an unserialized “ghost gun” seized from a client

🛠️ Defining Ghost Guns and Unserialized Components

Under New York law, a “ghost gun” refers to an unserialized firearm, including both completed and unfinished frames or receivers. An “unfinished frame or receiver” is defined as any material that has been shaped or formed for the purpose of becoming the frame or receiver of a firearm and which may readily be made into a functional frame or receiver through milling, drilling, or other means. 

⚖️ Key Statutes and Offenses

1. Criminal Sale of a Ghost Gun in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 265.60)

• Offense: Knowingly selling, exchanging, giving, or disposing of a ghost gun to another person.
• Exceptions: Not applicable if the individual voluntarily surrenders the ghost gun to law enforcement or, within six months, disposes of it to a licensed gunsmith.
• Penalty: Class E felony.  

2. Criminal Sale of a Ghost Gun in the First Degree (Penal Law § 265.61)

• Offense: Selling, exchanging, giving, or disposing of ten or more ghost guns to another person.
• Exceptions: Similar to the second-degree offense, including voluntary surrender or transfer to a licensed gunsmith within six months.
• Penalty: Class D felony.

3. Criminal Possession of an Undetectable Firearm (Penal Law § 265.01(9))

• Offense: Knowingly possessing a firearm that is not detectable by metal detectors or X-ray machines.
• Penalty: Class D felony. 

🛡️ Legislative Background

In 2021, New York enacted the Jose Webster Untraceable Firearms Act and the Scott J. Beigel Unfinished Receiver Act, which collectively prohibit the possession and sale of ghost guns and their components. These laws also require gunsmiths and dealers to register firearms and unfinished frames or receivers they assemble. 

📌 Enforcement and Legal Precedents

In March 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James secured a $7.8 million judgment against Florida-based retailer Indie Guns for illegally selling ghost gun components in New York. The company was permanently banned from selling such parts in the state.

Additionally, in December 2024, Congressman Ritchie Torres called on Governor Kathy Hochul to close loopholes in New York’s ghost gun laws, particularly concerning the manufacturing of 3D-printed ghost guns, following a high-profile murder involving such a weapon.

📝 Conclusion

New York’s stringent laws aim to curb the proliferation of ghost guns and enhance public safety. Individuals found in violation of these statutes face serious legal consequences, including felony charges and significant penalties. The state’s proactive approach underscores its commitment to addressing the challenges posed by untraceable firearms. Of course, the possession or sale or use of ghost guns can also be prosecuted in federal courts by federal prosecutors under federal law, too.

Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan prosecutor and experienced criminal defense attorney who has successfully defended and represented people arrested for the possession of ghost guns. If you or a loved one have been arrested for this offense in the New York City area, you should strongly consider engaging Matthew Galluzzo to be your attorney.

Common Desk Appearance Tickets from JFK Airport include 1) shoplifting offenses (Petit Larceny – PL 155.25, a Class A misdemeanor) at the JFK retail shops or duty-free stores, 2) misdemeanor possession of controlled substances (PL 220.03), 3) misdemeanor possession of a weapon, such as a knife or collapsable baton or brass knuckles (PL 265.01), 4) theft of services, such as failing to pay a bar or restaurant tab (PL 165.15), and 5) assault (PL 120.00, a Class A misdemeanor). However, there are many other possible offenses at JFK Airport that could result in Desk Appearance Tickets.

A Desk Appearance Ticket is the same thing as a criminal arrest and a conviction for a misdemeanor can give you a permanent and public criminal record. It can also potentially result in jail time, probation, fines, loss of employment, loss of immigration status, and loss of licensure, depending on the circumstances. These DATs must be taken seriously, as should any criminal arrest. Matthew Galluzzo has successfully helped over 100 clients earn dismissals in cases involving Desk Appearance Tickets, and has specifically helped over a dozen clients with charges stemming from JFK Airport.

Generally, a person who receives a Desk Appearance Ticket from JFK Airport must appear in Queens Criminal Court (located at 125-01 Queens Boulevard) as instructed by the ticket. Sometimes these court dates occur on weekends. Of course, many of the people arrested in JFK are travelers from out of town or even out of the country. In certain types of cases, Matthew Galluzzo has successfully appeared of behalf of many out-of-town and foreign clients and resolved these cases favorably without the clients having to appear personally. If you are a foreign or out-of-town client with a JFK Desk Appearance Ticket, you should strongly consider hiring Matthew Galluzzo to appear on your behalf, so that you do not have to make a special trip back to New York City just to appear in court to resolve a misdemeanor offense.

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 allegations in these cases suggest that the defendants used the public enthusiasm and fervor around cryptocurrency investing to run what amounted to a Ponzi scheme with a crypto appearance. The defendants allegedly went to crypto conventions and investor events and flashed conspicuous wealth in order to persuade people to invest in their cryptocurrencies. The defendants allegedly used a software platform to allow investors to see their investments growing, but the defendants would not allow the investors to withdraw funds. Meanwhile, these defendants allegedly used the investor funds for their own purposes and spent the money lavishly.

