jump to navigation

Defending Credit Card Fraud Conspiracy Charges November 27, 2010

Posted by jefhenninger in Articles.
1 comment so far

As New Jersey Credit Card Fraud Defense Lawyer, I’ve seen many credit card fraud cases. Many small credit card fraud cases usually involve one person stealing a credit card or using one that they find on the floor. Depending on the jurisdiction and the attorney handling the case, the punishment can be relataviely minor. However, a vast credit card fraud conspiracy may be prosecuted on the federal level and as a result, can come with severe penalities. While there are many ways to defend such a case, the case of U.S. v. Samaria, 239 F.3d 228 (2nd Cir. 2001) provides an excellent starting point for attorneys.

Because this was a conspiracy case, the case is titled in the last name of Samaria but the main defendant at issue is named Frank Elaiho. The other two codefendants, Lance Samaria and Eric Rondell Glover pled guilty to participation in a complex criminal credit card fraud scheme. Over a several month period, Samaria and Glover stole credit card numbers, rented mailboxes from Mailboxes, Etc. and set up voice mail accounts. They changed the addresses and phone numbers corresponding to the credit cards numbers they had stolen, and requested credit-line increases for some of the cards. They then placed orders for expensive computer equipment and had the items mailed to Mailboxes etc. In furtherance of the scheme, they provided additional identifying information over the phone and faxed copies of fake drivers’ licenses they had obtained under the cardholders’ names. Eventually, the Secret Service started an investigation.

During the investigation, Secret Service agents observed Samaria loading a large box into Elaiho’s car. According to testimony at trial, one of the agents saw Elaiho “kind of looking around where other people [were] walking.” Of course, this was speculation but there is no indication if there was an objected. After Samaria finished loading the box into the car, the agent saw Elaiho sit in the passenger’s seat, with Samaria behind the wheel, and a third person, assumed to be Glover, in the backseat. The license plate number was later traced to Elaiho’s rental car.

A few days later, agents saw the same car pull up to the same Mailboxes, Etc. store with Elaiho driving this time. Samaria was in the passenger’s seat and Glover in the backseat. Samaria went inside and returned with two boxes. He hailed a cab and got in with the boxes. Elaiho testified that Glover told him to follow the cab which stopped a few blocks away. There, Samaria unloaded the two boxes from the cab at the curb and crossed the street toward some pay phones. Glover got out and stood by the boxes, and Elaiho remained in his car. Within minutes, all three were arrested at the scene. Inside the two boxes was found computer equipment purchased with a stolen credit card number.

The Government case against Elaiho consisted of assertions that he had (1) made false exculpatory statements when arrested; (2) observed the items themselves; (3) served as a “lookout” during the one delivery; (4) consciously avoided discovery of the nature of the conspiracy; (5) constructively possessed the stolen items; (6) rode as a passenger in his car during the first pickup and was present at the second pickup. The Appellate Court addressed each issue and this tearing apart of the circumstantial evidence is a vital exercise for every defense attorney to engage in.

1. When Elaiho was arrested, he stated that he did not know Samaria or Glover, had never been to the particular Mailboxes, Etc. prior to the date he ewas arrested, and had not lent his car to anyone else who could have driven it to that location for the first pick-up. Clearly, a jury could reasonably find these statements were false and made by Elaiho in an attempt to exculpate himself from involvement in criminality. However, the Court found that the statements do not by themselves supply the evidence of Elaiho’s knowledge and specific intent otherwise lacking from the evidence in the Government’s case. Although false statements may strengthen an inference already supplied by specific indicia of knowledge and intent, they do not, by themselves, prove that Elaiho knowingly and intentionally acted in furtherance of a conspiracy to receive or possess stolen property or engaged in, aided and abetted, or conspired to commit credit card fraud.

2. The government maintains that because Elaiho aided in the pickup of stolen goods, he intended to participate in the crimes charged. The Court noted that this argument rests upon the unproven assumption that Elaiho knew that the goods were stolen. That is because what Elaiho saw during these pickups was not necessarily or even reasonably indicative of any criminal activity at all, much less sufficient to support the conclusion that he knew that the goods were stolen or purchased through credit card fraud. Even if he suspected that the other two were involved in a criminal enterprise of some sort, the exterior appearance of the boxes was also consistent with any number of different criminal offenses such as receipt and possession of drugs, illegal weapons, counterfeit currency, or the receipt of legal goods such as drug paraphernalia that would later be employed in a criminal endeavor. Thus, a defense attorney must fight a prosecutor’s attempt to argue that because criminal activity took place, the defendant must have known and participated in the criminal activity. This circular logic must be vigrously fought.

