Sex Crimes

Published on: February 28, 2013

Court Reverses Grand Larceny Indictment

by Stephen Bilkis

In this proceeding, an intermediate order denying a motion to dismiss an indictment will have a review from the Supreme Court.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said it appears from evidence presented that a bank, a trust company and another corporation executed a statement of trust receipt financing. At the grand jury trial, the three officers of the bank were called as witnesses. The bank paid the automobile company the total sum of $21,430.59 for eight automobiles. An employee of the bank checked the floor plan of the corporation and found out that four from eight of the cars were missing. Another check was made five days later and the remaining four cars were also missing from the floor. Consequently, a letter was delivered to the corporation by the bank in which they demand payment of all amounts due under trust receipts or immediate possession of all new and used cars on which the bank held trust receipts. A similar notice was served and in the interval checks had been received by the bank drawn by the corporate dealer in payment of the amounts due on two of the cars. The checks were not paid because of insufficient funds. The bank received neither the automobiles nor the moneys due.

It was upon the evidence that an indictment was returned accusing the president of the corporation, individually, of the crime of grand larceny in the first degree. The president of the corporation, which was the trustee, secreted, withheld and appropriated to his own use, and that of a person other than the true owner of the automobiles.

Published on: February 28, 2013

Defendant Questions Court Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

Defendants stole people’s identities, committed bank fraud when opened fraudulent bank accounts in the victims’ names, and transferred money from the victims’ legitimate bank accounts to the fraudulent ones they controlled from an extensive enterprise which they oversaw. Thus, a New York Criminal Lawyer said they were indicted, among other things, eight incidents of grand larceny in the second and third degrees, based upon the transfer of funds from five separate legitimate bank accounts into five separate fraudulent accounts, after which the stolen funds were withdrawn; three instances of grand larceny in the second degree, based upon the deposit of stolen checks issued to an advertising firm into a fraudulent account defendants had opened in the firm’s name in order to steal the funds. Count one of the indictment charged defendants with grand larceny in the first degree which requires that the stolen property’s value exceed $1 million. Thereafter, on 2 November 2006, the Supreme Court of New York County rendered judgment convicting each defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree (four counts), grand larceny in the third degree (seven counts), forgery in the second degree (seven counts), criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (eight counts), identity theft in the first degree (six counts) and scheme to defraud in the first degree, and sentencing defendant-one to an aggregate term of 10 to 25 years and sentencing defendant-two to an aggregate term of 12½ to 25 years.

Defendants questioned the court’s decision and claim that their convictions for first degree grand larceny should be vacated because the prosecution achieved the statutory monetary threshold by improperly aggregating the amounts taken from five individuals on eight different occasions and one advertising firm on three different occasions. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the People oppose defendants’ contention and argue that the aggregation was proper because defendants’ thefts were made pursuant to a single intent and one general fraudulent plan.

Published on: February 27, 2013

Defendant Claims that Theft Charges Were Time Barred

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1991, the man assumed administrative duties at a nursing home. He became its principal operator in 1995. A New York Criminal Lawyer said at all relevant times, the nursing home was a participant in the Medicaid programs and was reimbursed through such programs for services provided to each state’s residents who were Medicaid recipients residing within its facility.

In 1993, the man, on behalf of the nursing home, submitted rate reports to the state setting forth the nursing home state rate. He thereafter certified that the nursing home was also going to provide physical, occupational and speech therapy services, as well as dental services, to the state’s Medicaid recipients but that the cost of such services was not included in the home state rate. Based upon the said reports, the state calculated the nursing home’s daily rate and then included add-on payments for the specified ancillary services.

In 1998, the state advised the nursing home that they going to review the services they provided to the state’s Medicaid recipients by out-of-state providers. They also requested the nursing home to make available for inspection all patient records dating back 1992. Following the said investigation, the man and the nursing home were each charged with two counts of grand larceny in the first degree and two counts of grand larceny in the second degree.

Published on: February 27, 2013

Court Maintains that Grand Larceny Must be Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on 16 May 1984, defendant was convicted by the County Court of Nassau County of grand larceny in the second degree (three counts), grand larceny in the third degree, petit larceny, commercial bribing or bribery in the first degree and scheme to defraud in the first degree or bank fraud, upon jury verdicts, and attempted grand larceny in the second degree (three counts), upon his pleas of guilty.

Defendant then filed an appeal from the aforesaid six (6) judgments of criminal convictions and contends that the Attorney-General was not properly authorized to conduct Grand Jury proceedings in accordance with Executive, and that the additional Grand Jury which returned the indictments against him was not impaneled in accordance with the rules of the court.

Published on: February 26, 2013

Court Discusses Elements of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was accused of the crimes of criminal mischief in the second degree, two counts of criminal mischief in the fourth degree, two counts of grand larceny in the second degree and two counts of attempted grand larceny in the second degree.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accusation arise from the incident when the man directed his agents or employees to widen and reconstruct a town road and did thereby intentionally damage property of another person by destroying trees, stone walls, and wire fences, having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he had such right, and did thereby steal and appropriate said road and property for his own benefit.

