New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Stealing more than mere shekels, multiple alleged Identity Theft and check fraud rings pilfered $2 million from high worth individuals including the accounts of UJA-Federation donors. Although Hank Greenberg may not have noticed a few thousand dollars here or there, the alleged fraudsters are getting more than an "Oy Vey" from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. for their alleged identity thieving. In fact, some of the nearly sixty defendants arrested or accused of various crimes are facing charges including Grand Larceny in the First Degree, a "B" felony punishable by a mandatory minimum of one to three years in prison. The maximum for this crime is eight and one third to twenty five years, but these numbers are all skewed should any of these men or women have prior felony records from the past ten years. While alleged gang association does not necessarily mean a criminal past, prosecutors further claim the many of those arrested in New York were members of the Bloods and Crips.

According to the New York County press release as well as numerous media outlets, the scheme (like many involving Identity Theft) was fairly east to perpetrate. For Example, Tracy Nelson, an employee of the UJA Federation, processed donor checks. This access to sensitive and financial information gave her the opportunity to allegedly take pictures and copy account information of donor checks. It is further claimed by DANY prosecutors that Nelson then sold the copies to other thieves who would open fraudulent checking accounts or credit cards with this information.

Although UJA Federation may be the highest profile organization to have a lapse in its security, it certainly is not the only one. Nelson's boyfriend, Roberto Millar, sold cars at Brooklyn's Open Road Audi. It is there, Assistant District Attorneys assert, the defendant mimicked his live-in girlfriend to steal and sell customer financial account information. Beyond these two alleged co-conspirators, Nicola Bennett, the compliance officer at AKAM Associates, Inc., and Karen Chance, a teller at Chase Bank, are alleged to have either accessed, stolen or reproduced customer and client information as well. All told, the defendants collectively are believed to trafficked in social security numbers, dates of birth and bank account information for a solid one thousand people. In doing so, some members of these groups allegedly took over credit card accounts, recruited individuals to get them access to legitimate accounts, and even created fake checks. If nothing else, the crews (if true) where certainly full service providers.

Giving himself a shout out to his prosecutions previously spearheaded by his merry band, Manhattan District Attorney Vance proclaimed: "From ATM skimmers, to waiters stealing credit card info, to the exploitation of systemic weaknesses in bank systems, we are attacking cybercrime and identity theft head on." Sadly, despite his and other law enforcement efforts, the volume and amount of financial loss associated with Identity Theft appears to be exploding in magnitude in New York and well beyond. Prosecutors can and will continue to pursue and investigate these and other fraud schemes, but until they get more support from banks and other institutions they will continually fight an uphill battle.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC represents the accused through the New York City area. One of our criminal attorneys, Jeremy Saland, served in the predecessor to the Cybercrime and Identity Theft Bureau.

To learn more about Grand Larceny, Identity Theft and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, please review the CrottySaland.Com website and this blog as well as the NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com website and associated blog at NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyersBlog.Com

PROSECUTORIAL AGENCY

Manhattan District Attorney's Office

CRIMES CHARGED

Grand Larceny in the First Degree (NY PL 155.45): Theft of property valued in excess of $1 million. This offense is a "B" felony.

Grand Larceny in the Second (NY PL 155.40): Theft of property valued in excess of $50,000, but not greater than $1 million. This offense is a "C" felony.

Grand Larceny in the Third (NY PL 155.35): Theft of property valued in excess of $3,000, but not greater than $50,000. This offense is a "D" felony.

Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree (NY PL 155.30): Theft of property valued in excess of $1,000, but not greater than $3,000. This offense is a "E" felony.

Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree (NY PL 165.45): Possession of stolen property valued in excess of $1,000, but not greater than $3,000. This offense is a "D" felony.

Identity Theft in the First Degree (NY PL 190.80): Depending on the particular theory or subsection, this crime occurs when there is a use of personal identifying information of another while perpetrating a "D" felony or where services or property is obtained valued in excess of $2,000. This offense is a "D" felony.

Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree (NY PL 170.25): The possession of a fake or fraudulent document, credit card, check or other object that is possessed with the intent to defraud. This offense is a "D" felony.

"B," "C," "D," and "E" felonies are punishable by up to twenty-five, fifteen, seven and four years respectively.

* The above definitions are limited and are not a complete translation of the law. For a complete verbatim reference, review the New York State Penal Law.

THE ACCUSED

YOUNES ABIDAR, MERCY ADEBANDJO, KARRONE ALFRED, JAMEL ANNUZIATA, JAMAAL ANTHONY, NICOLA BENNET, JOSIAH BOATSWAIN, ERICA BROWN, MARK CAMPBELL, KAREN CHANCE, KINO CHARLES,UMAR CREDLE, DIOR KYLE DUMOY, CORNELIUS GARY, CLAUDE GASKIN, JOANNA GIERCZACK, TAFARIE GLASGOW, AJIRE GOLDEN, LIANA GUISCHARD, DAN HAZAN, ALDORAY IRVING, ALTON JAMIESON, ELLORA SMITH JULIUS, CHARLES KELLY, ALRICK CARMEN KOFFI, DEAN MAPP, MOISE, SHAHEIRA MOODY, TRACEY NELSON, ANTHONY PARKER, ANDY PETTITHOME, HANSEY JEAN PIERRE, RICHARD RAMOS, DARRYL RIELY, JESSICA RODRIGUEZ, KURT RUSSELL, LAQUASHIA SEABERRY, DARRYL SYNCON, CHRISTOPER TENN, JONATHAN TUCKER, NICOLE LEACH VITALIS, EVELYN WALKER, JETANE WEBSTER, BRANDON WHITE, CARLOS WHITE, SHAUN WILLIAMS

