New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

As discussed previously on this blog site, Robbery, under NY Penal Law section 160.00, is defined as "forcible stealing." Thus it differs from other theft crimes for which force is not an element. In this legal context, "forcible" means threatening or using physical force. The force element can be satisfied in any number of ways: from a simple threatening fist pump and pushing a victim repeatedly into a corner to waiving a box cutter and brandishing a weapon in the victim's face. Of course, if an alleged thief brandishes a "firearm" [i.e. a gun; for specific legal definition see: NY Penal Law 265.00(2)] at a Robbery in the New York City area or Westchester County, the severity of the crime is heightened. Any experienced New York criminal attorney knows that prosecutors in New York are tougher on defendants who perpetrate felonies while carrying firearms, guns, pistols or any type of weapon. If you brandish a weapon in New York during a forcible theft (i.e, a "Robbery") you will, at the very least, face charges of Robbery in the Second Degree (NY Penal Law Section 160.10) - a class C felony with a possible sentence ranging from three and one half to fifteen years in prison - and you may face charges of Robbery in the First Degree (NY Penal Law Section 160.15) - a class B felony punishable from five to twenty five years in state prison. These terms of imprisonment are for first time offenders.

A critical component with regards to carrying a firearm during a Robbery, is whether that gun is loaded. Under NY Penal Law 160.10(2)(b) if a robber "displays what appears to be...a firearm" then that alleged robber will be convicted of Robbery in the Second degree. On the other hand, a defendant can only be convicted of Robbery in the First Degree if that firearm was loaded and "a shot readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury could be discharged" (NY Penal Law 160.15(4)). Therefore, if what appears to be a gun is brandished during a Robbery and the defendant is charged with Robbery in the First Degree, a New York criminal lawyer will always raise the affirmative defense that the gun was not loaded (or not a gun at all) and thus not a deadly weapon. If it can not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm was indeed a loaded and deadly weapon, then the defendant may only be convicted of Robbery in the Second Degree. As noted above, this can mean significantly less time on a prison sentence especially when multiple counts/charges are levied against the defendant (as will almost always be the case).

So maybe we shouldn't make fun of those crafty thieves who only bring toy guns to commit a Robbery. While a victim of any crime certainly will not chuckle, a toy gun can completely change the dynamics of a Robbery case. In People v. Lyde, 98 A.D.2d 650 (1983) the First Department Appellate Division of New York reduced a conviction of four counts of Robbery to two counts of Robbery in the Second Degree and two counts of Robbery in the Third Degree. Lyde's original conviction for Robbery in the First Degree was predicated upon the fact that he had "displayed what appeared to be a pistol" during the commission of several robberies. However, Lyde was arrested in possession of a toy gun, and it was shown that he perpetrated the robberies only with that toy and not a real pistol. Convincing as it may have appeared to the victims, it was not a deadly weapon. Therefore, the court correctly reduced the First Degree Robbery conviction. Similarly, the Appellate Court in People v. Wilcox, 53 A.D.2d 738 (1976) ruled that the lower court had erred when submitting to the jury the crime of Robbery in the First Degree. Wilcox had used a starter's pistol during the commission of the Robbery. The court reasoned that the starter pistol was not a firearm capable of causing death or serious physical injury. Arguably, while a starter pistol looks no different than a real one, it merely makes a "bang" to signal the beginning or a race. It cannot be used in a more violent or deadly fashion. Therefore, Wilcox, like Lyde, was convicted of Robbery in the Second Degree not first.

It is interesting to note that there is some case law which suggests that one does not have to show an actual weapon to be convicted of Robbery in the Second Degree. Confusing? Yes, but in People v. Knowles, A.D.2d 116 (1979), the defendant was convicted of Robbery in the Second Degree after he coerced the victim into surrendering property by holding his hand in his pocket in such a way as to give the victim the impression that he had a gun. Gullibility of the victim aside, the court reasoned that in this situation of making the impression of a gun was no different than holding an inoperable gun for purposes of the statute. In other words, putting your finger or a stick in your jacket pocket and poking it out may look as if you are possessing a gun of some kind. This case may be a bit of an outlier, but it shows how severe the New York criminal courts can be when a firearm, or even the impression of a firearm, is involved in any Robbery offense found in Article 165 of the New York Penal Law.