The defendants might argue that there was in fact a real cryptocurrency investment that simply failed, as so many cryptocurrencies have. (Some reputable economists might even argue that the entire cryptocurrency industry is, at base, a Ponzi scheme in and of itself.) Prosecutors will use bank records and other evidence to show that these investor accounts ran dry because they were emptied by the defendants.

The charges here are predominately conspiracies to commit Wire Fraud (18 USC 1343) and Money Laundering (18 USC 1956(h)). A person commits wire fraud, basically, when he or she commits fraud using the internet or a telephone system. Money laundering involves taking stolen money (or proceeds from an illegal activity) and knowingly converting it into another form or depositing it into a bank account, for example.

The defendants face significant potential prison sentences. Generally, the penalties for wire fraud and money laundering depend largely on the amount of money stolen. However, the penalties can increase significantly where there are many victims, or when a person acts as a manager of others in the criminal conspiracy, or when the person has a criminal record. In addition to prison penalties, the defendants, if convicted, can expect to owe their victims significant amounts in restitution.

Matthew Galluzzo is an experienced criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor. He has successfully represented many individuals accused of federal wire fraud and money laundering and understands how prosecutors investigate and build their cases. If you or a loved one have been accused of wire fraud in federal court, you should strongly consider contacting him today to discuss his potential representation.

Oftentimes, in these cases in which no one was injured, a protester-defendant could – with the help of an experienced attorney – successfully negotiate a plea bargain whereby the protester will have no criminal record and spend no time in jail (such as an “adjournment in contemplation of dismissal or a violation like Disorderly Conduct). In cases involving Desk Appearance Tickets, such negotiations may even be possible prior to the return date (i.e. the first court appearance). However, for reasons relating to principle, many protester-defendants refuse to accept any such deal, preferring to demand dismissal or a trial where their voices can be heard by a jury. Such an attitude is certainly understandable but it does tend to increase the risk of a negative result (such as a permanent criminal record).

Unfortunately, some protests escalate into confrontations with police officers. In those cases, charges like Assault in the Second Degree can sometimes be levied against arrested protesters alleged to have injured police officers. That charge is a serious felony that can carry real jail time, and should not be treated lightly at all. The best defense in these cases is often to argue that the defendant did not act unreasonably, and that any injuries to the police officer were sustained on account of his/her own aggressive or improper actions. In today’s current climate, that argument can have real traction with some jurors.

Thankfully, nowadays many protesters have video footage of their arrests, or their behavior just prior to being arrested. Oftentimes, this footage can be helpful to their defenses. In those cases, it may make sense for their attorneys to share the footage with prosecutors in the hopes of securing outright dismissals. Of course, an outright dismissal of an arrest charge can open the door to a lawsuit for wrongful arrest against the City.

Sometimes people attempt to intervene during an arrest of a protester by trying to prevent the police officer from apprehending someone else. In these cases, the intervenors typically are charged with Obstructing Government Administration or Resisting Arrest, misdemeanors. A person being unlawfully arrested can argue that they are not guilty of Resisting Arrest because the arrest was unlawful or unauthorized under the circumstances, and an intervenor may also be able to successfully argue the same thing.

Generally speaking, defendants (and defense attorneys) prefer some anonymity with respect to their cases, and prefer to try their cases discretely in the courtroom. However, for those defendants seeking trials by jury, attorneys should consider trying to garner public sympathy and/or publicity for the client’s case before the trial. After all, these cases frequently depend less on the facts presented at trial so much as they do upon the attitudes of the fact-finders (i.e. judges or juries) deciding the case.

If you or a loved one have been arrested or given a Desk Appearance Ticket in New York City for protesting, you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo. He is an experienced criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan state prosecutor. He is also a civil rights attorney who has successfully sued members of the NYPD for false arrest and police brutality.

The biggest changes in the policy involve 1) granting accused students the right to cross-examine and confront their accusers (though not personally), 2) establishing that the standard of proof for a finding of guilt may be either “clear and convincing” or a “preponderance of the evidence,” (matching civil law standards, generally) , and 3) and redefining the meaning of “sexual harassment” to align with the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition: “sexual harassment” is unwelcome conduct that is “so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies a person equal educational access.” (Under the Obama administration, sexual harassment was more broadly defined as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.”)

