New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

The New York criminal lawyers and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland PC have represented all types of professionals from teachers to physicians and lawyers to architects in criminal investigations and arrests. Our criminal attorneys have represented these professionals in arrests ranging from Petit Larceny Shoplifting (NY PL 155.25) and Theft of Services (NY PL 165.15) to Assault (NY PL 120.00) and felony Grand Larceny (NY PL 155.35). Because these professionals don't merely have their criminal case to be concerned about, our New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC routinely discuss the collateral consequence of an arrest and conviction with these clients. Now, according to reports, there may be an additional and grave concern for teachers arrested or given a Desk Appearance Ticket for any criminal charge ranging from Criminal Possession of Stolen Property (NY PL 165.40) to Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree (NY PL 220.03).

According to reports, a New York State Senator has proposed legislation that will have dire consequences for teachers convicted of any crime (misdemeanor or felony). Regardless of any of our personal beliefs on the value of the tenure system or whether we believe the United Federation of Teachers serves themselves or students first, the bill in the New York State Senate appears to give a mayor of New York City the ability to terminate teachers convicted of crimes. According to one report, there are in excess of 500 teachers that still hold their jobs despite the fact that they have been convicted of a crime. While I have not read the bill, reports appear to indicate that Mayor Bloomberg, and his successors, would have the ability to dismiss these and future teachers convicted of crimes.

Whether or not this bill ultimately becomes law in New York State, teachers should be on notice. If you are arrested for any crime, even if it was something as "insignificant" as using a student's or a senior citizen's MetroCard to swipe at a turnstile, you need to take the appropriate steps to not only resolve the criminal case, but to protect your livelihood and future.

For further reading on Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs) in New York, Theft of Services, Assault, Shoplifting, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance and Grand Larceny, please follow the highlighted links above for the applicable section of the Crotty Saland PC website. For additional information on these crimes (and others) including, analysis of legal decisions and statutes, review the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog where you can search for the specific terms or go to more generalized sections of the criminal law.

The New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC represent the accused in criminal investigations, arrests and trials throughout the New York City region. Before starting the criminal defense firm, both founding members served as prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

As a New York criminal lawyer and former Manhattan prosecutor, I have handled countless crimes involving Grand Larceny in New York ranging from a couple of thousands to tens of millions of dollars. Over the past couple of years, I have successfully kept individuals out of prison, obtained reductions in cases from felonies to misdemeanors and even avoided criminal records for clients charged with and investigated or arrested for Grand Larceny. In fact, the New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC convinced prosecutors to drop an investigation and potential arrest of a client accused of a multi-million dollar tax fraud case. Because no case is routine and every case is unique, no lawyer can tell you that their past results will guarantee similar ones in the future (if they do, walk immediately away). However, what an experienced New York criminal lawyer should be able to do is explain the potential deals or offers that may be made should you decide working out a disposition is the appropriate defense in your case as opposed to confronting the charges head on and forcing the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

For the sake of this entry, we will assume our hypothetical client, Mr. X, is charged with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 155.40) for stealing or embezzling property (in this case money, but it need not be) valued in excess of $50,000, but $1,000.000 or less. It is important to note that there is no mandatory minimum term of incarceration for a first time offender, but there is a potential maximum punishment of 5 to 15 years is prison. If you are a predicate felon, the mandatory minimum is 3 to 6 years in prison and the maximum is 7.5 to 15 years in prison.

Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (NY PL 155.35) & Attempted Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (NY PL 110/155.40)

Both Attempted Grand Larceny in the Second Degree & Grand Larceny in the Third Degree are "D" felonies punishable by no minimum term of incarceration, but up to 2 and 1/3 to seven years in state prison for a first time offender. Individuals who are predicate felons face a minimum of 2 to 4 years and a maximum of 3 and 1/2 to 7 years in prison irrespective if the property or money is stolen by embezzlement, trick or extortion.