To better understand the crimes of Robbery and Criminal Possession of a Weapon, follow the highlighted links. Additional materials on these and other crimes is available through the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com where you can find analysis of cases in the New York City media, criminal statutes and legal decisions.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, the New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent the accused throughout New York City and the region.

Additional Crotty Saland PC websites and bogs:

NYDeskAppearanceTicket.Com - Misdemeanor and Desk Appearance Ticket Crimes
NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com - Felony & Misdemeanor Theft Crimes (November 2011)
NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyersBlog.Com - Felony & Misdemeanor Theft Crime Statute & Case Analysis (November 2011)

Crimes involving credit cards and debit cards are growing throughout New York City and the region. For example, using another person's credit card may constitute the crime of Identity Theft. Possessing a fake or fraudulent credit card likely violates Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument. Even more common than these offenses, possessing a stolen credit card or stealing the same is either Criminal Possession of Stolen Property or Grand Larceny respectively. While the felony crimes listed above are all fairly common, not all credit card crimes in New York are that obvious. As will be addressed in this blog entry, what if you possess a stolen credit card, but the credit card is no longer valid or is expired? If you cannot use the credit card, is that a defense to Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 165.45(2)? Will your criminal lawyer have more than just a bark, but in fact a bite in his attempt to invalidate the allegations or have your indictment dismissed?

Directly on point, People v. Johnson, 50 A.D.3d 379 (First Dept. 1995) addressed these questions about the possession of stolen credit cards that had since expired. In Johnson, the defendant had been convicted after trial in a Manhattan Supreme Court for felony possession of a stolen credit card. The crime, as noted above, was Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree. At trial, testimony established that the defendant tried to make at least one purchase with credit card that was expired. In one of his many arguments, the defendant's attorney claimed that a conviction for this crime could not stand in light of the fact that the credit card in question was not and could not be used. Although the argument seemed reasonable (after all, you cannot withdraw money or make purchases from an expired credit card or debit card and therefore, no real injury would be sustained by the true card holder), the trial court gave no such instruction to the jury. Ultimately, the jury convicted the defendant for this and other crimes. Not the end of the process, the defendant appealed the conviction.

The Appellate Division, a higher level appeals court that reviews trial court convictions and decisions, did not agree with the defendant's counsel. In fact, the court found that it was irrelevant and made no difference at all whether the credit card or debit card had expired. Moreover, it made no difference that when the defendant attempted to use the credit card that the credit card was either revoked or cancelled. The court further found that "[a]n expired or otherwise inactive credit card may be used to make a purchase on credit, within the meaning of General Business Law § 511(1), if a merchant accepts it, albeit improvidently, thus extending credit to the purchaser." In short, the viability or useability of a stolen credit card is not an element that needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by Assistant District Attorneys at trial for Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree.

Although Johnson is a fairly recent decision, it is not the first decision of its kind. After another defendant's conviction for Grand Larceny of a credit card post-trial, the defendant challenged the legality of the New York Penal Law 155.30(4) count against him. Similar to the Johnson court, albeit in a theft context as opposed to possession, the court in People v. Winfield, 145 A.D.2d 449 (2nd Dept. 1988), upheld the defendant's conviction and, like the Johnson court, noted that validity of credit card is immaterial to this felony crime.

Remember, stealing or possessing stolen debit or credit cards is only one of many potential felony crimes in New York. An "E" felony that can land you behind bars for up to four years, the punishment associated with this crime is serious, but not necessarily the most significant one found in the New York Penal Law.

To further educate yourself on crimes involving theft, larceny and credit card fraud in New York, a search of the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com will reveal significant information ranging from analysis of New York criminal statutes and legal decisions to review of cases in the news and local media. Additionally, Crotty Saland PC's NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com (going live November 2011) and associated blog is dedicated to white collar theft crimes.

