Articles Posted in White Collar Crime

Published on:

By

Recently Manhattan federal prosecutors announced the arrests of 17 individuals for allegedly defrauding the federal government’s Small Business Administration (SBA) COVID-relief program called the Paycheck Protection Program. In a nutshell, these individuals are accused of wire fraud for purportedly applying for small business relief funds on behalf of small businesses (or sole proprietorships) that either did not exist or did not generate the revenues described in their loan applications.

For many small businesses, the SBA’s various COVID-relief programs, including the Paycheck Protection Program, were critical in helping those businesses survive the once-in-a-generation economic downturn created by the pandemic. However, the fraudulent abuses of the program have become almost legendary and have recently been the subject of many Congressional inquiries.

The Department of Justice this year launched a task force to prosecute – at the federal level – crimes involving abuse of the COVID relief programs. So, one should expect to see more such prosecutions launched against individuals in the near future.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Recently, federal prosecutors in Brooklyn brought an indictment against eight individuals – including a medical doctor, three pharmacists, and several members of the doctor’s staff – for their alleged operation of a $24 million oxycodone ring that illegally diverted over 1.2 million pills. Prosecutors are motivated to bring these sorts of criminal charges because of the rapid and terrifying national rise in fatal opioid overdoses. The charges against the defendants include conspiracies to distribute narcotics (21 USC 846 and 841(b)(1)(C)) and money laundering, for concealing and structuring the illegal kickbacks and payments for the narcotics. In short, the defendant doctor is alleged to have written unnecessary prescriptions that were filled by the defendant pharmacists in exchange for illegal kickbacks, and employees of the doctor and pharmacist laundered these illegal proceeds.  Presumably, a cooperating witness revealed the scheme to law enforcement, but that remains unclear.

These charges carry significant potential jail sentences, as well as enormous possible money forfeitures. If it is shown that anyone died as a result of an overdose from one of these illegally distributed pills, then the defendants could easily be facing sentences in excess of ten years or more.

The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC has significant experience representing alleged narcotics traffickers in federal court, especially in cases involving opioids and fentanyl. If you or a loved one are a doctor, pharmacist, or other alleged to have participated in an doctor-centered scheme to distribute narcotics, you should strongly consider contacting the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC. Their lead counsel has had success representing defendants accused of these crimes and has obtained good results.

 

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

Today, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut announced the arrest of Democratic State Representative Michael DiMassa for allegedly defrauding over $600,000 from the city of West Haven. The federal wire fraud charges carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

According to a press release from the prosecutor, Mr. DiMassa supposedly formed an LLC with another person and used that LLC to bill the City of West Haven for consulting services that were not in fact provided. Allegedly, Mr. DiMassa made withdrawals from the LLC at about the same time he made large chip purchases at Mohegan Sun casino. One might suspect the government to argue that Mr. DiMassa’s fraud was the result of a gambling addiction.

Of course, nothing has been proven as of yet. But if Mr. DiMassa is in fact convicted of wire fraud for allegedly stealing $600,000, he is likely looking at a Federal Sentencing Guidelines range of between 33 and 57 months. In federal cases, crimes have minimum and maximum penalties, but judges use an advisory system called the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to narrow down the sentencing range. Those guidelines give defendants and attorneys an idea of what to expect at sentencing, but are nevertheless just approximations. This table provides the guidance.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Yesterday, the Department of Justice announced that its U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan (Southern District of New York) had filed an indictment charging 18 former NBA players and 1 of their spouses with federal crimes relating to the defrauding of the NBA players’ association HRA (health reimbursement account). In short, the alleged mastermind of the crime, Terrence Williams, allegedly recruited former players into his scheme. They allegedly created fake invoices for chiropractic, medical, and dental services that they did not in fact receive, and then submitted those invoices to the HRA for reimbursement for those phony services.  The defendants are charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (wire fraud) and 18 U.S.C. § 1347 (health care fraud), and Terrence Williams also faces a charge of identity theft for bizarrely impersonating a health care plan administrator to try to shake down another player for his kickbacks under the scheme.

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Today, the prosecutors in the case against Lori Loughlin filed with with the court a signed copy of her plea agreement, thereby indicating that Mr. Loughlin intends to plead guilty in connection with the “Varsity Blues” case involving college admissions fraud. (Her actual plea hearing has been scheduled for tomorrow, May 22, via videoconference). The agreement that she has entered into is somewhat rare in federal court, and has certain advantages for her.