For background purposes relevant to understanding plea deals, whenever a crime is an "attempted crime," the degree of the crime is knocked down a level. Therefore, such as in this scenario, Attempted Grand Larceny in the Second Degree and Grand Larceny in the Third Degree are the same. Keep in mind, however, pleading guilty to a completed crime, as opposed to an attempted crime, may be relevant to what happens to your career, certifications or licensing. Obviously, any plea must be discussed and vetted with your criminal lawyer.

Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree (NY PL 155.30) & Attempted Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (NY PL 110/155.35)

A plea to either of these charges will result in a conviction for an "E" felony punishable by up to 1 and 1/3 to 4 years in prison for a first time offender. For a predicate felon, these numbers change to a minimum of 1 and 1/2 to 3 years to a maximum term of 2 to 4 years in prison.

Attempted Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree (NY PL 155.30) & Petit Larceny (NY PL 155.25)

Both Petit Larceny (often called the "New York shoplifting statute") as well as Attempted Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree are "A" misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in jail. Assuming a case is too dangerous to fight at trial or the evidence is too strong against you, a plea to either one of these crimes is often times a tremendous result. The most critical reason is that a felony conviction and the collateral consequences of disbarment, loss of a medical, teaching or "financial" license, may be avoided (again, you and your criminal defense attorney will need to ascertain the impact of a misdemeanor conviction prior to accepting such a plea offer). Moreover, many individual rights are not automatically compromised.

In addition to a plea to one of these crimes, part of the deal will include one or a combination of the following: probation, restitution, community service, jail / prison, confession of judgment, fine or a conditional discharge. In other words, in lieu of prison or jail, your criminal defense attorney may be able to negotiate a sentence that keeps you out of jail, but requires restitution and community service. Again, each case is unique.

Beyond the above referenced crimes, if your New York criminal lawyer is successful in defending your criminal case, there are other non-criminal offenses or deals that may be obtained including violations and adjournments in contemplation of dismissal (ACD). Although extremely difficult, the New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC obtained an ACD for a client accused of a theft in excess of $20,000. As a result, this client who worked in finance had her case dismissed and sealed six months after the court adjourned the case for the ACD. Again, past results cannot guarantee future outcomes, but discuss with your criminal lawyer whether a potentially non criminal deal can be reached in your theft, larceny, embezzlement or extortion case in New York.

For further reading on the nuances, criminal degrees and legal decisions addressing the New York Penal Law statutes of Grand Larceny, Embezzlement, Extortion and other theft crimes, please follow the highlighted link. Beyond the Crotty Saland website, additional information about larceny and theft statutes, other crimes found in the New York Penal Law, legal decisions and analysis of cases in the news can be found on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Other relevant New York criminal blog entries addressing Grand Larceny and Embezzlement include, but are not limited to:

New York Crimes Beyond Embezzlement and Grand Larceny Part I
New York Crimes Beyond Embezzlement and Grand Larceny Part II
Article 155: Understanding the Penal Law
Criminal Possession of Stolen Property and Associated Legal Presumptions
How New York Courts Establish the Value of Property in a Grand Larceny Case
Credit Card Theft in New York: Automatic Felony Regardless of Value

Crotty Saland PC represents those accused of, investigated for or charged with Grand Larceny, Embezzlement and other White Collar crimes throughout the New York City region.

Most experienced New York criminal lawyers will be able to tell you potential incarceratory punishments for felonies, misdemeanors and violations without hesitation. For example, in New York, an "E" felony is punishable by up to four years in state prison while and "A" misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year in a county or city jail (in New York City such as Manhattan or Brooklyn, county "time" is served on Rikers). Aside from a term of imprisonment, however, what are the potential fines associated with pleas or convictions for particular crimes? This entry will address those fines that may be levied for misdemeanor and violation convictions as set forth pursuant to New York Penal Law section 80.05.

Fines for Class A Misdemeanors Convictions in New York

For class "A" misdemeanors, the highest misdemeanor degree, a court can fine a defendant in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Although limited to violations of section 215.80 of the New York Penal Law, the court may impose a fine double the value or amount of the property that was disposed of by the defendant in an unlawful manner.

