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.

Of course some of these players may in fact be innocent. But you can expect the government’s case to be strong here. The prosecutors will probably be able to demonstrate that the medical/dental/chiropractic services detailed in these invoices submitted for reimbursement were not in fact provided. And the government almost certainly has the bank records, phone calls, emails, and text messages showing the transactions between Terrence Williams and the other participating defendants. There are probably several cooperating witnesses as well (i.e. former players who did not participate in the scheme though they were approached about it). So, most of these defendants – if not all of them – are likely to plead guilty. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of federal defendants do.

Sentencing at the federal level is an inexact science. There is no statutory minimum here, and sentencing judges will look to the federal Sentencing Guidelines for guidance. However, the sentences suggested by those Guidelines are merely advisory, and not mandatory or binding. In fraud cases, the biggest variable in the Guidelines calculation is the amount of loss (assuming these defendants mostly do not have criminal records already). The defendants will likely be in Criminal History Category I, on the left hand column of the sentencing table provided for by the Sentencing Guidelines. Their base offense levels for Wire Fraud/Health Care fraud would be six. See U.S.S.G. 2B1.1. But then, you would have to add an additional offense level for the amount of fraud. There is some debate about whether this number should reflect “actual loss” or “intended loss,” which would make a difference here as the intended loss (i.e. the amount of false invoices submitted) was $3.9 million overall, but the actual loss was $2.5 million overall. Theoretically, each member of the group could be held responsible for the entire $3.9 million, as they were co-conspirators in a group effort to defraud the HRA. However, normally, in fraud cases, defendants are held accountable, so to speak, for the amount of money they themselves were actually involved in stealing (though that is not always the case, it is a fuzzy question of foreseeability). Terrence Williams, however, as the mastermind of the scheme, would probably have to add at least 16 levels to his sentencing offense level, in light of his being in charge of the entire scheme. Additionally, “masterminds” or managers of criminal enterprises can have their sentencing levels increased by another four levels. Pleading guilty tends to get a defendant an overall three-level reduction in sentencing offense level, so Terrence Williams could find himself at a suggested Guidelines sentencing range of 57-71 months (offense level 25), or roughly 5-6 years in federal prison.

Many of the other defendants are likely to have sentencing guidelines ranges of less than a year, meaning that they will have good chances of receiving sentences of probation. Judges, in addition to the Sentencing Guidelines, also must take into consideration a variety of sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These factors include things like the history and characteristics of a defendant, and his educational and medical and rehabilitative needs, among other things. Generally, a judge must impose a sentence that is just and “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to serve the purposes of criminal sentencing. All of these defendants, should they be convicted, will also be ordered to pay restitution and/or forfeit the profits that they received from the scheme, as well.

Defendants in these sorts of cases can sometimes argue that they were unaware of the illegality of their actions, but that argument is rarely viable or plausible. They might also allege that someone else submitted the false claims on their behalf without their permission. Most defendants, however, simply make the best cases that they can to get non-jail sentences with restitution (i.e. repayment) of the fraudulent profits. Some defendants also choose to act as cooperating witnesses against defendants or health care providers in return for leniency. These options must be discussed with an experienced attorney.

Matthew Galluzzo is a federal criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor with experience defending people against federal charges of wire fraud and health care fraud. He is also a huge fan of the NBA and still plays in a weekly pickup game with middle-aged men.

If you or a loved one have been arrested or accused of the federal crime of wire fraud or health care fraud, give him a call to schedule an appointment.

18 U.S.C. § 844(i) makes it a federal crime punishable between 5 and 20 years to “[m]aliciously damage[] or destroy[], or attempt to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce.” (The penalties are higher when public safety officers sustain injuries).

According to the complaint (as well as video footage available on the Internet) – Ms. Shader allegedly threw a Molotov cocktail (a bottle of flammable beer containing a burning rag or cloth) through the window of a police vehicle while it was occupied by four police officers. Thankfully, no police officers were injured. According to the publicly-available complaint filed against her, Ms. Shader has also admitted to the conduct. In addition, it is alleged that just a few hours later, the two aforementioned lawyers threw similar Molotov cocktails into an empty NYPD vehicle in Brooklyn.

