On January 4, 2023, French footballer, Aurélien Michel, was arrested by US authorities as he passed through JFK airport.

He was immediately taken into custody and brought before a federal judge in Brooklyn, where he was arraigned on a complaint charging him with being the leader of a scheme involving NFT fraud. He posted bail on February 1, 2023 and has been at liberty in the U.S. since that time.

According to a complaint sworn by an FBI agent, Mr. Michel is accused of “knowingly and intentionally devising a scheme or artifice to defraud individual cryptocurrency holders in order to obtain money or property from them by means of one or more materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, and for the purpose of executing such a scheme and artifice, did transmit or cause to be transmitted, by means of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds ». (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 2 and 3551 et seq.)

In order for him to be found guilty of this crime, the government must prove that:

1. The defendant engaged in a scheme to defraud;
2. The defendant acted with specific intent to defraud;
3. The scheme resulted, or would result upon completion, in the loss of money, property, and/or honest services;
4. The defendant utilized the courier, mail services or wires in furtherance of the scheme to defraud.

Since April 2022, federal law enforcement officers – in particular, members of the multi-agency Dark Web and Cryptocurrency Task Force – have been investigating a scheme to defraud buyers of NFTs from a collection called “Mutant Ape Planet”, based on the aesthetics of the world-famous and highly prized “Mutant Ape Yacht Club” collection.

The scheme involved soliciting funds from potential buyers, promising them certain benefits before abruptly abandoning the project and keeping the acquired funds. This phenomenon is called a “rug pull” and is well known in the world of cybercrime.

The promised benefits were many and varied: prize draws, exclusive access to other crypto-currency assets and support for a community wallet whose funds would be used to market NFTs.

From January 2022 accounts on social medias platforms such as Twitter and Discord began advertising the NFT “Mutant Ape Planet” project. Messages on social medias described Mutant Ape Planet as a “spin-off collection” of ape-centric NFTs, and directed users to specific websites for more information on the Mutant Ape Planet NFT acquisition, including “mutantapeplanet.com” and a Discord channel for Mutant Ape Planet.

The “mutantapeplanet.com” website presented all the possibilities offered by the purchase of an NFT Mutant Ape Planet and the promise of a vast online marketing campaign designed to highly increase the value of the virtual images.

NFTs, sold on the Ethereum blockchain, cost around $468 each when the collection was launched, based on the price of Ether at the time.

However, once the NFTs had sold out, Aurélien Michel reportedly ceased all communication and withdrew buyers’ funds from the company’s crypto-currency wallets.

According to the US authorities, Aurélien Michel transferred around $2.9 million in crypto-currencies from the buyers to, among other things, asset portfolios controlled by himself.

Subsequently, the only procedural steps taken were orders to continue granted by the magistrate judge overseeing the case at the request of the parties. These various “Orders to continue” can mean several things:

The first possibility is that the parties, i.e. the defendant and the prosecutor, are currently negotiating a “plea”, which is an arrangement enabling Aurélien Michel to plead guilty without having to endure a trial. This type of arrangement is particularly common in the United States. Typically, defendants who plead guilty through a negotiated plea tend to receive more lenient sentences than those who are convicted after jury trials.

The second possibility is that Aurélien Michel’s lawyer, Ira Sorkin (Bernard Madoff’s lawyer, among others), is currently still analyzing the case’s incriminating and exculpatory evidence.

Finally, as permitted by American criminal procedure, it is also possible that Aurélien Michel is a cooperator. This means that, in exchange for a reduced sentence or a more favorable plea bargain, Aurélien Michel would be willing to supply information about co-conspirators in his crime and possibly even testify for the prosecution at the trials of other indicted defendants.

Wire fraud is a federal crime. It is punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine may also be levied.

The case is USA v. Michel, 1:23-mj-00007, US District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

Matthew Galluzzo is a federal criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor. He speaks fluent French and is a Chevalier in the French National Order of Merit. This article was prepared with the assistance of Marie-Lou Serna, a French trainee lawyer.

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.

