, who they live with and who is in their family, whether they have ever been jurors before, whether they have ever been involved in litigation before, whether they have any friends or family members involved in the criminal justice process, and whether they have any issues that make them unable to be open-minded as jurors. Jurors answer these questions in open court before the attorneys and judge, though sometimes if issues are private or personal, they can be answered outside of the defendant’s presence.

Both sides – the prosecution and the defense – would be afforded ten peremptory challenges in total, meaning that they can remove possible jurors from consideration for the trial for any reason whatsoever without explanation or justification (though it is not supposed to be done for certain impermissible reasons, like race or gender). However, an unlimited number of panelists can be successfully challenged “for cause,” meaning that the panelist says something during voir dire (another term for jury selection) that indicates that they cannot be fair as a juror. CPL § 270.25(2)(c).

In a case like this, the court will almost certainly ask questions about pre-trial publicity and whether the jurors have formulated any opinions about this case. In high-profile criminal cases, panelists are not automatically excluded from jury service just because they have heard about the case, or because they may have an opinion about the defendant or the case. The threshold question is whether the juror can put aside his/her personal feelings about a person/case and whether he/she can evaluate the evidence with an open mind (and without considering any pretrial publicity or news reports he/she may have seen).

Any potential panelists who say they cannot be fair will be excluded from service. Of course, some of those people will be lying, as will some of the people who claim they are capable of being fair. But the judge cannot fail to exclude someone who does not give an “unequivocal assurance of impartiality” without risking a serious chance of reversal on appeal. This will be a very dicey area for the trial judge to oversee, as many potential jurors are likely to hesitate when answering this question about impartiality. On appeal, a defense attorney can even win a reversal of a conviction where the attorney had to use a peremptory challenge to exclude a juror who should have been dismissed for cause. Put another way, the problematic juror does not even have to have been on the jury for the defense to potentially win an appellate argument that an unfair juror was not excluded for cause.

As a practical matter, Donald Trump and his attorneys face an incredibly uphill battle in picking a jury in Manhattan. He only received 12% of the vote in Manhattan in the last presidential election, The remaining 88 percent or so of the residents of the island has a very unfavorable opinion of the former president. It is no stretch to say that there are likely many people in Manhattan who would want to get onto the jury(and say whatever was necessary during voir dire) just so that they could convict him at trial by any means necessary. Donald Trump is entitled to a fair trial just as anyone else, but he isn’t entitled to be tried by people who like him, either. After all, that might be impossible to arrange in Manhattan (or anywhere else near New York City).

Trump’s legal team might think it smarter to waive a jury and have the judge decide the case on the facts. This would be an interesting strategy. On the one hand, it would hopefully place the decision into the hands of a more objective jurist. On the other hand, should he be convicted, Trump could blame a single individual who he has already accused of being biased against him. Such a scenario might play well into his broader political objectives. Given the unfavorable landscape in Manhattan, the possibility of a “bench trial” by judge (instead of jury) seems significant here.

Matthew Galluzzo is a criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan Assistant D.A. He has appeared as a legal commentator on TV and in newspapers across the world, including CNN, MSNBC, Fox, NPR, The Economist, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the BBC, and others.

A gag order basically instructs a party to a litigation to refrain from speaking publicly about the case. A New York judge overseeing a criminal case has the power to issue a gag order over one or more of the parties to the case. Gag orders are relatively rare, however. They certainly are not done as a matter of routine. The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, after all, and courts are generally loath to abridge those rights. However, gag orders may be necessary to protect other valuable rights under the Constitution, such as the right to a fair trial (contained in the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights), as well as the all-important “true administration of justice”.

Sometimes defense attorneys ask courts to order prosecutors not to talk about their clients’ cases publicly for fear that they would prejudice any potential jurors. For example, the attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell – convicted in Manhattan federal court of assisting notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein – contended that the federal prosecutors had tainted potential jurors by hosting press conferences in which they laid out the facts of their case. Ultimately that application for a gag order was denied, but the federal judge did admonish the attorneys to adhere to the rules of professional conduct for lawyers, which generally prohibits attempts to unfairly influence juries (or potential juries) outside of the courtroom. After all, the paramount rule of trials was explained by Justice Holmes in 1907: “The theory of our system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether private talk or public print.” Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907).

