If you are a New York State or Federal government employee, you are considered to be a public servant; and as a public servant, you are held at a different standard for honesty and integrity than other people, which means that you are as subjected to follow more rules.

According to the Penal Law, the benefit is conferred upon the public servant for having already engaged in official conduct that the public servant was required or authorized to do and for that such public servant was not entitled to additional compensation; in other words, a government employee cannot receive perks or tips.

Under such terms, a government employee may face criminal charges for receiving unlawful gratuities.

Receiving unlawful gratuities is slightly different from bribe receiving; and the difference is usually differentiated by public servant agreeing to accept the gratuity before or after the action.

If the public servant agrees to accept the gratuity before, then he/she may face a harsher criminal charge of bribe receiving. But if the public servant was approached after the action was done without any prior agreements, then he/she may face a lighter charge of receiving unlawful gratuities.

If you have been investigated or arrested for receiving unlawful gratuities in New York City, then call our office at (212) 577-6677 to receive legal advice.

No. The two crimes are similar because the conduct is generally the same; but the definition of the crime is not same. Larceny by extortion is when a person obtains property when he induces another property to himself or to a third person by threating him, blackmailing a person to steal is the laymen terms of it.

Bribe receiving on the other hand, usually happens when a government employee solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any benefit from another person in exchange of his vote, opinion, or action as a public servant.

Are the two crimes mutually exclusive?

No, in most prosecuted extortion cases, the defendant who is charged with both crimes is unable to claim that the larceny by extortion action should be barred because the larceny charged in the indictment is conducted in the same way as bribery. This rule is to ensure that prosecutors are able to stick extortion charges on the defendant.

But, when the same conduct could have supported a charge of extortion, bribery charges may be dropped.

Criminal procedures that are taken against extortion charges are clear and distinct; legal officials generally take larceny by extortion crimes more seriously than bribe receiving. Hence, it is advisable that when you are contacted by a New York City detective regarding such crimes, you should call a criminal defense attorney before you speak with him/her.

If you have been arrested or approached by a police detective for extortion and/or bribe receiving in New York, call our office at (212) 577-6677 to get professional legal advice.

According to the New York Penal law, a public servant is any public officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision thereof or of any governmental instrumentality within the state, or any person exercising the functions of any such public officer or employee.

The New York Penal Law § 200.00 states:

A person is guilty of bribery in the 3rd degree when confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any benefit upon a public servant upon an agreement or understanding that such public servant’s vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision or exercise of discretion as a public servant will thereby be influenced.

What does this mean?

This means that a DMV employee is considered to a New York State public servant and that attempting to bribe him/her constitutes a violation of the New York Penal Law § 200.00 and is punishable by a felony.

For a defendant to be charged and successfully convicted of bribery of a public servant the government must prove that the defendant has an intent to influence in conjunction with a giving or accepting of something of value.  Either an intention to influence official behavior or an intention to induce a breach of duty makes the briber criminally liable, whether the public servant decides to receive the bribe or not generally does not change the briber’s liability.

Attempting to bribe a public servant under New York Penal Law § 200.00 carries a greater sanction than bribery that does not involve public servants under New York Penal Law § 180.00. Thus, it is crucial for you to retain an experienced and skillful criminal defense attorney when charged with bribery of a public servant.

If you have been arrested or investigated for participating in a bribery scheme, then call our office at (212) 577-6677 to get professional legal advice.

An accomplice in general is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offense.  However, to constitute an accomplice in bribery, legal officials must have reason to believe that the person is must so connected with the crime that under New York State common law, the person may also be considered as the principal of the crime or an accessory before the fact.

Within bribery cases, the crime must have a briber who makes or attempts to make a bribe to another person for a certain benefit; whether the person being bribed takes the bribe or not, generally does not change the crime being charged against the briber.

But as long as the person being bribed participates in the general felonious plan, and that he/she has constructive presence, it is enough to make that person a principal and thus, an accomplice. Acceptance of a bribe is a separate offense in the New York Penal law.

But to prosecute an accomplice in a bribery crime has a considerable difficulty to legal officials. In order to charge and convict an accomplice successfully, an accomplice’s testimony must be corroborated. If not, then it is just the briber’s words against the accomplice’s, which in effect does not hold much weight.

Corroboration is usually taken when the accomplice makes an admission or confession to investigators and arresting officers. Corroboration by the accomplice is extremely incriminating and does not work within his/her favor.

Hence, when for those who are suspected for being an accomplice in a bribery through the briber’s testimony, it is best to call a criminal defense attorney to handle this matter before the investigator get any more information.

If you have been arrested or investigated for participating in a bribery scheme, then call our office at (212) 577-6677 to get professional legal advice.

No, the criminal charges of giving unlawful gratuities and bribery in New York are two separate crimes. In order for you to be guilty of giving unlawful gratuities, you must have knowingly conferred, or made an offer to benefit a public servant for having engaged in an official conduct, which he was required or authorized to perform, and for which he was not entitled to any special or additional compensation. The crime of giving unlawful gratuities is punishable by up to one year of incarceration.

The criminal charge of bribery on the other hand, usually involves a conferment or an offer made to benefit a public servant in order to influence his/her vote, opinion, judgment, action, or decision, which is punishable by up to seven years of incarceration.

For example, in a recent New York City case , an owner of a private plumbing and heating company issued several cash payments to a supervisor within the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) in exchange for information regarding clients of the Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP), a federally-funded program administered by HRA that helps low-income New Yorkers pay for heating bills and repairs, and the supervisor accepted the payments, then the owner who issued the payment may face bribery charges.

