News reports today indicate that Bravo celebrity Jen Shah was sentenced to 78 months for her role in a wire fraud that resulted in $5 million in losses.

For people unfamiliar with the federal sentencing guidelines, the base offense level for a wire fraud is enhanced by a number of levels that corresponds to the loss amount. For a loss of more than $3.5 million but less than $9.5 million, USSG 2B1.1 instructs that 18 additional levels should be added to the base offense level. The resulting offense level may then be further enhanced by additional characteristics of the crime including the number of victims and the the special vulnerability of victims, or additional characteristics of the offender, such as whether he or she used a special skill or abused a position of trust. The total offense level then corresponds to a range of months which increases vertically by the prior criminal history of a defendant.

In this case, Jen Shah’s attorneys requested a significant variance down from the applicable 130 month guideline range, insisting that Ms. Shah should serve no more than 36 months, or 3 years. To challenge Jen Shah’s recommended sentencing range, and justify such a significant variance, her lawyers presented mitigating factors pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3553, which requires a sentencing court to consider the personal history and characteristics of the defendant, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and any other relevant factor that mitigate or reduce the defendant’s culpability.

Even though there are guidelines instructing recommended sentencing ranges for specific offenses, defendants are entitled to individualized sentencing that takes into account their personal history and circumstances, and the specific circumstances of the crime that may distinguish it from the “heartland” case. For defendants facing federal charges, it is crucial to hire a criminal defense attorney with experience in federal criminal matters, and the special skill required to assemble and present a compelling sentencing mitigation argument.

The lawyers at Stahl Gasiorowski. PC have represented hundreds of federal defendants before sentencing courts in New York, New Jersey and elsewhere. For each and every case, we delve into a client’s personal history, and the facts of the case, to present an exquisitely crafted sentencing memo that puts the client’s criminal conduct into context and establishes a reasoned and emotional basis for leniency. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300.

Last fall Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced the Department of Justice’s more aggressive approach to corporate compliance. In her policy speech this week, she highlighted a series of new policies and warned cooperating companies not to slow walk their disclosures, told prosecutors to speed up their investigations and expanded self-reporting programs throughout the Department.

Of note, Monaco acknowledged the past year’s decline in corporate prosecutions. In an effort to assist prosecutors’ timely investigations of individuals, Monaco said that any company that delays in turning over key documents and information to the government will risk losing some or all credit for cooperating. While companies are already required to turn over non-privileged information about employee wrongdoing in order to receive cooperation credit, Monaco said that the DOJ would view companies more favorably that claw back compensation from those employees. In her view, such a policy could deter wrongdoing — “compensation systems that clearly and effectively impose financial penalties for misconduct can deter risky behavior and foster a culture of compliance.”

Recidivist corporate offenders, even for unrelated prior misconduct, were warned that any prior violations would factor into DOJ’s treatment of new offenses. But, in an attempt to assuage corporate anxiety about prior misdeeds that resulted in either civil fines or criminal pleas, Monaco said that criminal resolutions more than 10 years old, and civil or regulatory settlements more than 5 years old, would be given less weight.

Lastly, Monaco said that every section of DOJ that prosecutes corporate crime will develop an individualized program to incentivize corporate self-disclosure. The common principles for these programs will include foregoing guilty pleas when the company self-reports, cooperates and remediates the misconduct. Further, monitorships, while back in favor and to be freely implemented when appropriate, will be circumscribed when the above requirements have been met. Prosecutors will be tasked, however, with making sure that the monitors are performing properly and stay on budget.

Federal investigations and prosecutions of corporations and individual employees and officers are complex and time consuming. There are a variety of factors that must be considered to properly defend the company and its employees while conducting an independent investigation of the alleged wrongdoing. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have extensive experience representing individuals and corporations accused of fraud. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

A recent high profile case highlights the federal government’s ability to seize a convicted defendant’s accounts to satisfy an Order of Restitution after a conviction at trial or a guilty plea. The Second Circuit recently held that the retirement funds of Evan Greebel, the former convicted attorney and Martin Shkreli’s codefendant, could be seized in partial satisfaction of the restitution amount owed. Greebel was convicted in a separate 2017 trial for assisting his client Shkreli’s fraudulent taking of funds from Retrophin to pay Shkreli’s hedge fund debts, and for manipulating the stock price of Shkreli’s drug company. After conviction, Greebel was sentenced to 18 months in prison and ordered to pay $10.4 million in restitution.