Fines for Class B Misdemeanors Convictions in New York

Not as serious a class A misdemeanors, class B misdemeanors are still crimes that will give you a criminal record. The maximum fine a court can levy upon a defendant for a class B misdemeanor is five hundred dollars ($500.00).

Fines for Unclassified Misdemeanors Convictions in New York

Certain crimes in New York are misdemeanors that are neither A nor B misdemeanors. These crimes may be treated similar in their scope of punishment as A or B misdemeanors, but are considered unclassified. An example of an unclassified misdemeanor is Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Vehicle found in New York's Vehicle and Traffic Law. For these crimes, the court my set a fine not as established under the guidelines for A or B misdemeanors, but as established in the specific statute dealing with that crime. In other words, if the particular crimes permits a fine of only one hundred dollars or two thousand dollars, then that is the amount the court may levy.

Fines for Violation Convictions in New York

Not a crime, a violation is often a good way to resolve criminal charges in the event an outright dismissal or acquittal is not likely. The maximum fine the court can fine a person for this type of conviction in New York is two hundred fifty dollars ($250). Like unclassified misdemeanors, there are violations that do not fall under the New York Penal Law. Those violations specify in the language of the statute the amount of the permissible fine.

Other Possible Fines for Convictions in New York

In the event a person is convicted for a crime and as a result of their criminal activity they obtained property, including money, the New York Penal law permits courts to fine that person in an amount double to their gain even if that exceeds the statutory limits outlined above.

Additional information on New York Sentencing Guidelines, including terms of incarceration for both felonies and misdemeanors, can be found through the link. Beyond this information, both the Crotty Saland PC website and the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog contain significant educational information about New York Penal Law statutes, legal decisions and interesting commentary about cases in the news.

Crotty Saland PC, a New York criminal law firm, represents individuals charged with or investigated for crimes throughout the New York City area. Both founding partners previously served as prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

While merely "chopped liver" compared to Ponzi King Bernie Madoff, Brian Kim, the founder of Liquid Capital Management, was indicted by a New York County Grand Jury for his own Ponzi scheme that allegedly defrauded 45 people out of approximately $4,000,000. To his alleged victims, however, Mr. Kim and Liquid Capital Management were no different than Bernie. He allegedly took his naive investors on a wild ride of fraud and white collar crime that resulted in a significant loss.

According to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., Mr. Kim began his scheme back in 2003 and convinced numerous people that he was an accomplished trader. Instead, prosecutors allege Mr. Kim was not really a trader, but more of a traitor (a financial Benedict Arnold if you will) to his duped clients and pocketed their money while suffering major losses in his investments. Like the godfather of Ponzi schemes, Mr. Kim allegedly took a page out of Mr. Madoff's playbook when he drafted false statements for his unknowing clients.

Unfortunately for these alleged victims, Mr. Kim is nowhere to be found. A warrant was issued in New York County Supreme court after he failed to show up for a trial where he was alleged to have stolen in excess of $400,000. As a result of this warrant and his past alleged actions, Manhattan prosecutors sought a No-Arrest or "NA" indictment from the Grand Jury. Should Mr. Kim pop up somewhere, he will be held and ultimately returned to New York to face both cases.

Mr. Kim faces the charges of Grand Larceny in the First Degree ( a class "B" felony), Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (a class "C" felony), Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree (a class "E" felony), violating the Martin Act (a class "E" felony) and Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree (a class "E" felony). "B" felonies are punishable by up to 25 years in prison while "C" and "E" felonies are punishable by up to 15 and 4 years respectively.

It is interesting to note that there are two separate charges of Grand Larceny. Normally, if the theft is from one victim, the value of the theft is aggregated into one single count. If the theft comes from different victims, there is some case law that permits the aggregation where the thefts were part of the same scheme. Without more information, I could only speculate as to why the indictment was drafted as such. The answer is probably fairly straight forward. Regardless, it is clear that Mr. Vance is serious about prosecuting fraud especially where there are so many victims of an alleged multi-million dollar scheme.