The man then made a motion and submitted an affidavit seeking various items of pre-trial relief. In the motion, the man asked the court to inspect the grand jury minutes. The court then granted the request to the extent that the court will examine the transcript of the proceedings.

Published on: February 26, 2013

Court Finds Scheme to Defraud Regarding DEC Permits

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the counts charge the defendants in conjunction with payments made by several corporation/parties. It is the theory of the prosecution that criminal liability attached to the actions of the defendants because the money which the defendants obtained as a result of the transactions involving several corporation / parties was paid as a result of either trick or device, false promise, or some combination of both.

In support of this contention the District Attorney adduced evidence before the grand jury to the effect that the defendants either acting directly or through others, made both oral and written presentations to the effect that their new process made “tremendous steps” toward reducing the impact of underground tank discharges so as to protect “our land, air and water” and to promote their services as “today’s solution to yesterday’s pollution”.

Upon examination of the record the court ruled that these generators only sought a disposition of their P.C.S. which would absolve them from liability both in terms of their obligation to remove the material from their premises pursuant to E.C.L. Article 17 Title 10, (CERCLA) 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. and other such similar laws and at the same time avoid the continuing sanctions pursuant to these laws which could follow if the material, having been taken off the sites owned or controlled by the generators, was improperly re-introduced into the waste stream.

Published on: February 25, 2013

Court Discusses Grand Larceny by Means of Extortion

by Stephen Bilkis

A man approached the sitting executive director of the New York State Republican Committee. He told the executive director that he will expose the criminal acts and official misconduct by a high-ranking elective Republican official. He also said that he will consider keeping quiet if he was given the amount of $25,000 yearly and a job with the state government for three years.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the executive director went to the police and reported the extortion attempt. The police then asked the executive director to set up a meeting with the man. When the meeting was set, the police hooked up a microphone for the executive director to wear. The executive director then asked the man to explain once more what he had proposed. The man’s extortion attempt was caught on audio tape recording. He was arrested and charged with attempted grand larceny in the second degree.

The man asked the trial court for leave to inspect the minutes of the Grand Jury minutes. He then filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was not legally sufficient to establish the elements of the crime of grand larceny.

Published on: February 25, 2013

Defendants Allege Unlawful Rent Increase

by Stephen Bilkis

The charges arose from alleged unlawful rent increases obtained from the New York Temporary Housing Rent Commission by the defendant as one of the owners or managers of a rent controlled apartment house property in Mount Vernon, New York, by falsely stating, or by aiding, abetting and inducing the false statement, in a verified application, that he and they incurred stated expenses for the installation of certain kitchen equipment, which expenses were in excess of the actual cost and consequently false.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said as evidenced adduced showed that the tenants in question paid the excess increase in rents and thus parted with their property (money) in reliance upon the false statements made by the defendant and his co-owners to the Rent Commission. Under the Rent Control Law, the tenants and their landlords were not free to negotiate and adjust rents by direct action–the Rent Commission became the interceding agent for the tenant, who became virtually the ward of the Commission in the tenant-landlord relationship. It is clear from the evidence that defendant and his co-owner defendants had deliberately set out to exploit this pattern of protectorship, by means of the falsely inflated bill device supporting his and their applications for increases in rents.

Thus, by defrauding their tenants’ agent and protector, they accomplished their primary criminal objective of defrauding their tenants. Defendant knew that if he and his co-owners sent false bills to the Rent Commission it would act upon their applications as the assertion of honest claims against their tenants for increased rents. He further knew that if, upon review of the applications and the false supporting documents, the Commission approved same in reliance upon such false representations, it would do what he and they intended it to do, viz., issue the Orders for increases in the maximum legal rents, with which orders the tenants would comply; and indeed they did, and thereby parted with property they would not have otherwise parted with.

Published on: February 24, 2013

Court Discusses Elements of Larceny

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple was on welfare. A New York Criminal Lawyer said they received a check from the New York Department of Social Services. They were entitled to a sum but they received a check that was over and above the sum they usually received.

On the back of the welfare check, there was an undertaking that they must inform the Department of Social Services if the check they received had a face value that was $5.00 more than the amount they used to receive.

The couple received the amount of $1500 more than they were entitled to. They cashed the checks even if they knew that the amounts were over and above the amount they were entitled to. The checks they cashed were received by them between 1969 and 1973.

Published on: February 24, 2013

Defendant Charged with Assault in Times Square Incident

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant was indicted on two counts of assault in the second degree, one count of robbery in the third degree, and one count of reckless endangerment in the first degree based on an incident early New Year’s morning 1985 near Times Square.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said it was argued that defendant removed the knapsack from the person of the unconscious woman lying on the sidewalk without the use of force–a grand larceny, not a robbery. Penal Law § 155.30(5) provides:

A person is guilty of grand larceny in the third degree when he steals property and when * * * the property * * * is taken from the person of another.