According to a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, the rapper and five other men trafficked in significant quantities of heroin, cocaine, and the especially-dangerous drug, fentanyl. The defendants (including Anthony Leonardi, Robert Leonardi, Brian Sullivan, Anthony Syntje, and Kavaughn Wiggins) have all been arrested and detained pending trial. Prosecutors claim to have recovered at least 16 kilograms of cocaine, 2 kilograms of heroin, and fentanyl, though it is certain that they will allege that the group is responsible for far more than that. Indeed, the press release describes the amount of drugs trafficked by the crew as “massive”.

Fetty Wap is unlikely to be released on bail pending trial, though it may be possible given his likely financial resources. However, in federal narcotics cases of this size and scale, the presumption for judges is that a defendant should be detained pending trial. Fetty Wap would have to convincingly demonstrate that he does not pose a risk to the public, and that he would not flee if released on bond. Given his resources (and possible ability to live abroad), the amount of prison time that he is potentially facing, the fact that his codefendants are indicted for using firearms, and the fact that he allegedly trafficked in fentanyl, which is notorious for causing fatal overdoses, it seems unlikely that he will be bailed out pending trial.

The maximum penalty for these charges (21 U.S.C. 841) is, in this case, life. The minimum statutory penalty is ten years in prison. In some cases, defendants facing ten year mandatory minimum sentences under 21 USC 841 are able to negotiate five year mandatory minimum sentences, or even plea agreements without mandatory minimums. However, given the amount of narcotics seized in this case, Fetty Wap is probably going to receive no better than a ten year mandatory minimum offer from the prosecutors, which he will either have to accept or try his luck with a jury.

The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines generally enable more precise estimates for how much time defendants are really facing, however. It is difficult to predict at this stage, though, as there are some unknown variables in Fetty Wap’s case. We do not know, for example, whether there are any overdoses potentially attributable to the defendants’ conduct. We also do not know whether Fetty Wap played a supervisory role in the conspiracy to traffic narcotics. Those factors can significantly increase the penalties for drug defendants. Pleading guilty, on the other hand, usually earns significant reductions in the sentencing range for defendants (as opposed to being convicted at trial).

Fetty Wap is of course presumed innocent. As of yet, we have no idea what evidence law enforcement has against him. But odds are that his outlook is very bleak. Federal indictments in cases like this tend to involve numerous controlled undercover purchases, wiretaps, surveillance, and confidential informants working with the government. Put another way, the evidence is typically overwhelming. It is thus no surprise that over 95% of federal criminal defendants plead guilty. So, Fetty Wap is unfortunately probably looking at a huge sentence that will end his music career and see him emerge from prison as an old man. It seems inexplicable that a talented artist with a lucrative career would risk everything to make illegal money in the drug trade. His lawyers will probably be seeking to get him the best plea bargain possible, and then beg a sentencing judge for leniency. That is oftentimes the best that defense attorneys can really do in these sorts of cases. But top notch advocacy for a client is truly invaluable and can make a huge difference in the outcome.

Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan prosecutor who regularly represents criminal defendants charged with major narcotics crimes in federal and state courts throughout New York. He has helped many defendants escape prosecution, earn dismissals of criminal charges, and negotiate favorable plea bargain outcomes. If you or a loved one have been arrested and charged with a serious drug felony, you should contact Matthew Galluzzo to discuss your options.

For now, Ms. Ferrier is charged in a D.C. federal court with one count of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 871 (Threats against the President). Among other things, this charge makes it illegal for a person to knowingly deliver a letter containing a threat to take the life of the American President. The maximum penalty for this charge is 5 years in prison.

Ms. Ferrier is likely to face additional charges soon, however. For example, should law enforcement choose to charge her for the threatening letters she might have sent to the officials in Texas, she could face several counts of 18 U.S.C. Section 2332b (Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries). Basically, if a person attempts to kill an official of a U.S. government agency through the mail in a manner transcending national boundaries, then that person can be charged with this crime. Those charges would carry potential life sentences.

If Ms. Ferrier has a felony conviction stemming from her period of incarceration in Texas (it is unknown to the author), then she could also potentially be charged with a felony for illegally possessing a firearm as a felon. That crime would carry an additional potential maximum penalty of ten years in prison.

Finally, Ms. Ferrier was recently deported from the United States following her incarceration in Texas. As such, her attempt to re-enter the United States was probably also illegal. The applicable federal crime for illegal re-entries after removal/deportation is 8 U.S.C. 1326. The penalties for that crime depend upon the manner in which the person was removed/deported, and whether it followed a felony or aggravated felony conviction.