These changes will have a huge impact on Title IX sexual harassment/assault proceedings on college campuses. Previously, in connection with complaints of sexual assault to school administrators, student/complainants would give their version of events (one way or another) during an investigation and/or hearing, and the accused would have the ability to give his/her version of events. However, there would be no confronting of the witnesses by the adverse parties. Moreover, the standard of proof was so low, the administrators so risk-averse and generally sympathetic to victims, and the elements of an actionable offense were so broad that successfully defending against these accusations was exceptionally difficult. As a practical matter, accused students generally lost and were disciplined or expelled. However, many students complained that the trials were akin to the Salem witch trials, with no due process and no real chance to win. Indeed, lawsuits were filed by accused students in federal courts across the country, and so many of them persuaded courts that they had been denied due process during Title IX investigations that these changes by the current administration may have been an inevitable response to the litigation.

Victims’ advocates are complaining that these new measures will prevent complainants from coming forward, thus increasing the frequency of sexual assault on campus. There may be some truth to this concern, admittedly. Of course, our criminal justice system would also find it much “easier” to prosecute and convict criminals if there were no juries, constitutional rights, or defense attorneys. These victims’ advocates perhaps fail to acknowledge that our criminal justice system provides those protections, thankfully, to prevent rampant abuse of the system by untruthful complainants and to ensure that innocent people are not punished for things they did not do. Within the context of Title IX, it only seems fair that students accused of “crimes” should not lose their valuable educational “rights” without some similar due process. Some victims’ advocates promote the mantra “Believe Victims,” but to pretend or believe that every complainant is honest and truthful would require one to have no actual experience in the field. Thankfully, our lead attorney is a former Manhattan sex crimes prosecutor and longtime criminal defense attorney with significant experience in these matters.

We have represented university students who have been the victims of flat-out false complaints. These complaints were made for a variety of terrible reasons, and live cross-examination will make it easier for falsely-accused students to demonstrate these issues to the administrators. The introduction of cross-examination also makes the advice or assistance of a seasoned criminal defense attorney – whose stock and trade is cross-examination – even more important than before in this process. Keep in mind that the new rules will permit cross-examination (with serious restrictions to prevent the questions from becoming abusive), but the accused themselves will not be permitted to perform the cross-examinations so as to prevent that uncomfortable confrontation/conversation between accused and accuser. As such, an attorney will almost have to be employed to perform the cross-examination on behalf of the accused student. Accused students should not be relying upon pre-law student friends or random uncles to cross-examine their accusers with so much at stake.

Other complaints are just frivolous, and the more strict definitions of “sexual harassment” should restore some sanity. Our office once represented a promising male college student at a prestigious NYC-area university who went on a date with another student. They had an enjoyable date and drank some alcohol and then back to her dorm room. There, they had an admittedly consensual “make out” session on her bed. However, the woman later reported him for sexual assault because although their kissing was consensual, he had touched her breast without asking first. As a result of this complaint, this exceptional student who had worked hard to get into this school (and whose parents had paid a fortune to send him there), faced possible expulsion, discipline and/or negative notations on his transcript that jeopardized his ability to get into graduate schools. Although his actions might have technically been in violation of school policy, the student benefited from the assistance of a credible attorney who was not afraid to face and talk sense to social justice warriors working for the university. Defending a young man with a similar set of facts to his allegation should be easier under the current definition of “sexual harassment”.

If you or a loved one have been accused of a sexual assault or sexual harassment on campus, you should strongly consider contacting the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC. Mr. Galluzzo is a former Manhattan Sex Crimes Unit prosecutor and a longtime criminal defense attorney with numerous trial victories in difficult and high profile rape and sexual assault cases. He and his colleagues have also helped many students accused of Title IX violations, and are prepared to help you and your family.

The statute reads as follows (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)):

• (A) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime—(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years;(ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and(iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.

To brandish a weapon means to show the weapon to someone else during the commission of the crime, and to discharge the weapon obviously means to shoot it. There are additional penalties for the use of a rifle, shotgun, silencer, machine gun or assault weapon

Typical crimes of violence alleged in 924(c) indictments include homicides and attempted homicides, robberies, burglaries, assaults, and menacing.

Sometimes in these cases, a group of people are indicted for possessing a firearm that was only physically possessed by one of the members of the criminal conspiracy. Technically, all of the members of the drug trafficking conspiracy or violent crime conspiracy could be charged with the possession of the firearm under 924(c) if they were aware that their co-conspirator possessed the weapon. This is a common issue that arises at trial or in plea negotiations. A savvy defense attorney has to do a careful review of the discovery materials to determine whether there is any wiretap evidence, for example, that suggests that a particular client knew about the weapon at issue.

Non-citizens charged with this crime obviously face deportation as a possible consequence. Those 924(c) defendants with a significant violent or drug-related criminal history could also be categorized as career offenders and be subject to potentially enormous penalties and prison sentences.

If you or a loved one have been charged with a violation of 18 USC § 924(c), you should strongly consider contacting The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Mr. Galluzzo is a former Manhattan prosecutor and experienced criminal defense attorney who has successfully defended man individuals charged with this crime. Give him a call for a free case evaluation and a fair quote for his services.