Established by two New York criminal lawyers who served as prosecutors in Robert Morgenthau's Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Crotty Saland PC represents individuals and corporations in all criminal matters.

Bribing a public official to get your way in New York--whether it be a police officer in Brooklyn, a New York City councilman in Manhattan or some government official in Westchester County-- can easily result in a felony conviction. While it is undeniable that at certain points in New York's infamous history bribing public officials was an accepted practice, New York has come a long way since the days of "Boss Tweed" and the corruption of Tammany Hall. Most New Yorkers don't necessarily need an accomplished New York attorney to tell them what a bribe is, but clarifying the legal definition of Bribery in the New York Penal Law is something that should be fully examined with the assistance of a New York criminal lawyer.

Article 200 of the New York Penal Code sets forth "Bribery Involving Public Servants And Related Offenses." A person is guilty of Bribery in New York when they offer or give any benefit to a public servant with an understanding that the public servant will be influenced and thereby change their action (e.g. a vote, an investigation etc.). In other words, if you give money to a councilmen influencing him to vote to approve your zoning change, you have committed Bribery under New York law. The degree of Bribery (Third Degree Bribery - NY PL 200.00; Second Degree Bribery - NY PL 200.03; or First Degree Bribery - NY PL 200.04) depends on the value of the bribe given, as well as the purpose of the bribe. For instance, any bribe made for the purposes of influencing an investigation, arrest, detention, prosecution or incarceration of a class A felony will automatically constitute Bribery in the First Degree. This is a class B felony with a mandatory term of incarceration punishable up to a maximum of twenty-five years. As you can see, Bribery in New York City and across the State is not to be taken lightly.

Bribery is often times a white collar crime and seen in the context of a businesses or individual trying to influence politicians or other City agencies to gain a profit for themselves. Such corruption is not just a thing of mafia movies and thrilling novels (although, Bribery is often associated with Enterprise Corruption). A great example of such a Bribery case in New York is People v. Mitchell, 40 App. Div.2d 117 (1972). Mitchell worked for a garbage disposal company which held the contract for the City of Troy. Mitchell met with the Mayor of Troy, offering $500 a month if the mayor used his influence to keep the garbage contract with Mitchell's company. Wisely, the Mayor recorded the conversation and thus Mitchell was convicted of Bribery in the Third Degree (NY PL 200.00). A pretty clear cut case of bribery. Nonetheless, notice here that Mitchell only made an offer hoping that the mayor would use his influence to get others to vote along with him. There was no money exchanged and it was not a guarantee that Mitchell's garbage company would receive the contract. This illustrates that one can be convicted of Bribery with just an offer, hoping to garner influence from the public servant.

At the same time, an abstract offer may not be enough to constitute Bribery. A benefit as defined in the Penal Law, is "any gain or advantage to the beneficiary." Thus, an offer of an impalpable benefit that would not provide a direct advantage to the public servant, would not amount to a conviction for Bribery. What embodies an abstract offer you wonder? Well, People v. Cavan, 84 Misc. 2d 510 (1975), illustrates perfectly what is not a benefit and therefore not bribery. The defendant was arrested for Burglary in the Third Degree (NY PL 140.20). During the course of the arrest, the defendant asked the arresting officer if we "can't fix this." He offered to introduce the officer to several drug dealers, but no names or locations were specified. The Court overruled the conviction of Bribery in the Second Degree (NY PL 200.03) because a vague offer to turn "State's evidence" (I always found that term interesting, but that is neither here nor there...) to the arresting officer just wasn't enough to constitute a benefit under the Bribery statute. The court reasoned, "that the benefit must not be so remote, abstract, or theoretical as to create speculation as to its ultimate value to the receiver."

For one, this case demonstrates the important fact that police are most definitely public servants. While the white-collar crime aspect of Bribery (e.g. bribing politicians) is common, so to is the more criminal aspect of Bribery, when defendants or alleged criminals try to tip the scales of the justice system in their favor (e.g. bribing police, judges etc.). An offer of a benefit must be clear and abstract, but an offer itself (not necessarily an actual exchange) is enough for a conviction. Lastly, remember that this blog post has only given a cursory view of what constitutes making a bribe to a public official under New York law. In no way is this guide to a complete understanding of Bribery crimes or how to circumvent running afoul of the law. Should you find yourself unintentionally skirting the law or intentionally doing the same, speak with your own legal counsel to full analyze the facts and circumstances of your situation. Check back on this blog for more on what constitutes receiving a bribe and the associated consequences as well as defenses for Bribery.

