General Grand Larceny

Published on: February 22, 2012

Queens DA: Aqueduct Racetrack and Casino Gets an Unauthorized Deduction in a Fraudulent Player Card Scheme

Gambling is a good time, especially when you are gambling with other people’s money. According to the Queens District Attorney’s Office, two employees from Resort World Casino at Aqueduct Racetrack distributed at least 70, and as many as 200, fake player cards. It is alleged that each of these fraudulent player cards was worth $100 in casino credit. If true, the value of the theft would be at least $7,000 and as much as $20,000. While this amount of money is a “drop in the bucket” to a casino’s bottom line, it certainly pales in comparison to the millions of dollars taken from customers who play games of chance favoring “the house” on an annual basis. Those transactions and risks, however, are knowingly accepted by gamblers. While a discussion as to the morality of such capitalistic endeavors may be worthy of a non-criminal blog, these alleged thefts are of a different variety and will be addressed appropriately here.

Queens District Attorney Richard Brown believes that the two employees, Moises Jones and Rolanda Roberts, as well as two casino players, Sonny Vlado and Richard Ulado, were involved in the alleged scheme. According to the felony complaints against each of the defendants as well as statements by prosecutors, it is alleged that 71 fraudulent casino player cards – complimentary cards embossed with client names and containing credit given to specific players – were created for non existent people. Resort World Wide Casino tracked these cards back to Jones as they were alleged to have been created with the use of Jones’ designated employee access code. These fake player cards were then given to Roberts who in turn handed the cards out to pre-designated casino clients.

Published on: February 18, 2012

The Significance of Value in a Theft & Larceny Arrest: Understanding Market Value Part I

By Jeremy Saland

As a New York criminal defense attorney with extensive experience both representing those accused of white collar theft crimes as well as prosecuting and investigating the same, I fully understand that nobody ever wants to face a larceny charge. Frankly, it does not take a legal degree to understand that. It merely takes common sense. Nonetheless, if there is not strong factual or legal basis to obtain a dismissal or acquittal in a Grand Larceny or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property arrest, we must sometimes face the reality that a conviction is a strong possibility. Thus, it is important to remember that different degrees of Grand Larceny carry different potential punishments- some severe, some “manageable.” Whether you are charged with larceny in Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, Westchester County or anywhere else in the New York City area, one of the main elements that most often determine the degree of the theft crime – under New York’s Penal Law Article 155 and New York Penal Law Article 165 – is the value of the allegedly stolen property.

For instance, a defendant who stole property worth more than $3,000, but $50,000 or less, may be convicted of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 155.35. Here, a defendant would face up to seven years in state prison. Alternatively, a theft in excess of $1,000, but $3,000 or less, would result in a conviction for New York Penal Law 155.30, Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, a class “E” felony. NY PL 155.30 carries a maximum sentence of four years in state prison. Continuing with the downgrading of charges, a defendant who stole property worth $1,000 or less would be convicted of New York Penal Law 155.25, Petit Larceny, a class “A” misdemeanor. This crime carries a maximum sentence of one year in jail.

Published on: February 14, 2012

DA Vance Busts 37 Member Check Fraud Scheme that Netted Over $150K

By Jeremy Saland

Identity Theft, Forgery and Grand Larceny crimes are fairly easy crimes to perpetrate and depending your scheme, fairly easy to get away with. That is, of course, until you get lazy, sloppy or greedy and you get caught. Why, however, risk significant mandatory incarceration by selling cocaine or firearms when you can forge a few checks and make yourself six figures? Well, as tongue and cheek as that may be, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance has an answer for you as to why you should do none of the above. If you perpetrate a fraud offense such as those allegedly committed by a Brooklyn based crew of 37 individuals, Vance, et al. will be knocking on your door (actually, they – not including Vance – may be knocking it down).

According to Manhattan’s chief prosecutor, 37 members of an alleged organized check fraud and money laundering ring now face an indictment charging members with a wide range of felonies including Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, Money Laundering in the Second Degree, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree, IDentity Theft in the First Degree and Conspiracy in the Fourth Degree. These crimes range from “E” felonies punishable by up to four years in prison to “C” felonies punishable by up to fifteen years in custody.

Published on: February 12, 2012

The Value of Stolen Property in a New York Grand Larceny Case: The Changing Value of Property Over Time

By Jeremy Saland

In the overwhelming amount of New York Grand Larceny or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property criminal cases, the value of the property stolen will play a significant role in the defendant’s charge. Under New York Penal Law 165.45, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree, it is a Class E felony to knowingly possess stolen property with a value in excess of $1,000. Under New York Penal Law 155.30, Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, it is a Class E felony to steal property with a value in excess of $1,000. In both instances, the seriousness of the offense hinges upon the value of the property in question. In fact, as noted above and with just a few limited exceptions, the dollar value of stolen property will be the determining factor in the seriousness of most larceny-related offenses.

