The Trump Justice Department Announces
It Will Prioritize Investigations and Enforcement Actions
To Revoke Citizenship (Denaturalization)

In a June 11, 2025, Memo to the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate announced that President Trump and Attorney General Bondi have directed the Civil Division to prioritize investigations and enforcement actions relating to denaturalization, or revocation of citizenship, of naturalized citizens who have been charged with or convicted of certain categories of crimes. The Memo directs Civil Division employees to initiate civil proceedings to revoke U.S. citizenship if citizenship was “illegally procured” or obtained through “concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation” under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a).

The memo prioritizes enforcement action against individuals charged with certain categories of crime:

1. Cases against individuals who pose a potential danger to national security, including those with a nexus to terrorism, espionage, or the unlawful export from the United States of sensitive goods, technology, or information raising national security concerns;
2. Cases against individuals who engaged in torture, war crimes, or other human rights violations;
3. Cases against individuals who further or furthered the unlawful enterprise of criminal gangs, transnational criminal organizations, and drug cartels;
4. Cases against individuals who committed felonies that were not disclosed during the naturalization process;
5. Cases against individuals who committed human trafficking, sex offenses, or violent crimes;
6. Cases against individuals who engaged in various forms of financial fraud against the United States, including Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan fraud and Medicaid/Medicare fraud;
7. Cases against individuals who engaged in fraud against private individuals, funds, or corporations;
8. Cases against individuals who acquired naturalization through government corruption, fraud, or material misrepresentations, not otherwise addressed by another priority category;
9. Cases referred by a United States Attorney’s Office in connection with pending criminal charges, if those charges do not fit within one of the other priorities; and
10. Any other cases referred to the Civil Division that the Division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue.

Notably, the Memo indicates that these categories guide the Civil Division but do not restrict it from pursuing other cases deemed important . . . meaning the list of potential crimes is not exclusive.

The statute being weaponized (8 U.S.C. 1451) has been on the books for years but has not been used extensively. By law, denaturalization occurs by a judicial order, either through civil proceedings or a criminal conviction for naturalization fraud. The process usually starts with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) referring cases for civil and criminal denaturalization when there is “sufficient evidence” that an individual is subject to one of the grounds of denaturalization. The DOJ’s U.S. Attorney’s Office must then file revocation of naturalization actions for civil denaturalization cases (addressed in the June 11, 2025 Memo) or criminal charges (for criminal denaturalization cases) in Federal District Court.

What is new is the Justice Department’s stated intent to amplify and aggressively expand the use of denaturalization as yet another tool of its immigration policy, and what appears to be an exceptionally broad view of its discretion. As such, criminal defense lawyers who represent naturalized citizens should be aware of the potential that the Civil Division may bring a denaturalization proceeding based on the client’s criminal conviction or conduct that may be charged and result in a conviction. Criminal attorneys aware of the legal requirements for denaturalization will be able to strategize and provide nuanced legal advice to avoid triggering a basis for such action or satisfying the Government’s burden of proof through admissions. For instance, a factual allocution in a plea may provide the basis for denaturalization if it establishes that a particular crime occurred within the statutory period before the person naturalized, even where conviction of the crime occurs after naturalization. See United States v. Dunor, No. 2:14-CV-802, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32547 (S.D. Ohio, Mar. 14, 2016) (After naturalizing, Dunor convicted of conspiracy to possess and utter counterfeit securities, bank fraud, and money laundering, crimes involving moral turpitude because they involve fraud or deception; conduct occurred within the statutory period, establishing basis for denaturalization); United States v. Guerrero, No. CV-10-525-ST, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142520 (D. Or. Dec. 21, 2010) (Court granted summary judgment in favor of Government on basis of defendant’s plea in 2001 to child sex abuse acts committed during period of time (1991-1994) overlapping the statutory period before naturalization in 1996.