To learn more about Bribery, please follow the highlighted links above and below to Crotty Saland PC's website where each degree of this criminal offense is addressed further and in detail. Additional analysis on cases in the news, legal decisions and criminal statutes can also be found on both the website and the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com. Starting in November 2011, the NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyersBlog.Com and NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com website will have a wealth of information on New York's larceny and theft statutes.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. The New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent those accused of white collar and violent crime throughout New York City and the surrounding municipalities.

New York Penal Law 200.00
New York Penal Law 200.03
New York Penal Law 200.04

Any New York criminal lawyer will tell you that the best way to avoid an arrest, indictment or conviction is to steer clear of any and all criminal conduct. While that may sound easy, often time individuals make mistakes or get caught up in criminal acts that they truly had no intention of getting involved with in the first place. Two particular crimes that prosecutors can elevate from less serious conduct into felony crimes are the theft of credit or debit cards and the possession of stolen debit or credit cards. These two felony crimes, New York Penal Law 155.30(4) and 165.45(2), are violations of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree. Simply, if you steal a credit card or debit card or possess a stolen debit card or credit card then you will face up to four years in prison. Each individual card is a separate chargeable offense. As a result, if you have three stolen credit cards, for example, each individual credit card possession constitutes a separate and distinct crime with its own potential punishment.

Cases involving felony credit card theft and criminal possession of a stolen debit cards truly illustrate the value of both educating yourself on the law and retaining an experienced criminal lawyer to defend you against the criminal allegation. As the following case demonstrates, in terms of credit card and debit card crimes, mistakes can be made by both inexperienced criminal attorneys as well as their prosecutorial counterparts. Here, the question is clear. Are all debit cards, credit cards, and ATM cards created equal? The answer is clear, but often difficult to fully grasp.

In Matter of Kimberly H., 196 A.D.2d 192 (4th Dept. 1994), the defendant, a juvenile, had been arrested and charged with Criminal Possession of Stolen Property (NY PL 165.45(2)) after she was caught with an automated teller machine (ATM) card. The defendant had taken her mother's ATM card to withdraw $600 from her mother's bank account. The issue ultimately addressed by the court was whether or not a card that is strictly an ATM card used to withdraw money from an automated teller machine is also a debit card or credit card for the purpose of criminal statutes. If so, then Kimberly H. would have violated New York Penal Law 165.45(2) and New York Penal Law 155.30(4) (Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in Fourth Degree and Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree respectively). It not, then while Kimberly H.'s actions may have been a misdemeanor offense, but she did not commit a felony debit card or credit card crime.

According to New York General Business Law 511(9), a "debt card" is specifically defined. It is this definition that is applicable to the New York Penal Law. A key characteristic of a debit card defined in this section is that the card can be used without a personal identification number or code to make a purchase or lease property or services. Alternatively, a "credit card" is defined according to New York General Business Law 511(1) and is not the same as a debit card. Instead, a card is used to obtain cash advances or a loan or credit. Like a "debit card," a "credit card" can also be used to purchase property or services or lease the same. Clearly, these definitions, while helpful, distort what we all believe is either a credit card or debit card. Prosecutors are not immune from these misunderstandings.

