Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Published on:

By

On April 26, 2023, in a ceremony held at the French Consulate in New York, the French Consul General of New York, Jeremie Robert, bestowed upon Matthew Galluzzo the title of Chevalier in the French National Order of Merit. This knighthood was bestowed upon Mr. Galluzzo by order of Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, in recognition of Mr. Galluzzo’s exceptional services to the French government and in defense of French citizens accused of crimes throughout the United States.

Matthew Galluzzo, a fluent French speaker, has successfully defended dozens of French citizens against serious charges brought in state and federal courts throughout America. For over a decade, he has served as the French Consulate’s Avocat-Conseil en Droit Pénal (Criminal Defense Lawyer). In that role he advised and assisted that institution on a wide range of issues pertaining to . In 2012, he was named a Young Leader in the French American Foundation, and he has been a regular radio and television commentator in French language media throughout Europe and Canada. He has also delivered several lectures about American criminal law to French law students in Paris and Versailles.

Some images from the ceremony are below.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Matthew Galluzzo, a criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan Assistant DA, spoke yesterday in French with reporters from a French language television news program based in Montreal, Quebec. A link to the interview is below.

Matthew Galluzzo is fluent in French and was recently named a Knight (Chevalier) in the French National Order of Merit for his services defending French nationals accused of crimes in American courts, and for his service to the French government as a criminal law advisor.

Inculpation de Trump: «la loi est la même pour tous», martèle le procureur de New York | TVA Nouvelles

Published on:

By

Now that Trump has been indicted in Manhattan (New York County) for alleged crimes relating to the falsification of business records, some experts have hypothesized that the judge overseeing the case will order a pre-trial gag order over the parties – including the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, and the famous defendant himself, ex-President Trump. This post discusses the legal issues surrounding a gag order and the practical implications of it in this case.

A gag order basically instructs a party to a litigation to refrain from speaking publicly about the case. A New York judge overseeing a criminal case has the power to issue a gag order over one or more of the parties to the case. Gag orders are relatively rare, however. They certainly are not done as a matter of routine. The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, after all, and courts are generally loath to abridge those rights. However, gag orders may be necessary to protect other valuable rights under the Constitution, such as the right to a fair trial (contained in the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights), as well as the all-important “true administration of justice”.

Sometimes defense attorneys ask courts to order prosecutors not to talk about their clients’ cases publicly for fear that they would prejudice any potential jurors. For example, the attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell – convicted in Manhattan federal court of assisting notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein – contended that the federal prosecutors had tainted potential jurors by hosting press conferences in which they laid out the facts of their case. Ultimately that application for a gag order was denied, but the federal judge did admonish the attorneys to adhere to the rules of professional conduct for lawyers, which generally prohibits attempts to unfairly influence juries (or potential juries) outside of the courtroom. After all, the paramount rule of trials was explained by Justice Holmes in 1907: “The theory of our system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether private talk or public print.” Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907).

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Recently, Matthew Galluzzo obtained an excellent result for a client in federal court. One of four co-defendants in a conspiracy to ship stolen cars to Africa, our client was charged with violating 18 USC Section 2312. As alleged in the indictment, the group shipped millions of dollars of stolen and fraudulent-obtained cars to Africa (primarily Ghana). Galluzzo’s client pleaded guilty and faced a sentencing range of 10-16 months under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (offense level 12 and Criminal History Category I).

Mr. Galluzzo submitted to the court a detailed sentencing memorandum describing the client’s difficult upbringing and hard work providing for his family. Mr. Galluzzo submitted character letters from the client’s family, friends and pastor in support of his good character and reputation. The court reviewed these submissions and, after a sentencing hearing in the Southern District of New York, decided not to impose an additional prison sentence upon him. The client will be on supervised release and able to continue with his current employment. (The client spent about six days in prison before arranging for the posting of his bail at the outset of the case and following his arrest.)

In addition, the client could have been subject to millions of dollars in restitution, meaning he might have been ordered to pay back money to the conspiracy’s victims to compensate them for the crimes. However, Mr. Galluzzo argued to the Court that such an award would have been unfair in his client’s case, given his minor role in the offense and his limited finances. The Court agreed not to impose any forfeiture or restitution penalties, as well.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

This week, American law enforcement officers arrested Aurelien Michel, a French national living in the UAE, as he passed through JFK International Airport in New York City. He has since been arraigned before a federal magistrate judge in the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) on federal wire fraud charges, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1343. A complaint unsealed in federal court alleges that Mr. Michel advertised and marketed a series of Mutant Ape NFTs (non-fungible tokens) and collected nearly three million dollars in sales of various cryptocurrencies from numerous buyers and investors. However, it is further alleged that Mr. Michel never delivered the NFTs to his investors, but instead transferred this money to various accounts controlled by him. The complaint alleges that he later apologized on the platform Discord for the “rug pull” (i.e. a slang term for failing to deliver after receiving funds) because the community had become too “toxic.”