Ms. Ferrier may attempt to use a psychiatric defense. The content of her alleged letters – not to mention her actions – certainly suggest some mental illness. The ultimate question, however, is not whether a defendant is mentally ill, but whether that mental illness prevented the defendant from appreciating the illegality or wrongfulness of his/her actions. The fact that the letters were sent anonymously suggests that the perpetrator knew the risks of being discovered, and sought to avoid capture. So, the defense – at first glance – seems unlikely to work. It may, however, be a mitigating factor at sentencing at some point.

Matthew Galluzzo, the author of this post, is a French-speaking criminal defense attorney in New York City. He recently commented on this matter on Canadian French-language television. He regularly represents foreign citizens in federal matters throughout the United States, and concentrates his practice primarily in the federal courts of New York City.

According to a Department of Justice press release, David Butziger and David Staveley sought over half a million in forgivable loans for various businesses that either were no longer operating, for which they had no employees, or in which they held no ownership stake. Though they have not yet been indicted, they have been charged by way of criminal complaint Conspiracy to Make a False Statement to Influence the SBA (18 U.S.C. § 371), Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349), and Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344[2]). Though it is difficult to estimate the prison penalties they may be facing, a fraud involving $500,000 might put them at an offense level of 18 for purposes of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. As such, they might be facing a Guideline sentence of 18-24 months in prison following a guilty plea. However, there is no statutory minimum sentence, so they could receive in theory receive probation.

This arrest and prosecution should serve as a serious warning to any small business owners considering submitting false or exaggerated applications. However, it will be interesting to see whether the federal authorities will start making arrests or threatening to prosecute individuals whose applications might contain sloppy mistakes rather than outright falsehoods. Without the assistance of a competent accountant, or with a fluctuating and/or seasonal payroll, one could easily envision a small business owner submitting an “honest” application that raises eyebrows from SBA administrators.

If you have been contacted by law enforcement or federal investigators about a federal stimulus application you submitted for your business, you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo, an experienced federal criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor. He will take the time to understand your business so he can respond intelligently to investigators, and he is respected by federal investigators and judges throughout New York. Most importantly, he will defend you like you’re 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.

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.

Nike’s Air Jordan line of sneakers are some of the most popular and expensive athletic shoes in circulation. Nike has released a different Air Jordan model almost every year since the shoe line was first introduced in 1984. Many of these models are known by their model number, like the Air Jordan XIII, the 13^th model, and some models are known by the year of introduction, like the Air Jordan 2009. Air Jordan sneakers can cost from approximately 100$ to the thousands of dollars, depending on color and design.

More than 42 containers carrying nearly 400 000 pairs of the trendy fake sneakers traveled from factories in China to Port Newark. These sneakers were produced to resemble Air Jordan sneakers in design and color but are “generic” (the “Generic Air Jordan”). They were imported into the U.S. without the inclusion of logos that are trademarks registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Once the Generic Air Jordan arrived in the U.S., they were altered within the New York area to add trademarked logos to the shoes in warehouses in Queens and Brooklyn. Once this alteration took place, the shoes were considered “counterfeit”. Finally, the Counterfeit Sneaker Ring processed with the distribution of the fake shoes within the U.S. at a significant profit.

The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, Geoffrey Berman, because many of the shoes were shipped in and out of that jurisdiction. The U.S Attorney said in a statement that he commends “our law enforcement partners for helping to bring today’s charges, which send a clear message to would-be counterfeiters: ‘Just don’t do it’ ”.

Indeed, the 5 defendants face two charges according to the complaint:

• Counterfeit trafficking conspiracy (Title 18 United States Code Section 2320(a) (1))
• Trafficking in counterfeit goods (Title 18 United States Code Section 2320 and 2.)

Under Title 18 United States Code section 2320, it is unlawful to willfully and knowingly perform, attempt, or conspire to perform any of the following acts:

• traffic in goods or services and knowingly use a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services;
• traffic in labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature, knowing that a counterfeit mark has been applied thereto, the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive;
• traffic in goods or services knowing that such good or service is a counterfeit military good or service the use, malfunction, or failure of which is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death, the disclosure of classified information, impairment of combat operations, or other significant harm to a combat operation, a member of the Armed Forces, or to national security; or
• traffic in a counterfeit drug.