3. As previously stated, the agent’s opinion that Elaiho acted as a lookout was riduclous. The Court found that there was no evidence that Elaiho was ever armed, or that he said or did anything in his role as “lookout” except, as the agent put it “kind of looked around where other people were walking. This should have been objected to preserve the issue for appeal. The prosecutor can make the argument to the jury but this is improper opinion testimony for the agent. There are many cases on lookout and conspiracy cases, but one of the more helpful ones to the defense is United States v. Dean, 59 F.3d 1479, 1487 (5th Cir.1995) in which the court held that “Evidence sufficient to support a reasonable inference that a defendant was knowingly acting as a lookout was insufficient support for the further inference that the defendant knew what he was protecting.”.

4. The conscious avoidance doctrine provides that a defendant’s knowledge of a fact required to prove the defendant’s guilt may be found when the jury “is persuaded that the defendant consciously avoided learning that fact while aware of a high probability of its existence.” United States v. Finkelstein, 229 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2000). In such circumstances, a conscious avoidance instruction to the jury “permits a finding of knowledge even where there is no evidence that the defendant possessed actual knowledge.” United States v. Ferrarini, 219 F.3d 145, 154 (2d Cir.2000). The Court found that even assuming that the conscious avoidance instruction given to the jury in this case was proper, any such inference could do no more than establish Elaiho’s knowledge of the criminal endeavor, not his specific intent to participate in the crimes charged.

5. Prosecutor’s love constructive possession and too many defense attorneys think that if something illegal is in the car and no one “owns up to it”, everyone is going down. The unexplained possession of recently stolen property may permit an inference that the possessor knew that the property was stolen. See Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 845-46 (1973). “Constructive possession exists when a person has the power and intention to exercise dominion and control over an object.” United States v. Payton, 159 F.3d 49, 56 (2d Cir.1998). Thus, what most attorneys forget is that “mere presence at the location of contraband does not establish possession.” United States v. Rios, 856 F.2d 493, 496 (2d Cir. 1988). The Court found that the boxes were only in Elaiho’s car on the first occasion. Furthermore, he was there is no evidence that Elaiho handled any of the boxes or directed where they were to be taken or what was to be done with them. At all times, Elaiho appeared to follow the directions of Samaria and Glover. Elaiho did not, therefore, exhibit the dominion and control over the boxes necessary to find that he constructively possessed them.

6. The Court simply found that just by being in the car offers no indicia that Elaiho was aware of the specific crimes charged and that Elaiho had the specific intent to participate in those crimes.

The Court found that the evidence was insufficient to show that Elaiho knowingly and intentionally participated in a conspiracy to receive or possess stolen goods. Likewise, it was also insufficient to support a conviction on the fraud offenses. The government contended that “it was reasonable for the jury to infer that Elaiho knew that this merchandise had been purchased with a credit card since the merchandise was clearly purchased using mail-order delivery.” The Court found that without the knowledge that the boxes contained stolen goods, Elaiho could not have intended to engage in credit card fraud, conspire to commit such fraud, or aid and abet such a fraud. The government offered no evidence that Elaiho knew that he had parked near a Mailboxes, Etc. location, or that Elaiho, an immigrant from Nigeria, knew the significance of such a business for those interested in mounting a fraud scheme involving stolen credit card numbers. This topic, essential for the government’s case, was never broached during Elaiho’s extensive testimony and no other evidence was introduced to suggest that Elaiho possessed such knowledge outside of the agent’s testimony that Elaiho stood across the street from a Mailboxes, Etc. store on November 13, 1998.

While this exact fact pattern may not be present in most credit card fraud conspiraicies, the issues of specfic intent, being a look out, constructive possession and conscious avoidance may be present in many cases. Just like the Court in this case tore apart the Government’s case point by point, so must the defense attorney address each issue. Too many attorneys read a police report and view the case as a normal person. Hearing the Government’s side of the story, a lay person may have said that Elaiho is clearly guilty. However, a defense attorney cannot afford to think like a normal person. He or she must view the case in terms of admissible evidence and legal arguments. When this is done effectively, the Government may have a tough time proving a credit card fraud conspiracy.

