jump to navigation

Indictment for $1.7 million in securities fraud illustrates an important first step for attorneys July 22, 2009

Posted by whitecollarcrimenews in News.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

I often say that, in the context of white collar crime, the difference between a criminal case and a civil case is thin, usually blurry line.  One of the key factors that pushes a case over to the criminal side of the line is personal use of money.  In other words, if the money at issue was used solely for business purposes, it will likely be a civil case.  Likewise, as soon as you use the same money to enrich yourself, you will be looking at criminal charges.

Thus, the first thing I do in any case that could turn into a white collar crime case is to get my client’s financial records to assess their criminal exposure.  The attorney’s actions at the first sign of trouble could impact the entire case.  If this is a civil case but the State thinks otherwise, you may have to play this card now.  If there is some serious criminal exposure, trying to get a favorable resolution early on may we worth considering.

A good example of a white collar crime case where the defendant’s personal expenses will be at the heart of the State’s case is found in the press release below:

TRENTON – Attorney General Anne Milgram announced that a Bergen County man was charged today with defrauding hundreds of investors of more than $1.7 million by selling unregistered shares of stock in his startup horseshoe manufacturing company, which he claimed already had a prince from Dubai as a client.

The man allegedly stole more than $350,000 in investor funds to pay for personal expenses. Although he also spent funds in an effort to launch the company, the venture failed.

According to Director Deborah L. Gramiccioni, the Division of Criminal Justice filed a criminal complaint today in Superior Court in Bergen County charging Samuel M. Serritella, 64, of Garfield, with the crimes of securities fraud, theft by deception, misapplication of entrusted property, money laundering and misconduct by a corporate official, all in the second degree.

The charges resulted from an investigation by the New Jersey Bureau of Securities. Also today, Bureau of Securities Chief Marc B. Minor issued an order assessing a penalty of $20,000 against Serritella for violation of the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law. The Bureau Chief found that Serritella committed securities fraud and sold unregistered securities as an unregistered agent.

“This defendant sold $1.7 million in fraudulent and unregistered securities to trusting investors,” said Attorney General Milgram. “He repaid their trust by stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars of their money and leaving them with worthless shares in a failed company.”

Serritella was president, chief financial officer and chairman of International Surfacing Inc., which was based at 5 Erie Street in Garfield. It is charged that between February 2004 and May 2006, Serritella fraudulently obtained in excess of $1.7 million from more than 300 investors, most of whom were New Jersey residents, by selling them shares of International Surfacing. The shares were not registered with the Bureau of Securities as required by law, and Serritella was not registered as an agent authorized to sell securities in New Jersey.

Serritella held investment conferences where he told investors they could get in on the ground floor by purchasing shares in a company he planned to take public. He allegedly told at least one group of investors during a hotel meeting that the venture’s clients included a prince in Dubai.

Serritella allegedly deposited the investors’ funds into several bank accounts that he controlled. He allegedly misappropriated funds totaling approximately $354,720 for personal expenses. Seritella allegedly wrote checks to himself, made cash withdrawals at ATMs, paid credit card bills, and made debit card purchases using investor funds in the accounts. He used the funds to pay for such personal expenses as airline and hotel bills, tavern bills, and medical costs. He also allegedly used investor funds to make personal loans to three friends totaling $84,000.

Serittella used some funds for startup costs for the company, such as rent for a building, salaries, and payments to a company contracted to assist in manufacturing horseshoes.

“The Division of Criminal Justice is focusing on more complex white collar crime cases, including securities fraud cases such as this one,” said Director Gramiccioni. “In prosecuting this case, we are working closely with the Bureau of Securities, which thoroughly investigated the alleged fraud and thefts committed by Serritella.”

“Investors need to protect themselves by remembering that an offer which seems too good to be true is often precisely that – untrue. Investment fraud is on the rise in these difficult economic times and investments that promise ‘guaranteed results’ or offer unusually high profits should be carefully scrutinized before any investment is made,” Bureau Chief Minor said.

The Bureau of Securities investigation was conducted by Acting Chief of Investigations Rudolph Bassman. Deputy Attorney General Victoria Manning represented the Bureau in its investigation.

Serritella has been ordered to appear before Superior Court Judge Harry G. Carroll in Bergen County on Wednesday, July 29 at 10 a.m.

Four charged with unemployment fraud July 22, 2009

Posted by whitecollarcrimenews in News.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Four people have been charged with stealing from unemployment in separate and unrelated cases.  This is fairly common and you see these indictments every few months.  Basically, someone goes on unemployment but then they go back to work without telling anyone.  Thus, they get paid from their job and unemployment.  Once that figure hits around$10,000 or so, the State moves to indict to make examples out of the big hitters.