In order for the five defendants to be found guilty of federal counterfeiting, the U.S. Attorney will have to prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• They trafficked, attempted to traffic, or conspired to traffic in goods, services or pharmaceutical drugs;
• The goods, services or pharmaceutical drugs were counterfeit or unoriginal from those created by the trademark owner of these goods, services, or drugs;
• They knew the goods, services or pharmaceutical drugs were unoriginal or counterfeit in nature;
• And they intended for the goods, services, or pharmaceutical drugs to be fraudulently passed as original, and for them to be distributed as such.

The term “counterfeit mark” means a spurious mark:

• that is used in connection with trafficking in any goods, services, labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature;
• that is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a mark registered on the principal register in the United StatesPatent and Trademark Office and in use, whether or not the defendant knew such mark was so registered;
• that is applied to or used in connection with the goods or services for which the mark is registered with the United StatesPatent and Trademark Office, or is applied to or consists of a label, patch, sticker, wrapper, badge, emblem, medallion, charm, box, container, can, case, hangtag, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature that is designed, marketed, or otherwise intended to be used on or in connection with the goods or services for which the mark is registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office; and
• the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.

Under 18 USC 2320, counterfeiting is a federal offense. These defendants face a sentence of up to 10 years in federal prison and fines of up to $2 million if they are convicted of this crime. If it is their second or subsequent offense for federal counterfeiting, they face a fine of up $5 million and up to 20 years in prison.

The author of this article is a federal criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor. If you or a loved one have been arrested for a federal offense, you should strongly consider contacting him to discuss your case and his possible representation.

Most of the time however, people accused of this crime are frequently also charged with other crimes, too. For example, this charge is frequently brought against those who lie to U.S. Customs officials about their possession of cash, in conjunction with a charge of 31 USC § 5361(a)(1)(A). It is also common in health care fraud matters for a defendant to be charged with violating both 18 U.S.C. § 1035 – making false statements relating to health care matters – as well as 18 U.S.C. § 1001. In any case, the additional charge for making false statements may not be as serious as the underlying crime for which the defendant was originally investigated, but the fact that the defendant lied to law enforcement can be viewed as an “aggravating factor” by the judge at sentencing, meaning that it could seriously increase the ultimate sentence that the defendant will serve.

Though the maximum possible statutory penalty for this offense is five years in prison, pursuant to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the base offense level for this crime is 6. This base offense level means that a person convicted of this crime (and this crime alone) is more likely to receive a sentence of between 0 to 6 months in prison.

If you or a loved one have been arrested or are being investigated by federal law enforcement officers, you should strongly consider hiring the experienced federal criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Their team of former Manhattan prosecutors has successfully represented individuals arrested and accused of making false statements to law enforcement officers. They may be able to help you as well.

Federal assault charges can apply to any person who causes an offensive physical touching to another person on the airplane. Certainly, that can apply to physical violence, but it might also apply to unwanted sexual touching of another person as well. Assaulting another person on an airplane is normally a petty offense under federal criminal law, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5). (Those accused of sexually assaulting others on airplanes can also be prosecuted with the more serious felony charge of 18 U.S.C. § 2244(b), however, and attempts to maim or murder can be prosecuted as felonies, as well). That means that the crime is a misdemeanor with a maximum prison penalty of six months and/or a fine of $5000.00. Also, it means that the defendant is not entitled to a jury trial. Instead, the defendant must have his case tried by a federal magistrate judge.

Locating and interviewing witnesses in these cases is of paramount importance to the defense. Occasionally, shaky cell phone video footage might be available of the incident or dispute, and it may actually vindicate the accused person. Sometimes defendants have even acted unknowingly or unintentionally, by virtue of intoxicated or sleep disorders, and such defense should be explored and developed if applicable.

If you or a loved one have been arrested or accused of committing that crime in the New York or New Jersey area (JFK, LaGuardia, or Newark airports, for example), you should strongly consider retaining the services of the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Matthew Galluzzo, in particular, has successfully earned trial acquittals and non-jail sentences in cases involving federal charges or assaults on airplanes.