It would appear from the complaint that Mr. Michel has an obvious defense that he did not intend to defraud anyone, and that he fully intended to give his customers their NFTs eventually. He may have received the funds and then encountered difficulty in acquiring the NFTs for his customers due to volatile market conditions or other issues.

It is always difficult to estimate sentencing exposure at this stage of a criminal case, but preliminary estimates might suggest the following for Mr. Michel:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

On December 14, federal prosecutors in Manhattan announced two new indictments against several individuals accused of conspiring to commit wire fraud and money laundering through alleged phony cryptocurrency schemes called Forcount and IcomTech. These cases present interesting challenges for both prosecutors and defense attorneys, however, because of the high volatility of the cryptocurrency market and the oftentimes lax regulation of the industry.

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Most defendants charged with narcotics trafficking in federal court are charged with violations of 21 U.S.C. Section 841 and 846. The potential penalties for those offenses generally depend upon the type of narcotic at issue, the quantity trafficked, and whether anyone died as a result of consuming those narcotics.

A similar federal statute relates to the importation of narcotics into the country from outside the country. 21 U.S.C. Section 952 makes it a federal felony to import controlled substances from any place outside of the United States. The maximum and minimum penalties for committing these crimes are set forth in 21 U.S.C. Section 960, and again generally depend upon the type and quantity of narcotic imported into the United States, and whether anyone died as a result of those narcotics.

A person does not have to be physically transporting narcotics to be guilt of this crime. Federal prosecutors routinely pursue people for conspiring with others to commit this crime, such that one defendant might be accused of physically transporting narcotics while other members of the members of the conspiracy play different roles in the planning and delivery of the narcotics or its proceeds. Indeed, these crimes are frequently charged along with 21 U.S.C. 846, the conspiracy statute.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Extradition is the process by which a person wanted for (or convicted of) a crime in another country is seized by local law enforcement and delivered to the nation seeking to prosecute. The United States has extradition treaties with most of the other nations of the world. See 18 U.S.C. 3181. Each of these treaties is unique, however. So, before determining whether a person on American soil can or will be apprehended and extradited, the applicable treaty must be read and examined.

Generally speaking, if a foreign nation suspects that a person it wants to prosecute is currently on American soil, it will send a request for an arrest of that person to American federal law enforcement. If the U.S. government determines that its treaty with the other nation requires it to deliver to that nation a person currently on American soil, an American federal prosecutor will seek an arrest warrant and then an extradition certification for that person.

Once the person is in custody, the accused can attempt to prevent the transfer to the requesting nation. As a practical matter, it is normally difficult to succeed in preventing the transfer. The trial of the person’s guilt or innocence is not had on American soil – that happens in the requesting nation. In deciding whether to certify an extradition, an American court’s review is limited to determining: (1) whether the court has jurisdiction; (2) whether the offense charged is covered by the applicable treaty; (3) whether that treaty is in force; and (4) whether there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause for the charges. 31 U.S.C. § 3184.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

If you or a loved one have been charged with a federal crime in Connecticut, you need an experienced and aggressive criminal defense attorney to assist you as soon as possible. Matthew Galluzzo, a former Manhattan prosecutor with over twenty years of experience, has lived in Connecticut for a decade. He specializes primarily in defending against federal criminal charges, and has successfully represented numerous clients charged in federal court with crimes relating to:

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

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

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, makes state law applicable to conduct occurring on lands reserved or acquired by the Federal government (as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 7(3)), when the act or omission is not already a crime under Federal law. For example, a person who commits the New York state law crime of Assault in the Third Degree on federal property might actually be prosecuted in federal court for, essentially, a violation of that state crime. The Assimilative Crimes Act could also possibly provide for the prosecution of sexual assault, burglary, and theft cases on federal property, to name a few examples. See e.g. Hockenberry v. United States, 422 F.2d 171 (9th Cir. 1970). See also United States v. Bowers, 660 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1981) (child abuse); United States v. Smith, 574 F.2d 988 (9th Cir. 1978)(sodomy); United States v. Johnson, 967 F.2d 1431 (10th Cir. 1992)(aggravated assault); United States v. Griffith, 864 F.2d 421 (6th Cir. 1988)(reckless assault); United States v. Kaufman, 862 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1988)(assault); Fesler v. United States, 781 F.2d 384 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1118 (1986)(child abuse).

Finally, it should be noted that although many crimes can be prosecuted in both state and federal court without violating the principle of Double Jeopardy, a state law crime prosecuted in federal court via the Assimilative Crimes Act cannot also be prosecuted in state court. See Grafton v. United States, 206 U.S. 333 (1907).

If you or a loved one have been arrested and charged with a crime occurring on federal property in the New York City area, you should strongly consider contacting the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC. Many defense attorneys know state law but are unfamiliar with the unique procedures of federal practice. Matthew Galluzzo, however, is a former Manhattan state prosecutor with over twenty years of experience who now specializes primarily in the defense of federal crimes. Give him a call to discuss your case and his possible representation of you.

Continue reading →
Contact Information
11 Broadway #715
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 344-5180
We serve the following localities: New York City including Manhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2023, The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design