Again, in terms of the Kimberly H. case, the defendant had used her mother's ATM card to withdraw $600. Obviously, instead of purchasing property or leasing the same, cash was withdrawn. Moreover, a pin number was used to take the money. In finding that the ATM card was neither a credit card or debit card as defined by the law and, as a result, the defendant's use and possession was not a felony, the court found that:

"Although the definition of credit card in the General Business Law would appear to be clear and unequivocal, making resort to extrinsic matter inappropriate ( see, Sega v. State of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 183, 191, 469 N.Y.S.2d 51, 456 N.E.2d 1174), any further clarification that may be needed is readily furnished by examining the most recent legislative history of General Business Law § 511. That history supports the view that the Legislature, for whatever reason, failed to include ATM cards within its expanded definition of credit card. When the term "cash advance" was added to the definition in 1970 (L.1970, ch. 988, § 1), the Senate memorandum noted that "[a] significant feature of the bill is the extension of the definition of credit card to include any such device used to obtain a 'cash advance or a loan.' This new language has been inserted to cover bank credit cards, a device presently not covered by the existing definition" (NY Senate Mem, 1970 N.Y.Legis.Ann., at 107 [emphasis provided] ). The Budget Report on 8402-A stated that the bill would "expand the definition of 'credit cards,' to include cards that may be used to obtain cash loans" (Mem of Div of Budget, Bill Jacket, L.1970, ch. 988 [emphasis provided] ). The amendment enabled the holders of credit cards to withdraw funds on their credit by obtaining cash advances or cash loans, not cash withdrawals of their own funds."

Practically speaking, this case may have limited value today in that ATM cards, devices that solely enable the user to obtain cash, are dinosaurs. While there are likely many out in the market from a numeric standpoint, most of these ATM cards have been replaced by multi-use cards. The value of this case and the review of the statutes defining credit cards and debit cards, however, is still significant. Should prosecutors charge you in an indictment for possessing a stolen credit card when in fact it is actually a debit card, a dismissal of the indictment or an acquittal at trial might be in the cards for you.

To further educate yourself on the crimes of New York Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen property as they relate to credit cards and debit cards, please follow the highlighted links above. Additionally, a review of the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com has a wealth of information on these an other crimes including a review of criminal statutes, legal decisions and cases in the news. Sometime by November 2011, the NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyersBlog.Com will be "live" with more valuable content as to theft and larceny crimes in New York.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, the New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent the accused throughout the New York City region.

Well before I became a New York criminal lawyer, I served for over seven years as a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. During that time, I was appointed to the Identity Theft Unit upon its creation as well as the Major Case section where I investigated criminal networks immersed in multi-million dollar Identity Theft schemes. Many of these schemes crossed continents and involved dozens of individuals. None, however, were as large scale in terms of the number of people charged and arrested in Queens County. In fact, according to the Queens County District Attorney's Office, District Attorney Richard Brown may have the "honor" of spearheading the largest Identity Theft scheme in the history of such cases in terms of individuals involved. That number, to be precise, is one hundred eleven. These defendants were indicted by a Queens Count Grand Jury for their various degrees of involvement in forged credit card and Identity Theft rings. While the crimes of Forgery, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument and Identity Theft are all felonies with a serious bite, prosecutors have flexed their muscles by also obtaining indictments for Enterprise Corruption, New York's RICO statute.

Although "only" eighty-six of the defendants are in custody, Queens prosecutors claim that fake and fraudulent credit cards were created and used by these individuals to steal well north of thirteen million dollars during a sixteen month period. Thousands of American Express, Visa, MasterCard and Discover Card customers were the alleged victims. Additionally, some of the crew are even alleged to have perpetrated burglaries and robberies at Kennedy Airport and the Citigroup Building in Long Island City where they allegedly netted close to a million dollars of ill-gotten gains.

According to the "Operation Swiper" press release:

"[T]he defendants fraudulently obtained credit card account numbers through various means and which were then used to manufacture forged credit and identification cards. Once the counterfeit cards were created, according to the indictments, they were ultimately given to teams of 'shoppers' who were sent out on shopping expeditions in New York, Florida, Massachusetts, Los Angeles and other areas of the United States to purchase high-end electronics and other merchandise - such as designer handbags, game consoles and jewelry - which either had been requested or could easily be fenced and re-sold, typically over the Internet.

It is alleged that during the shopping sprees, some of the shoppers used forged credit cards to stay at such five-star hotels as the Fontainbleau and The Royal Palm in Miami Beach and the Las Casitas Village, the high-end private villas of the El Conquistor in Puerto Rico. They are also alleged to have used forged credit cards to rent such luxurious automobiles as Lamborghinis and Porsches and, in one instance, a private jet to take them from New York to Florida."