While they may be best known for serving choice cut steaks, a few of New York's most famous steakhouses may need to add an arrest profile to their Zagat's ratings. According to reports, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr.'s prosecutors busted a credit card fraud ring allegedly run by men and women whose day jobs were to serve as waiters at some of New York's flagship restaurants. From Smith and Wollensky, Capital Grille and Wolfgang's Steakhouse in Manhattan to Morton's in Stamford and the Bicycle Club in New Jersey, it is alleged that more than two dozen arrested waiters dined on patrons' credit card numbers as their unsuspecting customers grazed on filet mignon, porterhouse and the occasional rib eye (bone in, of course). Although the allegations have yet to fully materialize, it is alleged that these waiters stole approximately fifty account numbers from the high-end credit cards, including the fabled American Express Black Card, and used these account numbers to go on expensive shopping sprees.

The means by which these accused waiters perpetrated the Enterprise Corruption, Identity Theft (although not technically charged with this crime), Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument and other crimes is clear. The alleged fraudsters used hand held skimming devices to kick off the alleged scam. Fairly easy to purchase online, these devices can be hidden in one's palm and can scan a credit card in the time it takes to take one swipe. Once the reader glides over the magnetic strip, the account number is then stored for later use. Armed with the credit card numbers, the alleged defendants then encoded a new credit card with the stolen account number.

In two distinct twists that I have seen as a former Manhattan prosecutor and member of the Identity Theft Unit Major Case section, the fraudsters would encode either a completely fake credit card with the stolen account number or a "real" credit card that may have expired or is no longer legitimately being used. Depending how advanced or eager a team of thieves was, either a fraudulent identification was used to match the fake credit card or the legitimate matching identification was utilized where the credit card was a modified, yet properly issued, instrument. It is worth noting that in schemes such as these, a retailer or service provider who accepts the encoded credit card can often catch the fraudster if he or she is diligent. In many cases, a receipt that is printed contains the name of the proper or correct cardholder. While the name on an encoded card and fake identification will match, the name printed on the receipt will reflect the rightful accountholder.

In this arrest and indictment, the alleged credit card fraudsters used over $1,000,000 in ill-gotten gains to make purchases at high-end stores including Chanel. In fact, according to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office press release "[s]earch warrants executed yesterday in conjunction with the investigation resulted in the seizure of luxury goods, including more than $1 million worth of luxury watches and a cache of expensive wine, and...$1.2 million in cash; as well as skimming devices and the equipment necessary to manufacture fraudulent credit cards and driver's licenses."

What will be interesting to learn as this case develops is what roles did each person have. Although prosecutors have alleged it existed, was this crew truly a criminal enterprise and therefore subject to Enterprise Corruption? Merely because prosecutors give titles to or characterize defendants as "manager," "skimmer," "shopper" and "complicit customers" does not automatically mean there is an ascertainable structure where the members all worked toward the single criminal goal. Certainly, if true, these defendants will face a significant risk of prison.

Additionally, what, if anything, did these defendants state when they were arrested? Do prosecutors have video surveillance of purchases, signatures on fraudulent receipts or records linking certain waiters serving customers whose cards were later compromised? While I have my ideas of possible means to defend against these allegations, what defense strategy will ultimately prevail? Again, many of the defendants are charged as part of the criminal enterprise and are facing mandatory state prison on a "B" felony if convicted. A defense needs to be identified and implemented soon.

Although many people may wish that it was, Identity Theft is not going away. While many New York's may have been rightfully concerned when Jimmy McMillin preached during the gubernatorial election that the "rent is too damn high," denizens of the Big Apple should have a much greater concern. Make no mistake. Identity Theft is too damn easy.

WHO: Approximately two dozen waiters at top New York City and suburban steakhouses including Smith and Wollensky, Capital Grille, Wolfgang's, Morton's and the Bicycle Club. Defendants include: RICHARD BERTELETTI, JACOB BLUMENFRUCHT, ERIC BRAHMS, EMILY BRUMFIELD BRAHMS, DANIEL BURNS, ELLE CHONG ROZAN a/k/a ELOISE A. CHONG, ANTHONY COFFARO, MICHAEL DEJESUS, JOSE FELIX FERNANDEZ, KENNETH FRANQUIZ, DAVOR GONCIN, IZAK IRWIN GUTMAN, LUIS DAMIAN JACAS, a/k/a DAMIEN JACES, EDDIE KYLE, ANTHONY MARRA, PETER McGUIRE, JENNIFER MORGAN, JAMES O'CONNELL, RICHARD REICHBACH, TASHA ROSENHAUS, MARTHA RUBIANO, SASHA SCOLLIN and BRIAN TORREY.

ALLEGATION: Swiping and stealing high-end credit card account numbers from patrons, encoding fraudulent credit cards with that information and using the credit cards to make purchases.

CRIMES: B felony of Enterprise Corruption. Minimum of one to three years and maximum of eight and one third to twenty five years in prison for a first time offender. C felony of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree. Potential punishment up to five to fifteen years for a first time offender. D felony of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree. Potential punishment of up to two and one third to seven years in prison for a first time offender. E felonies including Conspiracy in the Fourth Degree, Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree and Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree. Potential punishment of up to one and one third to four years in prison for a first time offender.

