When facing the formidable gears of the federal justice system, individuals accused of bribery and extortion are immediately thrust into a complex legal arena where the stakes couldn’t be higher. These white-collar crimes carry severe penalties, including hefty fines and significant prison time. In such high-stress, high-stakes situations, securing an experienced criminal defense attorney is not just a strategic move—it’s an absolute necessity.

Understanding the Grave Nature of Federal Charges

Bribery and extortion are federal offenses characterized by an abuse of power or position. Bribery involves offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of their legal duties. Extortion, on the other hand, refers to obtaining something of value through coercion. It is critical for defendants to understand that the mere accusation carries with it a social stigma that can tarnish reputations and careers irreparably.

The Defense You Deserve: The Role of Your Attorney

The law surrounding federal bribery and extortion is complex, with numerous statutes and regulations in play. It is extremely important to hire a criminal defense attorney with experience in federal criminal defense to navigate this labyrinthine legal landscape effectively. Federal court procedures, plea negotiations and trials can vary significantly from those of state courts, with their own discovery rules, rules of evidence, pleading standards, and judicial practices. Federal prosecutions are often much more complex than state proceedings, and also involve equally complicated forfeiture and restitution issues that require the assistance of an experienced federal practitioner. At Stahl Gasiorowski, our practice is solely devoted to criminal defense, and partners Robert G. Stahl, a former Assistant United States Attorney, and Laura K. Gasiorowski have more than sixty years’ experience in federal criminal defense between them.

Strategic Defense Planning

Every piece of evidence and every statement made in the context of these charges can profoundly impact the outcome of a case. Partners Robert Stahl and Laura Gasiorowski work diligently to evaluate the prosecution’s evidence and to develop strategies that can counteract the government’s case, utilizing skilled investigators and top notch expert witnesses where necessary.

In cases where evidence is substantial and our client wants to plead, Stahl Gasiorowski will work to secure a plea deal that limits the client’s sentencing exposure and the fines and restitution payments. Where the client may have a factual or legal defense, or insists on exercising her constitutional right to a trial, we use an aggressive pretrial motion practice, investigation and meticulous preparation to mount a defense for trial. Our years of experience mean that we can advise you on the risks and benefits of a plea or trial, and assist you in making the best decision for yourself and your family.

Perhaps most importantly, we ensure that all of your constitutional rights are protected throughout the legal process. Our skilled attorneys are a buffer against potential overreach by prosecutors and work to ensure that you receive a fair trial and the most zealous and aggressive defense possible.

If you or someone you know has been charged with federal bribery or extortion, the time to secure a defense attorney is immediately upon suspicion or accusation. Early legal intervention can be pivotal as it allows for preparation time and the possibility of engaging with federal investigators on your behalf before charges are formally filed.

The complexities of federal bribery and extortion charges demand a defense that is sophisticated, tactical, and rooted in comprehensive legal knowledge. The intervention of a criminal defense attorney is integral in safeguarding rights, securing fair treatment under the law, and ensuring that the defendant’s side of the story is heard. Do not underestimate the gravity of federal criminal charges—invest in the defense you unquestionably need.

For expert legal assistance and a defense that leaves no stone unturned, reach out to Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense where our unwavering commitment to our clients is matched only by our deep understanding of federal criminal law.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys actively and aggressively protect clients’ rights and offer big law skills at boutique firm prices. To contact us call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com or Laura K. Gasiorowski at lkg@sgdefenselaw.com.

Tommy Cetnar:
We’re back to The Tommy Cetnar Show, August 15th. We’ll get into this special date in our last 10 minutes. Robin, we have a great man here. I’m going to have to read it as is. This former Detective Sergeant, who then went and put himself through law school. Mr. Robert Stahl was Assistant US Attorney from ’91 to ’97, handling many, many trials — major fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, 18 month FBI IRS undercover operation tagged Operation Red Daisy, where he prosecuted La Costa Nostra and the Russia mob, stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal and state taxes for motor fuels.

More importantly, he received the Department of Justice highest award. This award-winning Lawyer of the Year in 2022 is a friend and a special guest, who knows how to prosecute and also knows how to defend when people are wronged. Bob, how are you my friend? Thank you for joining Robin and I on The Tommy Cetnar Show today.

Robert Stahl:
I’m good, Tommy and Robin. Good to be with you.

Robin DiLauri:
Hi, Bob. Thank you so much. I have to tell my husband that he could just say the word, the mob, instead of La Costa Nostra.

