New York Theft and Larceny Lawyers Blog

Published on: March 14, 2012

DA: “Slush Fund” Attorney, Robert Cassandro, Perpetrated $4.6 Million Ponzi Scheme Against Own Family

If alleged “Mommy Pimp,” Anna Gristina, is sitting on Rikers Island unable to make $2 million bail in a one count indictment without a threat of a mandatory prison sentence, one can only assume that Long Island attorney, Robert J. Cassandro, will be resting his head on New York City issued pillows for the foreseeable future as well. However, those who would make such an assumption would be would be wrong as Cassandro posted $50,000 bail in a case of much greater magnitude in terms of penalty and criminal liability. According to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., prosecutors obtained an arrest and indictment of Cassandro for a Ponzi scheme that netted him $4.6 million dollars despite the fact that the alleged properties that were the centerpiece to the fraud and the defendant himself were located outside the jurisdiction. Charged with Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 190.65) and Grand Larceny in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 155.42), Cassandro cannot avoid incarceration should he be convicted.

Prosecutors claim that Cassandro committed his Ponzi scheme by lying to investors – family and friends – in order to convince them to invest in a business building single family homes on Long Island. Despite his promises that that money was secured, the New York County District Attorney’s Office believes that quite the opposite occurred. Unbeknownst to these “investors,” Cassandro allegedly defrauded them by offering the same investment and loan scheme to others. As a result, Cassandro pocketed these monies that far exceeded what was actually needed for the projects. Instead of providing the lenders with security that had been promised, Cassandro gave the mortgages on these properties to others as well. Compounding matters, it is alleged that Cassandro deposited millions of dollars into his escrow account. It was this escrow account, according to DA Vance, that Cassandro used as his own “slush fund” for expenses such as the mortgage on his own home, country club dues and personal credit cards.

Published on: March 12, 2012

New York Extortion Crimes: Further Understanding & Defining Blackmail in NYC & Beyond

By Jeremy Saland

When we think about a New York larceny (whether it be Petit Larceny or Grand Larceny), most people’s minds immediately conjure up images of black-clad, ski-masked villains entering homes or businesses and making off with other people’s property (technically, that’s actually a Burglary). There are, however, ways that a person can commit larceny without ever donning a ski-mask or even wearing black (surprised?!?!). In New York, a person commits larceny when he or she steals property. Under penal law §155.05, stealing is defined as taking, obtaining, or withholding another person’s property with the intent to deprive that person of it. While “taking” someone’s property generally fits the preconceived notion of how one might commit larceny, other ways in which a person may “obtain” or “withhold” property often do not. One method by which someone might steal property in New York by “obtaining” it, for instance, is through Extortion.

Under NY PL 155.05, a person commits New York Grand Larceny by Extortion when he or she compels or induces another person to give up their property by instilling fear that, if the property is not given, the person will injure them, damage their property, commit a crime, expose a secret, testify against that person, abuse a position as a public servant, or perform any other act intended to harm that person. Though it may seem counter-intuitive that, despite the coercion, a person can be charged with “stealing” something that has been been given to them, a larceny by Extortion is treated no differently in New York than any other type of theft.

Published on: March 8, 2012

Valuing Goods in a New York Grand Larceny & Stolen Property Case III: Assigning Value in an Illegitimate or “Free” Market

By Jeremy Saland

In this series of blogs we have been examining how the New York Criminal Courts determine the value of the allegedly stolen property at issue in a felony New York Criminal Possession of Stolen Property case or a New York Grand Larceny case. As New York criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors with significant experience in white collar and other larceny crimes throughout New York City, the surrounding boroughs and Westchseter, we understand how important it is to place an accurate value on stolen property. Prosecutors aim to give the highest value to property, because the higher the value the higher the degree of Grand Larceny charged; and of course, the higher the degree- say Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (NY PL 155.40) versus Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (NY PL 155.35)- the higher the potential punishment. In this final entry in this series on larceny and value, we want to examine how the NY criminal courts value property that has no real price on any legitimate market. For instance, what do courts do when the stolen property is a controlled substance? That’s right, what if someone steals your drugs (or something less “bad” too)!

The general standard in approaching this issue in a Criminal Possession of Stolen Property and Grand Larceny case is where the property in issue has no market value in the legitimate market, the market value in the illegitimate market may be used in determining the value. In other words, courts will look to the black market or ‘street price’ of the property. In truth, this is consistent with the original principle we discussed in the first blog of this series: “value” means the market value of the property at the time and place of the crime. It’s just that in the case of contraband, the market happens to be a potentially illegal or illegitimate one.

