New York Theft and Larceny Lawyers Blog

Published on: August 5, 2012

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

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

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

Published on: July 26, 2012

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

By Jeremy Saland

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

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

Published on: July 24, 2012

Problems & Issues Beyond Jail: Further Ramifications for NY Lawyers & Attorneys Convicted of Theft & Fraud

By Jeremy Saland

As a New York theft lawyer and a defense attorney, I routinely represent clients in Grand Larceny arrests, indictments and investigations in the New York City region. In this capacity I find myself counseling professionals to recognize the collateral consequences and ramifications of a New York theft and fraud arrest beyond of the four walls of the criminal court. In fact, only last week, I drafted an entry as to the suspension of a lawyer who had initially been arrested for Grand Larceny and later pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor theft crime of Petit Larceny. The following case I am about to address further “hits home” the gravity of a larceny conviction – misdemeanor or felony – upon the professional licensing of attorneys in New York. Whether you are stealing from an escrow account, shoplifting or perpetrating a theft in the form of a tax crime, understand there can, and often will, be consequences should your case not be handled properly.

In Matter of Maffia, D34357, NYLJ 1202547493906, at *1 (App. Div. 2nd, Decided March, 27, 2012), the Grievance Committee moved to confirm a Special Referee’s report of professional misconduct for an attorney was was convicted in Suffolk County of Petit Larceny pursuant to New York Penal Law 155.25. As I have noted many times, NY PL 155.25, whether by shoplift or theft of monies, is a wrongful taking of another’s property regardless of how insignificant the value may be. Petit Larceny is an “A” misdemeanor. In the case before the Grievance Committee, although respondent (defendant) did not admit to it, prosecution accused the defendant of stealing $5,743 and as part of the plea deal required him to make restitution.

Published on: July 16, 2012

Potential Secondary Punishment & Consequences for Shoplifting Arrests in New York: Censure & Disbarment for Lawyers & Attorneys

By Jeremy Saland

A New York shoplifting arrest, whether it be in violation of New York Penal Law 155.25, New York Penal Law 155.30, New York Penal Law 165.40 or New York Penal Law 165.45, is an extremely serious crime with enormous secondary and collateral consequences. Believing otherwise is both naive and foolish. An arrest for Petit Larceny, Grand Larceny or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property will not automatically land you in jail or result in a criminal record, but for professionals – lawyers, teachers, doctors, financial services employees and others – there are very real and significant issues in terms of careers and livelihood. Remember, while each case, arrest and allegation for a larceny or theft crime may share similarities with others, each offense and person accused is distinct and separate. The following case is worth reading to understand what can happen to you upon the close of your case and to identify issues that you should discuss with your New York shoplifting lawyer or theft attorney from the onset of your criminal allegation.

In Matter of Gallagher, M-472, NYLJ 1202558663857, at *1 (App. Div. 1st, Decided June 7, 2012), Mr. Gallagher, the respondent, appeared before the Departmental Disciplinary Committee in reference to his law license and privilege to practice law in the State of New York. Prior to the disciplinary hearing, the respondent (a defendant at that time) faced a felony complaint charging him with two violations of Fourth Degree Grand Larceny (New York Penal Law 155.30(1) for shoplifting property from Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan. The property was valued at $2,500. NY PL 155.30, Fourth Degree Grand Larceny, is committed if and when property is stolen – whether from a bank account or a store – valued between over $1,000 and $3,000.

Published on: July 7, 2012

Fraudulent Accosting: Must You be Involved in a “Confidence Game” to Violate NY PL 165.30; “Trick” & “Swindle” Constitutionally Vague?

By Jeremy Saland

New York theft and larceny comes in too many forms and is perpetrated in too many ways to set forth in one blog entry. Usually, the police can justify an arrest in New York City or elsewhere by taking your alleged conduct and squeezing into one statute or another found in the New York Penal Law. Whether that offense is a degree of Grand Larceny or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, there are ample other statues that Assistant District Attorneys can prosecute your for violating. Although not seen that often in “high end” frauds and thefts, on of those crimes that experienced New York larceny and theft attorneys see is Fraudulent Accosting pursuant to New York Penal Law 165.30.

A New York Penal Law Article 165 offense (this section of the New York Penal Law defines and sets forth misdemeanor and felony Criminal Possession of Stolen Property crimes), NY PL 165.30 is an “A” misdemeanor that is punishable by as much as a year in jail. Very briefly, a person is guilty of Fraudulent Accosting if and when that person is in a public place and has an intent to defraud another person out of money or property regardless of the value. Further that person must accost his or her target and defraud him or her out of their money or property by “means of a trick, swindle or confidence game.” There is a legal presumption found in the law that relates to confidence games that will not be addressed here.

Published on: July 1, 2012

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

By Jeremy Saland

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

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

Published on: June 23, 2012

“Doubling Up” on a Turnstile: Can Two People Be Charged with Theft of Services (NY PL 165.15) for “Jumping” a Turnstile Together

By Jeremy Saland

Usually an offense perpetrated in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and other New York City locations, Theft of Services (New York Penal Law 165.15) is a crime that often results in a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) type arrest. While far from a felony crime, arrests for NY PL 165.15 are not without collateral and direct consequences. In fact, it is usually those people who have most at stake or those most in danger of bearing the brunt of those penalties are the individuals who are arrested. While a review of the Theft of Services statute, consequences of the crime and DAT process is available through the links peppered throughout this blog entry, the purpose of this entry is to address a recent Brooklyn Court decision relevant to the defense of NY PL 165.15.