Tommy Cetnar:
Well, I wanted to be Italian like you for a minute.

Robin DiLauri:
He didn’t even say it right.

Robert Stahl:
Exactly. He sounded very official though, Robin.

Robin DiLauri:
That’s true. Well, you’re a highly esteemed attorney, and so absolutely … you deserved that intro. So thank you for being on this show. Thank you so much.

Tommy Cetnar:
Hey, Bob, you have worn several hats. And I’ll ask you to put your defense hat on right now, because that’s more or less … it is what you’re practicing. This fourth indictment of the former President of the United States, let’s stipulate that most the Trump supporters think it’s dead wrong and all this. But this last one, does it make anybody a little more nervous in his camp when you see 16, 18 other people indicted?

And as we both know, it’s the squeeze time. Are they going to try to flip people? Is this a legitimate charge, when you see racketeering and conspiring charges like this, or is this just a pile on? And are we to believe the county leaked it out before they even told Trump that he was getting indicted, his lawyers? What say you, from a defense attorney here?

Robert Stahl:
Well, I think, Tommy, that the word from the Trump camp behind the scenes is this is the one that they’ve been concerned the most with. And why is that? One, like you just said, there’s 18 other defendants. And you and I both know that the more people that are indicted, the more people feel pressure to try to cooperate. And that is always a defense attorney’s concern, is that co-conspirators plead guilty. Say, “I was part of this conspiracy, and so were these other people.”

And so when you have a Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization Act charge, which faces up to 20 years in prison, that brings together … why did they use RICO? Because that permits charging multiple people who commit separate crimes while working towards a common goal. And here they charge that all these acts were part of an ongoing criminal enterprise to overturn the 2020 election results. So I think that that has some weight to it because the state charges more seem to fit, as opposed to some of the federal charges that some people think are being stretched to fit the alleged facts.

Tommy Cetnar:
Now, does he get a whole new legal team for this indictment? How is this being broken up over all these indictments? Certain lawyers take number one, number two, number three, and now the fourth?

Robert Stahl:
It seems that way. I mean, former President Trump has a number of attorneys working for him. My colleague and friend John Lauro from Florida and New York is representing him in the latest federal indictment. And so it would be difficult for the same set of attorneys to handle all these cases, although you would think that there would be an overarching leadership team of attorneys to help defend, because the charges are similar in some of the jurisdictions.

So the DC recent federal case with the special counsel, although Jack Smith kept it lean and just charged former President Trump, many of these overt acts … and there’s 161 of them listed in the Georgia indictment will relate to the conduct that the federal government charges as well.

Tommy Cetnar:
And without bouncing around on you, special counsel was just … the AG issued the Delaware prosecutor all the power now, basically to explore Biden. Are they really … is the Department of Justice supposed to take somebody that close? Or should it be somebody independent, from the outside, if they’re really going to be seriously looking into Hunter Biden?

Robert Stahl:
Well, that’s a good question. This was … the US attorney from Delaware was a Trump appointee, and held over for this. And so it depends how you want to look at it. So the Department of Justice looks at it that he knows the case. If we appoint a new special counsel, that person has to get up to speed, and that’s going to be an even larger delay. And so this is a way of fast tracking it.

And friends on the other side look at it as that’s not appropriate, that it should be somebody independent, because this is the same person that authorized the two misdemeanor charges that were going to be pled to. So it depends how you look at it. And each side sees it differently.

Tommy Cetnar:
You’re very generous to us with your time today. And I know when you’re prepping for trial or getting ready with your clients, there’s no time for anybody to really breathe, because you want to give the best effort you can. You want to represent the right way. And if you were on the other side and you’re prosecuting, like we talked about, the cases that you’ve tried before, you don’t even go home half of the time. You’re with your colleagues and you’re getting ready for trial. How is President Trump going to run for office throughout all this?

Robert Stahl:
Well, that’s the big question, right? I mean, as you said, when myself and my other attorneys are getting ready for trial, we stay in hotels, we devote seven days a week to preparing and trying a case. And we rely on our clients to be with us and help prepare. And now facing four indictments, even if they get pushed out, as most of his attorneys are trying to do, it’s still going to be practically impossible not to divert someone’s attention. When clients are under these types of pressures, that becomes first and foremost in your mind. You have to worry about yourself and your family.