In its opinion, the Second Circuit upheld the trial court’s decision that Greebel’s 401(k) accounts at his former law firm were subject to garnishment in an effort to collect the restitution amount. The Second Circuit held that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) gives the government full access to retirement funds, and that ERISA’s prohibition on disbursing retirement funds to third parties is trumped by the MVRA.

It is well-established that under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(m)(1)(A), the Government may enforce a restitution order in the manner provided by subchapter B of Chapter 229, or 18 U.S.C. § 3613. An order of restitution may be executed in accordance with the practices and procedures for the enforcement of a civil judgment under federal law or state law or by all other available and reasonable means. 18 U.S.C. § 3613 (a) and (f).

The MVRA broadly permits the United States to enforce a restitution order “against all property or rights to property of the person fined.” Pursuant to §3613(c), once restitution is ordered, all the defendant’s property becomes subject to a lien in favor of the United States, and for purposes of debt collection, such lien is treated like a tax lien. §3613(c). Thus, any property the IRS can reach to satisfy a tax lien, a sentencing court can also reach in a restitution order – bank accounts, retirement funds, stock accounts and even Social Security benefits. Additionally, while periodic payments (usually monthly payments through the Probation Department) in satisfaction of a restitution order are limited to 25% of the defendant’s disposable income, one time lump sums payments, such as the garnishment of a retirement or bank account, are not limited.

The only issue left unanswered by the Second Circuit in Greebel was whether the government could seize all the funds, or whether it had to leave the defendant sufficient funds to pay the 10% tax penalty for early withdrawal of retirement funds. In many instances, the amount left to a defendant to pay tax penalties and taxes on garnishment of retirement accounts can be negotiated with the government.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys have represented scores of clients facing restitution and forfeiture orders and garnishments. We actively and aggressively protect clients’ rights. To contact Mr. Stahl, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS, OIG) issued a special fraud alert advising healthcare providers to exercise caution when contracting with telemedicine companies. Such alerts are significant as they put providers on notice that OIG intends to investigate and prosecute potential fraud regarding telemedicine/. Such notices provide the opportunity for healthcare providers to review their practices and compliance, as well as list examples of suspect practices in the industry.

Historically, federal regulations limited the use and scope of telemedicine. It became widely available, however, during the COVID crisis that necessitated the loosening of government regulations. While a relaxation of regulations and restrictions offered patients greater access to physicians, it also opened the door to fraudulent conduct. In previous articles, we explored schemes involving compound medicines, genetic cancer screening (CGx and PGx tests) and durable medical equipment (DME) such as orthotic braces.

This latest fraud alert confirms that OIG is still aggressively targeting DME companies, laboratories and pharmacies using telehealth services. The OIG alert offers a non-comprehensive list of factors that they examine in potential fraud cases, including:

1. Patients that are referred to a practitioner through a telemedicine company, telemarketing, recruiter, call center, health fair or internet;
2. Practitioner has only limited access or contact with the alleged patient to meaningfully access the medical necessity of the services solicited;
3. Telemedicine company compensates the practitioner based on the volume of prescriptions and services;
4. Telemedicine company only provides services to federal health care program beneficiaries, and does not accept private insurance;
5. Telemedicine company only provides a single class of products such as braces, genetic testing, compound medicines – pain, scar and vitamin creams – thus limiting a practitioner’s treatment options; and
6. Telemedicine company does not expect its physicians to follow up with the patients regarding their prescriptions or services.

This alert expressly notes that proactive marketing that advertises free or low cost items or services covered by federal healthcare programs and exclusively marketed to such beneficiaries is “suspect”. Additionally, any program that limits a practitioner from contacting a patient to follow up or offer other medical services is suspect.