The value of property, however, is not always static. Imagine, for instance, a thief that robs a jewelry store (keep in mind this may also be a crime of Burglary, but that offense and its elements will not be discussed in this entry). When the thief commits the crime, he or she steals a bracelet made of one ounce of gold. At the time of the theft, gold is valued at $800 an ounce. Several months later, the thief sells the bracelet to a fence. When the fence receives the bracelet, gold is valued at $1,100 an ounce. Eventually, police discover that the fence is in possession of the stolen piece of jewelry. When the discovery is made, gold is valued at $900 an ounce. Some time later, prosecutors wish to finally charge the suspects based upon their actions. At the time when this occurs, gold is valued at $1,500 an ounce. Obviously, the legal issue or questions is clear. How is the value of property determined and when is that determination made?

Published on: February 4, 2012

Understanding the Crime of Extortion in New York in the Context of Yankees General Manager Brian Cashman

By Jeremy Saland

Extortion is an ugly word. Merely hearing it conjures up thoughts of violence, threats and blackmail. While we all have our own perception or idea as to what constitutes the crime or offense of Extortion, each state has its own criminal definition or statutes establishing the crime. For New York Yankees General Manager Brian Cashman and his alleged extorter, Louise Neathway, the New York Penal Law defines the relevant law and what prosecutors will pursue over the next few days and months.

THE “FACTS”

Published on: January 30, 2012

Thou Shalt Not (Allegedly) Steal: Clerk Embezzles $1 Million from New York Archdiocese

By Jeremy Saland

It may not be the first of the ten commandments, but according to the Book of Vance, Jr., violating “thou shalt not (allegedly) steal” is understandably and correctly a grave and serious crime against the public. In the minds of some in the law enforcement community, any theft, regardless of how large or insignificant it may be, is a greater sin than disregarding the axiom “thou shalt not answer ‘ready for trial’ in an illusory manner.” But let us not digress…

According to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, Cyrus Vance’s keepers of the grail have once again notched a victory against Team Hades. This time the arrestee in Manhattan Criminal Court was an accounts payable clerk who is alleged to have perpetrated a $1 million Embezzlement from the Archdiocese of New York. 67 year old Anita Collins is not only accused of Grand Larceny in the First Degree, a violation of New York Penal Law 155.42, but it is not her first brush with the law. In fact, the Church apparently failed to do its due diligence on the accused and was unaware she completed five years probation after her felony Grand Larceny conviction in 1999.

Published on: January 29, 2012

Multiple Convictions for Possessing the Same Stolen Property Over a Period of Time: Understanding Jeopardy & New York Penal Law Article 165

By Jeremy Saland

Under New York’s larceny laws and theft crimes statutes, certain crimes and offenses are completed at the time they are committed. Take, for example, Grand Larceny, pursuant to Article 155 of the New York Penal Law. Under New York Penal Law 155.30, a person commits Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree when he or she steals a piece of property, regardless of its type or nature, with a value in excess of $1,000. For the purpose of this particular statute, a person is considered to have stolen property when he or she takes, withholds, or obtains the property of another person with the intent of depriving that person of the property. So long as the person possesses the property in question with the intent to deprive another person of that property, the crime is considered complete at the moment that he or she takes the property. The property need not be in the accused’s possession for a minimum of one hour, one day or one week to have perpetrated the crime of NY PL 155.30 or any other degree of Grand Larceny. It is the physical taking that is the hallmark of any New York Penal Law Article 155 crime.

While the rule above holds true for the vast majority of offenses, the nature of other larceny-related crimes can be considered more ongoing or part of a greater course of conduct. Under New York Penal Law 165.45, a person commits Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree when he or she knowingly possesses stolen property with a value more than $1,000. While the crime occurs when the defendant first comes into knowing possession of the property, the offense continues for as long as the person is in possession of that property. In other words, you could be arrested or “get in trouble” with the law whether you are found to be in this possession of stolen property minutes or weeks after its theft. The nature of possession, unlike a taking, can go on for an extensive period and does not end until that possession no longer exists.

Published on: January 23, 2012

DA Vance: Crowell & Moring Attorney Stole in Excess of $7 Million from Firm’s Real Estate Client

By Jeremy Saland

It appears that District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. has bagged himself a trophy sized defendant. According to Manhattan prosecutors, former Crowell & Moring attorney, Douglas Arntsen, stole $7 million from clients during part of his tenure in the New York City office of the global law firm. Not yet indicted by a Grand Jury, Arntsen is charged with three separate offenses. Although capable of charging significantly more crimes to a Grand Jury, prosecutors arrested Arntsen for “only” two counts of Grand Larceny in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 155.42) and one count of Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 190.65). A “B” felony that carries a sentence of up to eight and one third to twenty five years in prison as well as a minimum term of one to three years incarceration, Arntsen is facing the most severe or significant white collar crime in terms of degree and potential consequences. While merely an “E” felony, a conviction for Scheme to Defraud still carries a potential state prison sentence of up to four years.