The danger to criminal defendants who are naturalized citizens is evident, and far-reaching. In addition to returning the person to the status occupied before naturalization (and potentially making them eligible for removal and/or inadmissibility on the basis of the criminal conviction), revocation of citizenship may also affect family members. For instance, the spouse or child of a person whose U.S. citizenship is revoked loses his or her U.S. citizenship at the time of revocation in cases where:

• The spouse or child became a U.S. citizen through the naturalization of his or her parent or spouse whose citizenship has been revoked; and
• The parent or spouse’s citizenship was revoked on the ground that his or her naturalization was procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.

See 8 U.S.C. Section 1451(d).

Working with experienced immigration counsel may help ensure the naturalization process is completed properly and may reduce the risk of issues arising later. Working with a criminal defense attorney who recognizes the dangers this new enforcement policy presents to naturalized (or naturalizing) citizens who are charged with crimes or have committed undisclosed criminal acts is essential to avoid the devastating consequences of revocation on the client and his or her family.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys have represented hundreds of individuals who are naturalized citizens, Lawful Permanent Residents and others here without legal status who are under investigation or face charges. We have the experience and skills to effectively navigate our clients through these complex issues and investigations to achieve the best possible outcome. If you are looking for a crypto fraud lawyer,wire fraud lawyer, securities fraud lawyer or healthcare fraud lawyer, contact Ms. Gasiowski at lkg@sgdefenselaw.com or Mr. Stahl, at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com. Call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office or 212.755.3300 for the NYC office.

The recent news that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is disbanding its crypto unit and shifting focus from prosecuting platforms to targeting individuals who harm crypto investors or use digital assets for illegal activities may be seen as a sign of a significant sea change in the Government’s “regulation by prosecution” approach to financial crimes. Very often, criminal prosecution in the securities, health care, and cryptocurrency arenas is focused on violations of complex and often opaque regulations, which is why such prosecutions very often emerge alongside parallel civil investigations. Criminal defendants and their attorneys have decried the Government’s blunt force approach to criminalizing what are essentially regulatory violations using the incredibly broad federal statutes for mail fraud (18 U.S.C. 1341); wire fraud,18 U.S.C. 1343); healthcare fraud (18 U.S.C. 1347); securities and commodities fraud (18 U.S.C. 1348), and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. 1040).

Likely, this move by the DOJ does not signal a looming retreat from such prosecutions, but instead represents a more targeted effort to promote innovation in the ever-developing digital currency platforms in alignment with President Trump’s Executive Order on digital assets. The end result is that the DOJ will no longer pursue actions that impose regulatory frameworks on digital platforms, leaving this instead to President Trump’s regulators. The DOJ will prioritize cases involving misappropriation of funds, scams, and hacks with the stated goal of protecting investors and building market confidence and will continue to target crypto use by criminal organizations.

Under this new policy, prosecutors are advised against charging regulatory violations unless there is evidence of willful misconduct (criminal intent), which really seems to be restating what should have been policy all along. Importantly, the DOJ will avoid litigating whether a digital asset is a security or commodity (a retreat from the Biden era’s position), preferring charges like wire fraud, but may consider bitcoin and ether as commodities. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is adopting a similar approach, as directed by Acting Chair Caroline Pham deprioritizing registration violation actions unless there is evidence of willful non-compliance.

It is important if you are being investigated or charged with fraud to hire an attorney who has vast experience with white-collar federal criminal investigations and prosecutions. Often, early intervention in a case may prevent charges from ever being filed. Given the complexity of the federal regulations applicable to many industries, from health care to securities to banking, and the incredibly broad federal statutes that can be used to transform an investigation into a criminal case, you need to make sure that the attorney you hire has a practice that is primarily federal, with an in-depth understanding of the criminal statutes, the sentencing guidelines (driven by loss amounts and enhancements that can result in draconian sentences); federal forfeiture statutes, and restitution.