While HHS, OIG alerts provide valuable guidance for practitioners and other healthcare professionals, they also provide federal prosecutors the opportunity to argue that a provider’s good faith defense is limited after such an alert has been issued, i.e. that providers are on notice that such practices as suspect.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys have represented dozens of physicians, marketers, telehealth companies and pharmacists in federal healthcare fraud investigations. We proactively and aggressively protect our clients’ rights. To contact Mr. Stahl, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

In many types of criminal cases, the right expert can be invaluable. Whether it is a forensic accountant in a complex fraud or tax investigation; a medical or billing expert in a healthcare fraud investigation; a forensic psychiatrist for a sex abuse or child pornography case; a computer expert for a computer crimes matter or to download and organize a searchable database for millions of documents in discovery; or a drug or gang expert in a serious drug case, the proper expert retained early in the investigation can assist the client’s criminal defense attorney in their efforts to prevent the charges from being filed, or to assist in developing a defense to aid in plea negotiations or to prevail at trial.

Often the government employs or hires its own experts to analyze a wide variety of data, information or documents. These government “experts” may be recognized in their fields, or they may be opining on evidence in fields in which they are not truly qualified. It is critical in such cases, that the defense attorney have at his disposal the best possible expert in the relevant field of inquiry to conduct their own review and analysis of the evidence and to potentially refute the conclusion of the government expert.

In recent years, there have been notable cases that have demonstrated that government “experts” have either overreached or provided false reports and testimony. For instance, state drug labs around the country have discovered state laboratory technicians that have failed to conduct drug tests on tens of thousands of drug seizures and simply falsified their reports. Other so-called experts have opined on subjects that do not meet generally accepted scientific standards, including hair and fiber analysis, bite marks and lead analysis of bullets. Too often the testimony by these alleged experts have resulted in convictions based on false or unsound results.
Experts can be used to analyze the evidence and discover the weaknesses or fallacies in the government’s theory of the case. The ability to independently review and analyze varied and complex financial transactions, computer code, thousands of emails and attachments, billing records or scientific results can mean the difference between a conviction and acquittal. In addition, most fraud cases and potential sentences are driven by the loss amount. Experts can provide valuable analysis that reduces the loss amount and the potential sentencing ranges.

Aggressive, experienced defense attorneys use experts as early in the process as possible. There are certain procedures that must be followed to protect and preserve the attorney-client and work-product privileges. To do so, the law firm retains the expert to work under the firm’s supervision and direction. While the client is responsible for the fees and expenses, the expert communicates with the law firm rather than with the client so that the expert cannot be cross-examined by the government about any statements or information provided by the client.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have extensive experience using experts in their representation of individuals charged with federal and state felonies. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

The Department of Justice just announced charges against 21 individuals in a nationwide crackdown of COVID-19 related prosecutions that resulted in $150 million worth of fraud. The schemes were varied and involved medical doctors, medical labs, marketers and others in the healthcare field.

For instance, two owners of a lab in California allegedly billed more than $125 million in fraudulent claims. In Maryland and New York drive through test site operators are accused of using confidential patient information to bill for lengthy office visits that never occurred. In New Jersey, five individuals were accused of paying or receiving kickbacks for referring COVID tests to a particular lab. Even though the tests were medically necessary, and the lab only billed the allowable rate to the government program, the lab was accused of violating the anti-kickback statute that prohibits paying individuals or companies to refer tests.

The Maryland case charged a physician with submitting false claims to Medicare and private insurers. The defendant owned drive through COVID testing sites. Employees gathered patient information at the sites and later submitted false claims for complex in office visits for other healthcare procedures that never occurred.

In Florida, a registered nurse was charged with signing huge numbers of medically unnecessary doctor’s orders in exchange for sham telemedicine consulting fees. Another case in Florida charged individuals with fraudulent Medicare billing for medical equipment that was obtained by paying kickbacks to marketing companies that solicited patients for equipment they didn’t need.

In other schemes, defendants in California were charged with allegedly counterfeiting vaccine cards. Another case involved a hospital pharmacy director who obtained authentic Moderna dose lot numbers and used them to falsify vaccine ecards.

In New Jersey, one of the District’s first healthcare fraud trials just resulted in a guilty verdict against a medical sales representative of a diagnostic lab who paid kickbacks to a physician for referring tests to the lab. In an effort to disguise the kickbacks, the marketer placed the physician’s medical assistant on the lab’s payroll. In a related scheme, the marketer was paid for promoting medically unnecessary compound medicines that certain insurance plans covered. The defendant and others paid kickbacks to doctors to prescribe the unnecessary compounds without even examining the patients.