According to Team Vance, Arntsen’s scheme was fairly simple and straight forward. That is, it is alleged that the Crowell & Moring attorney serviced a client, Regal Real Estate LLC, while also servicing himself. It is claimed that Arntsen, who worked at Crowell & Moring for approximately four years, assisted Regal Real Estate LLC in most, if not all, of its real estate transactions. Beginning sometime in April 2010, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office believes that Arntsen began moving funds associated with a client escrow account into his own personal bank account. These monies related to the sale of Regal Real Estate LLC’s properties. At some point, the law firm recognized the discrepencies in accounting and potential criminal fraud. As a result, Crowell & Moring terminated Arntsen and contact the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Likely recognizing what was in store, Arntsen is alleged to have fled to Hong Kong where he was in custody before returning to the United States with the assistance of federal authorities.

Published on: January 15, 2012

Adding Up Stolen Property from Multiple Victims: New York Criminal Possession of Stolen Property & Aggregation Law

By Jeremy Saland

In a previous entry, we discussed how the value of stolen property frequently effects the seriousness of the charge that a defendant will face in a New York larceny, theft or stolen property arrest. In this entry, the New York criminal defense attorneys at Saland Law PC will elaborate on that topic, discussing how the value of multiple pieces of stolen property can impact the degree of Grand Larceny or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property a defendant will face. Under New York Penal Law 165.45, it is a Class E felony for a person to knowingly possess stolen property valued more than $1000, but not greater than $3,000. Further, this possession must include an intent to benefit himself or a person other than the owner. If the defendant possesses stolen property valued at less than $1,000, he or she will likely be charged with a misdemeanor of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree (New York Penal Law 165.40). If the value of the property is greater than $1,000, however, the charge can escalate to a number of potential felonies beyond the Fourth Degree. The language of this statute raises an extremely valid question: if the defendant possesses numerous pieces of stolen property belonging to multiple owners, can the total value of the property be used to support a single charge, or must the value of each be used to support separate charges, based upon individual owners?

Although seemingly insignificant, your criminal lawyer will explain that knowing the answer to this question can sometimes prove relevant to your case. Imagine a circumstance where prosecutors allege that a defendant is acting as a “fence,” a person in the business of buying stolen property. This defendant is alleged to be in possession of several stolen items: a television valued at $300, a bicycle valued at $600, and a laptop valued at $500. Each piece of property belongs to a different owner. If prosecutors base their charge upon the total value of the items in the defendant’s possession, the value of the stolen property is in excess of $1,000 and the defendant will face a felony. If the language of the statute requires, however, that the charges be separated by individual owners of the property, the defendant possesses three items worth less than $1,000. As such, he or she will only be charged with three misdemeanors. Addressing this exact issue, the court in People v. Loret 136 A.D.2d 316 (4th Dept. 1988) considered whether prosecutors may aggregate the value of stolen property or if each charge must be based upon the property’s individual owner.

Published on: January 11, 2012

Valuing Property in a Grand Larceny & Stolen Property Arrest: A Critical Element to Your Criminal Defense

By Jeremy Saland

In discussing many of New York’s larceny laws, our criminal lawyers frequently explain that the charge a defendant faces will usually depend not on the nature of the property stolen, but rather, the value of that property. For example, if a person possesses stolen property, and the value of that property is less than $1000, he or she will probably be charged with a misdemeanor crime of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree. If a person commits the same criminal act, but the value of the property exceeds $1,000, he or she will likely be charged with a felony offense of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree. As the value of a piece of stolen property increases, so too does the seriousness of the offense. Under New York Penal Law 165.45, it is a Class E felony for a person to possess stolen property with a value of $1,000 or more. If the value of the property exceeds $3,000, the offense is upgraded to a Class D felony (New York Penal Law 165.50). If the property is worth more than $50,000, the defendant will be charged with a Class C felony (New York Penal Law 165.52). Finally, if a defendant possesses stolen property with a value of $1 million dollars or more, that defendant can be charged with a class B felony (New York Penal Law 165.54). For each of these offenses, the value of the property in question is an element that prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

In some circumstances, the value of a piece of property is clear. Generally speaking, if you walked into an electronics store and stole a brand new high-definition television, its value would simply be the retail price that a consumer would have paid for the television. As your New York criminal defense attorney will explain, however, the alleged value attached to a piece of property is not always so clearly defined. If the television in the previous scenario had actually been a floor model, its remote had been lost, and it no longer displayed programming in high definition, its value might be significantly less than retail price. If you stole this television, could prosecutors still prove it was worth what a consumer would pay for an unused model?