These cases usually arise out of undercover sting operations by the NYPD. In those cases, an undercover officer pretending to be prostitute wears a recording device and comes to an agreement with another person to perform a sexual act in exchange for money. The offer to pay or an agreement alone can be sufficient proof of the crime. Indeed, Penal Law 230.02 defines a person as being guilty of patronizing a prostitute when: “(a) Pursuant to prior understanding, he or she pays a fee to another person as compensation for such person or a third person having engaged in sexual conduct with him or her; (b) He or she pays or agrees to pay a fee to another person pursuant to an understanding that in return therefor such person or a third person will engage in sexual conduct with him or her; or (c) He or she solicits or requests another person to engage in sexual conduct with him or her in return for a fee.”

The most common charge for such a Desk Appearance Ticket in Manhattan is Patronizing a Person for Prostitution in the Third Degree, in violation of Penal Law Section 230.04. This charge is a class A misdemeanor, meaning that it can result in a permanent criminal record and has a maximum possible jail penalty of one year.

In Manhattan, a person charged via Desk Appearance Ticket with a violation of Penal Law Section 230.04 is likely to be offered a plea bargain. The attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo have been successful in many cases in persuading prosecutors to dismiss the misdemeanor charge in exchange for a plea to a violation like Disorderly Conduct (Penal Law 240.20). This charge is not permanently public and does not constitute a conviction for a crime under New York State law. Offenders have generally had to perform some community service and/or attend a Health Education class regarding prostitution. This result spares the accused the drawn-out process of a trial and eliminates the uncertainty that comes with a trial; as such, most of our clients have availed themselves of such arrangements.

Many people arrested for patronizing a prostitute believe that they were unfairly entrapped. Entrapment is a valid defense under New York State law and can apply in certain situations involving these charges. However, it is typically very difficult to prevail with an entrapment defense, as an accused is essentially forced to demonstrate that the undercover police officer overcame his will and coerced him into agreeing to pay money for sex. Notably, the conversations between the accused and the undercover police officer are usually recorded.

Sometimes the NYPD conducts long-term investigations of escort services, brothels, or other prostitution conspiracies, and arrests johns after arresting the prostitutes and organizers (pimps). This type of charge is uncommon, however. Proof in those sorts of cases typically consists of phone records, wiretap information and/or proof of payment.

If you or a loved one have been arrested and given a Desk Appearance Ticket for a prostitution-related offense in Manhattan, you should strongly consider contacting the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Their team consists of two former Manhattan prosecutors (including one former sex crimes prosecutor) who have handled numerous such cases over the course of their almost 40 years of combined experience.

The crime of wire fraud occurs when someone voluntarily and intentionally uses an interstate communications device (such as a telephone) as a part of any scheme to defraud another of property, or anything else of value.

The main criminal statutes that apply to wire fraud are 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1349. Those statues refer to fraud by wire, radio, or television.

Section 1343 defines as guilty of wire fraud: “Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster ….. or emergency or affects a financial institution.”

Therefore, to be criminally culpable under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, a defendant must have intentionally and voluntarily used a communication device that sends information over state lines as part of a scheme to defraud another out of money or other valuables. It can involve the use of a landline telephone, cell phone, computer, tablet, or another electronic device.

U.S.C. 1349 applies to attempts to commit wire fraud. Indeed, “[a]ny person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.”

A person could be charged with wire fraud if the following four elements of the crime are established: (i) the person voluntarily or intentionally participated in or devised a scheme to defraud someone of money or other valuables; (ii) the person did so with the intent to defraud the person. Moreover (iii) It was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used, (iv) in the scheme.

The wire fraud statute does not make an explicit reference to materiality. Yet materiality is an element of the offense, because at the time of the statutes’ enactment, the word “defraud” was understood to “require a misrepresentation or concealment of [a] material fact.” Thus, other than in an honest services context, a “scheme to defraud” for mail or wire fraud purposes must involve a material misrepresentation of some kind. material if it is capable of influencing the intended victim.”

Wire fraud can involve many different schemes to defraud a person using electronic communications such as emails, webpages, and social media. The federal wire fraud statute specifically mentions wire, radio, and television communications, but it also includes many fraud offenses involving computers and the internet. The information transmitted can be any writes, signs, signals, pictures or sounds used in the scheme to defraud. In order for wire fraud to take place, the person must voluntarily and knowingly make misrepresentations of facts with the intent to defraud someone of money or property.