Problem is, the plea offers are usually the same and trying to get the State to bend is difficult.  If word gets out that you got a better deal, everyone else will want one.  Thus, an attorney needs to quickly identify the best possible deal and decide if the client should press his or her luck rather early in the case.  Of course, this assumes you can get all of the records.

If you are charged or suspected of unemployment fraud, call me today.

Press release is below:

TRENTON – Attorney General Anne Milgram announced today that four people have been charged with cheating the State of New Jersey’s unemployment fund out of a total of $79,888.

Criminal Justice Director Deborah L. Gramiccioni noted that the charges resulted from cooperative investigations by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development and the Division of Criminal Justice Major Crimes Bureau.

The Division of Criminal Justice Major Crimes Bureau obtained the following state grand jury indictments last week:

State v. Jose A. Vasquez. Vasquez, 44, of Camden, was charged in a July 17 state grand jury indictment with third-degree theft by deception and fourth-degree unsworn falsification. Vasquez filed UI benefits claims every year from 2000 to 2005. At various times throughout those years, Vasquez earned wages working as a construction worker for Jasticon, Inc. in Medford. By failing to notify the Department of Labor and Workforce Development of the employment, Vasquez allegedly received $31,451 in UI benefits to which he was not entitled.

State v. Harvey E. Grimes. Grimes, 41, of Ewing, was charged in a July 17 state grand jury indictment with third-degree theft by deception and fourth-degree unsworn falsification. The indictment alleges that, while collecting on three separate UI benefits claims, in 2002, 2003 and 2004, Grimes allegedly earned wages from Jersey Temporaries, Inc., a temporary employee service. It is alleged that, by failing to report the earnings to the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Grimes allegedly stole $22,055 in UI benefits.

State v. Sharnell Ramseur. Ramseur, 36, of East Orange, was charged in a July 16 state grand jury indictment with third-degree theft by deception and fourth-degree unsworn falsification for allegedly collecting $15,952 in UI benefits to which he was not entitled. The indictment alleges that, after filing for UI benefits in January 2003 and April 2004, Ramseur earned wages from Ford Motor Corp. It is further charged that Ramseur failed to report his earnings to the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.

State v. Karen L. Jones. Jones, 48, of Newark, was charged in a July 16 state grand jury indictment with third-degree theft by deception and fourth-degree unsworn falsification. Jones filed for UI benefits in July 2002, July 2003 and July 2004. The indictment alleges that, while collecting on these benefits, Jones earned wages from Newark Pre-School Council, Inc., where she worked as a teacher’s assistant. Jones allegedly failed to report the earnings to the Department of Labor and Workforce Development and consequently stole $10,430 in UI benefits.

The Department of Labor and Workforce Development Commissioner David J. Socolow said that the cases were first identified by Labor Department investigators by cross-matching employer-submitted wage information against UI benefit payments; pursuing leads from employer protests of UI benefit charges; surveying employer payroll records; and responding to alerts from concerned citizens.

Should you put your client on the stand? July 19, 2009

Posted by whitecollarcrimenews in My Cases.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

I hear too many attorneys say that they will never put their client on the stand to testify.  As the old saying goes, never say never.  In this article, I will discuss the reasons why some attorneys have this fear, why you should consider putting the client on and then break down the analysis that you should undertake when making this crucial decision.

Why are some attorneys so afraid?

In my opinion, many attorneys have a defeatist attitude when it comes to trial.  This is probably due, in large part, to the attorney’s lack of confidence in their own skills.  Just watch some attorneys during trial when they go on and on about meaningless points that have nothing to do with the theme of the case.  Those attorneys clearly have no plan and thus, they probably fear just about every aspect of the trial as they have no control.

Think about it this way.  What are you more comfortable with:  something you are skilled at or something you have never done before?  Or how about something you are prepared for and something that you are surprised with?  If you have confidence in your trial skills and you are prepared, than you should be very comfortable during the trial. 

When you have comfort with your trial plan, you should be able to clearly analyze all strategic decisions that will come up during the trial including whether or not your client should testify.

Some attorneys are also afraid of a client’s  prior record.  Of course, if it is a mile long, then you will have some serious problems.  If it is one or two incidents, you should look into how you will deal with it especially if it is an old conviction.

Why should your client take the stand?

One of the primary reasons for putting your client on the stand is that the jury wants to hear from him.  I don’t care what the judge says about the right to remain silent.  The jury wants to hear from your client because they are thinking, if this was me, I would talk.  After all, what does he have to hide?