Normally, in federal court, when a defendant chooses to plead guilty, he or she enters into a plea agreement with the prosecutors to establish certain terms and parameters for the sentencing. Plea agreements look like contracts and are usually at least five single-spaced pages long. A defendant acknowledges in the document that he/she is pleading guilty knowingly and voluntarily, and that he/she cannot take back the guilty plea once it has been entered before the court at a plea hearing. The agreements usually set forth the minimum and maximum possible penalties for the charged offenses, so that the defendant can acknowledge that he/she understands them. Also, a defendant agrees to plead guilty to certain charges in the indictment, and admits to certain conduct (for example, an amount of money fraudulently stolen, or a quantity of narcotics trafficked) that impacts the sentencing. Then, the parties to the plea agreement (the prosecutor and the defendant) agree to certain other factors (such as the defendant’s role in the offense, for example) that may establish where on the sentencing chart (for the Federal Sentencing Guidelines) that defendant’s sentence is likely to be. But, the agreements explicitly state that the ultimate decision as to the defendant’s sentence will be up to the sentencing judge to determine, based upon these established facts and parameters within the plea agreement, as well as the judge’s own considerations of the defendant and the defendant’s crime.

Here, in Ms. Loughlin’s case, the sentence has already been established by the agreement. This fact makes the agreement quite unusual for federal court, though hardly unprecedented. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), Ms. Loughlin has agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and in exchange, she will receive a sentence of two months in prison, a fine of $150,000.00, 24 months of supervised release with 100 hours of community service, and a special assessment of $100. The prosecution also will agree to dismiss the remaining charges against Ms. Loughlin and not pursue any further charges in connection with what it knows about this affair.  This all depends, however, upon the court accepting the agreement and Ms. Loughlin’s guilty plea.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Two men in Rhode Island were recently arrested and charged by federal prosecutors with attempting to defraud the Small Business Administration (SBA) of over $500,000 by purportedly submitting a false application for relief funds earmarked for small business owners through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Given the increasing desperation of many small business owners during the pandemic and quarantine, as well as the significant amount of federal funding being made available, one can expect more such prosecutions to occur in the near future.

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Federal law enforcement agents from the DEA routinely seize quantities of cash that they suspect to be tied to or derived from narcotics trafficking. Frequently, these seizures happen in conjuncture with the arrests of those in possession of the cash, or pursuant to indictments. But most of the time, agents seize cash – even huge sums of it – without arresting anyone. In those cases, the owners or possessors of that seized cash have some difficult decisions to make.

In these cases, federal law generally requires the agents to send a notice to the person from whom the cash was seized. The person who receives the notice is typically given the opportunity to make a claim for the cash, which includes an explanation as to the source of the cash. This response must be made under penalty of perjury, and can include supplemental documentation from a related business (such as tax returns or bank statements), or sworn statements from other people, among other things. Every once in awhile, the agents return the cash to the claimant based upon the representations made by the claimant, or based upon the evidence demonstrated to the agency. Our attorneys have successfully assisted clients in getting cash returned by federal agents this way.

If, however, the agency refuses to return the money based upon these representations, then they must commence a civil forfeiture action in federal court. The precise procedures for doing so are outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 983. Ultimately, in a civil court proceeding, the federal agency (DEA) must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the seized cash represents proceeds of illegal activity. This is the civil standard for proof and it is much lower (easier) than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard necessary to prove a person’s guilt of a crime.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Proffers are a big and important part of federal criminal defense practice. Basically, it involves a defendant, a witness, a person of interest, or a person with information having a face-to-face meeting with a prosecutor and law enforcement agents while accompanied by an attorney. (Attorneys can also have “attorney proffers” whereby the attorney tells the prosecutor what his client would say if the client were to hypothetically have a proffer with them).

Proffers can be done for many reasons: to initiate cooperation agreements, to attempt to persuade a prosecutor of one’s innocence, to offer information for an investigation, or to seek leniency at sentencing. Regardless of the reason, however, they should never be undertaken lightly.

First and foremost, a person proffering to federal law enforcement cannot lie. Obviously, if law enforcement discovers that the person has lied during a proffer, then that person’s credibility will be destroyed. Thus, any hope for a cooperation agreement or mitigation at sentencing will be eliminated. There are two other equally important reasons, however. First, a lie during a proffer can be prosecuted potentially as a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a federal crime to lie to a law enforcement officer. This is typically why prosecutors bring law enforcement agents (FBI, Homeland Security, etc.) to the proffers. Similarly, a lie during a proffer session can result in an enhanced sentence for any related convictions, under the theory that the lie “obstructed justice.” Finally, a lie during a proffer session could invalidate the proffer agreement, which otherwise protects a person from having those statements during the proffer session used against them.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo have successfully represented many people charged with wire fraud in federal court. This serious accusation can result in very significant penalties, including huge fines and lengthy prison sentences. However, these charges are also frequently quite defensible, too. As such, if you or a loved one have been accused by federal prosecutors of money laundering, you should strongly consider contacting The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo’s team of former prosecutors.

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.

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