Although this ring may be the largest, it is far from unique or original in its matter of alleged scheming. For example, collusive merchants, businesses that were "in" on the fraudulent credit card transactions, would allegedly permit the fraudsters to use the credit cards at their businesses. Also, holders of the fake credit cards attempted to "bust out" the accounts. "Bust outs" have been a trade of identity thieves and credit card fraudsters for some time. In "bust out" cases, credit cards are often maxed out and paid off with a fraudulent payment that is credited. Shortly thereafter, the payment bounces. By the time the credit card company recognizes this (or actually cares - its the price of doing business to them), the fraudster has doubled or tripled the maximum credit limit. Additionally, fake credit cards were made to be used with fake identification. Embossed on these cards was the real accounts of the alleged victims. None of this, although enormous in scale, is new or unique. The problem for the defendants, however, is that they may be liable not only for the aggregate loss of the particular thefts they were involved in, but they are charged as a criminal enterprise or organized crime.

It will be interesting to see how the defenses and deals play out. Will prosecutors look to plea out lower level players and concentrate on higher level defendants? Will misdemeanor offers be made or will there be a hard line stance on felonies? Even if offers are made, was the group truly a "criminal enterprise" in that there was an actual structure amongst these men and women who also shared a common goal to benefit that enterprise. Alternatively, was this a loose group of individuals who neither knew nor took orders from superiors? Do these defendants have a factual or legal defense?

Should these defendants be convicted of Enterprise Corruption (NY PL 460.20), there is a mandatory minimum of one to three years in prison for a first time offender. Regardless, anyone can face up to twenty-five years in jail. Beyond Enterprise Corruption, the defendants are all charged with one or more of the following: Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (NY PL 155.35), Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree (NY PL 155.30), Identity Theft in the First Degree (NY PL 190.80) and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree (NY PL 170.25). Because the alleged thefts involved numerous different people, the thefts were not aggregated all together, but into lesser felony crimes. These Grand Larcenies are "D" and "E" felonies punishable by up to seven and four years in state prison respectively. Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument and Identity Theft in the First Degree are "D" felonies as well.

To better understand the crimes of Enterprise Corruption, Identity Theft, Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, follow the respective links. There you will find a wealth of information on these crimes including analysis of relevant legal decisions and cases in the news. Additionally, the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com and NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyersBlog.Com (going "live" in November 2011) has extensive information on these and other crimes.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. One of our criminal defense attorneys, Jeremy Saland, served in the Identity Theft Unit and Major Case section where he investigated and prosecuted multi-million dollar Identity Theft schemes.

WHERE: Queens County
WHAT: Identity Theft and Forged Instrument Rings
WHO: The arrested, indicted or target defendants are Imran Khan, Travis Lootawan, Jonathan Ortiz, Wilfredo L. Rodriguez, Edward Solomon, James Morgan, Leroy Linton, Ali Khweiss, Myles Beepath, Carlos Plaza, Ali Khweiss, Vishnu S. Harilal, Lilian Mera, Vincent Mineo, Regan Solomon, Jessica Torres, Justin DeJesus, Nicholas Hines, Alvin A. Lootawan, Nelson Feliciano, Mahendra A. Lootawan, Stacy Manbahaul, Steven A. Bahadur, Imran Ibrahim, Susan Persaud, Samantha Ramgulam, Kendall McClean, Devin W. Quinones, Travis Hassang, Anthony Martin, Jacklyn Gunn, Leidy Rodriguez, Christopher Dwhaj, Fnu Gustawian, Benny Ahoo Adhoot, Ali Khweiss, Travis Lootawan, Jonathan Ortiz, Wilfredo Rodriguez, Leroy Linton, Ravindra Singh, Matthew Thompson, Sarah Genere, Leidy Rodriguez, Ziad Mohamed, Danielle Fernandez, Victoria Duran, Kah Sheng Poh, Sanjay Deowsarran, Irina Pervukhina, Svetlana Turakaeva, Romel Mangel, Sayeed Mohammed, Maria Hernandez, Dallas Chester, Julia Fair, Alexey Vaselevith Koltyga, Reginald McMillian, Tina Mahabir, Allen Lam, Amar Singh, Neha Punjabi-Singh, Randolph Ramroop, Terrance Singh, Ravi Ramroop, Pedro Manuel Guzman-Cuevas, Syson Laguerre, Kamal Sanasi, Ahmar Lacorte, Margaret Mortel, Faried Mohamed, Sunil Ramroop, Kamal Sanasie, Michael Doodnarine, Darren Percival, Andre Shewtjon, Ericka Kidd, Sheena Franklyn, Kesho Baboolal, Angelika Wronowska, Derrick Singh, Parisam Itwaru, Tahidul Parvaz, Michael Tumasar,