At Stahl Gasiorowski, partners Laura K. Gasiorowski and Robert Stahl have over 65 combined years of experience representing federal criminal defendants in the District of New Jersey, the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and in other federal courts across the United States. We have represented individuals and start-up platforms involving unregulated money transfer businesses, rug pulls, NFTs, material misrepresentations, and the use of paid celebrities and sport figures in marketing.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys have represented hundreds of individuals and companies subpoenaed by federal and state authorities. We have the experience and skills to effectively navigate our clients through these complex issues and investigations to achieve the best possible outcome. If you are looking for a crypto fraud lawyer,wire fraud lawyer, securities fraud lawyer or healthcare fraud lawyer, contact Mr. Stahl or Ms. Gasiorowski, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office or 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com or Ms. Gasiowski at lkg@sgdefenselaw.com.

By Laura K. Gasiorowski, Esq.

My partner Robert Stahl and I recently met with a potential client who was served with a Grand Jury Subpoena and was concerned about the potential criminal investigation and charges. This client came to the meeting with a detailed list of questions for us, many of which concerned our background, experience, and approach to handling a federal criminal case. These questions prompted me to think about what is the most important qualifications for hiring the right lawyer when a client is facing potential prosecution by the federal government.

Facing criminal charges is one of the most serious and stressful experiences anyone can endure. Whether you’re under investigation or have already been charged, one of the most important decisions you will make is choosing the right attorney to represent you. The stakes are high — your freedom, reputation, and financial future are all on the line. When the criminal charges might be federal, it is even more important to make sure that you choose the right attorney to defend you. When it comes to defending against complex federal charges, especially white-collar crimes such as fraud, embezzlement, or insider trading, not all criminal defense lawyers are the same. Here’s what you should look for when hiring a white collar criminal defense attorney:

1. Federal Court Experience Matters: Federal cases are vastly different from state criminal cases. The criminal statutes are more complex, and the penalties more severe. Federal cases also differ from state cases in terms of procedures, judges, prosecutors, and the applicable Rules. Make sure your attorney regularly practices in federal court, particularly in the jurisdictions where your case is pending (e.g., the Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, or District of New Jersey). At Stahl Gasiorowski, our primary practice area is federal criminal defense, which includes white-collar criminal defense and corporate investigations, in the District of New Jersey, and in the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York. We can, and have, handled federal criminal cases in Pennsylvania, California, Massachusetts, Maryland, Alaska and West Virginia as well.

Ask: – How many federal cases have you handled in this district? – What types of federal charges have you defended?

1. Specialization in White Collar Crimes: These cases often involve complicated financial transactions, regulatory issues, and intricate investigations that often require the assistance of investigators, experts and e-discovery providers. Electronic discovery in federal white collar cases can be staggering… in the terabytes… and require significant resources, time and familiarity with review platforms. In addition, all federal criminal cases require a deep familiarity and experience with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which your attorney must understand in order to assess your potential sentencing exposure, as well as the complicated law regarding determination of forfeiture, restitution and losses for Guideline purposes. In many cases, there are also parallel civil investigations, by the SEC, FINRA or other entities. Your attorney should have a track record defending clients charged with white-collar offenses like wire fraud, securities fraud, tax fraud, or conspiracy and other violations of federal law.

Ask: – Have you defended clients in cases similar to mine? – Do you have experience dealing with federal prosecutors, agencies like the SEC or IRS, or parallel civil investigations?

1. Reputation and Credibility: Federal prosecutors respect experienced defense attorneys who have a proven reputation in the courtroom. Judges, too, take notice of skilled advocates with a history of effective, ethical representation. Familiarity with the prosecutors (AUSAs) in the United States Attorneys’ offices, with the Judges on the bench, and with the Pretrial Services and Probation Officers is an asset when negotiating a plea, seeking to reduce charges, obtaining release or more lenient release conditions, or obtaining services for your client.

Look for: – Recognition by legal organizations – positive client testimonials – peer endorsements from other attorneys

1. Strategic Approach to Early Intervention: The earlier your attorney can get involved in your case, the better the chances of limiting your exposure to charges or penalties. Look for a lawyer who emphasizes early intervention — engaging with prosecutors before charges are filed can sometimes prevent an indictment altogether.

Ask: – How would you approach early negotiations with the government in my case?