Defending against these cases is going to be challenging for their attorneys. Ms. Shader probably has no defense whatsoever, assuming that her statement was voluntarily given to the police. As much as Mr. Mattis, an African-American attorney, may have a valid grievance about police brutality in America, there is no First Amendment or protest exception to this criminal statute. These attorneys could go to trial and attempt to persuade juries to “nullify” their cases, meaning find them not guilty where the evidence clearly proves their guilt. The Eastern District of New York is an extremely diverse jury pool – almost certainly the most diverse jury pool in the U.S. – but it seems unlikely that a jury of 12 would unanimously agree to forgive this sort of conduct that jeopardizes lives and safety.

Defense attorneys are going to have to fight hard to try to persuade federal prosecutors to charge their clients differently, in order to avoid stiff jail sentences. Federal prosecutors rarely if ever make deals for “lesser included offenses,” but there are some charges that could be potentially substituted for 18 U.S.C 844(i) that do not have the same penalties, e.g. 18 U.S.C. § 33, 18 U.S.C. § 231, 18 U.S.C. §2232. Perhaps they could be permitted to plead guilty to one of these charges in satisfaction of the primary charge. Otherwise, their attorneys might try to have the case charged in state court, as well, with the hope that their clients could plead guilty to an offense with a lesser penalty in state court with the federal court being dismissed as covered by those state-court pleas. This is admittedly something of a long shot but perhaps worth considering under the circumstances.

Ultimately, this case is most likely going to be about demonstrating remorse and good character to the prosecutors in the hopes of earning some mercy or leniency from them. A “proffer” could be necessary to do so. Otherwise, they’ll likely be forced to accept a plea with a five-year mandatory minimum sentence.

Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan state court prosecutor and experienced federal court defense attorney on the CJA panels for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. If you or a loved one have been arrested or charged with a federal crime, you should strongly consider contacting him 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.

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.

Federal criminal law prohibits a wide range of activities relating to transporting people and/or traveling across state lines or internationally for the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual activity. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 2423 prohibits four types of activities and carries very severe penalties.

First, 18 U.S.C. § 2423 makes it a felony punishable by a minimum of 10 years in prison (and by as much as life in prison) to “knowingly transport[] an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce… with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.” This provision obviously applies to those engaging in the human trafficking of underage prostitutes, and also potentially applies to an adult who drives or attempts to drive a minor across state lines so that he or she can have sex with that minor in another state. It could also apply to people who purchase bus or plane tickets for minors to travel into the U.S. or across state lines for the purpose of engaging in illegal sex.

Next, 18 U.S.C. § 2423 makes it a federal felony punishable by up to 30 years to travel across state lines, into the United States, or even to a foreign country (if that person is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) for the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual conduct. So, this means that it is illegal to travel across state lines to hire a prostitute or have sexual contact with an underage person. It also means that it is illegal for a citizen or permanent resident to travel to a foreign country to hire a prostitute or have sex with a minor. Interestingly, a person can be guilty of this crime without actually engaging in the sexual conduct, so long as the prosecutor can prove the illegal purpose of the travel. This charge is frequently brought in cases involving undercover sting operations, in which the supposed prostitute or underage person is actually an FBI agent.

18 U.S.C. § 2423 prohibits illegal sexual intercourse after having traveled across state lines or into the U.S., or even to a foreign country (if that person is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident). Occasionally, U.S. citizens get arrested returning to the United States because Customs officers discover incriminating photographs or videos during border inspections of their laptops, phones, or cameras. Most people are surprised to learn that their electronic devices can be searched at U.S. Customs without probable cause or a warrant. Registered sex offenders returning from known “sex tourism” countries should be prepared to have their devices inspected at the border.

Finally, 18 U.S.C. § 2423 makes it a federal felony punishable by up to 30 years to arrange for the interstate or international transport of people for the purpose of engaging in illegal sex (i.e. prostitutes or minors), for commercial advantage or private financial gain. This could apply not onto the pimp or chief of a human trafficking operation, but also to the driver of a vehicle.

If you or a loved one have been arrested or accused of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423, you should strongly consider hiring the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. In particular, Matthew Galluzzo is a former Sex Crimes prosecutor and acknowledged expert in the field. Mr. Galluzzo has earned dozens of difficult dismissals and numerous trial acquittals for individuals charged with serious sex crimes. He is routinely interviewed by television and radio news outlets regarding sex crimes investigations, and was even once hired by the government of South Africa to fly there to train its law enforcement officers about modern rape investigation techniques. Plainly put, his talent and qualifications for these sorts of cases are beyond dispute, and he may be able to help you.