PROSECUTING AGENCY: Manhattan District Attorney (New York County)

To learn about the New York crimes of Enterprise Corruption, Identity Theft, the multiple degrees of Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument and other offenses, please follow the highlighted links back to CrottySaland.Com. There you will also find links to the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com where you will find analysis of not merely criminal statutes, but legal decisions interpreting those statutes and reviews of cases in the New York area news. In addition to these resources, the New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC anticipate that NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com and associated blog at NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyersBlog.Com will have further relevant and practical information on white collar theft offenses once they go "live" by the end of November 2011.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm representing those accused of white collar, theft and fraud crimes throughout the New York City region.

As prolific as the drug trade was in Manhattan and all of New York City from the 1970s through the 1990s, Identity Theft has easily surpassed it. In fact, Identity Theft and related crimes have crept into almost every business - private and public - well beyond the offices and apartments of Gotham. Arguably, Identity Theft, in terms of the volume of crimes perpetrated and the associated damages, makes almost every other offense in the New York Penal Law seem pedestrian. Case in point, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance just unsealed an 81 count indictment against Nikolai Ivanov, Dimitar Stamatov and Iordan Ivanov for allegedly committing a fairly common and easy to execute scheme. Although this indictment is "insignificant" when compared to the Queens District Attorney's Office's indictment of over 100 people in a multi-million dollar Identity Theft scheme, It is alleged that N. Ivanov, Stamatov and I. Ivanov scammed as many as 1500 people by placing skimming devices and disguised cameras on ATMs early this year. These ATM machines, located in Astor Place, Union Square and the East Village, were treasure troves of personal information that prosecutors claim were used to help the defendants steal nearly $300,000.

The alleged debit card skimming scheme, one that is routinely perpetrated throughout New York and other cities and states, was fairly easy to pull off. It is claimed that the defendants placed devices on the "mouth" or access point where a customer would slide his or her debit card into an ATM machine. As the customer conducted his or her regular business, a hidden video camera pointed at the keypad recorded the PIN number or code used to access the bank accounts. With this information, the defendant's then allegedly accessed the bank accounts at different locations in New York, Canada and other states. It is alleged by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office that the defendants placed eleven different skimming devices at four separate Manhattan ATM locations. Ultimately, however, it is alleged that one of the Ivanov brothers, along with Stamatov, was arrested in May when he attempted to retrieve one of the skimming devices in Manhattan.

Make no mistake. Each of these defendants faces significant charges relating to their alleged actions. These crimes include Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Identity Theft in the First Degree, Burglary in the Third Degree, Criminal Possession of Forgery Devices, Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, Larceny in the Fourth Degree, and Petit Larceny. Other than Petit Larceny, these crimes range from a "C" felony punishable by up to fifteen years in prison to "D" and "E" felonies punishable by up to seven and four years in prison respectively.

It appears from the press release that evidence against the defendants is both direct and circumstantial. Obviously, if true, detectives arrested the defendants with or as they were retrieving skimming devices. Certainly, it is possible that these devices had already recorded account information. Furthermore, there may have been recordings from surveillance videos at points of compromise or withdrawal locations. Additionally, prosecutors may link compromised accounts to other accounts that were accessed at ATMs during the same date and times. Only a fraction of potential evidence, if the defendants admitted to the criminal actions it would further strengthen the prosecution's case. What will happen to these defendants and the defensive strategy they implement is yet to be seen, but will likely play out over the next few weeks and months.

To learn more about the Identity Theft, Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of Forgery Devices and Burglary, review the Crotty Saland PC website where each of these crimes is analyzed. Further relevant and practical information on these crimes can be found throughout the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com where statutes, legal decisions and cases in the news are assessed.

Additional resources for New York larceny crimes can be found at the NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com website and NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyersBlog.Com going "live" by the end of November 2011.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. Representing the accused throughout the New York City region, one of our founding New York criminal lawyers, Jeremy Saland, served in the Identity Theft Unit Major Case Section.

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,

The pressure and drive to exceed in school never ends. Instead of studying a little longer and a little harder, however, the answer for some students is figuring out the best shortcut. According to the Kathleen Rice and the Nassau County District Attorney's Office, Sam Eshaghoff, a former University of Michigan and current Emory student, was arrested after sitting for the SAT on behalf of at least a half a dozen high school students in exchange for thousands of dollars. Not a full fledged criminal enterprise, but more than an amateur operation, its further alleged that Eshaghoff sat for the SAT on Long Island at schools where administrators would not know the real students. Further, it is claimed that Eshagoff was armed with fake and phony New York State drivers licenses.

As interesting and as appealing as this case is, I have witnessed these types of scams on a much larger and even an international scale. As a Manhattan prosecutor, I led the investigation and prosecution of approximately two dozen individuals for either fraudulently taking or paying another person to take the GRE, GMAT and TOEFL. Education Testing Service (ETS) administers these examinations as well as the SAT. The Manhattan criminal enterprise, which extended well beyond the borders of New York and the United States, was extensive. Using faking passports at examinations centers and providing fraudulent diplomas, recommendation letters, transcripts, bank statements and other materials to universities and colleges throughout the United States, hundreds of students began their studies not on merit, but on fraud. In fact, the investigation revealed these students enrolled at NYU Stern School of Business, Columbia University Teachers College, Baruch College, UCLA, University of Michigan, Tulane Medical School, Canada's McGill University and many other prestigious institutions.

