New York Theft and Larceny Lawyers Blog

Published on: February 4, 2012

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

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 20, 2012

New York Theft & Larceny Crime Punishment & Sentencing Information: Community Service, Probation & Prison

By Jeremy Saland

There is no predetermined or precise amount of incarceration one might face if convicted of a theft or larceny crime in New York. Generally, the New York theft and larceny sentencing guidelines establish ranges for potential sentences as opposed to finite and specific terms of imprisonment. While a New York criminal defense attorney who regularly represents individuals for such crimes as Petit Larceny, Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property can explain in great detail the nuances of each crime and its respective sentence, the following sentencing guidelines should serve as a useful guide whether you are charged with the misdemeanors of NY PL 155.25 and NY PL 165.40 or the felonies of NY PL 155.35 or NY PL 165.50.

Misdemeanor New York Theft & Larceny Crimes

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?

Published on: January 7, 2012

When a Lie Leads to a Theft Conviction: Establishing Knowledge of Stolen Property at a NY PL 155.30 & NY PL 165.40 Trial

By Jeremy Saland

In a previous post, we explained that under New York’s larceny laws, offenses relating to Criminal Possession of Stolen Property require that a prosecutor introduce evidence showing a defendant “knowingly possessed” the stolen property in question. We explained that, given the language of the statute, courts have held that a defendant cannot be convicted for merely possessing stolen property without evidence showing that he or she knew the property was stolen.

To illustrate this point, we examined a case called People v. Nowakowski. In this case, the defendant explained that he had purchased the property in question, but the prosecution was unable to provide any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that the defendant knew the property was stolen. Because the prosecution provided no evidence that the defendant knew the property was stolen, the jury could not properly be asked to consider whether he knew it was stolen.

Published on: January 3, 2012

Defining & Understanding “Scientific Material” in a New York Grand Larceny Arrest

By Jeremy Saland

When we think about theft and larceny in New York, it seems reasonable to assume that the dollar value of a stolen item will be more relevant to the crime than the actual item itself. For example, if you are charged with Grand Larceny by Embezzlement, the courts are not concerned with whether you stole $25,000 in cash, credit card advances or treasuries. Similarly, if you are caught shoplifting from Macys or Bloomingdales, it makes no difference whether you stole a dress, skirt, or ten pairs of slacks. What is relevant to the charged of Grand Larceny is the value of the property alleged to have been stolen.??

As any seasoned New York criminal defense attorney will tell you, however, the type of item stolen, rather than the item’s value, can sometimes play a significant role in the charge a defendant faces. ?If the item in question fits within certain categories, a defendant will automatically face a felony charge, regardless of the item’s value. These categories, listed under New York Penal Law 155.30, include: public records, secret scientific material, credit/debit cards, firearms, motor vehicles, and religious items, among others.

Published on: December 31, 2011

Credit & Debit Card Theft, New York Penal Law 155.30(4): Committing A Felony Without Even Realizing

By Jeremy Saland

It “is what it is.” Sadly, I have seen it not only when I served as a New York prosecutor in Robert Morgenthau’s Manhattan District Attorneys Office, but I have seen as a New York criminal lawyer as well. Maybe you stole a purse and didn’t realize there was a credit card inside of it. Instead, you grabbed a backpack that happened to have a debit card in one of the interior pockets. Even if you were merely trying to snag a bag that you knew had $50 or $60 dollars in it, you are now charged with a felony for violating Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree according to New York Penal Law 155.30(4). The unfortunate thing is that you never had the desire to steal that credit card or debit card or even knew it was there.

As a seasoned New York criminal attorney I have watched in recent years as crimes involving credit cards and debit cards have grown throughout the metropolitan New York City area. There are several different charges that can stem from credit card theft or credit card fraud, such as Identity Theft in the First Degree under NY PL 190.80, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree under NY PL 165.45, and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree under NY PL 170.25. However, a very common credit or debit card crime that elevates an otherwise lesser crime into a felony offense is Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree. Previously on our sister blog site (NewYorkCriminaLawyerBlog.Com), as well as our two websites (New-York-Lawyers.org and NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com), I extensively examined how Grand Larceny charges are generally broken down by the value of the property alleged to be stolen. In substance, the higher the value of the stolen property the greater the degree of the crime. Following this through, the greater the degree of the crime the longer the possible prison term for a convicted defendant. I won’t regurgitate the full differences here, but it is important to note that if the value of the stolen property is less than $1,000 a criminal will face only Petit Larceny charges pursuant to NY P.L. 155.25, an “A” misdemeanor charge. That is, of course, if your theft does not involve a credit or debit card.