Information and detailed evaluations of the crimes of Grand Larceny and Falsifying Business Records can be found on the respective links. Beyond these crimes, a significant amount of information from cases in the press to analysis of legal decisions and statutes can be found on both the Crotty Saland PC website and the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent the accused in all stages of criminal investigations and arrests throughout the New York City region. Before starting the criminal defense firm, both founding members served as prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

We have all done it and we usually don't need the assistance of a New York criminal defense lawyer. Usually, the honk of the car behind us is a sufficient reminder that the red light has now turned green and we need to put the pedal to the ground. Maybe we were looking at the radio or maybe we were engaged in a heated conversation (not on a hand held mobile, of course). Regardless, we responded slowly to the change of the light from red to green. While this delay is often attributable to carelessness, a driver in Nassau County argued that his failure to turn on a green light did not give police probable cause to stop him and ultimately arrest him for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI / DUI) in New York. In his particular case, the question asked and ultimately answered by the court was whether or not the momentary delay in his response established probable cause for the police to stop and arrest him.

In People v. Martinez, 2010NA023365, the defendant was charged with DWI, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1192(2) and impeding traffic, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1181(a). It was alleged that while standing at a red light, which ultimately turned green, the defendant failed to immediately turn. Instead, he paused with significant enough time for two vehicles to go around him. The third vehicle behind the defendant was a police officer. After about thirty seconds as the light turned yellow, the defendant turned his vehicle. After following the defendant for a couple of blocks, the officer pulled him over. There was no testimony by the police officer (the prosecutor should have brought this out) about oncoming traffic, the fashion of the defendant's driving (did he cross over the white or yellow lines?) or whether or not the defendant used his turning signal.

The court's decision (quoted from the actual decision):

Officer Barnes was clear that within seconds of the light turning green the two cars between him and the Defendant moved around the Defendant and proceeded on their way, without any apparent difficulty. Such a momentary delay cannot provide the basis for a police stop for impeding traffic. See: Salter v. North Dakota Department of Transportation, 505 N.W.2d 111 (S. Ct. North Dakota 1993) [Applying a virtually identical statute the court found there was no reasonable and articulable basis to stop an automobile which was going 30 to 35 miles per hour in a 50 mile per hour no passing zone, with cars coming up behind him, for impeding traffic]

Once the two vehicles between the Defendant and Officer Barnes proceeded, the only vehicle left behind the Defendant was Officer Barnes himself. Officer Barnes, however, did not testify that he intended to pass the Defendant; rather, he made it clear that it was his intention to follow the Defendant. See: People v. Rotkvich, 256 Ill. App.3d 124, 628 N.E.2d 888 (Ill. App. 1st Dist.1993) [the court affirmed the suppression of evidence in a driving under the influence of alcohol prosecution where there was no reasonable or articulable suspicion for stopping the defendant's vehicle, which was traveling between 10 and 15 miles per hour in a 35 miles per hour zone and the only cars on the road were two police cars, one of which followed the defendant and the other of which was not said to be impeded]

There is also no indication in the matter before the court "that defendant's manner of driving resulted in a substantial danger to other motorists." People v. Brand, 71 Ill.App.3d 698, 390 N.E.2d 65 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1979) [the court affirmed the granting of the defendant's motion to suppress where the defendant drove 20 miles per hour in a 45 miles per hour zone for one-quarter mile, but there was no indication that the defendant's slow speed either endangered other motorists or that other motorists were affected by the defendant's conduct]

Based upon all of the foregoing, the court finds that the Defendant's conduct, in merely waiting for the traffic light to turn yellow before making a lawful left hand turn, without interfering with the reasonable progress of the other motorists present or creating a danger of any kind to any motorist, did not provide Officer Barnes with either probable cause to believe that the Defendant had violated VTL §1181(a) or reasonable suspicion that the Defendant committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime.