Other cases have charged individuals with fraudulently obtaining relief funds from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act. A 2020 bill that provided billion in emergency financial assistance.

These and scores of other cases highlight federal authorities continuing investigations and DOJ’s aggressive prosecution of a variety of healthcare fraud schemes. These schemes involve medically unnecessary compound medicines, genetic cancer tests, kickbacks on prescriptions for DME – durable medical equipment – such as braces, as well as COVID-19 tests.

Federal healthcare laws and regulations are complex. There are countless ways for doctors, pharmacists, lab owners and marketers to violate these laws. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have extensive experience representing individuals and corporations accused of healthcare fraud. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

Chief Financial Officers, Account Managers and bookkeepers all, to vary degrees, are trusted employees who have access to corporate funds. Access to company funds, with little or sporadic oversight, can leave a company vulnerable to a variety of fraudulent schemes to obtain funds those employees were not entitled to. Common schemes include:

1. The trusted employee setting up fictitious companies as suppliers of goods and materials and creating false invoices for payment.
2. Another scenario involves the trusted employee engaging in a kickback scheme with an actual outside vendor/supplier to inflate invoices and “kick back” a percentage of the funds received from the company.
3. Other schemes simply involve a trusted employee giving themselves bonuses and other unauthorized forms of compensation.

These schemes can go undetected for years and often result in the loss of hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. They are usually detected when the company experiences a significant downturn in revenue, a verified audit, or the potential sale of the company requiring a close examination of the books and records.

When such schemes are discovered, the employer or counsel will usually retain a forensic accountant to uncover the extent of the fraud. Counsel will often advise the employer to confront the employee and convince them to pay back as much of the stolen funds as possible before notifying law enforcement. The employer may lead the employee to believe that they want to work with them to recover the funds and to make the company as whole as possible without the need for attorneys, litigation or law enforcement. Many employers will suggest that the employee “cooperate” and voluntarily turn over their retirement funds, monies in their family checking and savings accounts, and sell their home and other valuables in order to pay back the funds that were improperly taken.

What an employee needs to know is that they should first retain experienced criminal defense counsel to assist them throughout this complicated process. This is critical for a number of reasons.

First, anything the employee says to the employer or their counsel is likely an admission against interest and can be used in a future criminal prosecution.

Second, the employee needs the advice of counsel about the potential benefits versus risks of acknowledging the theft and the repayment of all or part of the monies taken prior to any potential criminal case.

Third, the employee needs their own attorney to deal with the employer to make sure that any monies repaid are handled correctly and that retirement funds are not simply liquidated without sufficient funds remaining to pay the interest and penalties usually due for early withdrawal.

Fourth, despite any conversations or assurances that law enforcement will not be contacted if the employee returns the funds, there is nothing that can bind an employer to such a promise. Any assurance not to report is against public policy and unenforceable as a matter of law.

Seizure of bank accounts, assets and real property through civil litigation is a very time consuming and costly endeavor. Once law enforcement is involved, prosecutors are more focused on the criminal charges, while restitution and forfeiture are a secondary concern. Consequently, most employers try to recover as much money as they can before notifying law enforcement. It is much easier for the company to recover funds with the cooperation of the former employee. Thus, it is critical for the employee to retain experienced criminal defense counsel at the outset.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense is here for all your criminal legal needs. We are experienced in all types of complex criminal matters involving a many types of electronic evidence. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

Each new administration, through its Attorney General, set policy as to the Department of Justice’s enforcement priorities. As the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division, Kenneth Polite recently outlined those priorities. In general, those areas include foreign corruption, computer crimes and money laundering/.

Polite announced that his office will be unveiling a new National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team comprised of lawyers from the Division’s Computer Crime and Money Laundering Sections together with experienced AUSAs from around the country. This new initiative reflects the ongoing concern over the lack of regulations and enforcement of cryptocurrency and its use by cyber criminals, drug cartels and other money launderers around the world.

Continued emphasis will be placed on efforts to combat cyber-attacks and ransom demands from organized groups and state backed hackers from China, Russia and other countries. These ransomware attackers often demand payment in cryptocurrency as it is less traceable than traditional currency.

Other areas of enforcement will include healthcare fraud, opioid distribution, corporate compliance, and human trafficking. DOJ will bring together prosecutors from around the country, as well as agents from various federal law enforcement agencies and other partner agencies like the Commodities Trading Commission, SEC and FINCEN.