Although DA Rice has already announced in her press release that she only charged and arrested Eshaghoff, a Great Neck, Long Island High School graduate, for Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree and Criminal Impersonation in the Second Degree, much more serious charges could have been brought if prosecutors did a little more homework. Other than Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, an "E" felony punishable by up to four years in prison, the other offenses charged by Ms. Rice are misdemeanors. If prosecutors had subpoenaed ETS and obtained the correct documents and properly applied the law to the alleged conduct, other charges would be viable including higher "D" felonies. Moreover, the students who paid for the services could be charged as accomplices for such crimes as possessing a forged drivers license and falsification of records at ETS used prior to and as part of the SAT. More specifically, all parties could face Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree (false drivers license) and Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree (causing a false entry to be made while furthering a Scheme to Defraud, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument or even Identity Theft).

In the Manhattan District Attorney's Office prosecution of the professional test taking ring, we went as far as charging Identity Theft in the First Degree although no actual "theft" occurred. Briefly, the theory of that charge was that the test takers utilized personal identification of the students with the intent to defraud ETS and various colleges or make a fraudulent passport (in the current case against Eshaghoff the identification is a drivers license). Although there was no theft because students voluntarily gave their information, the Identity Theft statute does not contain the "permission and authority language." This theory of Identity Theft where one permits the use of his or her personal information by another to defraud was cutting edge. To combat the charges, some of the criminal defense lawyers argued that there was no "intent to defraud" because good will, a potential position at a school, or the integrity of the testing process, unlike cash or property, was not the type of fraud intended by the statute. Unfortunately for those defendants, that defense failed.

Make no mistake. There are hard working, honest, diligent students who strive to better themselves and their education. Most of them do not have the means to pay others to do their work. Even if prosecutors can "throw the book" at these teens, what happens to their futures should be more important than a press release and a "tough on crime" stance. If true, all of their actions were unquestionably wrong. A desire to get ahead in life cannot be substituted with the intent to scam and cheat. Hopefully, however, prosecutors give these students the opportunity to learn from their mistakes, pay back society, and show that they have the ability to become valuable members of their communities.

For a wealth of information about Identity Theft, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, Falsifying Business Records and Criminal Impersonation please follow the respective links. Additionally, the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com has extensive information on these and other crimes as well as analysis of legal decisions, statutes and cases in the news. Coming in the end of October, Crotty Saland PC's new website and blog - NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com and NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyersBog.Com - will be another resource for material on New York theft and larceny crimes.

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

As a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office for over seven years, I supervised and led investigations, arrests, indictments into complex identity theft and fraud related crimes and schemes. One of those investigations and indictments resulted in the conviction of numerous individuals who posed as professional graduate school entrance examination test-takers. These defendants created fake passports and use the identification information of the legitimate prospective student to sit for the GMAT, GRE, TOEFL and other examinations. Indicted for the crimes of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, Falsifying Business Records and Identity Theft, none of the attorneys who represented the accused challenged the crime of Identity Theft based on the theory that their respective client was given permission and authority by the legitimate student to use that student's personal information to cheat the colleges and universities. If nothing else, the idea that one cannot commit identity theft because one was given permission to use the personal information, albeit to defraud a third party, was worth pursuing in a court of law in light of the other overwhelming evidence. While other crimes may have been perpetrated, an argument could have been made that Identity Theft was not one of them.

Generally, you are guilty of Identity Theft in New York (New York Penal Law 190.78) in New York when, with the intent to defraud, you present yourself as another person by using that person's personal identifying information. In doing so, also obtain goods, money or some other form of property. This crime is enhanced through the value of the property or goods, as well as through other means to the crimes of New York Penal law 190.79 and New York Penal Law 190.80.

Addressing the issue hinted to in the first paragraph, nothing in the statute directly states whether you can commit identity theft if the "owner" of the identifying information gives you the authority to us it even if that information is being given to you for the purpose of deceiving another. Although a lower court decisions and not 100% on point, a Brooklyn court has finally grappled with this issue in part.

The People of the State of New York v. [M.]1, 2010KN014909, the defendant and the complainant shared a child in common. At some point the defendant, who had bad credit, allegedly received permission from the complainant to open up a credit card account with the personal identifying information of the victim. Upon doing so, the defendant utilized the credit, but also maintained her responsibility to pay the associated bills. Only after an unrelated dispute between the parties did the defendant stop paying the credit card bills. The question before the court was whether or not the conduct described above constituted the crime of Identity Theft in New York. That is, if you once had permission to use another person's information, could you still be perpetrating identity theft once that person revoked that right or because even with that right, a third party is being deceived or defrauded.

Answering the former question, the court found that once the complainant revoked the right of the defendant to utilize the personal information, using that information going forward would ultimately violate the crimes of Identity Theft. The latter question, while not in and of itself the basis of the decision, was analyzed as well. There the court noted that even if the complainant was not being defrauded when permission was granted to use personal identifying information, the creditor was. According to the court:

"It is basic law, leaving aside exceptions not relevant here, that a vendor may choose its customers, and a creditor may choose its debtors. It was not disputed that Dell [the creditor] was entitled to turn down Defendant as a customer worthy of being extended credit, as long as it did not do so for some legally impermissible reason. Nor may a potential customer legally circumvent the vendor's refusal to extend credit by surreptitiously opening an account in the name of some other party who has not consented and agreed to be liable to the vendor, even if the vendor would have extended credit to the nominee, had he applied for credit."

