Grand Larceny

Published on: January 15, 2013

NY DA: Fried Frank LLP Clerk Pilages Plethora of Toner to Support Lifestyle

Some people wait to reorder toner and ink when their printer spews out documents with faint vertical stripes. Others jump to purchase more when their computer screen flashes the low ink warning. Rumor has it that Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. could care less when his staff speed dials Staples to replace ink (well, with budget cuts throughout NYC he probably prefers waiting until the former and not the latter). Its not so much the timing of when one orders copy machine or printer toner that gets DA Vance’s goat, but whether or not the person is authorized to do so and does so in a manner that is consistent with his or her employment. Setting the tone for future work place malfeasance, DA Vance announced the indictment of Adrian Rodriguez, a former Fried Frank LLP employee, for allegedly purchasing north of $375,000 worth of ink and toner that he then sold at a fraction of the cost to line his own pockets.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office worked with Fried Frank LLP to catch the duplication department desperado by setting up a sting operation whereby undercover investigators hid inside refrigerator sized boxes of copy machine toner and ink delivered to the unsuspecting toner thief (small pencil sized holes were poked throughout to enable viewing and oxygen flow). When Rodriguez attempted to sell the ill gotten gains the following day, investigators immediately jumped out and exclaimed, “gotcha!” Shortly thereafter, Rodriguez voluntarily supplied prosecutors with a written confession on 48 blue and pink Post-its.

Published on: October 17, 2012

New York Tax Crimes: Is the Failure to Pay Taxes in New York Always a Grand Larceny Offense

By Jeremy Saland

New York City prosecutors and District Attorneys are eager to find financial frauds. Not only does it give law enforcement credibility in their equal pursuit of all criminal activity from the “streets to the suites,” but they also receive a portion of the restitution that they may recover.

While it is in no way fair to assert a restitution motive is the driving force behind the prosecution of these New York Grand Larceny and New York Tax crimes, it certainly gives prosecutors an added incentive to ferret out offenders whether their theft crimes occur in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens or even Westchester County. Whatever the reasoning may be, it is critical to understand that an allegation, arrest or indictment in New York for Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property or Tax crime is in no way proof that you are in fact guilty. While your immediate future will undoubtedly by frightening, your criminal lawyer may be able to establish that prosecutors are just off the mark.

Published on: September 30, 2012

Queens DA: Bogus Harvard Grad Defrauds Six Doctors & Others into Investing in Bogus Healthcare Facility While Taking Out in Excess of $400K Worth of Credit in Their Names

By Jeremy Saland

In what can be described as an interesting twist on an increasingly common crime, Queens prosecutors have charged Delloyd Hill, a.k.a., Tom Hill, with multiple counts of Grand Larceny, Identity Theft and Scheme to Defraud for allegedly defrauding a half-a-dozen physicians. Hill’s arrest stems from an investigation by the NYPD and the Queens County District Attorney’s office into Hill’s alleged scheme where he posed as a Harvard graduate and convinced numerous doctors to invest in an allegedly bogus medical facility. Further, it is claimed by law enforcement that Hill convinced these doctors that he was interviewing them for particular positions at the alleged fictitious facility.

According to prosecutors, between April 23, 2012, and September 25, 2012, Hill is alleged to have opened three lines of credit with the medical equipment financing company, TCF Equipment Finance Inc. The three lines of credit were opened using personal identifying information of unknowing physicians totaling in excess of $400,000. These lines allegedly totaled $215,000, $200,000, and an undetermined amount respectively. In addition to the lines of credit, District Attorney Brown believes that Hill defrauded his landlord and another individual to invest a total of $65,000 into the claimed bogus business venture.

Published on: September 18, 2012

What it Means to be Indicted for Theft & Larceny Crimes by a Grand Jury in New York

By Jeremy Saland

Arrests in New York for theft crimes such as Grand Larceny, Scheme to Defraud, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property and Criminal Tax Fraud are bad enough. However, New York Grand Larceny lawyers and theft attorneys have greater concerns well beyond an arrest. Certainly, an arrest for Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 155.35) or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 165.52) is far from enviable and is absolutely terrifying for the accused and his or her family, but an indictment takes these concerns to a much higher level.

Without any context, the mere assertion that an indictment is more concerning than the initial arrest is often lost on an accused. However, if you take little away from this blog entry remember that an indictment is something that an accused should always seek to avoid. This blog entry will briefly address what it practically means to be indicted on a New York larceny crime while supplying some basic information about New York Grand Juries.