NJ Credit Card Theft & Fraud Lawyers February 10, 2010

Posted by jefhenninger in Misc..
add a comment

New Jersey Credit Card Theft & Fraud Lawyers

Even though more people are protecting themselves against identity theft, credit card theft and fraud is still a common problem in New Jersey.  As a result, our lawyers have seen that it can be treated as a very serious offense.  If you have been arrested for credit card fraud, it is important to call a NJ credit card fraud lawyer right away.  This is because our team of tough, smart fraud attorneys have found that early intervention can lead to great results.

Credit Card Fraud Lawyers prevent man’s arrest

To demonstrate why it is so important to call a New Jersey lawyer right away, consider this example from our firm.  Jef Henninger’s client was accused of about $150,000 in credit card fraud.  Before the defendant was arrested, Jef worked the case for two weeks which ended in the charged being torn up.  While every case is different and results may be different in your case, it would be almost impossible to get this result if the client would have not called the credit card fraud attorney Jef Henninger, Esq. months after his arrest.

Our credit card theft and fraud attorneys are easy to reach from  anywhere in New Jersey.  Call our lawyers at any time to discuss your case or set up an appointment.  You can meet with one of our tough, smart attorneys at any one of our ten New Jersey offices including Newark, Jersey City, Toms River, Eatontown, Red Bank, Freehold, New  Brunswick, East Brunswick, Woodbridge and Princeton.

Former employee of Cerebral Palsy of North Jersey charged with theft December 14, 2009

Posted by jefhenninger in News.
add a comment

Shaakerah Kelly of Bloomfield has been charged with theft by deception, forgery and fraudulent use of credit cards.  The theft allegedly occurred over a three-year period beginning in June 2005. She worked in the accounts payable unit at Cerebral Palsy of North Jersey and allegedly deposited checks into her personal bank account.  The total amount of the checks stolen totals $320,000.  There is no indication as to where the credit card fraud charge comes from.

Story is here.

Maryland man escapes arrest for credit card fraud December 16, 2008

Posted by tsclaw2209 in My Cases.
add a comment

A few weeks ago,  a Detective from a police department in South Jersey called a man from Maryland to ask him to give a statement with regard to allegations of credit card fraud and identity  theft.  Luckily for him, he called my office before doing anything. 

When I spoke with the client, I learned that the total amount allegedly stolen exceeded $150,000 from one victim, but via two different credit cards.  By the time I was involved in the case, both credit companies had already tried to resolve the case with my client for quite some time.  They had now contacted the police to start prosecution.

When I spoke to the police, it seemed like it was too late.  A criminal complaint was already drawn up and there was no interest in trying to settle the case.  The only thing to do was turn in the client.  Due to court schedules and the Decetive’s vacation, it would be about two weeks until we had to turn him in.  The charges were second degree, which means his bail would be high and he would go to prison if convicted (even for a first time offender). 

The news only got worse.   Since he was an out of state resident, a bail bond would be tough to secure.   In addition, the credit card companies didn’t seem like they wanted to deal with me.  It was not looking good. 

As a lawyer that does not take no  for an answer, I called both credit card companies again to see if I could do anything to work this  out.  I discovered that one credit card was used in Maryland so that the client would be  facing charges in two states.  I got a hold of an investigator from that company who was just about to dot the i’s and cross t’s on a criminal complaint down there.  We worked out a nice resolution that allowed my client to pay them off over time without pressing any criminal charges.  One down, one to go.

This other one wouldn’t be so easy.  Due to the manner in which the alleged fraud was structured, some of the debt was stuck with the victim, not my client.  With the victim looking at paying 10’s of thousands in credit card debt she did not authorize, she was not willing to help us.  I was able to push the  date back for the client to turn himself in to buy us more time.

After several weeks of burning up the phone lines, we reached a deal that would allow my client to assume all of the fraudulent debt.  Both the victim and the credit company withdrew the charges and the Detective was happy that he didn’t have to deal with the case.  

Although I always try to be hopeful about every case, I was planning on my client being arrested.  I was already thinking about how the trial would look like.  If this client would have given a statement before calling me, this entire case would have been very, very different.