Extensive information the crimes of Identity Theft in New York as well as associated fraud crimes is located through the highlighted link. Beyond these crimes, substantive information on New York white collar crimes may be found on both the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com) as well as the Crotty Saland PC website.

Representing those accused of or arrested for crimes in the New York City region, Crotty Saland PC was founded by two New York criminal lawyers who previously served as Manhattan prosecutors.

Identity Theft, one of the most significant and frequently prosecuted crimes in New York City as well as the State of New York, is a growing concern for prosecutors and law enforcement. Although there are many New York criminal lawyers who have a general knowledge of the crimes and punishment associated with Identity Theft, they may not have a command of the statutes. Those statutes are New York Penal Law 190.78 (Third Degree Identity Theft), New York Penal Law 190.79 (Second Degree Identity Theft) and New York Penal Law 190.80 (First Degree Identity Theft). While Identity Theft in the Third Degree is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, Identity Theft in the Second and Third Degrees are "E" and "D" felonies punishable by up to four and seven years in state prison respectively.

Because many people do not fully understand the nuances of the Identity Theft criminal statutes, Crotty Saland PC has put together a New York Identity Theft Crime Information Page. The purpose of this page is not to give advice to those accused of Identity Theft crimes or to attorneys representing clients charged with Identity Theft offenses, but to be a source of education for anyone interested in learning more about New York criminal law.

Related New York Criminal Lawyer Blog Post:

New York Criminal Impersonation: A Distinct Crime from Identity Theft
Manhattan DA: Vance "Creates" Cybercrime and Identity Theft Bureau
Unlawful Possession of Personal Identifying Information: Does the Crime Require its Use
Unlawful Possession of a Skimmer Device: New York Penal Law 190.85

In depth information on the crimes of Identity Theft can be found through the link. Additional information on these and related crimes is located n the Crotty Saland PC website as well as the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Crotty Saland PC is a Manhattan based criminal defense firm representing the accused throughout the New York City region. Before starting the firm, our two founding New York criminal lawyers served in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. Jeremy Saland served in the Trial Division and Identity Theft Unit Major Case Section while Elizabeth Crotty Served in both the Trial and Investigation Divisions.

Do I need a New York criminal lawyer? I found a credit card in Manhattan and used that credit card to buy a pair of jeans at Macys for $175. I took my friend's credit card and purchased $600 worth of makeup and other accessories in a Brooklyn store without my friend's permission. I used a credit card that was fake and had another person's account number programmed on to it. What is "credit card fraud" and did I commit it? Can I be charged with a felony or go to prison? What are the crimes and potential charges in New York City for credit card fraud?

The following blog entry is a brief analysis of the potential crimes in New York State relating to credit card theft and possession, use of a stolen credit card, counterfeit and fake credit cards and other offenses. These potential crimes range from "A" misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in jail to "D" felonies punishable by up to seven years in state prison.

New York Penal Law 155.30(4) & 165.45(2)

If you steal or possess a stolen credit card, the potential charge is either Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree (NY PL 155.30(4)) or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree (NY PL 165.45(2)). Both of these crimes are "E" felonies punishable by up to four years in state prison. It is critical to note that you can be charged with this felony for each credit card you steal or stolen credit card you possess. Moreover, the same crime applies to debit cards as well.

Another important issue with these crimes is as follows. If you are accused, for example, of stealing a purse or possessing a stolen purse that contains credit cards in it, you need not have the explicit knowledge that you possessed a stolen credit card, but that you possessed stolen property. Also, possessing a stolen credit card that is canceled or revoked is no different than possessing an operating credit or debit card.

New York Penal Law 170.10

Forgery in the Second Degree is a "D" felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison. You can be charged with the crime of NY PL 170.10 if and when you fraudulently sign the rightful name of the debit or credit card holder on the transaction receipt. Regardless of the value of the items purchased, if you sign this person's name without their permission or authority and you do so with the intent to defraud the store or the credit card company, then Forgery is the applicable charge. The same is true if you sign an illegible name. As long as you complete or draft this written instrument (i.e, the receipt), then you likely perpetrated this crime. Compounding matters, this Forgery may be the basis of another felony that prosecutors can charge. That felony, as will be discussed later, is Identity Theft in the First Degree.

New York Penal Law 170.25

Criminal Possession of a Forged instrument in the Second Degree, like Forgery in the Second Degree, is a "D" felony punishable by up to seven years in prison. NY PL 170.25 is the "sister" crime to NY PL 170.15. The easiest way to look at this crime in the context of credit card fraud is in two distinct examples. The first occurs where you sign a name to the credit card receipt (the Forgery) and, as a result, create the complete and whole transaction record. This finalized receipt that was complete with the signature is the forged instrument. A second example would occur where the credit card itself is a counterfeit or fake credit card. If you possess this fraudulent credit card that appears to be a legitimate card (maybe it has another person's real name or is encoded with a stolen account number) and you have the intent to deceive another with it, then you will likely be charged with Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree

Regardless of the crime charged, it is extremely important to recognize that even an accusation of a felony can alter, if not destroy, the career of a student, lawyer, physician, teacher or financial services employee. Even without going to prison, what will be revealed on a background check and what certifications or licenses will be compromised? Whether you are a target of an investigation or you have already been arrested, consulting with an experienced criminal defense attorney before speaking to the police, prosecutors or any law enforcement agent is critical. It could be that without your admission or statement, the prosecution's case will not have the same strength and durability against you.