Published on: August 23, 2012

Torah Crowns Stolen from Young Israel Synagogue of Queens Valley: Potential Crimes & Arrest Charges for Stolen Religious Property

By Jeremy Saland

According to the New York Daily News, a yarmulke sporting thief allegedly stole two “torah crowns” from Young Israel of Queens Valley. Posing as a congregant, it is alleged that the unapprehended varmit’s ill gotten gains netted him in excess of $1,000. Assuming the alleged perpetrator of this synagogue theft is ultimately caught, what potential crimes could he face?

One of the first thing that prosecutors do in any theft case is ascertain the value of the stolen property. Once the aggregate value of stolen property from one victim exceeds $1,000 (and is $3,000 or less as in this case), Assistant District Attorney know that they have a Fourth Degree Grand Larceny felony. More specifically, adding the value of the two torah crowns together, prosecutors will have on charge of New York Penal Law 155.30(1). While the theft of an individual torah crown may only be a misdemeanor Petit Larceny (New York Penal Law 155.25), the aggregation law allows law enforcement to pursue felony Grand Larceny prosecutions where there are multiple thefts over any period of time and from the same complainant.

Published on: August 18, 2012

Case Results: Arrest, Conviction & Prison Avoided in $90,000 New York City Bureau of Fraud Investigation into Grand Larceny & Welfare Fraud

By Jeremy Saland

An arrest or investigation in New York involving any type of fraud or theft is a concerning one. When investigators, detectives or Assistant District Attorneys want to “speak” with you or have some “questions,” your defenses should automatically be raised. Whether your first step is reaching out to a criminal lawyer or not, when the state or federal government is the potential victim of a larceny crime remember that identifying your defense as soon as possible may be the best way to protect yourself going forward from felony Welfare Fraud, Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, Forgery and Offering a False Instrument for Filing arrests, indictments or convictions.

In a scenario that repeats itself routinely throughout New York City, individuals who are alleged to wrongfully receive certain benefits from New York City and New York State – unemployment benefits, Medicaid or food stamps – may not be contact by criminal law enforcement first, but by investigators from the Bureau of Fraud Investigation of the New York City Human Resources Administration (250 Church Street 3rd Floor). Make no mistake. What you say to these investigators can and will be used against you when fraud investigators share their findings with prosecutors for the purpose of commencing a criminal case.

Published on: August 12, 2012

Is an Expert or an Owner Required to Establish the Value of Stolen Property in a New York Grand Larceny Arrest

By Jeremy Saland

When accused or arrested for any Grand Larceny crime in New York, each and every dollar or cent can potentially be relevant in determining the appropriate degree of Grand Larceny you may face. In fact, having a New York Grand Larceny lawyer or criminal defense attorney analyze the value of the property allegedly stolen can potentially be a critical piece of any defense. While an arrest for Grand Larceny Embezzlement may not require the same review due to the nature of the stolen property (cash or money), when the stolen property consists of computers, vehicles and televisions have a more subjective value that diminishes (or increases) over time, determining the correct market value can mean the difference between facing no jail and up to four, seven, fifteen and even twenty five years of incarceration.

As I have addressed through this blog as well as our sister blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com), the initial assessment in ascertaining value of property is to determine the market value of the property at the time of the theft or larceny. So, for example, if someone steals your iPad, laptop computer and iPhone, who better to testify or establish the market value than the owner? After all, an owner knows the condition of the property, what applications were installed and the age of the items in question. Can’t a victim of theft merely assert a particular value to satisfy the legal burdens of the New York Penal Law? The simple answer to this question is that there is no easy answer. However, this is where the value or importance of your criminal lawyer may truly rear its head. Whoever that person is who establishes value, what must be done to ensure that it is accurate and fairly represents the market value of the items in question and how can your attorney challenge that determination?

Published on: August 5, 2012

The Moral Certainty Standard in a New York Grand Larceny Case: A Criminal Law Assessment of Theft by False Promise with a Touch of Scheme to Defraud

By Jeremy Saland

In in a previous blog entry I addressed what constitutes a New York Scheme to Defraud under Penal Law 190.60 and 190.65. Experienced New York Grand Larceny defense attorneys, specifically those familiar with white-collar theft and fraud crimes, know that a Scheme to Defraud indictment often comes hand-in-hand with the charge of Grand Larceny. Many times, this Grand Larceny is premised in “false promises.” Logically, a Scheme to Defraud must be set into action by a lie; the scheme is predicated on a false promise or false representation. Thus, if you are involved in a Scheme to Defraud in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx or Westchester County, you likely may also be charged with “larceny by false promise” as defined under New York Penal Law 155.05(2)(d). Remember, that such a larceny is the manner in which the crime is perpetrated. The potential punishment or degree of the offense is still dictated by the value or amount of the actual theft.