1. Trial Experience: You may be surprised to learn that the vast majority of federal criminal cases resolve with pleas, not trial. This is because such cases are more thoroughly investigated than state cases, with greater resources. In federal trials, there is a significant “trial penalty” that may result in a more severe sentence. Sometimes, the best attorney may not be the one with the most trials under their belt, because many white-collar defense attorneys are successful by avoiding charges altogether, or resolving cases short of a trial through plea or alternative dispositions. That said, while many cases resolve through negotiations, hopefully resulting in no charges, reduced charges and a favorable plea or other disposition, you need an attorney who is fully prepared to go to trial if necessary. A lawyer who isn’t afraid to take your case before a jury can often secure better plea deals or dismissals simply because the prosecution knows they’re facing a formidable opponent who is willing and able to go to trial if necessary.

Ask: – How many federal jury trials have you conducted? – What were the outcomes of those trials?

1. Personal Attention and Communication: Federal cases can drag on for months or even years. Choose an attorney who will provide personal attention, keep you informed at every stage, and answer your questions honestly. At Stahl Gasiorowski, we take on a limited number of clients and cases so that we can provide that personal attention and devote the time necessary to thoroughly investigate and prepare a defense. We are criminal defense attorneys first and foremost. As a small firm, we provide big firm expertise, and obtain big firm results, at a better price point, and without layers of administrative assistants and lower level associates. Our partners will be handling your case.

Ask: – Who will be handling my case day-to-day? – How often will I get updates?

Bottom Line: If you or your business is under federal investigation or facing white-collar criminal charges, choosing the right lawyer is your first line of defense. Don’t settle for general criminal defense — find an advocate with federal experience, a deep understanding of white-collar law and the sentencing guidelines, and a reputation for winning tough cases or achieving good results with alternatives to incarceration, favorable pleas or non-prosecution agreements.

If you’d like a confidential consultation to discuss your federal case, contact us today. We have extensive experience defending individuals and businesses in federal courts in New Jersey and New York, and we’re ready to fight for you.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have successfully represented hundreds of individuals under complex federal and state investigations with terabytes of discovery. 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 Ms. Gasiorowski at lkg@sgdefenselaw.com or Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

Federal agents and AUSAs serve subpoenas that demand the production of huge amounts of documents and data. They seek search warrants that authorize the seizure of every electronic device at the location to be searched – computers, servers, external hard drives and cell phones. They seize tens of thousands of emails, texts and other forms of communication from businesses and individuals. This common investigative tactic results in an exponential growth in seized data to be reviewed and turned over in discovery to the defense.

A few years ago, after several high profile cases exposed the Department of Justice’s failures in processing and timely disclosing seized data to the defense, the DOJ told U.S. Attorney’s Offices around the country to collect less evidence. In late 2022, a training program was implemented to teach more than 6000 federal prosecutors to be more selective in the evidence sought and seized. This was the so called “smart collection” approach.

This approach was developed because DOJ struggled to fund and find the software and personnel needed to store and analyze the volume of electronic evidence seized. In fiscal year 2023, DOJ requested $27 million for U.S. Attorneys’ offices “e-Litigation modernization”, including 52 new positions and technology upgrades. This was in addition to DOJ’s $1.5 billion e-discovery vendor services contract awarded in 2020 and set to expire in 2027.

Putting aside the government’s issues and budget, seizures of terabytes of data require an enormous expenditure of time and resources for the defense. Effective review of the data requires hosting a search platform that can search millions of pages for key words, names and dates in an expedient fashion. Outside vendor platforms can cost thousands of dollars a month just for the platform. Add to that the time spent by paralegals and associates conducting the actual searches and initial review of the documents, and then the further review by the attorney handling the case. One can quickly see that only well-funded clients, or ones with some type of insurance or corporate backing, can afford zealous representation.

The costs for the review of massive amounts of documents and other data, coupled with potentially much lengthier prison sentences post-trial rather than a negotiated plea, account for the 95-97% rate of pleas in the federal system. Few individuals can afford the costs of a trial – legal and discovery fees, expert witness fees and the so-called “trial penalty” (harsher sentences after a loss at trial).