An adjunct to DOJ’s increased money laundering enforcement efforts is the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN) recent rule-making notice that it intends to draft “nationwide record keeping and reporting requirements” for certain participants in the non-financed real estate transactions that are made without mortgages or other lender provided credit. The purpose is to uncover money laundering activities in the approximately $460 billion annual cash real estate purchases in the United States. Presently, only banks and mortgage lenders have programs in place to report suspicious activities. FINCEN is considering how feasible it would be to add reporting requirements for title insurers, escrow companies, real estate attorneys and closing agents.

We have represented many doctors, pharmacists and marketing companies charged with healthcare fraud, and money laundering in federal court, as well as cryptocurrency and unregistered money transfer businesses. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense is here for all your criminal legal needs. We are experienced in all types of complex criminal matters involving many types of electronic evidence. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

Violations of any number of federal statutes have the potential to jeopardize a business and can, in many cases, result in individuals going to prison. In addition, restitution and forfeiture may be applicable. Below, we delve into some of the most commonly encountered federal business fraud statutes.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act applies to any company that must file a report with the SEC, including companies based in the United States, their subsidiaries and those listed on the stock exchanges. This Act bars payments to foreign governments or officials to obtain a competitive advantage.

Wire Fraud and Mail Fraud

Mail fraud and wire fraud are used extensively by federal authorities. Mail fraud involves the use of the mail in a scheme to defraud another person or entity. This broad-based statute includes any mailing of a document that contains a materially false statement. “Mail” is defined as documents sent via public or private carriers. The document is not required to cross state lines to qualify as mail fraud. Wire fraud is similar to mail fraud except it includes just about all forms of media including e-mail, telephone, TV, radio, Internet, telex and facsimile.

Bankruptcy Fraud

This type of business fraud involves defrauding through a document, petition or representation tied to a bankruptcy proceeding. It includes material misrepresentations as to assets and ownership interests in assets.

Health Care Fraud

Health care fraud is the defrauding of any private or public health care benefit program. The definition encompasses the payment for/delivery of services. This a very active area of investigation for federal and state authorities. It includes paying others for patient referrals, upcoding, over billing, ordering unnecessary tests or procedures and submitting false claims. False statements made to procure payment from a federal health care program also qualifies as health care fraud.

Securities Fraud

This type of fraud refers to the sale or purchase of an investment where the return is based on the effort of a third party. An example of such an offense is the trading of stocks with insider information. The fraudulent marking of prices or material false statements in the prospectus are also forms of securities fraud.

The False Claims Act

Those who knowingly make or conspire to produce erroneous financial claims to the government can be found guilty of this type of fraud. It commonly applies to Medicaid and Medicare. False statements made on a bill can qualify as separate offenses. The operative word in this statute’s definition is “knowingly”. “Knowingly” is defined as actual knowledge, intentional ignorance or a “reckless” disregard for what is true. Examples of false claims include false affirmative certifications of compliance with federal regulations, billing and claims that stand for compliance with regulations, statutes or contract terms.

Material False Statements

An individual who makes a materially false statement to an official of the federal government or makes a false record of entry is committing a criminal offense. Though individuals certainly have the right to remain silent, they do not have the right to lie.

The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010

Passed into law as a result of the last recession, this Act is meant to spur improved transparency and accountability on Wall Street, protect investors and reform mortgages. However, its Constitutionality is currently being challenged in federal court. Stay tuned for developments.

Bank Fraud

Bank fraud is an attempt (or the actual execution) to defraud a federally insured financial institution. Bank fraud encompasses securities, funds and property owned or possessed by the institution that has been victimized. Bank fraud can still apply even if the institution does not suffer an actual loss. It also includes submitting materially false statements on loan applications, whether the loan is for a car, car lease, home mortgage, or revolving line of credit.

Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act

Fraudulent conveyances that occur in various contexts, such as bankruptcy, have tripped up numerous individuals and businesses in the past. The language of these statutes is broad enough to include activity that is meant to defraud, delay or disrupt a creditor. Courts can go back as far as six years to uncover evidence of this style of fraud. An example in the context of the private sector is a leveraged buyout in which a company borrows against its assets and acquires stock. Such an action can be scrutinized as a fraudulent conveyance.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

This Act bars the procurement of national security information, infiltrating confidential information stored on computers, password trafficking, damaging transmissions/access and any extortion involving threats to damage computing devices. It is worth noting that cell phones qualify as “computing devices”.