A second entry dealing with credit card fraud in its various forms will address the additional crimes and degrees of Identity Theft and Falsifying Business Records. However, extensive information on these and other crimes are located on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog and the Crotty Saland website.

Elizabeth Crotty and Jeremy Saland, our two founding New York criminal defense attorneys, served in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office for six and seven years respectively prior to starting the law firm. Our criminal lawyers represent the accused from investigation through trial in the New York City region.

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.

When one thinks of Embezzlement in New York, one usually thinks of a Grand Larceny type scheme. While this may be true, experienced New York criminal lawyers will tell you that an Embezzlement based Grand Larceny investigation, arrest or indictment may only be the tip of the iceberg. In fact, while one's main objective may be a theft, there are numerous other crimes that one may face if one is charged or arrested for Grand Larceny by Embezzlement in New York.

A savvy and experienced prosecutor is likely able to throw a litany of charges at you that tie back to a Grand Larceny and Embezzlement arrest. If one doesn't stick, the prosecutor realizes that there are many additional charges that may. Obviously, some Embezzlement charges in New York are more serious than others. For most people, however, any type of felony conviction will cripple their career. While no New York criminal defense attorney can guarantee a particular result in the face of an Embezzlement charge, arrest or indictment, he or she should be able to assess your case, discuss the possible charges and implement a defense.

Potential Embezzlement Crimes in New York

Grand Larceny in the Fourth, Third, Second and First Degrees

New York Grand Larceny, Penal Law sections 155.30, 155.35, 155.40 and 155.42, addresses the thefts or embezzlement of property and money valued in excess of $1,000, $3,000, $50,000 and $1,000,000 respectively. Generally, regardless of the nature of the property (in the Embezzlement context it is usually, if not always, money), if the you steal property in these value ranges, you will face these charges. A conviction for 155.30 carries a maximum sentence for a first time offender of 1 and 1/3 to 4 years in prison, while convictions for 155.35, 155.40 or 155.42 carry maximum sentences of 2 and 1/3 to 7, 5 to 15 and 8 and 1/3 to 25 years in sate prison respectively.

Forgery in the Second Degree

New York Penal Law section 170.10 deals not with the actual theft, but the altering of a "written instrument" where it is done with the intent to defraud. An easy way to visualize this is if you, for example, sign checks in the name of someone else. The mere signing of the receipt, invoice or check could be deemed Forgery in the Second Degree as long as all of the elements are satisfied. A "D" felony, Forgery in the Second Degree carries a maximum sentence of 2 and 1/3 to 7 years in prison for a first time offender.

Obviously, the New York Embezzlement crime with the greatest potential punishment is the Grand Larceny offense. Merely because Grand Larceny is likely the most serious crime does not mean the others are less significant. While the District Attorney's Office may aggregate the total theft from your employer over a period of years into one Grand Larceny charge, each time you made the deposit, wrote someone's signature or tried to cover up a crime by altering the books, you may be charged with multiple crimes. In other words, every time you made that deposit or signed the name you can face a new charge that could potentially be consecutive in nature. You signed your supervisor's name 15 times over the course of the year...that could be 15 Forgery charges. What you believed might be "only" a one count Grand Larceny indictment may become a 50 count indictment involving multiple crimes.

This article on New York Embezzlement laws and crimes is not the right place to identify and set forth a defense to allegations against you, but if nothing else, it can help set the parameters in which you and your New York criminal lawyer will likely need to operate. In fact, there may be other charges and crimes that you may face beyond those addressed here (Crotty Saland PC will have a second entry in this section regarding Identity Theft and Falsifying Business Records). For legal advice on your particular case, discuss the allegations in depth with your counsel so he or she can ascertain how to proceed and protect your liberty.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm that has successfully represented (case results) clients in investigations, arrests, and indictments involving white collar crimes throughout New York City and the region. Prior to starting the firm, the founding New York Embezzlement attorneys both served as prosecutors under Robert Morgenthau in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

For extensive information on the crimes of Grand Larceny and Forgery, please follow the highlighted links above to the Crotty Saland PC website. Additional information on these crimes, as well as criminal statutes, legal decisions and cases in the news, can be found by searching the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com).

** The second installment of the Embezzlement Criminal Law Primer can be found through the link.

Identity Theft (New York Penal Law section 190.78, New York Penal Law section 190.79 and New York Penal Law section 190.80), one of the more prevalent crimes prosecuted by Assistant District Attorneys in New York, is often associated with offenses such as Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, Forgery and Grand Larceny. More often than not, when and if there is a plea to multiple charges in an indictment, the sentences run concurrent. This means that the sentence on all of the crimes run at the same time as opposed to after each other (this is called consecutive). One of the reasons that a sentence is completed this way is because the crimes are all part of the same transaction.

As noted above, in the realm of Identity Theft crimes in New York, the offenses are often times not on an island, but part of other criminal schemes. Therefore, one would hope that if a plea is the best option, that plea would run concurrent to other sentences. Sadly, for one individual, this was not the case.

In People v. Hayes, 71 A.D.3d 1187 (3rd Dept. 2010), the defendant was indicted by a Grand Jury and ultimately pleaded to Identity Theft in the Second Degree for using a fraudulent credit card in the name of another individual and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree for possessing forged and fake credit cards. Ultimately, the defendant was sentenced to five and one half to eleven years in state prison. This sentence was a consecutive. Upon completing his sentence for the Identity Theft for using the credit card in the store, he then had to serve a new sentence for possessing fraudulent credit cards. On appeal, the defendant argued that this sentence was improper for the reasons mentioned above, ie, it was part of the same criminal transaction.