According to reports, Yaasmin Hooey, the former finance director for the Girl Scout Council of Greater New York, was arraigned today in Manhattan Supreme Court after the NYPD arrested her on an open indictment charging Grand Larceny and Embezzlement. It is alleged that Hooey skimmed over $300,000 by depositing 65 checks from the Girl Scouts and depositing those checks in her account. Trying to be "cute" and citing the obvious while also being firm with his words, New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance stated, "Nonprofits are not personal cookie jars." Although it is easy to jest, the allegations are no laughing matter. In fact, among many felony charges, Hooey faces Grand Larceny in the Second Degree. A conviction for this "C" felony crime is punishable by up to fifteen years in prison. Compounding matters, it is alleged that Hooey also failed to report $142,000 in New York State taxes.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Hooey did not use the allegedly stolen funds to tend to a sick family member or some other noble cause. Instead, Metro-North Railroad tickets, a gym membership, and clothing, cosmetic laser procedures, and cruises were paid for from the ill gotten gains. Prosecutors further claim that Hooey spent $13,000 on a diamond ring in over $18,000 at bars and restaurants. Unfortunately for Hooey, prosecutors' jobs have been relatively easy as wires and checks were deposited from Girl Scout accounts into personal accounts. In other words, the "paper trail" was not that long.

Apparently, prosecutors felt no reason to waste time or even try to get a statement from Hooey as they voted out an "NA" indictment with the Grand Jury. These types of indictments occur in strong cases before a person is even arrested. Although I could be wrong about the "NA" indictment, generally when a person is arrested on a felony or misdemeanor they appear in criminal court. If and when the case is indicted, the matter proceeds to Supreme Court. Upon her arrest, it appears Hooey was brought directly to Supreme Court.

In addition to Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, prosecutors obtained an indictment for Forgery in the Second Degree, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree, Criminal Tax Fraud in the Third Degree, Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree and Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree. Forgery, Possession of a Forged Instrument and Criminal Tax Fraud are all "D" felonies punishable by up to seven years in prison. Falsifying Business Records and Offering a False Instrument for Filing are ""E felonies punishable by up to four years in prison.

While Hooey and her criminal lawyer have time to identify and set forth a defense, prosecutors will likely lean hard on the defendant due to the amount of money allegedly stolen and the nature of the victims. Whatever her defense may be, Hooey should implement that defense as soon as possible to avoid the likelihood of spending more time in a place she will not want to be.

For a wealth of information on the above crimes in New York, please follow the highlighted links. There you will find a description of the crimes as well as analysis of relevant legal decisions and cases in the news. Additionally, a search of the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com will reveal the same.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. The Grand Larceny attorneys and New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland represent the accused through the New York City region.

We can all agree to disagree on the merits, impact and value of Occupy Wall Street sit-ins, protests and mere presence in lower Manhattan. Whether protesters blocking the Brooklyn Bridge hurt the blue collar and regular working class person trying to get to and from work or their actions truly intensified the light on certain Wall Street practices is certainly up to debate. However, one thing we can all likely agree on is that any arrest, whether it be for Disorderly Conduct (NY PL 240.20), Resisting Arrest (NY PL 205.30) or Obstructing Governmental Administration (NY PL 190.05), can have serious impacts to the futures of those arrested years after they have left the streets of New York City behind. While a summons for Disorderly Conduct is probably the least of their concerns, Resisting Arrest and Obstruction of Governmental Administration are both misdemeanors. How Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance decides what to do with these cases is yet to be seen, but the potential for these men and women to damage their futures is great.

Disorderly Conduct: New York Penal Law 240.20

Although not a precise legal definition, if you are disorderly and cause public inconvenience or alarm, obstruct the flow of traffic or act in a violent manner, the NYPD and prosecutors can charge you with Disorderly Conduct. Not a crime, a conviction for this offense would not give you a criminal record. What is concerning, however, is if you are printed for Disorderly Conduct or any crime and you ultimately plea to this violation, there is a real possibility that it will show up on future background checks. While a Disorderly Conduct seals (or should seal), there has been litigation over arrest charges and pleas to Disorderly Conduct showing up months and years after the cases are resolved. No New York criminal lawyer can tell you whether your case will properly seal or seal in a manner as to prevent the public from learning of your arrest charges. Regardless, before taking a plea to a violation of Disorderly Conduct have a long and in depth conversation with your counsel as to the ramifications and collateral consequences of such a plea.

Resisting Arrest: New York Penal Law 205.30

If you intentionally prevent or attempt to prevent a police officer with the NYPD from making a lawful arrest, then you can be charged with Resting Arrest. Simply put, if you waive your arms, refuse to put them behind your back or pull your arms away, the police and prosecutors can charge you with this crime. It is imperative to recognize that this offense is a crime and a misdemeanor. While NY PL 205.30 is punishable by up to one year in jail, jail is generally not an issue for first or second time offenders in New York City. The greater issues is whether you will end up saddled with a criminal record if convicted. Alternatively, if prosecutors only offer you a Disorderly Conduct plea deal, there are issues (as discussed above) with sealing. Remember, if you are in a situation where tempers have been elevated it is critical that you remain calm. If you are going to be arrested there is likely little you can do at that immediate time. By flailing around and pulling away, you are giving law enforcement the tools to take your non-criminal actions and make them criminal.

Obstructing Governmental Administration: New York Penal Law 190.05

If you prevent or attempt to prevent the police or other governmental agency from performing an official or governmental function by interference or physical force, then the District Attorney's Office can charge you with this misdemeanor crime. Like Resisting Arrest, a charge of NY PL 190.05 is not likely to land a first or second time offender a stretch on Rikers Island. More concerning is the risk of a criminal record or a Disorderly Conduct offer. While not a catch all, to avoid being charged with this crime, do not interfere by, for example, blocking the police from a friend who is to be arrested or refusing to walk or move upon being arrested. Do not give law enforcement the tools to charge you with a crime where your conduct was otherwise not criminal in nature.

Occupy Wall Street Protestors: What to Do if Arrest for These Offenses

If you are given a summons, Desk Appearance Ticket or are arrested for Disorderly Conduct, Resisting Arrest or Obstructing Governmental Administration, there is no catch all defining what your next step should be. Having said that, there are a few critical things to discuss with your legal counsel. What impact will a violation or non-criminal Disorderly Conduct plea have on your future? Are you eligible or able to get an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD) whereby your case is dismissed and sealed in six months. In that regard, how and why is New York Criminal Procedure Law 170.55 important to you? Was your underlying arrest lawful? If it was not, should the charge of Resisting Arrest be dismissed? Assuming you are not interested in working out a disposition, what are your chances of beating the case at trial or utilizing "speedy trial" laws to dispose of the charges? Whatever your discussions may incorporate, make sure you and your criminal attorney vet the charges. That last thing you need is a Scarlet Letter to wear well after the protest has ended.

For practical and legal analysis of Disorderly Conduct, Resisting Arrest and Obstructing Governmental Administration, please either follow the highlighted links above or search for these offenses on the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com. A review of NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com will reveal extensive information on these and other crimes, statutes, valuable cases and commentary on cases in the news.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, the New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represents the accused in New York City and the region.