In the context of Scheme to Defraud, a false promise is a representation that the schemer makes promising some future conduct will occur. This if often part of an overarching Scheme to Defraud (whereby the schemer ultimately steals property), without the intention to ever follow through with promised conduct. For instance, suppose I run a business that is going bankrupt. In a scheme to defraud, I tell a twenty investors that my company is gaining significant profits and they will surely receive a high amount of return in the next fiscal quarter. I fully intend to take their money and head for my villa in the south of France. In this hypothetical, I have committed a larceny by false promise and a Scheme to Defraud. The investors were never actually going to receive any profits from my failing business, and I never intended to give them any return on their investment as I promised.

Published on: July 26, 2012

DA Vance Doubles Down: Two Alleged Bank Fraudsters Arrested on Same Day

By Jeremy Saland

In a move reminiscent of “doubling down,” Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. is showing us all that he has earned his chops as New York’s top prosecutor (and 90th President of the District Attorneys Association of the State of New York). Unfortunately, for two accused felons, these chops are being achieved, in part, on their respective backs. According to the press releases of two unrelated arrests, Fordin Francois and Edward Lewando are alleged to have committed the crime of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 155.40) for stealing more than $700,000 and $300,000 respectively.

Prosecutors believe that Francois, a personal banker at JP Morgan Chase, defrauded at least seventeen bank accounts between January and June 2012. It appears that after obtaining personal identifying information of the bank’s clients, Francois shared this information with others who posed as account holders and made wire transfers. Additionally, it is believed that the fake checks were deposited into the accounts and ultimately drawn upon. Compounding matters, prosecutors claim that Francois had a briefcase with personal identifying information of JP Morgan Chase banking clients.

Published on: July 1, 2012

Saland Law PC Update: Top Criminal Defense Results, Super Lawyers and the Manhattan District Attorney Associates

By Jeremy Saland

Over the past few months, Saland Law PC has enjoyed success both in the courtroom and in the professional arena. The New York criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Saland Law PC have diligently and successfully advocated for clients investigated and arrested for Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property and similar theft crimes in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Westchester County and the much greater New York City region. Although past results do not guarantee future outcomes, Saland Law PC’s criminal lawyers obtained significant departures from initial indictment or arrest charges for numerous clients while also keeping those clients from serving state prison or local jail sentences. Some of these recent examples include: People v. XXXX – Client arrested for entering a school and stealing multiple laptop computers worth thousands of dollars. Charged with “D” felony Grand Larceny related activities, client ultimately received a non criminal and non incarceratory Disorderly Conduct violation.

People v. XXXX – Client worked at a major financial institution and was indicted for felony Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree (an “E” felony) for stealing “secret scientific material” prior to retaining Saland Law PC. After search warrants were executed in an attempt to locate the “secret scientific material,” the prosecution sought incarceration on a felony plea. Saland Law PC’s criminal defense attorneys secured a misdemeanor without probation or prison. People v. XXXX – Client was alleged to have forged an employer’s name to a lease agreement while also using the employer’s credit card to make thousands of dollars in unauthorized purchases. Prosecutors believed that in addition to the credit card fraud, our client stole nearly $70,000 during the course of our client’s employment. Despite being identified in a lineup by employees of the store where the alleged credit card transactions occurred, the People ultimately agreed to permit the client to plea directly to a misdemeanor without probation or incarceration in lieu of an indictment on the felony Grand Larceny and related charges. Alternatively, the client was offered a deal whereby the client could plea to a felony, but later withdraw that plea to a potential non-criminal Disorderly Conduct violation if client followed certain rules. Although our client had faced Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (a “D” felony) and possibly greater felony Grand Larceny charges, our client avoided any felony conviction or incarceration. People v. XXXX – Client was alleged to have stolen credit cards from a restaurant the client frequented. Despite video showing what appeared to be our client taking the credit cards, the criminal defense attorneys at Saland Law PC successfully challenged the prosecution’s lack of a viable identification of our client. Ultimately, despite being charged with multiple “E” felony Grand Larcenies for theft of credit cards, our client received an ACD (adjournment in contemplation of dismissal) and our client’s record remained clean of any criminal convictions.