Immigration Fraud

Those who fraudulently use immigration documents such as border crossing cards, permits and visas can be found guilty of immigration fraud.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

This Act has eleven unique “Titles”, each with a section that has been written in response to corporate wrong-doings. Its purpose is to prevent future corporate scandals by requiring in-depth financial disclosures and auditor independence.

The experienced attorneys at Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend individuals charged with complex federal and state crimes. Founder Robert G. Stahl is recognized as one of the top criminal defense attorneys in the NY/NJ area for his skills, knowledge and success. To contact us to discuss your case, call 908.301.9001 for our NJ office and 212.755.3300 for our NYC office or email us at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

The investigations in these cases are often handled on a state or federal level, where authorities are particularly hard on the accused. In fact, the government often assigns organizations like the FBI, IRS and Secret Service to handle these matters, and puts white collar crimes in a similar category to drug and violent offenders. Charges may range from business, health care and tax fraud, to money laundering, embezzlement, theft and falsifying documents.

If you have been accused of embezzlement or fraud, it is important to consult a skilled lawyer. Experienced legal professionals who deal in criminal defense can help you avoid incriminating yourself when accusations are made by your employer or, worse, from the authorities. You may be subpoenaed for business records, visited by an agent or receive an administrative summons.

The attorneys at our firm strive to ensure that individuals accused of white collar crimes – whether they are employees or executives – are not subjected to rights violations and avoid inappropriate charges or overly harsh penalties. We represent clients facing criminal charges or felony charges, such as being accused of embezzling employer funds and understand how serious these allegations – and the sentences that can be handed down – are for the people who are in this frightening situation.

Successful New Jersey Dentist Charged with Healthcare Fraud Wins a Rare Complete Dismissal of All Charges After Criminal Defense Attorney Robert G. Stahl Launches Aggressive Defense Including Commissioning Complex Independent Investigation

December 2015 (NEW YORK CITY) – In October 2014, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York charged a successful New Jersey dentist with alleged healthcare billing fraud involving insured Port Authority of New York and New Jersey employees.

He retained criminal defense attorney Robert G. Stahl who launched an aggressive defense that included commissioning a complex, independent investigation that included expert reports rebutting the charges. As a result, in December 2015 Stahl won a rare complete dismissal of all charges for the dentist.

“This case demonstrates the critical value of retaining skilled, experienced criminal defense counsel as early as possible in a state or federal criminal case,” said Stahl. “My client’s professional career was saved and an expensive, time consuming trial was avoided.”

Stahl, a former award-winning Assistant U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, had met several times with Assistant U.S. Attorneys and investigators from both the federal Department of Health and Human Services and the Port Authority Offices of Inspector General while the dentist’s charges were pending.

“Even before being charged by federal Complaint, in meetings with auditors and investigators my client had strongly maintained that he had not billed by upcoding¹ certain dental and periodontal procedures,” attorney Stahl said.

The alleged healthcare fraud charges stemmed from a lengthy investigation led by the Office of Inspector General, Port Authority Police Department (OIG, PAPD) for allegedly defrauding the Port Authority and its private insurer or authority employees.

As part of the U.S. Department of Justice’s initiative on healthcare fraud, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices across the country maintain special units to investigate and prosecute criminal and civil, whistleblower-brought healthcare fraud, Stahl explained. “If you are a physician, dentist or other healthcare professional whose practice is in the crosshairs of investigators, you should immediately retain counsel with substantial experience in complex civil and criminal matters. Experienced representation can make the difference in the outcome of a criminal case.”

With offices in Mountainside, New Jersey and New York City, the Law Offices of Robert G. Stahl represents defendants in a broad range of criminal matters, regardless of complexity or geography, including death penalty and international criminal law matters. Visit https://www.StahlEsq.com for more information and select the, “News and Media” link to read about some of the high-profile criminal and civil matters in which the Stahl firm has represented defendants.

¹ In upcoding a more expensive medical code is submitted to insurance payers, instead of the lowerpriced, actual procedure that had been performed.

Read More News from Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers