Articles Posted in White Collar Crime

Published on:

by

The rights that are provided to all citizens of the United States by the United States Constitution are considered integral to the operation of our government as a whole. One of these inalienable rights is spelled out in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A New York Criminal Lawyer said it is the right against self- incrimination in a criminal trial. The question of how far the right against self-incrimination extends can be argued as it was in 1960 when a group of attorneys were indicted for illegally soliciting legal business for their firm. They were later found guilty of criminal contempt of court and appealed their convictions.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the attorneys were charged with contempt of court for refusing to testify in a case against another attorney and invoking the Fifth Amendment protections toward that end. They contend that they could not testify against one of the attorneys that they worked with without incriminating themselves. They further contend that the Grand Jury was being used illegally by the office of the prosecutor to obtain statements from them that would be used in later cases to prosecute them. They were subpoenaed to testify before the Grand Jury in regards to a case against a co-worker involved in illegally soliciting business. The attorneys each appeared as they were subpoenaed, however, upon being called to testify, they each presented the court with a letter invoking their rights to remain silent in order to not incriminate themselves.

The prosecutor then asked to speak with them outside of the hearing of the Grand Jury. Each attorney was told that the Grand Jury was prepared to grant them immunity in the current case if they testified before the Grand Jury. Each one was called back in and the foreman of the Grand Jury was instructed by the prosecutor to direct each of them to answer the question. The question was posed and the order was given. The attorneys still refused to testify. A New York Criminal Lawyer said following the Grand Jury court, the prosecutor presented each of the attorneys with the charge of contempt of court. They were arrested, tried, and found guilty. Each of them filed appeals of the verdict stating that it was unconstitutional to charge them with contempt of court for failing to provide testimony that would tend to incriminate them.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiffs and appellants in the matter are B.B.C.F.D., S.A., etc., et al. The defendants and respondents in the case are Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd., et al., and Mina Persyko. The case is being heard in the First Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The plaintiff in this matter is seeking to appeal a verdict that was made on the 7th of November, 2008. The previous order dismissed some of the claims that were made by the plaintiff and denied the motion from the plaintiff to recall and modify the complaint.

Case Background

Continue reading

Published on:

by

This matter deals with David A. Appell, who is an attorney and the respondent in the case. The petitioner in the matter is the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. The case is being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

This is a disciplinary proceeding that has been instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department.

Case Background

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiff in the case is Joachim Harris. The defendants in the case are Chandra M. Young, et al. The case is being heard in the New York State Supreme Court. The Honorable Melvin S. Barasch is the justice hearing the case.

Case Facts and Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the action in this case comes from the sale of a real property that was owned by the plaintiff. The property is located at 176 Malta Street in the city of Brooklyn. The plaintiff sold the property to defendant Michael Greene on the 24th of August, 2001. The price was $255,000. The plaintiff states that he was defrauded by the plaintiffs as they withheld all but $180,000 from the sale of the home.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Arlene Lichtenstein for herself and as the Administratrix of the Estate of Irwin Lichtenstein, deceased, is the plaintiffs in the case. The defendants in the case are Alfred Polizzotto, Florence Polizzotto, Sol Cohen, Al Gallo, and Rosemary whose last name is not known. John Doe 1, 2, and 3 are also defendants in the matter. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in New York County. Judge Peter Tom is overseeing the case.

The defendants have moved to have the amended complaint against them dismissed. They state that the complaint does not state a cause action as determined by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The plaintiff is accusing the defendant Alfred Polizzotto of converting the assets of the plaintiff and the assets of the Estate of Irwin Lichtenstein for his own personal benefit and use. The plaintiff states he was acting in concert with the other defendants in the matter.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Wire Fraud 2

The plaintiffs in this matter are Avivith and William Oppenheim. The defendants in the case are Mark Stumer, Joseph Viscuso, Mojo-Stumer Associates Architects, P.C. and d/b/a Mojo-Stumer Associates. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the state of New York located in New York County. Judge Charles Edward Ramos is hearing the case.

Case Background

Published on:

by

Ideal Steel Supply Corporation is the plaintiff in this case. The defendants in the case are Marshall H. Beil, et al. the case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Queens County. Judge Peter Joseph Kelly is presiding over the hearing.

The defendants have moved for an order to have the complaints made against them by the plaintiff dismissed.

Case Background

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiffs in this case are the Auto Collection Inc, et al. The defendants in the case are Christopher Pinkow, et al. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Kings County.

Case Background

The plaintiffs, the Auto Collection Inc. is a corporation of New York and is licensed by the State of New York’s Department of Motor Vehicles to operate a car dealership. Auto Collection is in the retail business of selling cars. Steven and Joshua Lever are members of the Auto Collection. Autoland and LOV Motors, Inc. are exporters of cars and they purchase high end vehicles and other vehicles to sell to customers located in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. They have not been licensed by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. Oleg Sakhontchik is a representative for LOV. Gleb Sakhontchik is a member of Autoland.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The defendant in this case was charged for DWI with two counts. The prosecution asked the court during the end of the defendant’s trial to include a lesser offense, driving while ability impaired or DWAI. The court granted the request despite the objection of the defendant. The defendant received acquittal from the jury on both DWI counts. However, he was convicted of the lesser DWAI offense.

The prosecution supported their motion to charge for DWAI since the law states that a defendant who has already been convicted for previous driving offenses should be charged with DWAI. This is treated by the court as a misdemeanor on the part of the defendant.

During the trial, no evidence was presented regarding the past offenses of the defendant. The prosecution has presented documents that would prove his past drinking violations. In his objection, the defendant contends that his past offenses should be proven based on special information.

Published on:

by

In July 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) launched a new program for government and corporate sector employees that allowed them to safely provide information about possible fraud and other illegal activities they have witnessed or heard about. This program is part of the financial reform bill passed last year. So far, the new program has received only 168 complaints and tips. This number represents complaints and tips through February 2011, reports a New York Criminal Lawyer. But this number much lower than expected considering other whistleblower groups such as the National Whistleblowers Center and the whistleblower program run by the Department of Justice which receive hundreds of tips and complaints each year.

The National Whistleblowers Center provides informants with legal representation while the Department of Justice offers financial compensation to those that come forward. The SEC also offers financial compensation to those who choose to provide investigators with tips and other information. Informants may earn up to 30% of all monies collected in penalties or lawsuits that total more than 1 million dollars.

Specific rules governing how government and corporate sector employees file a complaint with the SEC may explain why many are hesitant to do so. Many government agencies and companies require employees to first file a complaint or provide tips through internal whistleblower programs first before filing their complaint with the SEC, says a Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer. Employees may be hesitant to file complaints with the SEC if they have to go through several agencies to do so. Filing multiple complaints may jeopardize their careers or create unwanted tension in the workplace.

Continue reading

Contact Information