Before proceeding, whether you received a New York City Desk Appearance Ticket for Theft of Services or you spent a night in jail waiting to see a judge, the crime of NY PL 165.15 is the same. That is, if you intentionally avoid or attempt to avoid paying for subway / public transportation by deception, stealth or some other method and you actually obtain or attempt to obtain the particular service, you are guilty of this misdemeanor crime. Collateral consequences to immigration or careers in finance aside, Theft of services is punishable by no more than one year in jail.

Published on: June 19, 2012

Grand Larceny from the Person of Another: Can a “Detective Investigation” be the Sole Basis of a NY Felony Complaint & Arrest Warrant

By Jeremy Saland

Often described as a lesser version of Robbery or a Robbery without force and violence, Grand Larceny from the Person of Another is a serious crime. An “E” felony, New York Penal Law 155.30(5) is punishable by as little as no jail, but up to as much as four years in state prison. In substance, a person is guilty of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree pursuant to the “Person of Another” subsection (NY PL 155.30(5)) when that person takes property from another’s body, irrespective of its type or value.

There are many issues that New York criminal defense attorneys encounter defending their clients against felony allegations of Grand Larceny in this context. A recent Town Court decision, worth analyzing here, addresses one of these issues that a theft lawyer and his or her defendant may encounter.

Published on: June 12, 2012

Recent Unexplained Possession of Stolen Property: The Ramifications of Certain Statements & Testimony in a New York Criminal Possession of Stolen Property Case

By Jeremy Saland

Although each case is unique and requires its own assessment, it is rarely, if ever, beneficial to speak to the police without a lawyer. You may think you are smarter or have the right answers to their questions, but you could be damning yourself and giving prosecutors the tools to make a conviction stick. Should you testify in your own defense in the Grand Jury or at trial, failure to consult with a criminal defense attorney can be equally dangerous. Cases in New York involving Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, Article 165 of the New York Penal Law, are certainly not immune from this pitfall. Whether you are charged with misdemeanor Fifth Degree Criminal Possession of Stolen Property (New York Penal Law 165.40) or the felony varieties of Fourth, Third, Second or First Degree Criminal Possession of Stolen Property (New York Penal Law 165.45, 165.50, 165.52 and 165.54 respectively), your statement or admission prior to consulting with a New York theft and stolen property attorney will likely leave you facing a more daunting defensive task. Implausible testimony at trial may compromise your liberty and legal predicament further. While any statement can be damning, this New York theft and larceny blog entry will address a principle in the New York criminal law called “unexplained or falsely explained possession of recently stolen property.”

In People v Mangual, 13 A.D.3d 734 (3rd Dept. 2004), the defendant was convicted after trial of Second Degree Burglary (New York Penal Law 140.25), Fourth Degree Grand Larceny (New York Penal Law 155.30) and Fifth Degree Criminal Possession of Stolen Property (New York Penal Law 165.40). The thefts all occurred when the defendant stole items from an apartment. At trial, a prosecution witness testified that he saw two bags with soccer logos left unattended on the street. Looking closer, a name appeared on the bag of a woman who lived in the neighborhood. The defendant drove up a short time later, picked up the bag and drove off. Before leaving, the defendant stated in substance that he was there for the bags. The witness jotted down the license plate number and spoke to the complainant who confirmed nobody had authority to take her property. Both the witness and the complainant then went to the complainant’s home and learned of the burglary.

Published on: June 6, 2012

Queens DA: Bag Handler at JFK Steals $20K from Passenger’s Bag

By Jeremy Saland

It seems that no matter where you turn, someone, somewhere is being charged with a theft or larceny crime in New York. Certainly, baggage handlers at New York City’s airports at JFK and LaGuardia are not immune from these arrests. According to District Attorney Richard Brown, the Queens County District Attorney’s Office is prosecuting another alleged case of fraud and theft by airport personnel. Rajendranauth Ramsahai, a baggage cart employee who works at John F. Kennedy International Airport, is accused of stealing some cash from a bag that was left in an airport parking lot. Not just “some cash,” prosecutors claim that there was $20,000 cash inside the computer bag.

Mr. Ramsahai is charged with two crimes. The more serious offense, Third Degree Grand Larceny, is a “D” felony. As such, New York Penal Law 155.35 is punishable by a sentence of up to two and one third to seven years in prison. The lesser crime, the misdemeanor of Petit Larceny, is an “A” misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. Petit Larceny, New York Penal Law 155.25, as well as Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, are both based in the same language. In substance, if you steal property belonging to another person you are guilty of the lesser offense of NY PL 155.25. This is true regardless of the value. However, in order for prosecutors to prove the felony of NY PL 155.35 beyond a reasonable doubt they must prove this theft as well as the value of the property exceeding $3,000, but not greater than $50,000.