DOJ must do better at seizing and turning over data that falls within the confines of the items authorized to be seized in the warrant, and limiting the scope of the documents sought in grand jury subpoenas. Courts must enforce discovery obligations on the government and compel the government to produce the discovery in a timely and organized fashion that permits defendants to be properly and zealously represented, including those defendants that cannot afford costly search platforms.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have successfully represented hundreds of individuals under complex federal and state investigations with terabytes of discovery. 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@stahlegasiorowski.com Ms. Gasiorowski at lkg@stahlegasiorowski.com.

This topic is of particular relevance given the publicity surrounding the indictment, arrest and detention of Sean “P. Diddy” Combs in the Southern District of New York this week. Both at the Magistrate-Judge at the initial hearing, and the District Court Judge hearing the appeal the following day, held that no conditions of release could assure that Mr. Combs would not be a danger to the community, in particular the risk of witness tampering and obstruction in his case.

In the federal system, most people charged with non-violent offenses are released after their first appearance before a Magistrate-Judge on conditions. Those conditions are to reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person or the community. 18 U.S.C. §3142(c). Those conditions of release could be as simple as release on an unsecured appearance bond, meaning no property or money is posted, travel restricted to the continental United States, surrender of passport, surrender of any firearms and reporting to Pretrial Services as required. For certain serious cases, the conditions of release could be very stringent, including home detention with electronic monitoring where the person is only allowed out of the home only for preapproved visits with their attorney or medical appointments, surrender of family members’ passports, the posting of properties with substantial equity, and release to third party custodians who are responsible to report any violations of the conditions of release to the court.

Pretrial Services (PTS) is an arm of the court that interviews the charged individual about their background, prior addresses, any prior criminal record, assets and liabilities, frequency of travel outside the United States and any health or mental health issues. After reviewing the charges and the person’s history, PTS makes a recommendation to the court as to the conditions of release.

In determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of person and the safety of any other person or the community, the Court must consider the factors set forth in § 3142(g), not one of which is dispositive and all of which must be weighed with the underlying principle that only “a limited group of offenders” should be denied bail pending trial. Those factors include:

1. The nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether it is a crime of violence;
2. The weight of the evidence against the person;
3. The history and characteristics of the person, including the person’s character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, drug or alcohol problems, criminal history and any past record of missing court appearances; and the nature and seriousness of the danger posed to any person or the community if the person was released, including intimidation of prospective witnesses or jurors.

If the government moves for pretrial detention, risk of flight must be demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the presence of the defendant at trial. Dangerousness requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the safety of others or the community. Certain violent or drug crimes carry a presumption of detention that must be overcome by the defense to secure the person’s release pending trial. The rules of evidence and admissibility do not apply for these hearings and the government may proceed by way of proffer or witnesses. The defense has the opportunity to present their own witnesses, cross-examine any government witnesses and the defendant has the right to testify.

In the case of Sean Combs, the sex trafficking charge carries a rebuttable presumption of pretrial detention. In anticipation of these charges, his attorneys took several proactive steps to position their client in the best possible way to overcome this presumption. They had Mr. Combs pay off the remaining mortgage on his Miami home so that it could be posted as part of a $50 million bond, put his private jet up for sale so that it couldn’t be used to flee the jurisdiction, surrendered his and his family members’ passports, offered to have his travel restricted to the SDNY, SDFL and DNJ, have family members co-sign his bond, and be under strict conditions of home detention with electronic monitoring. In addition, they argued that Mr. Combs has known about the investigation and likely charges for many months and had cooperated with grand jury subpoenas and remained in the jurisdiction even though he had ample opportunity to flee.

Despite the extraordinary amount of bond and extremely strict set of conditions offered by the defense, two judges rejected those arguments and ordered that Combs be detained pending trial. The defense immediately announced that those decisions would be appealed to the Second Circuit for further review by a three judge panel.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys have successfully argued scores of bail and detention hearings, as well as successfully appealing detention orders. 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.

