criminal lawyer

Published on: December 14, 2022

Federal wire fraud and money laundering charges involving cryptocurrency Ponzi schemes

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: June 1, 2020

Defending against common state court charges for protesters

By Matthew J. Galluzzo

Recently, in response to the horrific killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers, there have been protests in major cities across the United States. An upstate woman and two New York attorneys were arrested and charged in federal court with crimes relating to their alleged throwing of Molotov cocktails at police vehicles during the protests in Brooklyn. However, most protestors arrested in New York City are charged with Desk Appearance Tickets in state court, and are typically charged with some combination of the following crimes: Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree (Penal Law 195.05, a Class A misdemeanor), Assault in the Second Degree (Penal Law 120.05, felony assault on a police officer, a class D felony), Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree (Penal Law 120.20, a Class A misdemeanor), Resisting Arrest (Penal Law 205.30, a class A misdemeanor), or Disorderly Conduct (Penal Law 240.20, a violation). (Note: the charge(s) listed on the Desk Appearance Ticket are not necessarily the same as the charges that will appear in court on the actual criminal complaint – in fact, the number of charges usually increases from the Desk Appearance Ticket to the actual court complaint).

Oftentimes, in these cases in which no one was injured, a protester-defendant could – with the help of an experienced attorney – successfully negotiate a plea bargain whereby the protester will have no criminal record and spend no time in jail (such as an “adjournment in contemplation of dismissal or a violation like Disorderly Conduct). In cases involving Desk Appearance Tickets, such negotiations may even be possible prior to the return date (i.e. the first court appearance). However, for reasons relating to principle, many protester-defendants refuse to accept any such deal, preferring to demand dismissal or a trial where their voices can be heard by a jury. Such an attitude is certainly understandable but it does tend to increase the risk of a negative result (such as a permanent criminal record).

Unfortunately, some protests escalate into confrontations with police officers. In those cases, charges like Assault in the Second Degree can sometimes be levied against arrested protesters alleged to have injured police officers. That charge is a serious felony that can carry real jail time, and should not be treated lightly at all. The best defense in these cases is often to argue that the defendant did not act unreasonably, and that any injuries to the police officer were sustained on account of his/her own aggressive or improper actions. In today’s current climate, that argument can have real traction with some jurors.

Continue reading →

Published on: June 1, 2020

Federal criminal charges relating to the recent protests

By Matthew J. Galluzzo

In response to the shocking video of the apparent murder of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers, people across the country have protested against police brutality and racism. Most of the protesters have been peaceful and well-intentioned, though some have unfortunately used the occasion as an opportunity for violence and looting. Recently, three people were notably arrested and charged in federal court in Brooklyn (the Eastern District of New York) for federal crimes relating to the use of explosive Molotov cocktails against NYPD vehicles. Samantha Shader, a woman from upstate New York, was arraigned on Monday and charged with Causing Damage by Fire in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). Astonishingly, two New York attorneys – Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman – have also been arrested for similar conduct and are presently awaiting their arraignment in federal court on presumably the same charge. It’s an unusual charge to see in federal court, but also an extremely serious one.

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.

Continue reading →

Published on: November 6, 2018

Criminal laws pertaining to unruly airplane passengers

By Matthew J. Galluzzo

Between 2007 and 2016, over 58,000 unruly passenger incidents were reported on International aircraft in-flight by the International Air Transport Association (IATA). In 2016, the rate was one incident for every 1.424 flights. The majority of reports were Level 1 incidents which are verbal in nature and can usually be dealt with to a successful conclusion by crew using de-escalation training. 12% of reports relate to Level 2 incidents which involve physical aggression to others or damage to the aircraft. Intoxication from alcohol or drugs was identified as a factor in 33% of reported cases. Unruly passenger incidents include violence against crew and other passengers, harassment, verbal abuse, smoking, failure to follow safety instructions and other forms of riotous behavior. Recently, a woman was removed from a Frontier Airlines flight when she attempted to fly with her “emotional support” squirrel and then refused to get off the plane when she was told rodents, including squirrels, are not allowed on Frontier flights. Frontier, like many airlines, has a policy on emotional support and trained service animals allowing cats, dogs and miniature horses. Federal regulations do permit them on airplanes but give the airlines permission to turn away unusual animals, like squirrels. The passenger was advised of the policy and asked to deplane, but when she declined, other passengers were forced to deplane so that authorities could remove the woman from the aircraft.

Although such acts are committed by a tiny minority of passengers, they have a disproportionate impact, create inconvenience, threaten the safety and security of other passengers and crew, and lead to significant operational disruption and costs for airlines. The aircraft cabin is a unique space and it is necessary to recognize the limitations that exist when you are flying in the air in a metal tub. As a result, these sorts of in-flight disturbances frequently result in law enforcement officers becoming involved.

One of the likely reasons for the increasing reports of disruptive passengers is the existence of a gap in international law and the fact that many countries don’t apply their laws to foreign aircraft arriving on their soil. Passenger behavior is subject to the law of the country the plane is registered in. The passengers responsible often walk away and victims of violence can’t always take practical legal actions. Yet, American Federal law bans passengers from interfering with flight crew. Also, certain acts which would be punishable if they occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, defined in 18 U.S.C. § 7, are made criminal under 49 U.S.C. § 46506(1) (formerly 49 U.S.C. App. § 1472(k)(1)) if they occur within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States.

Continue reading →

Published on: November 6, 2018

New York City Laws on Flying Drones

By Matthew J. Galluzzo

New York City has some of the nicest urban scenery to be found anywhere on Earth. Drones equipped with cameras may seem perfectly suited to photograph these scenes. Generally speaking, drones are becoming increasingly popular, so if you are an enthusiast, it is important to educate yourself on the law, rules and regulations that come with flying drones in the 55,000 square mile area of New York. Unfortunately, flying any sort of (manned or unmanned) aircraft over the city is banned except in certain designated locations (see below for exceptions). Paolo Prosetti, a Swiss tourist, was arrested two weeks ago after he crashed his drone through a 21^st floor window in Times Square and tried to retrieve the drone and pay for the damage.

Notably, federal law and regulations take precedence over state and local laws. This means that everyone in the USA must register his drone with the Federal Aviation Administration and follow the FAA’s Special Rule for Model Aircraft.

There are nine major cities in New York State and all of them have made it illegal to fly drones in them (except for commercial drone applications which might get individual permits or licenses). Luckily, New York City allows you to take your drone to the skies in designated parks and model airfields like:

Continue reading →