But, if the supervisor within the HRA accepts an incentive from the owner to assure that his request for proposals is written in such a way that only he will be able to submit a satisfactory bid proposal, the owner who issued the incentive may face the criminal charge of giving an unlawful gratuity.

In many ways the charges of giving unlawful gratuities and bribery fall within a debatable gray area. The nature of the case at hand and how the legal authorities handle the investigation in the beginning determines what charges the prosecutor can indict the defendant of.

When faced with bribery charges in NYC, it is poignant to seek legal advice from a skillful New York City criminal defense attorney. If you have been arrested or charged with giving unlawful gratuities or bribery, call (212) 577-6677 to get professional legal advice.

Bribery is the crime of offering or accepting anything of value in exchange for influence on a government/public official or employee. To the average person, the crime of bribery can be as simple as a minor paying the bouncer several extra dollars to get into a 21+ club. Such cases are commonly practiced in New York but rarely pursued by legal authorities, unless the act facilitates a much more serious crime.

The act of bribery, either by giving or receiving is a class A misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to one year of incarceration. The benefit offered or received does not have to be money; it can be anything of value such as vacations, luxurious goods, services etc.

If the value offered or conferred exceeds one thousand dollars and causes economic harm to the principal in the amount that exceeds two hundred and fifty dollars than that crime is classified as a felony, which is punishable by more than one year of incarceration.

Does it matter if the offering or conferring person was a public servant or a layperson?

Yes. Public servants are held at a different standard for honesty and integrity when serving the state, than a layperson, which means that they are also, punished more severely when they commit the act of bribery. When a public servant is guilty of bribery or bribe receiving (to influence another public servant’s vote, or action, or to have his/her vote or action be influenced), then lowest charge he/she may face is bribery in the 3^rd degree, a class D felony.

Defending an individual from criminal charges on allegations of bribery will be a long and complicated legal process. Such cases can carry heavier criminal liabilities for public servants. By seeking a well-qualified and experienced criminal defense attorney, the offender would optimize his defense and his chances.

At Joseph Potashnik & Associates, we have a panel of some of the most skilled criminal defense attorneys specializing in such areas of white-collar crime.

If you are being investigated or arrested for bribery in New York, then call our office at (212) 577-6677 to get professional legal advice.

Alfred Bokhour, a Brooklyn property owner, was arrested and charged with Bribery in the 3^rd Degree. Since 2003, Bokhour was amongst the 76 unrelated individuals in New York City investigated under Bribery charges.

When a New York City Department of Buildings (NYC DOB) Inspector was inspecting and found on Bokhour’s building, several electrical violations, Bokhour allegedly offered the inspector cash to overlook such violations. Bokhour was later investigated when the inspector declined and reported Bokhour to the NYC DOB.

If convicted, Bokhour faces a maximum sentence of 7 years in prison.

Lenwood L. Jones, an employee for the Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC) licensing office in Long Island City, New York was charged of bribe receiving and receiving unlawful gratuities for attempting to solicit and collect bribes from an undercover investigator.

The criminal complaint against Jones alleged that on August 17, 2010, an investigator posing as an applicant applying for a TLC license was allegedly asked by Jones to give him lunch money in order to be processed. When the investigator held out $50, Jones purportedly pocketed the money.

If convicted, Jones faces a maximum penalty of 8 years in prison.

Alexander Everest, the chairman of Elite American Health Systems, a California based company with a branch in New York City has recently been charged with multiple counts of bribery, criminal possession of a forged instrument, offering a false instrument for filing, and giving unlawful gratuities, for offering bribes to Harlem Hospital’s official in an attempt to place recent medical school graduates in the hospital’s surgical residency program.

Elite American Health Systems offers consultations to medical school graduates to help them better and understand and secure hospital residency positions. However between March 17, 2010 and May 4, 2010, Everest allegedly submit four forged application materials for four potentially unqualified clients to the Department of Surgery at Harlem Hospital in efforts to secure them residency.

On the four applications, the four medical school graduates allegedly secure the residency position mostly because of Everst fraudulent efforts. The defendant fraudulently claimed that the four clients were part of a specialty program in a California hospital.

Everest also purportedly attempted to bribe the hospital employee with at total of $6000 shortly after submitting the applications.

If convicted, Everest faces a maximum sentence of more than 35 years in prison.

Eleven defendants; four of which are day care owners throughout New York City and seven New York City officials of the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) were arrested and federally charged for operating a massive day care and bribery fraud scheme which allegedly conned the HRA of more than $18 million.

The investigation identifies the four day care owners as Liudmila Umarov, Lyudmila Grushko, Yana Krugly, and Rimma Volovnick, and the seven HRA and ACS officials as Aurora Villareal, Dionne Rivers-Ettu, Emile Nekhala, Carolyn Eason, and Maria Rapoport, for operating and/or participating in a massive day care subsidy fraud scheme.

It was alleged that between 2007 and August 2010, the four day care owners operated an extensive scheme to defraud the New York City Day Care Subsidy Program, a state and federal funded program which subsidizes eligible parents’ day care costs.

These four defendants allegedly made corrupt payments of approximately $1 million to the seven identified HRA and ACS officials, for services and confidential information, such as names of eligible low-income families. The seven corrupted officials also purportedly steered low-income parents and families to enroll their children in the day care programs provided by the Umarov, Grushko, Krugly or Volovnik.

After receiving the names of these families, the four day care owners allegedly used these names to request and receive reimbursement for providing day care services to children who were never enrolled in their day care. The four day care owners received approximately $18 million for services never provided.

If convicted, each of the 11 defendants faces approximately 25 years in prison.