Where, as here, the stop of the Defendant's vehicle was unreasonable, any "subsequent discoveries...constitute derivative evidence obtained by an illegal seizure and therefore should [be] suppressed (citation omitted)." People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 369 N.Y.S.2d 67 (1975); See also: People v. MacKenzie, 61 A.D.3d 703, 875 N.Y.S.2d 908 (2nd Dept. 2009) lv. den. 13 N.Y.3d 798, 887 N.Y.S.2d 547 (2009) [following an unreasonable stop the defendant's statement and breathalyzer results were suppressed]

Accordingly, the Defendant's application to suppress all evidence recovered by the police following this unreasonable stop is granted.

For further information, including an analysis of legal decisions and statutes, on New York DWI and DUI laws, please follow the highlighted link. Articles on other statutes found in the New York criminal law as well as cases in the news can be found on Crotty Saland PC's New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The New York City DWI lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent those arrested for Driving While Intoxicated in Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, Rockland, New York (Manhattan), Kings (Brooklyn), Bronx and Queens Counties. The criminal defense firm was founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors.

Whether you were arrested for Third Degree Assault (New York Penal Law 120.00) or you were given an Assault Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) in the New York City area, the potential offers or deals are ultimately the same. Certainly, one New York criminal defense attorney may have a different approach to get the best deal over another lawyer, but the potential crimes and violations you may obtain are all found in the New York Penal Law.

Generally, Assault in the Third Degree (NY PL 120.00) is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. In New York City (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx), that year for an Assault arrest and conviction would be served on Rikers Island. Obviously, your New York criminal lawyer will advocate fiercely to prevent that from happening. So, assuming that you cannot beat the case on factual, legal or procedural grounds, what are the potential offers you can expect to discuss with your New York criminal defense attorney? The following is a list of those dispositions:

Attempted Assault in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 110/120.00)

By way of background, whenever 110 appears before a criminal statute, that signifies the crime is an attempted crime. Generally, an attempted crime is a lesser included offense of the actual crime. In the realm of Assault, Attempted Assault is a lesser crime that is automatically a lower crime of the completed crime of Assault. In practical terms, an Attempted Assault is a "B" misdemeanor and is punishable by up to 90 days in jail. While it is obviously a lesser crime compared to Assault, a plea to this offense would still give you a criminal record that is and will remain public. It is very rare that an Attempted Assault is a "good deal" where you are charged with Assault in the Third Degree as the most serious offense. Having said that, each case is unique and needs to be thoroughly discussed with your own counsel.

Harassment in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 240.26)

Harassment in the Second Degree (NY PL 240.26) is violation and not a crime. This means that if you were convicted of this offense and nothing else, you would not have a criminal record. Clearly, this type of plea is exponentially better than a plea to an Attempted Assault. While you will admit on the record that you struck or subjected another person to physical contact, part of your allocution (admission to the elements of the crime) will not include any language that you intended to cause that person and in fact caused that other person physical injury or substantial pain. To sum up, this type of plea avoids a criminal record and admission of the criminal intent as described. Harassment in the Second Degree is punishable by up to 15 days in jail.

The major drawback to Harassment in the Second Degree is that it does not seal like some other violations. This means that the record of your plea and the conviction may be available to those seeking information about your background.

The potential disposition or offers in an Assault case as listed above do not stand alone. A prosecutor could require that you take an anger management program, serve probation or complete community service. Even worse, jail could be part of that plea. All of this can be negotiated in some capacity. The stronger your potential case is and weaker the prosecution's, the more favorable the outcome will be as long as your New York criminal defense attorney has the ability to negotiate and advocate on your behalf. If you are arrested and charged with any degree of Assault in New York, including Assault in the Third Degree, consult with a New York criminal lawyer who can address your specific evidence and determine if fighting the case through trial, working out a deal or some other defense is the best thing for you.