Another great reason is that the prosecutor will probably have little to no idea what your client will say.  Thus, it will be extremely difficult to cross examine on the fly as prosecutors are rarely great at cross.  If the prosecutor fails to call anyone to rebut a key point your client made, you have to tell the jury during summation that the prosecutor did not refute your client’s testimony. 

Your client also has an advantage that no other witness has.  He was there for all of the testimony.  Thus, his testimony can be “shaped” to respond to all other witnesses.  Of course, I do not advocate perjury, but creative use of adjectives is vital.

In some cases, especially white collar crime cases, your client may be the only person that can tie up the entire story.  Without him, you have no case.  Thus, taking the attitude that you should never put your client on the stand is just stupid thinking that can be malpractice in certain situations.

Should you put your client on the stand?

Everything you do at trial should have a purpose, and I do mean everything.  So, when deciding whether or not to put your client up there, you first have to answer the why question.  What is the purpose in having him testify?  Is it really necessary to the defense? 

Whether or not testimony will add anything to a defense depends largely on whether or not the jury has already hear your client’s version of the events.  While an exculpatory statement will rarely be presented to a jury, you may have a statement by your client that is not really harmful to the defense.  For example, if a self defense case, your client may detail the reasons that he stabbed the victim.  In that case, there may be little reason to subject your client to cross examination when there is little to  add.

On the other hand, if your client has not made a statement, the jury will probably need to hear your client’s version.  If your client made a damaging statement and you are still going to trial, your client must explain why he said what he said and what the real story is.

You also have to determine how your client will come across  to the jury.  Sometimes, this is a total crap shoot.  Quite often, your client will say something that comes out of nowhere or will act totally different than what you have seen in the past.  In other words, the way your client comes across in your office will be different than how he is when he is in the hot seat.  Thus, a margin of error has to be built into your analysis.

You must prepare your client so he knows the case and his testimony cold.  Only then will you really have a client for how your client will perform at trial.  In addition, its not just what you say but how you say it.  Thus, I try to stay away from a script and focus more on the general story with an extra focus on key topics.

Prepping your client for cross examination should be pretty easy to do.  Most prosecutors use the same lazy cross examination that consists mostly of yelling at the client.  You have to put on your prosecutor hat and look at every damaging piece of evidence or hole in the case.  Then, you have to discuss these issues with your client and get his side of the story.  Only then should you give further advice on how to handle those issues first talking in the general sense and then the specific sense. 

 Some of these issues can be dealt with on direct and the others should be left for cross.  If you deal with an issue on direct, the purpose is to take the “sting” out of it and explain it away.  However, you don’t want to make this obvious to the jury.  Try to work it into the story.  With everything else, wait for it.  Nothing takes the wind out of a prosecutor’s sails when they think they are about to land a knock out punch only to find out that they just stepped in it.

One such issue that should be dealt with on direct is a client’s prior record.  Again, I assume that it is not a mile long.  Most states limit how much the prosecutor can ask or else the prior record evidence becomes 404(b) evidence.  Thus, you should be able to keep the details vague.  But again, you should do everything you can to try to work this into the story.  Otherwise, it will be obvious that you are asking it for a reason. 

Due to the relationship you have with your client, it can be difficult to simulate a real cross examination experience if you also do the cross. Thus, get another attorney to do it for you.  Write out all of the questions for the attorney and have them lay it on thick.  Then, you can discuss the results with your client and make changes as necessary.

Once you complete this analysis, you will know why you are putting your client on, what they will say, how they will handle the Prosecutor’s cross and how they will come across in front of the jury.  When you are this prepared, you can then make an intelligent choice as to whether or not you should put your client on the stand.  Of course, I know this is the client’s decision, but let’s be honest, almost all of them will do whatever we tell them to do.

Over a dozen arrested in child porn sweep in New Jersey July 18, 2009

Posted by whitecollarcrimenews in News.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

The Camden County Prosecutor’s Office announced the arrests of almost two dozen people ranging in age from 14 to 67 for sharing child pornography online.  While one story indicated that this was a fourth degree crime, it is actually a second degree crime.  Thus, I predict that most, if not all of these defendants will plea out to a three or five year sentence,  assuming they have no prior record.

Of course, if any of them actually retains a good attorney, they could avoid prison but it won’t be easy.  Most of these cases never go to trial for a number of reasons, with the primary reason being that most defendants admit to the crime and the secondary reason being attorneys that don’t know anything about these cases and how to defend them. 

According to the prosecutor’s office, those arrested and charged with possession of child pornography are:

Jordan Winczuk, 24, an unemployed single male, of the 100 block of W. Holly Avenue, Oaklyn. He is also charged with distribution, the prosecutor said.

