Investors rely very heavily on news, tips and analysis to make important investment decisions.  Sometimes these tips are wrong and the investor will take a loss.  But is it a criminal offense to misrepresent the reality or prospects of an investment for personal gain?  The simple answer is yes.

Not only such conduct may be criminal, but it can also be grounds for a civil action.

Misleading investors with financial analysis is tantamount to fraud and misleading a client that has paid for such advice will constitute a breach of fiduciary duty.  One may manipulate financial data and provide misleading analysis to benefit an organization in need of capital or to derive a quick profit by inducing short selling or other financial panic.

If you have been accused of intentionally manipulating financial data in New York, an experienced New York white collar defense lawyer can assist you in dealing with federal regulators to prove that your analysis was made in good faith and that you did not derive undue personal financial gain through the losses sustained by other investors.

To speak with our New York City White Collar Defense Lawyers call (212) 577-6677 to set up an immediate consultation.

Puffery is considered to be mere exaggeration intended to increase the attractiveness of a product or investment. Puffery is legal as long as the material presented as facts of the business is not false. Otherwise, this is considered to be a reckless disregard to the falsity of the statement, and may constitute scheme to defraud under federal law.

What is the crime of scheme to defraud?

A scheme to defraud, in the most general terms, involves the defendant’s misrepresentations or omissions reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension. Specifically, there is no definitive definition for scheme to defraud; the crime purposely identifies an array of means, and for prosecutors to prove the crime actual false misrepresentations may not be necessary.

When does law enforcement pursue puffery?

Puffery is a form of improper marketing practice. But for legal officials, to try and pursue all of forms of puffery, the attempt to impede and deter becomes impractical due to its wide use.

For many defendants who are pursued for the improper use of puffery and is charged with scheme to defraud as a result, is when the practices are done in accordance with some form of fraud such as securities fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud, and has consistently and greatly caused significant loss or damage to their consumers.

If you have been arrested or charged with scheming to defraud in New York, call our NYC criminal lawyers at (212) 577-6677

When you first look at the Martin Act, the law seems like a redundant definition of scheming to defraud as defined in New York Penal Law § 190.05, but in fact, these two crimes are different, in both definition of fraud and the criminal procedures that follow.

The Martin Act is a New York business legislation that gives the New York State Attorney General additional powers and discretion to fighting various forms of business fraud. The Attorney General is given in house subpoena power by the Martin Act, which gives him the power to subpoena witness, compel their attendance, and examine the witness under oath in court.

What is frightening for many defendants, who comply with the Attorney General’s subpoena under the Martin Act, is their denial to the right to counsel. Specifically for securities fraud cases under the Martin Act, the defendant or the witness has no constitutional right to counsel when being questioned during an Attorney General’s investigation. You can arrive with an attorney to answer a subpoena, but you do not have the right to one if you arrived alone.

Who is more likely to be charged under the Martin Act?

Fraud crimes charged under the Martin Act are generally more serious that those charged under the New York Penal Law. The scheme to defraud under the Martin Act must be an ongoing systematic scheme to defraud ten or more people. This crime requires that the prosecutor to prove that the property was actually obtained from one or more persons during the fraud.

Although the Martin Act is business legislation, this does not mean that the act is enforced without teeth; criminal consequences such as fines, and incarceration may follow a conviction under the Martin Act.

And since defendants are denied the right to counsel during an Attorney General’s investigation, defendants and witnesses easily incriminate themselves. What is advised for those who are subpoenaed by the Attorney General is to call a criminal defense attorney before the compliance date is scheduled.

If you have been arrested or charged with securities fraud under the Martin Act in New York City, then call our office at (212) 577-6677 to get professional legal advice.

Elder abuse is the intentional acts by a caregiver or a “trusted” individual that lead to, or may lead to, harm of a vulnerable elder. Police and prosecutors define elder abuse as any crime or violation involving a victim who is sixty years of age or older.  There are many forms of elder abuse, but the most prevalent and the most prosecuted form would be financial abuse.

Financial Abuse is financial exploitation of the elderly and it is shown through indications of misappropriations of an elder person’s money, property, or resources by a trusted individual or institution.  The alleged financial exploiter is usually identified as a close family member, relative, a friend, or a care provider.

In many instances, the alleged individual would have would have misused the trust gained by the elderly and may have persuaded the elderly to sign a durable power of attorney, which enables the individual to gain control of the elderly person’s income and assets for personal gain.

Within each county, an elder abuse unit is created to address the needs and concerns of older crime victims within that jurisdiction. The Elder Abuse Unit in New York usually works with the New York City Police Department, Adult Protective Services Agency (APS), the New York City Department for the Aging, medical professional and social services agencies, to led aggressive investigations and prosecutions of elder abuse crimes.

There is no specific definition of financial abuse/financial exploitation of an elderly person within the New York Penal Law. Instead, the defendant may face charges of Scheme to Defraud, Forgery, and Falsifying Records, for financial exploitation of an elderly person.

The investigations of Elder Abuse in New York should not be taken lightly. It is advisable for the alleged person to speak with an attorney at the onset of such investigations.