In a very brief, but clear response, the Appellate Division found that the sentence was legal. While the crimes appeared to be all part of the same scheme, the Court ruled that the charges were distinct charges and evolved from separate acts. As a result, a consecutive sentence was appropriate.

While it may be too late for this particular defendant, there are lessons to be taken from this case. First, if you are pleading to multiple counts in an indictment, if your belief is that your sentence will be concurrent make sure the record reflects such a promise or disposition (that should be obvious). Second, while a set of facts and allegations may appear to be part of the same incident, they in fact may not be. Consult with your New York criminal lawyer to ensure, as best you can, that the time you face is concurrent and not consecutive.

Crotty Saland PC, a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, represents the accused throughout the New York City region. Jeremy Saland, one of the founding partners, was one of the original members of the Identity Theft Unit created under Robert Morgenthau in the New York County District Attorney's Office prior to become a New York criminal lawyer.

For extensive information on the crimes of Identity Theft, Grand Larceny, Forgery and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, please follow the respective links above and go the the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog where you can find criminal statutes, legal decisions and commentary about cases in the news.

Crotty Saland PC, a New York white collar criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, is pleased to announced a recent "victory" and "top result" on behalf of a client charged with Embezzlement Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 155.35) and Identity Theft in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 190.80). Our client, an accountant and former board member for a not-for-profit organization in New York City, faced up to seven years in prison on each charge after prosecutors alleged that he had opened up a line of credit in a board member's name. The District Attorney's Office further claimed that our client used the board member's information to maintain that line of credit. Ultimately, prosecutors concluded that our client funneled $25,000 from the bank for his own use.

Despite the allegations of Identity Theft as a means to perpetrate the Grand Larceny and Embezzlement, we successfully argued that the complainant had actually given our client the authority to open the account many years earlier even though the complainant initially denied this. Fortunately, we were able to find some corroboration to this defense. Ultimately, after a few months of wrangling, prosecutors agreed to dismiss the felony Identity Theft charge against our client and reduce the felony Grand Larceny charge to one misdemeanor count of Petit Larceny (the "shoplifting statute"). Although our client ultimately pleaded to the Petit Larceny in full satisfaction of all of the allegations against him, our client avoided the career ending and life altering collateral consequences of a felony conviction. Moreover, he did not have to make any restitution as part of his plea. Make no mistake. A misdemeanor is still a crime, but not as devastating as a felony with the associated maximum of seven years in state prison and restitution in the amount of $25,000.

For extensive information on Identity Theft, New York Grand Larceny, New York Embezzlement laws and crimes and case results, please follow the highlighted links. Additional information, including analysis of cases in the news, legal decisions and criminal statutes, is available on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com). A New York "related crime" Embezzlement primer can be found through the respective link as well.

Crotty Saland PC, a New York City based white collar criminal defense practice, represents individuals accused of white collar crimes throughout the NYC region. Crotty Saland PC was founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors and has obtained favorable results for our clients in white collar criminal allegations. Elizabeth Crotty served in the Trial Division and Investigation Division while Jeremy Saland served in the Trial Division as well as the Identity Theft Major Case Section.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance landed himself a solid indictment yesterday. If the number of charges are actually any indication of how solid an indictment is, the 106 counts against Nefertit Garnett and 80 counts against Zoe Walmsely are very telling. Charged with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Identity Theft in the First Degree, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree, Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, and Attempted Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, the defendants are each alleged to have stolen in excess of $100,000 from Chase bank using the identifying information of numerous people.

According to the press release:

"...the defendants conducted multiple bank transactions in their victims' accounts, including withdrawals, deposits, and the cashing of forged checks. At least one of the victims was impersonated by both GARNETT and WALMSLEY, who each conducted fraudulent bank transactions using the same victim's name. The investigation is continuing to determine whether there may be further connections between the two defendants."

"GARNETT is charged with identity theft for impersonating at least seven individuals. She conducted at least 35 transactions involving her victims' bank accounts between October 6, 2009 and March 30, 2010."

"According to her indictment, WALMSLEY is charged with identity theft, for impersonating at least eight different victims. She conducted at least 28 transactions involving those victims' accounts between February 24, 2009 and March 8, 2010."

Grand Larceny in the Second Degree is a "C" felony punishable by up to 15 years in state prison. Identity Theft if the First Degree, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree and Attempted Grand Larceny in the Second Degree are each "D" felonies punishable by up to 7 years in state prison. Scheme to Defraud is an "E" felony punishable by up to 4 years in state prison. For further information on these crimes follow the highlighted links. For additional information on other Penal Law offenses as well as recent legal decisions and case in the news, please go to the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog at NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm representing clients throughout out the New York City region. Jeremy Saland, one of the two former Manhattan prosecutors who founded the firm, served in the Identity Theft Unit Major Case Section, the predecessor of the current Cyber Crime and Identity Theft Bureau.

Before the dawn of identity theft laws, the crime of Criminal Impersonation, pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 190.25 and 190.26, was the weapon of the assistant district attorney to prosecute fraud crimes related to one's identification or persona in New York. This entry will address the crime of Criminal Impersonation in Second Degree (NY PL 190.25) and Criminal Impersonation in the First Degree (NY PL 190.26). A second entry will address legal decisions applicable to these laws.

