Unlike most of the other charges in Chapter 220 of the Penal Law, this particular charge focuses on the value of the narcotics, rather than the weight or quantity of the narcotics. Of course, the value of a quantity of narcotics can be easily disputed. Interestingly, this charge also aggregates the narcotics trafficking over time, whereas most state-court drug cases involve single transactions. Also, many times, charges are brought without sufficient proof that the accused played a supervising role in an actual organization.

This Class A-I felony drug charge carries serious potential prison sentences, as even someone without a criminal record faces a minimum 15 years in prison, with a maximum of 25 years.

Matthew Galluzzo, an experienced criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor, has extensive experience representing individuals accused of large-scale narcotics trafficking offenses in state and federal court. If you or a loved one have been accused of Operating as a Major Trafficker, you should strongly consider contacting him to discuss the case.

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

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

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

The indictment charges the following individuals:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Narcotics (21 U.S.C. 846 and 21 U.S.C. 841)

Wire fraud (18 U.S.C. 1343)

Bank fraud (18 U.S.C. 1344)

The Bribery/Travel Act (18 U.S.C. 1952)

Homicide (18 U.S.C. 1111, 18 U.S.C. 1117, 18 U.S.C. 1118)

RICO/organized crime/conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 1961)

Firearms (18 U.S.C. 922, 18 U.S.C. 924)

Trademark Counterfeiting (18 U.S.C. 2320)

Airplane Offenses (including assault and sexual assault) (e.g. 18 U.S.C. 113, 18 U.S.C. 2241-2244, 49 U.S.C. 46506)

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 78dd-1)

Tax Fraud (26 U.S.C. 7201)

Medicare/Medicaid/Health Care Fraud (18 U.S.C. 1347)

Human Trafficking (18 U.S.C. 1590, 18 U.S.C. 1591, 18 U.S.C. 1952)

Visa Fraud (18 U.S.C. 1546)

Misdemeanors – federal parks and monuments

Money Laundering (18 U.S.C. 1956)

Child exploitation (e.g. 18 U.S.C. 2251, 18 U.S.C. 2252, 18 U.S.C. 2252(a))

Give Mr. Galluzzo a call for a free case evaluation and a quote for his services. Serving Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford.

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.