If you are recently being investigated or charged for Financial Exploitation then call our office at (212) 577-6677 to get professional legal assistance.

59 New York City taxicab drivers were arrested and separately charged with two counts of Scheme to Defraud in the 1st Degree. 14 other New York City taxicab drivers were arrested and charged with multiple counts of petit larceny and misdemeanor.

Investigation by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) and the New York City Department of Investigation (DOI) revealed that between November 2008 and June 2010, multiple taxicabs were consistently charging their customers the suburban rates when they were traveling within New York City. Each of the 59 defendants allegedly overcharged customers of approximately $10,000 each over the 2 years.

If convicted, each of the 59 defendants faces a maximum penalty of 5 years of imprisonment.

Te-Hu Tsuei, aka “Peter” a self proclaimed New York State licensed immigration attorney and sometimes an experienced immigration law paralegal, has been arrested and charged with multiple counts of Grand Larceny, Scheme to Defraud, Unauthorized Practice of Law and violating various subsections of the Immigration Assistance Services Law.

Between November 2007 and May 2009, Tsuei allegedly defrauded two Chinese immigrants by falsely introducing himself as a licensed immigration attorney or an experienced immigration law paralegal and assuring them that they can qualify for a U-Visa when they are not.

The victims claimed that Tsuei charged them over $6,000 each for processing their applications. However, Tsuei was neither a New York State licensed attorney nor was he authorized by the Federal Board of Immigration Appeals to provide legal services. By May 2009, Tsuei’s “law office” in New York City was shut down and the victims were unable to reach him after losing $6000.

Tsuei’s case remains ongoing.

If convicted, Tsuei faces a maximum penalty of more than 12 years in prison.

Spiros Moshopoulos, Tommy Skiada, and Daniella Radulescu, New York City residents, were charged with a total of 714 counts of fraud; each of the defendants were variously charged with grand larceny, criminal possession of stolen property, money laundering, promoting gambling, tampering with a witness, conspiracy and scheme to defraud. It was alleged that the three defendants operated a bingo hall in Queens, New York and illegally siphoned funds from charity organizations.

The bingo hall allegedly used various inactive charities under the name of Romanian Orthodox Church of Sts. Constantine & Helen to generate funding and charities by conducting various bingo games. But under Moshopoulos’, Skiada’s and Radulescu’s conspiracy, the funding generated through the bingo games were purportedly used to enrich their own pockets. An approximate total of $830,000 charitable funding was allegedly stolen by the three defendants.

If convicted, each of the three defendants faces more 10 years in prison.

Marc Payen, a self-proclaimed New York State licensed immigration lawyer and immigration service provider for the United Nations, was arrested and charged with 23 counts of Grand Larceny, Forgery, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, Scheme to Defraud and the Unauthorized Practice of Law. It was alleged that Payan took advantage of 6 Haitian immigrants by fraudulently offering and providing them immigration services in efforts to obtain them Temporary Protected Status (TPS) after a major earthquake in January 2010.

Between September 2009 and April 2010, Payen allegedly misrepresented himself to at least six immigrants that he was either an immigration attorney working for the United Nations, or a United Nations employee working in the immigration services department. But in actuality, Payen is neither a lawyer nor was he employed by the UN.

After a major earthquake in Haiti in January 2010, Payen puportedly reached out to most of his victims and offered them his assistance in filing their Temporary Protected Status, green cards and work permits for a fee of $1000 to $3000 each. Through his alleged misrepresentation, Payen defrauded approximately $12,500.

If convicted, Payen faces a maximum penalty of 104 years in State prison.

Michael M. Lippman, former Counsel to the Bronx Public Administrator, was arrested and charged with multiple counts of grand larceny, scheme to Defraud, Offering a False Instrument for Filing and Falsifying Business Records for conspiring and defrauding the Public Administrator’s office of more than $300,000 in excessive legal fees.

Between 2002 and 2010, Lippman allegedly conspired to defraud the Bronx Public Administrator’s Office by abusing his authority as administrator for five estates in New York City. Lippman purportedly charged advance fees totaling of more than $300,000 for work he never performed and did so without the court’s approval.

If convicted, Lippman can face a maximum penalty of more than 22 years in prison.

Regina DaSilva, treasurer for the Universal Church, a nonprofit organization, was arrested and charged with multiple counts of grand larceny and fraud for scamming two New York State government offices and Signature Bank more than $22 million in fraudulent mortgage loans for her employer.

Between March 2006 and October 2008, DaSilva used the Universal Church’s name to falsely claim to the New York State Supreme Court that their parishioners will vote and possibly approve several pending mortgages from Signature Bank for properties in Brooklyn and Queens, New York. Following DaSilva’s misled information; the New York State Supreme Court judges issued the 11 mortgage loans to DaSilva.

After receiving 11 mortgages totaling $22,107,044 from Signature Bank, DaSilva allegedly tried to register the loans as charitable donations when in fact, such loans were never approved by the parishioners nor issued as charity by Signature Bank.

If convicted, DaSilva faces a maximum penalty of more than 75 years in prison.