A second entry dealing with other potential offers found in the New York Penal Law will be posted shortly. This second entry will deal with the more favorable and non-criminal dispositions including Disorderly Conduct, the Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD) and the Family Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD in the domestic context).

Crotty Saland PC represents the accused in Assault allegations and arrests throughout the New York City area, The former Manhattan prosecutors who started the criminal defense firm have successfully defended clients charged with Assault throughout the region (prior results do not guarantee future outcomes).

Extensive information on Assault crimes in New York can be found through the highlighted links. Moreover, extensive information on these an other crimes can be found on the website as well as the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com) where you can find commentary on cases in the news, legal decisions and statutes found in the New York Penal Law.

As I addressed in an earlier entry in Crotty Saland PC's New York Criminal Lawyer Blog, Embezzlement arrests and indictments go well beyond Grand Larceny charges. In New York, the laws of and crimes pertaining to Embezzlement can often come crashing down like a ton of bricks. While an experienced white collar and New York Embezzlement lawyer will be able to dissect your case to ascertain the appropriate defense, the following entry addresses additional crimes that you may face if you are charged with a Grand Larceny Embezzlement.

Identity Theft in the First Degree

New York Penal Law 190.80 is the statute addressing the highest degree of Identity Theft in New York. If you use another person's personal identifying information (such as their name or bank account number) and you obtain services, credit, property or goods exceeding $2,000 in value, then this offense is a likely charge you will face in your Embezzlement indictment or arrest.

Hypothetical: If you forge the signature of the person who endorses the checks for your employer and you do so without permission in order to obtain money, then you have likely perpetrated this crime (and Forgery in the Second Degree as well). If the value the amount did not exceed $2,000, but was more than $500, then you would likely be charged with Identity Theft in the Second Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 190.79. One major caveat to the charges as they relate to the amount stolen is as follows. Even if the amount stolen is as little as $5, if you commit a "D" felony, such as Forgery, in connection to the Identity Theft, then the charges against you can be bumped up to Identity Theft in the First Degree.

Identity Theft in the First Degree is a "D" felony punishable by up to 2 and 1/3 to 7 years in prison while Identity Theft in the Second Degree is an "E" felony punishable by up to 1 and 1/3 to 4 years in state prison.

Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree

Codified under New York Penal Law section 175.10, generally, if you alter, delete or cause the altering or modification of an entry in the business records of an enterprise and you do so to cover up another crime, then you would likely face the charge of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree. It is important to note that "enterprise" and "business record" are both specifically defined terms in the New York Penal Law. Consult with your New York criminal lawyer to better understand these terms.

Again, using our hypothetical from above, if you deposit the checks with the forged signature into your account for the purpose of stealing the money from your employer and then you alter invoices kept in the course of business by the organization in order to hide what you have done (maybe you altered deposit slips or internal accounting records showing deposits and withdrawals), then you will like face this additional crime during your Embezzlement arrest or indictment. An "E" felony, Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree is punishable by up to 1 and 1/3 to 4 years in state prison.

If it was not clear before, it should be overwhelmingly clear now. While Grand Larceny may be the most significant charge you will face in an Embezzlement arrest and indictment in New York, it is far from the only one. Not only are the "D" and "E" felonies of Forgery, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, Falsifying Business Records and Identity Theft other crimes that may be brought into the fold, there is always the potential that these crimes can run consecutive in their sentences.

For extensive information on Embezzlement and Grand Larceny based on the value of the property stolen, please follow the respective links on the crimes above. In depth information as to the crimes of Forgery, Identity Theft, Falsifying Business Records and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument can be found through the highlighted links as well. Information regarding other criminal statutes, legal decisions and commentary on cases in the news can be found on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

A New York criminal defense firm, the white collar criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC have had successful results representing the accused throughout the New York City region for Embezzlement and Grand Larceny related crimes. Prior to starting the criminal defense practice, the founding partners served as prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

**The first installment of the Embezzlement Crime Primer can be found through the link.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. announced earlier today that his office's Cybercrime and Identity Theft Bureau has taken down and arrested a 27 person Identity Theft ring based out of Brooklyn, New York. Prosecutors allege that "S3," as the crew calls themselves, "compromised hundreds of bank accounts,and fraudulently purchased Apple products from stores around the country to resell for profit."