Michael Connelly, 51, a married police dispatcher, of the 1300 block of Elm Avenue in Haddon Township. He is also charged with distribution.

Samuel Sanders IV, 18, a single student, of the first block of Jasmine Lane, Gloucester Township.

James Patry, 46, a married truck driver, of the 100 block of New Brooklyn Road, Winslow. He is also charged with distribution.

David Bellocchio, 38, a single convenience store supervisor, of the first block of Constitution Blvd., Berlin Borough. He is also charged with distribution.

Clarence Pribus, 67, a married and retiree, of the 2100 block of Carriage Lane, Waterford.

Tim Schiffman, 27, a single military employee, of the 200 block of Barberry Lane, Haddonfield.

George C. Walter, 61, a married retiree, of the 100 block of Valley Place, Cherry Hill.

Jonathan Carpenter, 25, a single car salesman, of the first block of Royal Court, Voorhees. Car salesman, single.

Keith Jackson, 19, a single student, of the first block of Southgate Drive, Voorhees.

Jose Suarez, 30, a single port worker, of the 700 block of River Road, Camden. He is also charged with distribution.

Keenan Bain, 25, a single materials handler, of the 400 block of Carl Miller Blvd., Camden. He is also charged with distribution.

A warrant has also been issued for Walter Taylor III, 25, of the 1200 block of Lakeshore Drive, Camden. Unknown profession, single.

Story including names is here. More detailed story is here.

The economy sucks, so lets waste more tax dollars July 16, 2009

Posted by whitecollarcrimenews in News.
Tags: , , , , ,
1 comment so far

I really can’t figure out why the NJ AG’s office does not file criminal charges in some cases while opting for civil suits, and then filing criminal charges where civil charges would seem appropriate.  I have some cases like this and the State tries to argue that these cases are all strict liability but I don’t buy it.  I just don’t see how this is criminal.  There is no “mens rea” here.

Anyway, I think criminal charges are a waste of time and money here unless this guy is just a big pain in the ass.  However, I have to imagine that if you were to call him up and tell him that we could do this the easy way or the hard way, he would choose the easy way.

Here’s the press release:

Attorney General Anne Milgram announced that a Morris County man has been indicted for allegedly failing to provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage to his employees. As a result, the State of New Jersey was forced to pay out more than $253,000.

According to Criminal Justice Director Deborah L. Gramiccioni, Mack Stevens, 40, of Lake Hopatcong, was charged with fourth-degree failure to provide workers’ compensation coverage.

According to the indictment, between Oct. 7, 2003 and April 28, 2009, Stevens, the owner of Accurate Paving, an unincorporated paving company in Lake Hopatcong, failed to provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage to his employees. On Oct. 8, 2003, an Accurate Paving employee suffered serious injuries as a result of an accident that occurred while he was on the job. The employee needed surgery and a three-month stay in the hospital. It is alleged that, because Stevens did not carry workers’ compensation insurance coverage, the New Jersey Uninsured Employers’ Fund was forced to pay $253,770 to the employee for expenses that he incurred as a result of the accident.

The investigation by the Division of Criminal Justice determined that as recently as April 2009, Accurate Paving and Mack Stevens still did not have workers’ compensation coverage in place.

NJ continues crackdown on mortgage industry July 15, 2009

Posted by whitecollarcrimenews in News.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the mortgage industry is under assault here in New Jersey and anyone associated with it must be very careful.  The NJ AG announced today that her office has filed two more law suits against 10 defendants charging them with mortgage related fraud.

These defendants allegedly promised to help modify mortgages for people struggling to keep their homes. However, they allegedly pocketed the fees paid by homeowners instead of providing the assistance.

The first lawsuit was filed in Mercer County against Best Interest Rate Mortgage Company which is located in Haddon Township.  They allegedly solicited distressed homeowners in the mail, sending a form that appeared government authorized.

The second lawsuit was filed in Essex County against nine defendants, including Newark attorney Ejike Uzor and Stephen Pasch of Green Brook Township. Seven corporate and nonprofit entities, including New Day Financial Solutions in Newark were also charged.

The attorneys here face  a massive risk here as their ability to practice  law is in jeaporday.  If this case is going to settle, and most of them do, they should settle before the discovery gets too far.  Otherwise, they are going to get locked into a statement which could be used against them in the future.

Story is here.