Sometimes defense attorneys work the media circuit and give pre-trial interviews to the press to try to influence potential jurors before their clients proceed to trial. Trump’s attorneys appear to be doing quite a bit of that lately. In one case, the attorneys for Joey Buttafuoco were gagged by a judge because of their admitted attempts to sway the jury pool with statements to the media. People v. Buttafuoco, 158 Misc. 2d 174 (County Court, Nassau 1993). That gag order was especially easy to justify in light of the Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 7-107 (22 NYCRR 1200.38) relating to trial publicity, which prohibits the sort of behavior done by the attorneys.

Prosecutors do not have a right to a fair trial, per se, because that right stems from the U.S. Constitution and protects individuals accused of crimes. One might think, then, that a defendant cannot be gagged. After all, the purpose of a gag order – normally – is to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial. However, a gag order can be imposed upon a defendant where the defendant makes deliberate attempts to undermine the “true administration of justice” by tampering with the jury pool and making extrajudicial statements. Already, Mr. Trump has made numerous postings in social media (Truth Social etc) about the alleged bias of the prosecutor and the trial judge, and slammed the charges as being baseless and politically motivated, among other things. Mr. Trump might argue that his statements about the case relate to his campaign for president. While that may be true in part, there is no question that he hopes to persuade potential jurors of his innocence by making these claims about the case. In the least, he has to be aware of the fact that his public statements about the case – which immediately become the subject of numerous national media stores – could taint the jury pool in Manhattan. So, a gag order seems likely in this case. In short, if Mr. Trump wants to speak to the jurors in his case, he will have to take the oath and subject himself to cross-examination.

Given what we know of Mr. Trump’s personality and character, it seems inevitable that he would violate such a gag order and speak publicly about the charges. Notwithstanding his general inclination to talk about everything that crosses his mind, it would actually be difficult to run for president without discussing pending criminal charges against oneself. So, then, it is worth asking what would happen if Mr. Trump were to violate the gag order.

Violations of gag orders are prosecuted by courts pursuant to N.Y. Judiciary Law Section 750. A court would have to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the violation of the court order before rendering a decision. The decision would be made by the court and not a jury. The maximum jail punishment for a violation would be thirty days at Rikers Island. There could also be a fine up to $1000.00.

Courts in the past have considered whether judges who have been personally attacked or criticized by a litigant outside of the courtroom can be permitted to preside over the subsequent contempt proceeding. The Supreme Court has concluded that “[a] constitutional rule which disqualifies a Judge solely based upon criticism of rulings and disobedience to court orders during a trial is excessive and unwarranted.” In re Hirschfield, 184 Misc.2d 119, 122 (N.Y. County Sup. Ct. 1999) It should not be assumed “that judges are so irascible and sensitive that they cannot fairly and impartially deal with resistance to their authority or with highly charged arguments about the soundness of their decisions.” Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 584 (1964). But a judge might be disqualified from presiding over a contempt hearing on a gag order where the judge becomes so “embroiled in… controversy” that he should recuse himself based upon the “likelihood of bias.” Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 501 (194).

Prosecutors might request a gag order at Mr. Trump’s arraignment on April 4. The court may decline to issue such an order at this point, and may instead admonish the parties not to speak publicly about the case. But if Mr. Trump and his attorneyscontinue to wage a public media campaign about the case, then the judge will likely be inclined to grant a gag order. One doubts that Mr. Trump could possibly abide by such an order, or that he would. In that case, it seems altogether plausible that we will have a violation hearing on a gag order with the very real possibility of Mr. Trump being incarcerated pre-trial for a violation of a gag order. But that of course remains to be seen.

Matthew Galluzzo is a criminal defense attorney in New York City and former Assistant D.A. in Manhattan. He has appeared as a legal commentator on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, ABC, Dateline, BBC, and other television news programs throughout the world. He has been quoted by newspapers including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist, among others. Fluent in French, Mr. Galluzzo has also been interviewed countless times in French by European and Canadian news channels. For his services to the French government and French citizens facing criminal charges, Mr. Galluzzo was recently named a knight in the French National Order of Merit.

The case presents several interesting questions. First, the investigation was uncommonly lengthy. Law enforcement spokespeople explained that “The crime was immediately reported, and the Guernsey County Sheriff’s Office conducted a detailed investigation.” That detailed investigation evidently took over three years to complete, for some reason. This is not the typical length of a rape investigation; indeed, it is an extraordinarily long time to investigate a rape accusation. A few things might have been going on during that three year time period.

First, there might have been DNA to analyze. Not every rape investigation involves DNA evidence, and DNA does not necessarily prove that a rape occurred at all, anyway (as DNA evidence could also indicate a consensual sexual encounter). Generally speaking, though, DNA analyses do not normally take more than a few months to process – it depends entirely on the state laboratory’s backlog.

Law enforcement might have made several attempts to record Mr. Sills making an admission. Oftentimes, after a complainant reports a sexual assault, the complainant wears a police-issued wire and confronts the suspect in person and tries to get him to confess to his crime. On other occasions, they call the suspect on the phone while sitting with police officers who are listening and recording the conversation. These “controlled calls” are done in the hopes of eliciting an incriminating apology, generally. These types of investigative techniques are not violative of suspects’ constitutional rights because the suspects are not in custody. It is unknown whether this happened in Mr. Sills’ case, but it is a common police tactic in these types of investigations.

Law enforcement probably invited Mr. Sills to speak with them with the assistance of his attorney. This is not uncommon for police or prosecutors to do during the course of a sex crimes investigation. In New York City, for example, detectives from the Special Victims Unit have been known to visit the apartments of suspects or call them to say that there has been a complaint and that they would like to “hear their side of the story”. Only idiots would agree to such an interview without consulting with an attorney, of course. Prosecutors in the city have also been known to call suspects and politely suggest that they retain attorneys to speak to them about complaints.

It is unclear from the articles about Mr. Sills’ case whether he “proffered,” or spoke with law enforcement, about the allegations. Certainly, though, that process could have added significant time to the investigation.

In any case, the matter ultimately made its way to a grand jury about three years after the fact. A grand jury is a group of 23 people selected from the community at random (much like trial juries) who sit in a private chamber and hear testimony from witnesses under oath about various criminal cases. Prosecutors present the evidence and respond to questions from the grand jurors. There are no judges inside the chamber, and there are no defendants or defense attorneys. Defendants do typically have the right to testify in their own defense, should they so choose, but they are not otherwise permitted to observe or participate in the proceeding. If a majority of the grand jury believes that there is reasonable cause to believe that a crime has occurred – a much lesser standard of proof than proof beyond a reasonable doubt – then a person becomes indicted, or formally charged with a crime (typically a felony). So, in Mr. Sills’ case, we can safely assume that the complainant testified in the grand jury and was sufficiently convincing to persuade the grand jury to formally charge and arrest Mr. Sills.

The author of this article, Matthew Galluzzo, is a criminal defense attorney and former sex crimes prosecutor in the Manhattan D.A.’s Office.

It would appear from the complaint that Mr. Michel has an obvious defense that he did not intend to defraud anyone, and that he fully intended to give his customers their NFTs eventually. He may have received the funds and then encountered difficulty in acquiring the NFTs for his customers due to volatile market conditions or other issues.

It is always difficult to estimate sentencing exposure at this stage of a criminal case, but preliminary estimates might suggest the following for Mr. Michel:

Under the federal sentencing guidelines, the base offense level for a wire fraud is usually 6.

For cases involving the alleged theft of over $1.5 million dollars, the sentencing guidelines require that 16 levels be added, resulted in an offense level of 22.

Where there are more than 10 victims of a fraud scheme (or the scheme involves mass-marketing), the guidelines require an additional two offense levels, resulting in a level 24. USSG 2B1.1(b)(2).

There might be an additional two levels relating to the fact that the fraud occurred in a foreign jurisdiction (USSG 2B1.1(b)(10)), but that is unclear.

So, if Mr. Michel is convicted at trial, assuming he has no criminal history (i.e. Criminal History Category I), his sentencing guidelines range would be 51-63 months, or about 4-5 years in prison. Judges use a Sentencing Table promulgated by the Sentencing Commission – see here.

If he pleaded guilty prior to trial, Mr. Michel would likely receive a reduction of 3 levels for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in an offense level of 21 and a range of 37-46 months (3-4 years).

However, there is no mandatory minimum sentence in this case, meaning that he could theoretically be convicted and receive a sentence of time served followed by supervised release.

Mr. Michel would likely be ordered to pay restitution to his victims equal to the amount of their losses, and, if he is not a citizen of the United States, then he would be almost certainly deported following his prison sentence and unable to ever return to the United States (inadmissible).

Matthew Galluzzo is an experienced criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor. He specializes in the defense of federal criminal cases in New York City. He also speaks fluent French and has been knighted by the nation of France for his zealous defense of French nationals accused of crimes in the United States and his service to the French Consulate of New York City.

If you or a loved one have been arrested or accused of a federal crime involving wire fraud charges, you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo. He has achieved excellent results for many clients accused of these crimes in New York City federal courts and may be able to assist you as well.

For many small businesses, the SBA’s various COVID-relief programs, including the Paycheck Protection Program, were critical in helping those businesses survive the once-in-a-generation economic downturn created by the pandemic. However, the fraudulent abuses of the program have become almost legendary and have recently been the subject of many Congressional inquiries.

The Department of Justice this year launched a task force to prosecute – at the federal level – crimes involving abuse of the COVID relief programs. So, one should expect to see more such prosecutions launched against individuals in the near future.

Wire fraud is a very common federal charge prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. Section 1343. Basically, it makes it a federal felony to commit fraud using the telephone or the internet. So, submitting a false application for COVID relief funds online through the government’s portal would certainly qualify as an act of wire fraud. The penalties for this offense depend primarily on the amount of money defrauded from the victim and the criminal record of the defendant, though other factors can increase the potential penalties as well. These 17 individuals recently charged in Manhattan could all be facing potential jail sentences for their alleged offenses.

The lawyers at The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC have successfully defended several individuals accused of federal wire fraud charges. If you have been arrested or charged with such an offense, you should strongly consider contacting them to defend you. It might be possible to argue that yourself did not submit the application, and/or that you relied on someone else’s advice in preparing the application. There could be reasonable disagreement about the nature of the business at issue in the loan application, too. To be sure, these cases are not indefensible.

First, the government has to prove that the defendant actually sold drugs to the deceased person. Law enforcement frequently uses text messages and phone records to prove transactions in these cases. Law enforcement also frequently attempts to purchase narcotics themselves (undercover) from the target/suspect. That way, in the very least, the government can prove a charge of 21 U.S.C. Section 841, if not the overdose aspect.

Many drug overdoses are polydrug situations, meaning that the deceased person ingested more than one drug recently. In those cases, it can be more complicated to ascertain the precise “but for” cause of death. Certain drugs may interact with each other in unclear ways, and other drugs may work together in aggregate towards the same toxidrome. It is critical to have the assistance of a toxicological expert and an attorney familiar with some of the issues in overdose analysis. Many if not most of the federal prosecutions in this sphere nowadays involve fentanyl, and that drug is indeed far more potent, prevalent and deadly than most others. But that doesn’t mean that fentanyl – even when it shows in the victim’s bloodwork – is always the but for cause of death.

Matthew Galluzzo of the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo has successfully represented individuals charged with causing fatal overdoses through drug distribution. Should you or a loved one be charged with such a crime, you should strongly consider retaining his services. These cases are extremely serious and require passionate advocacy and technical expertise. Mr. Galluzzo operates primarily out of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey federal courts, but also occasionally represents clients in other federal courts across the country.

The indictment charges the following individuals:

LUIS FELICIANO, a.k.a. “Louminaty,” 38, of East Hartford
JOSE TIRADO, a.k.a. “Joselito” and “Leet,” 41, of Hartford
CARL JONES, a.k.a. “M.O.B.,” 41, of Hartford
LUIS ROBLES, a.k.a. “Lou,” 25, of Hartford
ROBERTO DIAZ, a.k.a. “Dragon Eyes,” 52, of West Hartford
MILTON ROSARIO, a.k.a. “Little,” 39, of Hartford
ANGEL DELGADO, 58, of Hartford
MARTIN MALDONADO, 33, of Hartford
JEREMY OZUNA, 27, of New Jersey
ROBERT VALLE, 58, of Schenectady, New York
MARSHA WATSON, 33, of Bangor, Maine
DEVIN TEXIRA, a.k.a. “LV,” 25, of Hartford
JOSHUA RODRIGUEZ, 31, of Hartford
JOEL DELEON, JR., a.k.a. “Psycho,” 41, of Hartford
HERIBERTO MENDEZ, a.k.a. “Big Ed,” 43, of Hartford
CHRISTOPHER GILLIARD, a.k.a. “CJ” and “Gilly,” 34, of Hartford.

They are charged with violations of 21 U.S.C. Section 846 (a conspiracy to distribute narcotics, meaning a working agreement to do a crime together) and violations of 21 U.S.C. Section 841. The seriousness of the latter charge depends on the quantity of the drugs for which the conspirators are responsible (or at least, the amount that was reasonably foreseeable to them as conspirators), with the most serious charge being 21 USC Section 841(a)(1)(A). That latter charge carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. Other federal drug charges under Section 841 carry 5 year mandatory minimum sentences, and others have no mandatory minimum at all (though there could be a twenty-year maximum).

Several of the defendants are also charged with various firearms offenses. The 922g charge in this indictment means possession of a firearm by a “prohibited person,” which in this case means a person with a prior felony conviction. The 924c charge relates to the possession or use of a firearm in furtherance of a narcotics-related crime. So, just having access to the gun while operating as a drug dealer can be sufficient evidence of guilt for this crime. It could carry a potential five-year sentence to run consecutive to any narcotics-related sentence.

Notably, the press release explains that this case involves a significant quantity of fentanyl. That drug is oftentimes used to lace other drugs, make counterfeit pills (fake Xanax or Oxycodone), and all-too-often causes fatal overdoses. As such, the penalties for fentanyl can be significant, and individuals convicted of trafficking fentanyl may not be eligible for certain credits for early release from prison.

If you or a loved one have been charged with violating the federal narcotics or firearm laws, you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo. He is a federal criminal defense attorney based in New York and Connecticut and former Manhattan prosecutor.

The question on everyone’s mind has been whether Ms. Maxwell will finally disclose the names of the other purportedly rich and powerful celebrities who engaged in illicit conduct with minors and Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Maxwell has steadfastly refused to do that, even after Epstein’s death (to the surprise of some). Ms. Maxwell initially denied being knowingly involved in any criminal conduct, and her statement at sentencing was hardly an apology, either.

Ms. Maxwell may also have a legitimate ground for an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. After the verdict, a juror disclosed that they had not told the Court during jury selection about having been a victim of a sexual assault. Judge Nathan (the trial judge) denied a motion for a new trial on that basis, and Maxwell will almost certainly pursue that argument on appeal.

The question now is whether Ms. Maxwell will consider disclosing the names of the Epstein “clients” pursuant to Federal Rule 35. That rule makes it possible for a convicted defendant to have their sentence reduced for providing “substantial assistance” to law enforcement following the imposition of sentence:

(b) Reducing a Sentence for Substantial Assistance.

(1) In General. Upon the government’s motion made within one year of sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if the defendant, after sentencing, provided substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person.

(2) Later Motion. Upon the government’s motion made more than one year after sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if the defendant’s substantial assistance involved:

(A) information not known to the defendant until one year or more after sentencing;

(B) information provided by the defendant to the government within one year of sentencing, but which did not become useful to the government until more than one year after sentencing; or

(C) information the usefulness of which could not reasonably have been anticipated by the defendant until more than one year after sentencing and which was promptly provided to the government after its usefulness was reasonably apparent to the defendant.

As you can see, Ms. Maxwell will need to disclose this information within a year, or it will be too late for her to benefit. She theoretically might try to appeal her sentence before making that decision to cooperate, but her appeal might take longer than a year to resolve. Clearly, though, were she to divulge important information about “the clients” to federal prosecutors, she might be able to reduce her sentence such that she does not risk dying in prison.

Matthew Galluzzo is a New York City federal criminal defense attorney and former sex crimes prosecutor in Manhattan.

Previously, judges were required to impose 25-year consecutive sentences on convictions for 924(c) firearm charges when the defendants had previous convictions for 924(c). However, the problem with this law is that a person who committed two violations of 924(c) would be sentenced to a 25-year mandatory minimum consecutive sentence, even if they committed that second 924(c) violation before being convicted of the first 924(c). That is precisely what happened to Mr. Johnson: he was arrested in North Carolina for a bank robbery with a firearm, and then charged shortly thereafter with another robbery with a firearm in New York. Even though he had not yet been convicted of a 924(c) charge when he committed the robbery in New York, he got the mandatory minimum consecutive 25-year sentence because the other 924(c) crime happened in North Carolina (and he was convicted in that case) before being sentenced in New York.

Congress clarified this issue recently such that in order for the mandatory consecutive 25-year sentence to apply, the first conviction for 924(c) had to have been final before the commission of the second 924(c) crime. Judges then generally have discretion to modify sentences imposed under the old scheme. United States v. Ballard, 2021 WL 3285009, at *4-*5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2021); 18 U.S.C. Section 3582. Mr. Galluzzo and Mr. Johnson argued that Mr. Johnson had undergone significant rehabilitation, that he suffered from a variety of health ailments, and that the requested sentence modification still constituted sufficient punishment for his offenses, in which no one was injured.

The court generally agreed and reduced Mr. Johnson’s aggregate sentence by about thirteen years.

If you or a loved one need the assistance of an experienced federal criminal defense attorney, or wish to pursue an appeal of a “stacked” sentence under 924(c), you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo.

The decision from Judge Rakoff is available here: Rakoff decision Leonard Johnson.