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.

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.

Notably, federal law and regulations take precedence over state and local laws. This means that everyone in the USA must register his drone with the Federal Aviation Administration and follow the FAA’s Special Rule for Model Aircraft.

There are nine major cities in New York State and all of them have made it illegal to fly drones in them (except for commercial drone applications which might get individual permits or licenses). Luckily, New York City allows you to take your drone to the skies in designated parks and model airfields like:

• Flushing Meadows Corona Park
• Calvert Vaux Park
• Marine Park
• Forest Park
• La Tourette Park

Yet, you must not forget that all of Manhattan is off-limits, which includes: water, waterways, land under the jurisdiction of the city and the air space above.

According to the New York Department of Transportation and the New York State Assembly, there are currently no state laws in place concerning the operations of drones in New York, which means that the general Federal regulations are the primary restrictions on what you can do. However, there are plenty of non-specific laws that still apply to drone use, such as reckless endangerment and trespass laws. Furthermore, a City of New York restriction (Administrative Code § 10-126) makes illegal the flying and landing of aircraft (including drones) in New York City in most non-commercial circumstances.

While New York might have been a little slow off the mark with drone-specific legislation, there are quite a few proposed laws that might come into effect any day now. Thereby, one of them would describe what the liabilities are of drone owners, operators and makers respectively. Another one would allow to predict what sort of damages an injured party can claim from each of the three entities depending on circumstances. Finally, because of the development of weapons, New York wants to ban the weaponization of drones like Florida has already done. But even if this is not a law yet, we can only recommend you to not try to attach a pistol, knife or any sort of weapon to your drone. Because drones have also been used to bring weapons, drugs and other illegal stuffs intro prison yards, there will probably be a law prohibiting anyone from flying drones near correctional facilities.

You should also know that drones are not the only aircraft forbidden in and over the city: it is also unlawful for any person to jump or leap from an aircraft in a parachute or any other device within the limits of the city or to take off or land for anybody avigating an aircraft, except in emergency, at any place within the limits of the city other than places of landing designated by the department of transportation or the port of New York authority (NYC Administrative Code § 10-126).

[If you or a loved one was arrested for piloting a drone in the limits of the city, 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.]

Per the statute: “A person is guilty of Rape in the Third Degree when: 1. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than seventeen years old; 2. Being twenty-one years old or more, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person less than seventeen years old; or 3. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without such person’s consent where such lack of consent is by reason of some factor other than incapacity to consent.”

Subsection 2 is the most common charge, which involves a criminal charge being brought against an older person (21 years old or older) and a complainant younger than 17. Notably, this charge can be brought against the will of the younger party, meaning that it is not necessary for the complainant to “press charges” for the older person to be convicted. Sometimes these charges are proven without the testimony of the younger party by medical evidence or pregnancy, third party witnesses (who catch and observe the people in the act of sexual intercourse), or admissions by the older party.

Sometimes, undercover officers pretend to be minors online and communicate with older men interested in having sexual intercourse with a minor. Those cases sometimes result in those older men being charged with Attempted Rape in the Third Degree, under the theory that the defendants attempted to have sexual intercourse with someone younger than seventeen, but obviously did not because the police officers were not really minors. These charges are nonetheless serious and can result in sex offender registration.

The other two subsections of this charge are vaguer and apply to situations where there is a lack of consent or an incapacity to consent on the part of the alleged victim. Notably, this charge does not apply in situations in which the victims were allegedly “physically helpless,” meaning severely intoxicated, asleep, anesthetized, or in a coma, basically. These other types of “incapacity to consent” include mentally disabled or incapacitated victims, victims in custody of a correctional facility or juvenile placement agency, those undergoing medical or psychological treatment at the moment of the sexual act, and some other hypothetical situations. Thus, it is flat-out illegal for a corrections officer to have sexual intercourse with an inmate, or for a doctor or therapist to have sexual intercourse with a patient during a treatment session, or for anyone to have sexual intercourse with a mentally disabled or incapacitated person. Recently, the outcry over a woman who claims to have been raped by police officers while in their custody caused legislators to propose a bill adding prisoners in police custody to the list of those “incapable of consent” for the purpose of this charge, as well.

Finally, this charge is a serious felony and can be punishable by up to four years in state prison. It also results in registration as a sex offender. If you or a loved one have been arrested or are being investigated for a charge of Rape in the Third Degree, you should strongly consider retaining the services of The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan sex crimes prosecutor and has successfully represented dozens of clients against serious charges of rape and sexual assault. He has been quoted as an expert on sex crimes investigations countless times by television and newspaper outlets, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Daily News, Fox News, and CBS News, among others.

§ 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.”