Criminal Impersonation in the Second Degree - New York Penal Law 190.25

A person is guilty of Criminal Impersonation in the Second Degree when he:

(1) Impersonates another person. This impersonation must be accompanied by an intent to obtain a particular benefit or, in the alternative, to defraud another person. Although often charged as Theft of Services, pursuant to New York Penal Law 165.15, if one uses a metrocard, for example, of a student or senior citizen, the crime of NY PL 190.25 may be charged.

2. Again, with the intent to benefit or defraud another person, a person pretends to be a representative of a particular organization and acts in that capacity. The type and size of that organization does not matter.

3. (a) A person acts and pretends to be a public servant and, without authority, wears that particular uniform or shield, etc. of that public servant. In the alternative, that person, wrongfully expresses by action or words that he or she is the public servant or acting o their behalf; and (b) acts with intent to induce that person to submit to such pretended or false official authority for the purpose of obtaining funds or to cause the targeted person to act under the fraudulent authority or reliance on the fake public servant.

4. Impersonates another person online with the intent to defraud or obtain a benefit. In the alternative, that person pretends to be a public servant through electronic or online communication to induce that person to follow the authority of the fake public servant or to act in reliance on this pretense.

Criminal Impersonation in the Second Degree is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

Criminal Impersonation in the First Degree - New York Penal Law 190.26

A person is guilty of Criminal Impersonation in the First Degree when:

1. He or she acts similar to NY PL 190.25(3) except that the person pretends to be a police officer or a federal law enforcement officer or wears or displays without authority, any uniform, badge or other insignia; and

2. That person acts with the intent to induce another to submit to such pretended official authority or otherwise to act in reliance upon said pretense and in the course of such pretense commits or attempts to commit a felony; or

3. Pretending to be a licensed doctor, physician or other person authorized to issue a prescription, he or she communicates to a pharmacist an oral prescription which is required to be reduced to writing.

Criminal Impersonation in the First Degree is a class E felony punishable by up to four years in state prison.

For further information on the crimes of Criminal Impersonation, please read the second installment of this "primer." Not a direct transcription of the law, a reading of the actual statute and consultation with an experienced New York criminal defense lawyer is necessary to understand the nuances of the statutes as well as the potential criminal defenses that may be available to you.

Founded by former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the New York City region.

Only days ago, I published an entry regarding the new Cybercrime and Identity Theft Bureau in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. Having served as a member of that bureau's predecessor, the Identity Theft Unit, during my seven years as a prosecutor under Robert Morgenthau, I commented on the necessity of such a unit despite my adversarial role as a New York criminal defense attorney. I don't think anyone could argue the significance of this expanded bureau as schemes involving Identity Theft and Computer Crime continue to flourish in New York and beyond.

Although the most recent arrests and allegations stem from the Queens County District Attorney's Office, the purpose of such a unit or bureau has once again been made clear. According to the Queens County District Attorney's Office, twelve individuals, including five employees at PC Richards and Sons, have been arrested and indicted in a fraudulent credit card "bust out" scheme. The 92 count indictment charges Raza Chaudry, Reema Chaudry, Tahir Chaudry, Azadar Chaudry, Zishan Chaudry, Shaheen Akhtar. Hemet Adnand, Mathew Alli, Mohammad Aslam, David Francis, Benzy Jonny and Sheikh "Naveed" Zaheer with crimes including Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, Falsifying Business Records and Offering a False Instrument for Filing. Although they are not charged with the technical crime of Identity Theft, it is alleged that the "bust out" scheme involved stolen social security numbers. According to the Queens District Attorney's Office, a search warrant resulted in the recovery of "Pakistani passports belonging to several of the defendants and bearing multiple names and dates of birth, blank Social Security cards, Canadian and New York driver's licenses and binders containing in excess of 300 credit cards."

Briefly, a "bust out" scheme involves transactions on a credit car where the credit card is "swiped" and a transaction is completed. The credit card company pays the merchant for the transaction or purchase. There are numerous variations going forward. For example, a "collusive merchant" may be aware that the card swiped is fraudulent. However, the merchant will get paid by the credit card company and claim he sold the items and he should not be at a loss because he did not know the card was fraudulent. Therefore, the merchant keeps the money from the alleged legitimate transaction without selling anything and shares the fee with fake buyer.

Another variation is alleged in this case. It appears that fraudulent checks were used to increase credit lines on credit cards. In an example of this, an individual takes out a credit card in another person's name without their permission, or in some circumstances pays that person to use their information. Sometimes legitimate transactions are made thereby raising the credit of the card over time. At some point a payment is made to the credit card, but with a bad check. Because of relaxed regulations, once the check hits the account and before there is a determination that the check is "good," the credit card company credits the account in the amount of the check. Therefore, there is a window of time before the check bounces that the credit card balance is falsely lowered. During this time, the fraudster can make further purchase. Once the credit card company realizes is, the items are gone. This cycle often continues with fake checks until a credit card with a limit of $5,000 is "busted out" in the amount of $25,000. Often times these schemes are not one or two credit cards, but a network of individuals with dozens or hundreds of credit cards. As a prosecutor in Manhattan, I led a similar investigation with the Secret Service into a particular scheme involving well north of 100 credit cards with "bust out" fraud in the multiple millions.

Continue reading "Queens Identity Theft & Credit Card "Bust Out" Scheme Results in Indictment of Five PC Richards Employees" »