It is claimed that these Identity Theft bandits obtained personal identifying information of their victims by purchasing this information online through people who trafficked the data. Once the alleged fraudsters obtained the information, including credit card numbers, the leaders recruited individuals who would shop in stores with the credit card numbers. The shoppers duped Apple employees after ring leaders allegedly created fraudulent and counterfeit credit cards and placed the stolen credit card number onto the magnetic strip of the counterfeit credit card. Armed with a counterfeit credit card in the name of a shopper, these hired guns allegedly made the Apple purchases for items including iPads and MacBooks.

It is likely that this scheme was perpetrated in such a manner because if an employee asked to see the credit card along with other identification, then the shopper could produce corroboration that the fake credit card belonged to him or her. Sadly for these victims, employees of Apple are partially responsible for failing the public. It appears that Apple employees may not have taken the next step to actually look at receipts to see if the receipt matched the name on the card as it often does. Unfortunately, this type of scheme has become less and less newsworthy, not because it is insignificant, but because it has become relatively easy to perpetrate as technology expands.

According to law enforcement, search warrants on S3 properties and accounts resulted in the recovery of the tools to create the fraudulent credit cards along with firearms and $300,000.

The alleged S3 ring members include:

Shaheed Bilal ("Sha"), Ophelia Allene ("Philly"), Ali Bilal ("Acki"), Isaac Bilal ("I.B."), Rahim Bilal ("Marlo" and "Starlo"), Marcus Artis ("Bling"), Jamara Bennett ("Killz"), Shanaya Bethea ("Naya"), Gil Einhorn, Trashawn Frails ("Spot"), Darnell Gibbs ("Butter Luv"), Anthony Harper ("Ant"), Tsaiquain Irby-Bacon, Tetee Morrison, Ashley Pennicott and Shadu Wagner.

In varying degrees and capacities, the defendants are charged with:

One count of the "C" felony of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, four counts of "D" felonies of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree and twenty seven counts of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree, and fifteen counts of the "E" felonies of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree and one Count of Conspiracy in the Fourth Degree.

A second indictment charges these and other members of S3 including:

Anthony Harper, Harvin Eigner ("I.G."), Hasba Flynn-Hakim, Tyesha Halls, Brian Hanna, Desjeuner Knight ("Fat Girl" - tough alias, huh), Sheneik McCallum, Ahmad Mohsen ("Mike"), Edna Nixon ("Nina"), Joshua Simon ("Dog" - not to be confused with "Dogg") and Malkia Walker ("Kia").

This indictment charges one count of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, six counts of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree, one count of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree and one count Conspiracy in the Fourth Degree.

"C," "D," and "E" felonies are punishable by up to fifteen, seven, and four years in prison respectively. Interestingly, although charged with similar level offenses, if the District Attorney press release is correct, the Cybercrime and Identity Theft Bureau did not charge the alleged Identity Theft perpetrators with the actual crime of Identity Theft. One possible reason is that the crime of Identity Theft may not have actually occurred in Manhattan even though jurisdiction for the crime can be in New York if either the crime was perpetrated or the victim lives here. What is more likely is that the additional crime of Identity Theft did not bring into the case evidence that would otherwise not be admissible. In other words, whether or not Identity Theft was charged, the same evidence would come out at trial as to how the defendants allegedly perpetrated the other crimes.

Extensive information regarding the crimes of Identity Theft, Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument can be found through the respective links. Additional information regarding other cases in the news, legal decisions and criminal statutes can be found on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Founded by two former prosecutors who served in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, the New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent the accused in all criminal matters throughout the New York City region. Jeremy Saland, one of our partners, was assigned to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Identity Theft Unit and Major Case Section upon the creation of the division.