Dr. Khashayar Salartash charged with $8.5 Million Fraud Against Medicare, Medicaid & Private Insurers July 14, 2009

Posted by whitecollarcrimenews in News.
Tags: , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

This is the type of case that requires so much attention from an attorney in such a short amount of time, that it would literally shut down a small practice for a while.  I represent doctors, but $8.5 million in fraud doesn’t come around every day.  To do this right, you need at least two attorneys putting in at least 30 hours per week into this case.  Of course, in some weeks, it will be more like 40 hours plus each week.  As a result, there is no room for new cases unless you have a third attorney.  But even then, you would have little room to take anything that big for a while.

An edited version of the press release is below:

Attorney General Anne Milgram and Criminal Justice Director Deborah L. Gramiccioni announced that an Atlantic County surgeon, his office manager, and the treatment center he owned were indicted on charges they defrauded Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance carriers of more than $8.5 million.

According to Acting Insurance Fraud Prosecutor Riza Dagli, Dr. Khashayar Salartash, 42, of Linwood; his office manager, Farah Iranipour Houtan, 51, of Egg Harbor Township; and the treatment center owned by Salartash, The Center for Lymphatic Disorders LLC, were variously charged in a state grand jury indictment returned yesterday with second-degree conspiracy, three counts of second-degree health care claims fraud, and two counts of third-degree Medicaid fraud. Salartash and Houtan were also charged with second-degree misconduct by a corporate official.

According to Gramiccioni, the indictment alleges that between August 2002 and June 2007, Salartash and Houtan billed Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers for services that were not provided as claimed.

“We charge that these defendants collected $8.5 million through false billing, including nearly $5 million from Medicare and half a million dollars from Medicaid,” said Attorney General Milgram. “It’s outrageous that a doctor would fraudulently take millions of dollars from programs that pay for medical care for the elderly and those who can’t afford health insurance. In addition, by defrauding private insurers, he contributed to the high cost of health insurance.”

The Center for Lymphatic Disorders was opened by Salartash on Central Avenue in Egg Harbor Township in August 2002 to treat patients with lymphedema, which is blockage of the lymph vessels that causes accumulation of fluid and swelling of the arms or legs, and occasionally other parts of the body. Before it closed in 2006, the center opened four additional offices in Atlantic City, Manahawkin, Haddon Heights, and Galloway Township.

As a result of alleged fraudulent billing, the Center for Lymphatic Disorders was paid approximately $8,564,622, including $593,363 by Medicaid, $4,703,935 by Medicare, and $3,267,324 by private carriers.

The defendants allegedly submitted claims as though Salartash had either personally provided services or directly supervised licensed personnel who rendered services. In fact, services were performed by a physical therapist, a licenced practical nurse or a massage therapist, with essentially no supervision.

In addition, Salartash and Houtan allegedly billed for surgery when only physical therapy services were rendered. Salartash allegedly represented in some claims that services were performed in an outpatient hospital facility, when the procedures were performed in a doctor’s office.

In order to support the claims, Salartash certified that the services provided were medically necessary, even though the services were provided for a time period far in excess of what is normal and customary for lymphedema therapy. A normal course of treatment for lymphedema is four weeks, or in very complex cases, eight to 12 weeks. However, an auditor for the Medicaid program determined that most patients of the Center for Lymphatic Disorders were treated for between 1 ½ years and nearly 3 years.

Salartash and Houtan allegedly used inappropriate modifiers to billing codes to bill for multiple procedures within a short amount of time, and made written and verbal misrepresentations to Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance carriers in order to support claims for payment.

The joint investigation into this matter was conducted by the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Office of Insurance Fraud Prosecutor, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The investigation started after analysts contracted by Medicare to monitor billing identified unusual billing by Salartash.

“When doctors commit fraud it is particularly disturbing, because the integrity of the health care claims process depends on the trustworthiness of the licensed professionals involved,” said Acting Insurance Fraud Prosecutor Dagli. “The Office of Insurance Fraud Prosecutor will continue to vigorously investigate and prosecute this type of criminal activity.”

Second-degree crimes carry a maximum sentence of 10 years in state prison and a $150,000 fine, while third-degree crimes carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $15,000 fine. Third-degree Medicaid fraud carries a sentence of up to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

The indictment is merely an accusation and the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.  The indictment was handed up to Superior Court Judge Maria Marinari Sypek in Mercer County, who assigned the case to Atlantic County, where the defendants will be ordered to appear in court at a later date to answer the charges.

The Medicaid Program is funded by the state and federal governments. The State of New Jersey administers the Medicaid Program through the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services and through the Office of Insurance Fraud Prosecutor’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, which investigates both criminal and civil Medicaid fraud and abuse in that program.

Two New Jersey brothers charged with movie piracy July 13, 2009

Posted by whitecollarcrimenews in News.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

Bridgewater residents Paul Epifan, 23, and his brother, Timothy Epifan, 21, have been charged with third-degree theft by deception and fourth-degree piracy in connection with their efforts to allegedly record movies and sell them online.  The case started with investigators from the Motion Picture Association of America contacting the Somerset County Prosecutor’s Major Crimes Squad with information about two individuals pirating movies by  video taping new releases in movie theaters and selling them over the Internet.

When arrested at a movie theater, police found a high-end video camera on their possession.  A subsequent search of their house revealed computer, pirated DVD movies and equipment.  The monetary value allegedly stolen is unknown so the third degree charges could be upgraded.

The real bad news for these guys?  The case is in Somerset County.  Chances are, this case is going to trial.  No way these guys are getting a break as the MPAA is going to want to make an example out of these guys.  Hopefully they get an attorney that actually know which way is up when it comes to these cases.

Story is here.

Reputed Bloods members go hi-tech in alleged white collar fraud scheme July 7, 2009

Posted by whitecollarcrimenews in News.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

This is a rather amazing story.  Anyone following NJ crime news over the past few years already knows that gang crime is exploding.  Most of these crimes involve drugs and violence.  However, a set of indictments revealed today allege that various alleged members of the Bloods street gang have enganged in a two year fraud scheme involving banks across New Jersey.

From a news perspective, it is interesting to see the development of gangs much like the mafia switched from breaking legs to trading stocks and other financial schemes.  However, from a defense perspective, it is interesting to see how these cases will be handled by the court and the State.

Normally, white collar defendants have it easy compared with your average criminal defendant.  It is often fairly easy to drum up several mitigating factors to avoid a harsh sentence or to get a jury to think that the case belongs in civil case instead of criminal court.

However, in these cases, the State will likely argue that the scheme was used not for personal financial gain, but for the profit of the enterprise which primarily engages in violent offenses.  Thus, this is more akin to a mafia prosecution than anything else.

Two issues jump out to me right away.  The first is that most of the “smaller fish” will flip on the “bigger fish”.  It is one thing to deal with one or two people that made a deal, but a half-dozen or more could be difficult, especially where there is other evidence of guilt.  The client should know who may or may not flip right away especially if they are all locked up together.  

Second, 404(b) or other  crimes evidence will be a big issue here.  Normally, the State cannot allege that each defendant is in a gang but with the racketeering charge, the jury will hear that all of the defendants are engaged in a criminal enterprise.  Thus, the issue will be how much they hear.  That’ll be a big battle in and of itself.

This could be a fun case for a defense attorney if the case breaks the right way. 

Press release:

TRENTON – Attorney General Anne Milgram announced that 31 defendants have been indicted in connection with bank fraud schemes orchestrated by members and associates of the Bloods street gang involving more than $654,000 in counterfeit checks, which resulted in the theft of more than $341,000 from eight banks.

The charges stem from “Operation Bloodbank,” an investigation by the New Jersey State Police, the Division of Criminal Justice and the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office. Milgram made the announcement with Division of Criminal Justice Director Deborah L. Gramiccioni, State Police Deputy Superintendent of Investigations Lt. Col. Christopher Andreychak and Monmouth County Prosecutor Luis A. Valentin.

The investigation stemmed from a prior investigation by the State Police and Division of Criminal Justice that led to the indictment in June 2007 of 46 members of the Nine Trey Gangsters set of the Bloods street gang, including its top leaders, on various charges including first-degree racketeering, murder, leading a narcotics trafficking network and money laundering.

In the latest investigation, the eight leaders of the criminal enterprise – six charged in today’s indictment and two who pleaded guilty last year – are alleged to be members or associates of the Nine Trey Gangsters set of the Bloods. They recruited people who were not associated with the gang to participate in the bank frauds.

“The Bloods are a plague on our communities, trafficking in drugs and guns and inflicting horrific violence,” said Attorney General Milgram. “This investigation reveals the Bloods on new turf, defrauding banks of hundreds of thousands of dollars using counterfeit checks. Just as we have targeted the financial crimes of traditional organized crime through the years, we will crush any inroads by street gangs into these activities, which could bankroll more drug dealing and death.”

“Through painstaking investigation, we have brought down an elaborate racketeering enterprise built on forgeries and counterfeiting, and we have dried up another source of funding for criminal street gangs,” Director Gramiccioni said.


“The Nine Trey Bloods wouldn’t survive long if they were only about weapons and violence,” said Lt. Col. Andreychak. “We have learned not to underestimate the sophistication of street gangs and their criminal enterprises.”

Monmouth County Prosecutor Valentin said, “The investigation revealed that members of the Bloods are participating in criminal activities beyond those schemes typically associated with criminal street gangs. Law enforcement must be vigilant in adapting our tactics to the ever changing methods used by members of street gangs to victimize our communities and reap illicit benefits from criminal behavior.”

A state grand jury indictment charging the 12 leaders of the conspiracy with racketeering and other charges was obtained on June 30 by the Division of Criminal Justice Gangs & Organized Crime Bureau. It was sealed until today, when a second indictment was obtained charging 19 more participants in the conspiracy.

According to Director Gramiccioni, the multi-agency investigation revealed a conspiracy organized and led by members and associates of the Nine Trey Gangsters set of the Bloods street gang, whose purpose was to defraud banking institutions of large amounts of money through several schemes. The alleged conduct occurred between 2005 and 2007.

Members of the conspiracy would recruit employees of legitimate businesses throughout New Jersey to allow them to copy or scan payroll checks from their employers or personal checks for old personal checking accounts, which they would use in the scheme.

Copying these checks gave them the format of the check, the names on the account, and the corresponding check routing numbers for the accounts. These employees or account holders would be paid money for the information. The information was then used by members of the scheme to forge payroll checks or to issue bad checks drawn on the personal accounts.

The managers of this criminal enterprise utilized laptop computers and portable electronic equipment, such as digital cameras, to create and print counterfeit payroll checks and personal checks payable to other members of the conspiracy.

Members of the scheme would then recruit other participants to assist them in obtaining cash using the counterfeited checks. Two basic schemes were used to obtain money utilizing the forged payroll checks or personal checks:

1. In the first method, the recruiter would recruit an accomplice to cash a check. The recruiter would get a forged check payable to the accomplice. The check would then be taken to a branch of the bank on which the check was drawn. The check would be cashed, and the cash would be split between the recruiter and the co-conspirator.

2. The second method consisted of recruiting individuals with bank accounts in various banking institutions. The account holders provided ATM or debit cards to the recruiters who deposited fraudulent checks into the accounts. The account holder or recruiter would then withdraw money from the accounts when the bank made the funds available, but before the check was determined to be counterfeit. The money obtained from the bank was divided among the account holder, the recruiter and the individual providing the counterfeit check. Account holders were instructed to report to their banks or to the police that they were victims of identity theft.

The investigation has established that this criminal enterprise operated throughout New Jersey, including the counties of Monmouth, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Ocean, Passaic, Somerset, Union and Morris.

In all, members of the criminal enterprise were involved in passing approximately $654,000 worth of counterfeit checks between June 2005 and March 2007, and stealing approximately $341,000 from eight banks: Bank of America, PNC Bank, Valley National Bank, JP Morgan Chase Bank, Commerce Bank, Wachovia Bank, Bank of New York, and Sovereign Bank.

Checks ranged in value from $400 to $9,000. The difference in the total value of the checks counterfeited and the money stolen is due to the fact that in a number of instances, the banks discovered the checks were bad and stopped payment or froze accounts.

The case was presented to the state grand jury by Supervising Deputy Attorney General Andrew M. Butchko, deputy chief of the Division of Criminal Justice Gangs & Organized Crime Bureau, and Assistant Prosecutor James Jones of the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office, who was deputized as a special deputy attorney general to prosecute the case with Butchko.

The investigation was led by Detective Sgt. Ronald Hampton and Detectives Christopher Stafyleras, Daniel Bergin and Matthew Broderick of the New Jersey State Police Street Gang North Unit; Supervising Deputy Attorney General Butchko of the Division of Criminal Justice Gangs & Organized Crime Bureau; and Assistant Prosecutor Jones of the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office.

The first indictment returned on June 30 charges the following six defendants as managers of the bank fraud schemes. Each of these managers has been identified as an alleged member or associate of the Nine Trey Gangsters set of the Bloods street gang.

  • Ernst Francois, 36, of Irvington;
  • Albens Victor, 27, of Irvington;
  • Kenneth Tione Roberts, 34, of East Orange;
  • Woody Armand, 33, of East Orange;
  • Roosevelt Thelusma, 24, of Newark; and
  • Jeffery Dieurilus, 25, of Newark.

Victor is in state prison in New Jersey serving a prior sentence in connection with an unrelated check fraud scheme, and Armand is in federal prison in connection with a US Postal Service case involving postal money orders. Thelusma was arrested after the indictment was returned and is in jail with bail set at $150,000. Arrest warrants were issued for Francois, Roberts and Dieurilus, who remain fugitives.

As a result of the investigation, two other defendants who were members of the Nine Trey Gangsters set of the Bloods pleaded guilty to second-degree racketeering in 2008 for their leadership roles in the bank frauds. Andre Armand, 38, of Irvington, who is Woody Armand’s brother, and Jean Leneus, 26, of East Orange, were each sentenced to six years in state prison.

The first indictment also charges the following six people. It is alleged that they assisted in cashing counterfeit checks, allowed their bank accounts and ATM cards to be used in the scheme, and acted as recruiters, recruiting other account holders to participate in the scheme.

  • Bertha B. Cajuste, 32, of Newark;
  • Quanise R. Freeman, 25, of Paterson;
  • Shamira Janay Champagne, 22, of Clifton;
  • Ashley Chante Brown, 25, of Irvington;
  • Vanessa L. Brown, 21, of Newark; and
  • Ritha Saluste, 31, of Irvington.

All 12 defendants in the first indictment are charged with second-degree racketeering and one or more counts of second- or third-degree theft by deception. All 12 are also charged with one or more counts of third-degree uttering a forged instrument. Nine of the defendants in the first indictment are charged with one or more counts of third-degree attempted theft by deception.

The second indictment, which was returned today, charges the following 19 additional defendants, who allegedly participated in the scheme by cashing counterfeit checks and allowing their bank accounts and ATM cards to be utilized in the scheme:

  • Jacinth Alese Buchanan, 23, of Paterson;
  • Marcus Dwayne Harris, 46, of Newark;
  • Al-Khabir Kwaan Diggs, 29, of Newark;
  • Keith F. Chipepo, 26, of Montclair;
  • Charles Palmer, 31, of Irvington;
  • Matthew Handel Richards, 25, of Plainfield;
  • Sakinah Ann Eure, 33, of Perth Amboy;
  • Sharelle Patrice Belton, 22, of Paterson;
  • Michelle Lynn Horton, 27, of Paterson;
  • Linda Jules, 21, of Irvington;
  • Gregory S. Salters, 31, of Newark;
  • Janina M. Bolden-McCall, 30, of Irvington;
  • Linda Robinson, 30, of Bridgeton;
  • Dianna D. Huggins, 27, of Jersey City;
  • Kelly A. Montes, 27, of Morris Plains;
  • Javaira Naimaha Jihad, 22, of Newark;
  • Tamika Snowden, 22, of East Orange;
  • Jamie J. Tate, 33, of Irvington; and
  • Carlton Eugene Brown, 22, of West Orange.

All 19 of the defendants named in the second indictment were charged with second-degree racketeering. Each of the 19 defendants was also charged with one or more counts of third-degree theft by deception or attempted theft by deception, as well as third-degree uttering a forged instrument.

Second-degree crimes carry a maximum sentence of 10 years in state prison and a $150,000 fine, while third-degree crimes carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $15,000 fine. Fourth-degree crimes carry a maximum sentence of 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine.

The indictments are merely accusations and the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The indictments were handed up to Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg in Mercer County, who assigned them to Monmouth County.

Goldman Sachs programmer with trade-secret theft July 6, 2009

Posted by whitecollarcrimenews in News.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

Sergey Aleynikov, a former software designer for Goldman Sachs is charged with downloading propriety software from his former employer and sending secret codes to a web account in Germany.  However, what this German account was is  unknown.

The FBI alleges that the downloads contained a program that uses sophisticated mathematical formulas to place automated trades in the market.  An internal review by Goldman Sachs alleges that Aleynikov’s work desktop was used at least four times after hours between June 1 and June 5 to transfer company information.  

When arrested, Aleynikov reportedly told the FBI that he had copied and encrypted files from his former employer.  However, he said that he only intended to collected open source files on which he had worked.  He later realized he obtained more files than he intended.  He further claims that he abided by the confidentiality agreement he signed with Goldman Sachs and did not distribute any of the propriety software.

This is a very interesting case for a number of reasons.  It seems like this guy makes a good amount of money, but if he didn’t, I would probably reduce my fee to help him out because I find these cases a lot of fun.

This is also a fairly easy case as there are several “facts beyond change” that really help to narrow the issues in dispute.  With his statement, his actions are not at issue here.  Instead, only his intent will be at issue here which really makes this case ripe of jury nullification.

Do you really think that a jury is going to get upset that this guy copied some files and then, did nothing with them?  More importantly, I don’t have the law in front of me at the moment but I’m sure there is a criminal intent element here that the Government would need to prove.  I don’t see how they  could do it. 

Much of this case will turn on his statement.  The Government will need to try to support its case that he was going to profit from this information.  The Defense will need to show that he did nothing else with it.  Since nothing would just jump at out you, as a defense attorney, you need to get very creative to come up with as much evidence to tear apart the Government’s case.  Again, I find such cases a lot of fun as it really puts your skills as an attorney to the test.

Story is here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.