Published on: March 2, 2012

DA: Fake New York Hilton Employee Scams at Least Five Job Seekers Out of More than $13,000

By Jeremy Saland

New York fraud crimes involving Grand Larceny and other thefts come in a variety of “flavors.” Whether by Embezzlement, Extortion or Larceny by Trick, there is always a new scheme to be perpetrated on an unsuspecting victim. As proof of the countless ways in which people attempt to defraud or steal from others, one has to look no further than the press releases routinely issued by the Manhattan, Queens and other New York City area District Attorney’s Offices. In fact, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. announced the indictment yesterday of Katia Gaton, a woman who allegedly posed as a New York Hilton Hotel employee and stole money from victims who were seeking jobs. The indictment charges Gaton with multiple counts including Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree (New York Penal Law 155.30) and Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 155.35).

Briefly, and before addressing the allegations in this particular arrest and indictment, one is guilty of NY PL 155.30 if one steals more than $1,000, but no more than $3,000. One is guilty of NY PL 155.35 if one steals more than $3,000, but no more than $50,000. Because this is a theft case involving four separate victims, as opposed to multiple thefts from one victim, the total amount of the thefts is not aggregated to increase the degree or level of the crime. Here, even if it was, the threshold of more than $50,000 would not have been met anyway.

Published on: February 27, 2012

Valuing Stolen Property in a NY Grand Larceny Case Part II: Used Goods & Property

By Jeremy Saland

In a previous blog entry I began a series in which we tackled the important and sometimes complicated issue of determining the value of stolen goods in a New York Grand Larceny or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property criminal trial. Charges of Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property based on the value of the alleged “ill gotten gains” can come in many different forms, throughout the boroughs of New York City (Manhattan, Brooklyn Bronx and Queens) as well as in the suburban counties (like Rockland and Westchester). That is, “property” is an all-inclusive title, which encompasses any good that has a value- a television, credit card, clothing or even a utility. For New York criminal defense attorneys and their clients, successfully challenging the value of property can make the difference between Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree (NY P.L. 155.30), Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (NY P.L. 155.35), Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (NY P.L. 155.40) and Grand Larceny in the First Degree (NY P.L. 155.42). If the circumstance is right, it can also make the difference between being charged with a felony or a misdemeanor crime.

In the first entry of this series helping non-criminal lawyers understand “value,” we laid out the general rule that “value” means the market value of the property at the time and place of the crime. In this blog entry, I’d like to discuss how the courts determine the value of used goods, which tend to have a less clearly defined market value than newer property. Pursuant to New York Penal Law 155.20(1), in a Grand Larceny trial where the market value of the stolen property cannot be determined, the “replacement cost” of the property may be used to ascertain the value. For instance, in People v. Vientos, 79 N.Y.2d 771 (1991), the defendants were apprehended by the police while in possession of stolen computer equipment. What complicated the matter was that the brand (Commodore) of computer equipment in question had no resale market value (1984 is calling and they want their Commodore 64 back!). The parts were used and were no longer being sold in any stores. So how did the prosecution value the goods? At trial an expert testified as to the cost it would take to replace the stolen computer equipment. The “replacement cost” would be what it took for the victim to have a whole computer product again. The court went on to say that the prosecution did not have to show that there was a value on the black market for the equipment (i.e. what you could resell the parts for illegally). The expert’s alternative method of valuation was valid because he opined as to the replacement cost.

Published on: February 22, 2012

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

By Jeremy Saland

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 22, 2012

When Possessing a Stolen $5 Gift Card to Starbucks Becomes a Felony in New York: Understanding New York Penal Law 165.45(2)

By Jeremy Saland

As we’ve often mentioned, under the New York Penal Law (often called the New York Criminal Law or New York Criminal Code), the seriousness of a vast majority of larceny-related crimes is usually based not upon what type of property is stolen, but rather, the value of the stolen property in question. In limited circumstances, however, the type of property stolen can actually play a larger role in the charge a defendant will face than the property’s dollar value. Under New York Penal Law 165.45, it is a Class E felony to knowingly possess stolen property valued at more than $1,000, or stolen property that falls within a specific class of items. These items include: credit cards, debit cards, public benefit cards, firearms, motor-vehicles, religious items, and some pre-cursor chemicals used in the manufacture of methamphetamine (you do not often come across this last category very often). If a defendant is found to be in knowing possession of stolen property that falls within any of these categories, he or she can be charged with a felony, regardless of the stolen property’s dollar value.

While these items may seem plainly defined, your New York criminal defense attorney knows that in some instances, courts have allowed the scope of these terms to expand in unexpected directions. One specific instance of this can be seen in a decision rendered by the First Department Appellate Court in its interpretation of the term “debit card.” When most people think of what is meant by a “debit card,” their immediate thought is generally a card issued by a bank for withdrawing funds from one’s personal bank account. To others, “debit card, “credit card” and even “ATM card” are all interchangeable for practical every day purposes. Under New York law, however, courts have found that what can be considered a “debit card,” for the purposes of New York Penal Law 165.45(2), is not merely limited or constrained by our own definitions.

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?