Former President Trump seems to do a good job of separating them and continuing moving forward, but the time constraints are huge. And as other of his attorneys have said, “These investigations have been going on for years, and now we want to fast track the trials.” So never does the defense get the same amount of time the government does in investigating cases. But certainly, the judges have to be concerned that there’s ineffective assistance of counsel and violating someone’s Sixth Amendment rights and other rights by rushing something to trial that’s gone on for years, and has dozens and dozens of potential witnesses and hundreds of thousands of documents. So counsel has to have time to prepare.

Tommy Cetnar:
So he could actually become the 47th President of the United States, and he would still be going on trial after he’s in the Oval Office?

Robert Stahl:
That’s possible. And I think that the trials would have to be delayed while he’s in office. So maybe looking at something five years from now.

Tommy Cetnar:
And Robin asked the question, could he pardon himself prior to going to trial?

Robert Stahl:
Well, that’s a question that’s up for debate. But in the state cases, no. So that’s the other reason that the Georgia case has greater jeopardy for the former president, is he can’t pardon himself or anyone for state charges. And even the governor, under Georgia law, has no pardon power. So even if a Republican governor wanted to pardon him, he or she would have no ability. So that’s one of these things.

And this case, Georgia, unlike federal courts, allows TVs most times in court. So that this may be publicized from the first appearance next week, through the whole trial. And that might be something that creates greater jeopardy for the trial, being publicized and being broadcast live.

Tommy Cetnar:
We got about a minute and a half to go. I got one last question for you. It was reported today that the judge in the New York case has made contributions to the Bidens. Does he have to recuse himself? He’s refusing to do it. Should he recuse himself as a result of that? Or she?

Robert Stahl:
Well, does the judge have to? No, because judges are still individuals and can make contributions. And the argument would be on the other side, as well, judges that make donations to the Republican Party, should they be foreclosed from hearing cases with Republican politicians. So I think that … and always, disqualifying a judge is a very uphill battle. So I don’t think it carries much weight in the judicial forum. And I don’t think you’ll have an appellate court overturn the judge’s decision.

So it’s always tough. And obviously when you do that, in normal cases, defense attorneys have to worry about, now what does the judge think about the defense? This is a unique set of circumstances.

Tommy Cetnar:
Well, it’s historic and it’s –

Robert Stahl:
As far as someone now publicly challenging the judges.

Tommy Cetnar:
Yeah. It’s historic, what’s going on here. It’s kind of frustrating. But I guess as we have learned, you’re innocent until proven guilty, but they’re really coming after him. Bob, thank you for coming on. It means a lot to us and our listeners. I mean, your expertise is one that we value in a tremendous way. And I know your schedule, so I really, really appreciate the time today, and hope you’ll keep in touch with us throughout the four indictments that are before us. And we’ll see what happens in 2024.

Robert Stahl:
Well, I look forward to talking with you both, and your audience, again. These are complicated matters and it’s hard to just get them down in a short period of time. So let’s see how everything plays out.

Tommy Cetnar:
Thanks, pal. I appreciate your coming on.

Robin DiLauri:
Thank you so much.

Tommy Cetnar:
Bob Stahl, everybody. One of the best in the business. One of the best in the business. Thanks, Bob.

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.

Consider an example of a bank robbery in which three people are involved: one to serve as lookout, another to drive the getaway car, and the third to gather the money. During the commission of the robbery, one of them fires a weapon and injures another person before all three are apprehended.

In this situation, federal prosecutors will be involved, because bank robbery is a federal crime. The prosecution will need to convince a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the following existed:

1. An agreement between two or more persons;
2. To commit an unlawful act; and
3. An overt act taken by at least one of them in furtherance of that agreement.

Some of the unique characteristics of conspiracy law include the following:

• Any statement by one of the conspirators may be used as evidence against all of them.
• All of the conspirators are considered to be equally guilty of any foreseeable crime that any one of them may be convicted of.
• Conspiracy is considered to be an ongoing crime for statute of limitations purposes. That is, the applicable statute of limitations begins with the commission of the last overt act in its furtherance.

In our bank robbery example, if one of the three individuals made an incriminating statement, that statement could be used in court against all three, and if the person who was injured during the commission of the robbery dies then all three participants will be charged with homicide even though two of them never fired a shot.

Conspiracy charges, federal or at the New Jersey state level, can be complex to defend against as well as to prosecute. This post only provides an introductory examination of the topic. Anyone wanting to know more about this topic, or who may be facing conspiracy charges, should consult with a law firm experienced in criminal defense cases.