Fraudsters use various methods to get personal credentials and passwords including:

• Malware: Malware (short for “malicious software”) is designed to gain access, damage or disrupt a computer without the knowledge of the owner.
• Phishing: Phishing is a scam typically carried out through unsolicited email and/or websites that pose as legitimate sites and lure unsuspecting victims to provide personal and financial information.
• Vishing and Smishing: Thieves contact bank or credit union customers via live or automated phone calls (known as vishing attacks) or via text messages sent to cell phones (smishing attacks) that may warn of a security breach so as to obtain account information, PIN numbers and other account information they need to gain access to the account.
• Accessing Email Accounts: Hackers gain illicit access to an email account or email correspondence through spam, computer virus, and phishing.

For example, creating a webpage to ask for donations for a charity or a personal tragedy that is fraudulent could be prosecuted as a wire fraud. Moreover, stealing bank and other financial information to transfer money out of a person’s bank and other financial accounts, to make charges on his credit cards, or to take out credit cards in his name, or sending a mass email to a person’s email contacts with a tragic story as to why the person needs money immediately are other examples of wire fraud.

Wire fraud is a federal crime. Since November 1, 1987, federal judges have used the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to determine the sentence of a guilty defendant. A judge will look at the “base offense level” and then adjust the sentence based on the specific characteristics of the crime. With all fraud offenses, the base offense level is six. However, other factors will then influence that number, including, for example, the dollar amount stolen, how much planning went into the crime and the victims that were targeted.

Thus, for example, a wire fraud scheme that involved the theft of $300,000 through an intricate scheme to take advantage of the elderly will score higher than a wire fraud scheme that an individual planned in order to cheat their employer out of $1,000.

Other factors that will influence the final sentencing “score” include the defendant’s criminal history, whether or not the defendant tried to impede the investigation, and whether the defendant willingly helped investigators catch other people involved in the crime.

Usually, a person convicted of wire fraud faces significant potential penalties. A single act of wire fraud can result in fines and up to 20 years in prison. However, if the wire fraud scheme affects a financial institution or is connected to a presidentially declared disaster or emergency, the potential penalties are fines of up to $1,000,000 and up to 30 years in prison.

If you or a loved one have been accused of a federal wire fraud charge, you should strongly consider contacting the experienced federal criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo.

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree when:

(1) He or she possesses any firearm, electronic dart gun, electronic stun gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal knuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, plastic knuckles, metal knuckles, chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type slingshot or slungshot, shirken or “Kung Fu star”; or

(2) He or she possesses any dagger, dangerous knife, dirk, machete, razor, stiletto, imitation pistol, or any other dangerous or deadly instrument or weapon with intent to use the same unlawfully against another;

Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree is a class A misdemeanor. (Note: there are other subsections of this charge that are far less common than these two subsections). The maximum penalty is one year in jail, and a conviction for these charge can have negative immigration consequences for non-citizens residing in the United States.

Thankfully, these cases can often be successfully defended by a savvy lawyer. Sometimes, an experienced criminal defense attorney can litigate the legality or constitutionality of the police search that yielded the weapon in the first place, potentially resulting in a dismissal of all charges. We have also once successfully obtained an acquittal for a client by persuading a jury with a technical argument that the knife seized from his client was not in fact a gravity knife (as alleged by the prosecutor). Most often, though, clients seek to negotiate reasonable dispositions for these cases that do not result in permanent criminal records or immigration consequences. The attorneys at The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo have successfully negotiated favorable results or dismissals dozens of times by demonstrating to prosecutors the good characters or backgrounds of their clients. If you or a loved one have been charged with possessing a weapon, you should contact them immediately.

Money laundering charges typically go hand-in-hand with other related criminal charges brought by law enforcement. Individuals involved in narcotics trafficking, loansharking, racketeering, or Medicare fraud, for example, usually conduct their business in cash for understandable reasons. The problem that these people oftentimes face, however, is that they cannot use their criminal proceeds to purchase things that they want to buy, like real estate for example. This is when money laundering becomes relevant.

Typically, money laundering charges arise when a person with a quantity of illegally-derived cash wants to put the money into a bank account or buy assets with it. A criminal might seek to launder his or her own illegal money by depositing it into a bank account or wiring it to another account. He or she might also enlist the assistance of a professional launderer who takes a percentage of the laundered funds in exchange for depositing them into an account or investing them in some business or asset. The criminal with cash may also manipulate an unwitting novice into laundering it for them, so as to escape responsibility in the event the laundering is discovered.

The main criminal statute that applies to money laundering is 18 U.S.C. 1956. Section 1956(a) defines three types of criminal conduct: domestic money laundering transactions (§ 1956(a)(1)); international money laundering transactions (§ 1956(a)(2)); and undercover “sting” money laundering transactions (§ 1956(a)(3)). These charges can be brought as attempts and there are also charges relating to conspiracies to commit money laundering without actual money laundering ever happening (§1956(h)).

To be criminally culpable under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1), a defendant must conduct or attempt to conduct a financial transaction, knowing that the property involved in the financial transaction represents the proceeds of some unlawful activity, with one of the four specific intents discussed below, and the property must in fact be derived from a specified unlawful activity.

The actual source of the funds must be one of the specified forms of criminal activity identified by the statute, in 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7), or those incorporated by reference from the RICO statute (18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)). Section 1956(c)(7)(B) includes in the list of specified unlawful activity certain offenses against a foreign nation. Thus, proceeds of certain crimes committed in another country may constitute proceeds of a specified unlawful activity for purposes of the money laundering statutes.

To prove a violation of § 1956(a)(1), the prosecutor must prove, either by direct or circumstantial evidence, that the defendant knew that the property involved was the proceeds of any felony under State, Federal or foreign law. The prosecutor need not show that the defendant knew the specific crime from which the proceeds were derived; the prosecutor must prove only that the defendant knew that the property was illegally derived in some way. See § 1956(c)(1).

The prosecutor must also prove that the defendant initiated or concluded, or participated in initiating or concluding, a financial transaction. A “transaction” is defined in § 1956(c)(3) as a purchase, sale, loan, pledge, gift, transfer, delivery, other disposition, and with respect to a financial institution, a deposit, withdrawal, transfer between accounts, loan, exchange of currency, extension of credit, purchase or sale safe-deposit box, or any other payment, transfer or delivery by, through or to a financial institution.

A “financial transaction” is defined in § 1956(c)(4) as a transaction which affects interstate or foreign commerce and: (1) involves the movement of funds by wire or by other means; (2) involves the use of a monetary instrument; or (3) involves the transfer of title to real property, a vehicle, a vessel or an aircraft; or (4) involves the use of a financial institution which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

In conducting the financial transaction, the defendant must have acted with one of the following four specific intents:

1. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i): intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity;§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(ii): intent to engage in tax evasion or tax fraud;§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i): knowledge that the transaction was designed to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership or control of proceeds of the specified unlawful activity; or§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii): knowledge that the transaction was designed to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law [e.g., in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5313 (Currency Transaction Reports) or 5316 (Currency and Monetary Instruments Reports), or 26 U.S.C. § 6050I (Internal Revenue Service Form 8300)].

Prosecutions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2) arise when monetary instruments or funds are transported, transmitted or transferred internationally, and the defendant acted with one of the requisite criminal intents (i.e., promoting, concealing, or avoiding reporting requirements). The intent to engage in tax violations is not included in § 1956(a)(2).

If the transportation, transmission or transfer was conducted with the intent to conceal the proceeds of specified unlawful activity or to avoid a reporting requirement, the prosecutor must show that the defendant knew the monetary instrument or funds represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity. However, if the transportation, transmission or transfer is conducted with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity, the prosecutor need not show that the funds or monetary instruments were actually derived from any criminal activity.

The transportation, transmission or transfer must cross the border — either originating or terminating in the United States. That term includes all means of transporting funds or monetary instruments, including wire or electronic funds transfers, and the transfer of currency, checks, money orders, bearer securities and negotiable instruments.

Section 1956(a)(3) relates to undercover operations where the financial transaction involves property represented to be proceeds of specified unlawful activity. The proceeds in § 1956(a)(3) cases are not actually derived from a real crime; they are undercover funds supplied by the Government.

Violations of § 1956 have a maximum potential twenty year prison sentence and a $500,000 fine or twice the amount involved in the transaction, whichever is greater. As is the case with all federal crimes, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines significantly influence the ultimate sentence for a person convicted of this crime. Notably, the penalties are generally higher depending on the amount of money laundered, and can be especially high for those individuals who laundered money that they themselves earned through criminal conduct.

If you or a loved one have been accused of money laundering by federal authorities, contact the experienced federal criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo.

Mr. Baldwin was arrested in November after allegedly punching someone over a parking spot in Manhattan. Mr. Baldwin generally denied punching the other person though he admitted to pushing him. Baldwin was actually given a Desk Appearance Ticket and eventually charged with Attempted Assault in the Third Degree (Penal Law 110/120.00), a Class B misdemeanor, and Harassment in the Second Degree (Penal Law 240.26), a violation. Prosecutors reviewed video surveillance footage, spoke to witnesses, and considered the complainant’s medical records before ultimately making a plea bargain offer to Mr. Baldwin. Under the terms of that deal, which Mr. Baldwin accepted in January 2019, Mr. Baldwin pleaded guilty to Harassment in the Second Degree and will undergo a short anger management program.

By pleading guilty, Mr. Baldwin was convicted of Harassment in the Second Degree. However, this conviction is not a “crime” under New York state law, it is a violation and/or criminal offense. As such, in response to the question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime,” Mr. Baldwin could answer “no”. Also, upon completing this short anger management course (typically completed within one day), Mr. Baldwin’s records will be sealed to the public after one year. The most important benefit to this deal, of course, is that Mr. Baldwin avoids the possibility of being convicted of the misdemeanor charge and receiving a possible (though unlikely in this case) sentence of jail.

The downside to this disposition for Mr. Baldwin is that he had to admit, under oath, that he had harassed the complainant. This makes it likely that the complainant will bring a civil suit against Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Baldwin will have a difficult time defending himself against the underlying facts. To be sure, damages will still very much be at issue in a civil lawsuit, but Mr. Baldwin’s harassment of the complainant has already been settled by way of his guilty plea under oath. The attorneys at The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo have also successfully defended several individuals accused of assault or sexual assault in civil court following the disposition of the related criminal cases.

All in all, however, it is a fairly standard disposition in a case in which the injuries appear to have been minimal. (Indeed, Mr. Baldwin was only charged with Attempted Assault instead of Assault because the complainant’s injuries did not rise to the necessary level of an assault charge.) We have also been able to secure outright dismissals for many of our clients, or negotiate “ACDs” (adjournments in contemplation of dismissal), which are superior to violation plea bargains in that the charges are totally dismissed after a six or twelve month period of time, and there is no admission of guilt whatsoever. When misdemeanor assault charges involve very serious injuries, then prosecutors sometimes insist upon the defendants being convicted of misdemeanor charges, which can result in jail time. Those cases in particular require especially skillful representation.

If you or a loved one have been arrested or given a Desk Appearance Ticket for an assault related charge, you should strongly consider contacting the experienced former prosecutors at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo.

Those who are accused of using cameras of any kind to record into dressing rooms, for example, are generally charged under Penal Law Section 250.45(1) and/or 250.45(2), which applies where a defendant surreptitiously views, broadcasts or records a person dressing or undressing, or the sexual or other intimate parts of a person when such person expects to be in private.

Those who surreptitiously view, broadcast or record someone in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, or shower, among other places, are charged under PL 250.45(3)(a).

Finally, PL 250.45(4) applies to those who surreptitiously view, broadcast or record “under the clothing being worn by” another person.

Those who commit any of the above offenses and who have been previously convicted within the past ten years of Unlawful Surveillance in the First or Second Degree are charged with First Degree Unlawful Surveillance, an even more serious felony.

Charges brought under any theory of Unlawful Surveillance are extremely serious, punishable as felonies with the potential for incarceration in state prison. Furthermore, some subject a defendant to either a 20-year or even lifetime term of registration as a sex offender.

So, which unlawful surveillance convictions are registrable in New York under the Sex Offender Registration Act and which are not?

The answer: convictions under subsections (2), (3)(a) and (4) do subject a defendant to SORA, whereas a conviction under subsection (1) – which applies where a defendant engages in such conduct for “his or her own amusement, entertainment, or profit, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing a person.” – does not.

Which Subsections of Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree Are Registrable?:

PL250.45(1) – no SORA registration.

PL 250.45(2) – SORA imposed, unless unduly harsh and inappropriate.

PL 250.45(3)(a) – SORA imposed, unless unduly harsh and inappropriate.

PL 250.45(4) – SORA imposed, unless unduly harsh and inappropriate.

As you can see, a conviction under subsection (1) will not expose a defendant to SORA whereas the remaining three subsections will – UNLESS “the trial court, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and to the history and character of the defendant, is of the opinion that registration would be unduly harsh and inappropriate.” See Correction Law 168-a(2)(e).

So, how does a defendant go about convincing the trial court (meaning the Judge) to agree that SORA would be “unduly harsh and inappropriate?”

Well, Correction law 168-a(2)(e) requires a defense attorney file a motion setting forth the reasons why registration would indeed be unduly harsh and inappropriate in that particular case. Such a motion is generally filed after conviction (by jury or by plea) and prior to sentencing. It should be noted that Judges are generally inclined to deny these motions, but they can be won. The difference between winning and losing can be the difference between no registration and 20-year/ lifetime registration as a sex offender – so the stakes are indeed high.

Recently, firm partner Eric Arnone did prevail on such a motion in New York County Supreme Court on behalf of a young client with no previous criminal history. The client was charged under PL 250.45(4), and entered into a plea deal with prosecutors whereby he was able to avoid imprisonment. The only remaining issue was whether this young client would be required to register under SORA for, most likely, the next 20 years of his life. Luckily for the client, Mr. Arnone was able to convince both the prosecuting attorney and his supervisors – as well as the Supreme Court judge presiding over the case – that SORA would in fact be unduly harsh and inappropriate – a veritable rarity for most defendants faced with such a serious charge. (Mr. Arnone was also able to convince the Judge to grant a Certificate of Relief from Civil Disabilities, which was huge for the client).

What are the odds you will be required to register if you’ve been charged under subsections 2-4? At the end of the day every case is different, but the Court must be informed of your otherwise good character, the extent of your previous contacts with the criminal justice system, and a showing made that your risk of reoffending is minimal – in the form of a formal motion filed in Court. This requires an attorney to get to know you and prepare a convincing motion on your behalf. The other critical component of he motion must address the specific facts of the case.

In the case of Mr. Arnone’s recent client, the prosecution alleged that the defendant was in possession of over a hundred additional images on his recording device for which he could have been indicted for over a hundred additional counts. Because the defendant was shown to be an otherwise good person who accepted responsibility for his conduct and took steps to rehabilitate himself, the prosecution backed off pursuing additional charges and allowed the defendant to proceed to sentencing solely on one count. This, coupled with the defendant’s otherwise strong character, won the day.

While every case is different, an experienced attorney should do everything in his or her power to portray the client as a person first, and a defendant second. This especially is where a convincing motion needs to be worked on. While these motions are tough to win, we’ve shown they certainly can be won.

If you or a loved one faces charges for Unlawful Surveillance, contact an experienced defense attorney immediately. Our team of former prosecutors are always ready to help our next client.

18 U.S. C. § 2241 – aggravated sexual abuse18 U.S. C. § 2244 – abusive sexual contact

But also with specific charges:

49 U.S. C. § 46504 – Interference with flight crew members and attendants: “An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”49 U.S. C. § 46507 – False information and threats: “An individual shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, if the individual—

(1) knowing the information to be false, willfully and maliciously or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life, gives, or causes to be given, under circumstances in which the information reasonably may be believed, false information about an alleged attempt being made or to be made to do an act that would violate section 46502(a), 46504, 46505, or 46506 of this title; or(2)(A) threatens to violate section 46502(a), 46504, 46505, or 46506 of this title, or causes a threat to violate any of those sections to be made; and(B) has the apparent determination and will to carry out the threat.”

18 U.S. C. § 32 – Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities

However, Department of Justice figures show that just 11% of cases brought to the Federal Aviation Administration between 2001 and 2014 rose to the level of federal criminal prosecution. Moreover, even when there is a criminal prosecution, a plea agreement is often approved for the reduced misdemeanor charge of simple assault (18 U.S.C § 113). The airlines are sometimes reluctant to press criminal charges against the traveler because of fears that bad press could hurt the airline’s image, which can be surprising considering that many disruptive passengers can cost airlines big money, because it can cost between $10.000 and $200.000 to perform an unscheduled landing divert a flight or disembark an unruly passenger.[If you or a loved one is involved in an unruly passenger case, do not hesitate to reach out to The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo; our team of former prosecutors and experienced criminal defense attorneys can help you with your case.]

§ 195.05 Obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act, or by means of interfering, whether or not physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county, city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service or by means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the actor’s intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration.

Obstructing governmental administration is a class A misdemeanor.

“O.G.A.” covers a broad range of conduct; cases where convictions for O.G.A have been upheld include situations where defendants pulled the emergency brake on a subway car without any valid reason to do so, refused to move through a metal detector at a county courthouse in a manner which prevented others from entering, or ran on the “set” of an undercover “buy-and-bust” operation after being warned to leave and shouting that the police were present. While the statue requires “intimidation, or a physical or independently unlawful act,” merely refusing to cooperate with a police officer by giving information, or failing to turn over a driver’s license or registration when asked to do so will not fall within the ambit of the statute (although it might subject the actor to liability under the Vehicle and Traffic Law). Essentially, any act committed with the intent to frustrate the purpose or execution of an official acting in a lawful capacity can qualify, like smacking a summons book out of a police officer’s hand to prevent him or her from writing a ticket, for example.

Obstructing Governmental Administration seems to be committed most when street encounters between police officers and civilians go wrong. There are two scenarios where the charge is applied with the most frequency, the first being where civilians try to stop police officers from placing third parties under arrest, either by standing in between officers and the third parties, or by assaulting police officers and/or jumping on them to foil the detention (which also subjects the intervening person to the additional charge of resisting arrest, also a class “A” misdemeanor). Charges can be elevated to a felony if a person uses pepper spray or mace on the officer, or causes physical injury to the officer.

The second common scenario involves the swallowing of drugs in order to prevent officers from recovering them. While no actual “force” is used by the act of swallowing a bag or vial, courts have held that swallowing drugs in an attempt to avoid arrest for drug possession constitutes O.G.A., as well as the crime of “Tampering.” In either of these situation, the additional act of attempting to prevent the police or official actors from discharging their duties usually serves no purpose other than to escalate the situation, and results in additional charges for the police to bring to the District Attorney’s Office when these cases are being written up.

If you are charged with the crime of Obstruction of Governmental Administration, you should not hesitate to retain an experienced criminal attorney immediately. A conviction for O.G.A. results in the incurrence of a permanent criminal record, and is punishable by up to one year in jail.

“New York Defense Attorney Explains the Crime of “Obstructing Governmental Administration.”