A recent survey of 2023 rates from top firms reveal attorney hourly rate increases of 8-14%. Notably, top partner rates now range from $2,100 to $2,720 an hour. The bottom partner rates from $1,025 to $1,995 per hour. Even more telling, first year associates, those lawyers who have just passed the Bar exam and have little to no real life experience in the practice of law, range from $660 to $895 per hour.

Most cases handled by big law firms are layered with multiple attorneys, ranging from young associates to upper class associates to junior and senior partners. Add all their rates together and you can have billings at tens of thousands of dollars an hour. There are additional costs as well, from paralegals with rates from $200 to $400 per hour or more, to discovery platforms that can costs thousands of dollars per month. Major corporations, high net worth individuals and the like can afford to pay, or have Directors and Officers insurance that pays, for these firms.

When facing criminal charges, the stakes are incredibly high. The attorney you choose can mean the difference between freedom and conviction. While larger law firms may seem to offer the best defense due to their size and resources, smaller boutique criminal defense firms present unique advantages that can significantly benefit clients. Here’s why the boutique firm of Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense is your best ally in the fight for justice.

Personalized Attention

At Stahl Gasiorowski we handle fewer cases at a time compared to big law firms. This allows for a level of personalized attention that can be pivotal in criminal cases. The intimate setting ensures that your legal team knows your case inside out and is always accessible to address your concerns. You’re not just another case number; you’re a valued client with a bespoke defense strategy tailored to your unique circumstances.

Specialized Expertise

Stahl Gasiorowski specializes in criminal defense. Our attorneys are passionate about this area of law and have dedicated their careers to perfecting their craft. Such narrow focus results in a depth of knowledge and a nuanced understanding of criminal law that’s hard to match. This expertise offers keen insights into prosecution tactics, familiarity with local court nuances, and a refined skill in crafting compelling defense strategies.

Agility and Adaptability

The types of criminal cases Stahl Gasiorowski typically handle are complex that require extensive research and review a large amounts of discovery. Skill, combined with experience and flexibility, allow us to maximize our effectiveness. We are agile, able to adapt and respond rapidly to new developments without the layers of bureaucracy that can slow down larger firms. Our structure allows us to pivot strategies and tactics swiftly, a vital asset during the high-stress proceedings of criminal defense.

Cost-Effectiveness

Since Stahl Gasiorowski only handles complex federal and state criminal matters, we are able to operate with lower overheads and, as a result, can offer more cost-effective pricing structures without compromising the quality of legal defense. This means clients have access to high-caliber legal services and a dedicated defense without the daunting costs often associated with the larger firms.

Direct Expert Representation

At Stahl Gasiorowski, clients receive representation from highly skilled, experienced attorneys, not junior associates learning on the job. This means that your case is in the hands of an experienced attorney from start to finish, bringing a level of advocacy and proficiency that can be crucial in criminal cases.

Building a Strong Attorney-Client Relationship

Facing serious criminal charges is a profoundly personal and stressful experience. We offer the opportunity to build a strong, trusting relationship with our attorneys. This connection results in a more open exchange of information, which is essential for constructing a robust defense. The trust between our clients and attorneys produces results in court, presenting a united and convincing front to judges and juries.

Conclusion

While larger firms may seem impressive with their scale and brand recognition, when it comes to criminal defense, the individualized attention and services offered at Stahl Gasiorowski offer distinct advantages. Personalized attention, specialized expertise, agility, cost-effectiveness, direct representation, and a strong attorney-client relationship are necessities in building a formidable defense.

Stahl Gasiorowski has specialized in representing individuals and corporations in federal and state criminal investigations and charges. Our partners each have more than 30 years’ experience zealously defending clients in matters involving health care fraud, crypto currency marketing and transactions, wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, drug and gun conspiracies and tax fraud.

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.

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.

Marijuana has steadfastly been listed by the DEA as a Schedule I Controlled Substance, the most highly restricted category. Schedule I drugs, like heroin, mean that there is no evidence of the drug’s medical efficacy. As recently as 2016, federal regulators concluded that there was no evidence of currently accepted medical use justifying moving marijuana to a less restricted category of drugs.

Recently, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended that marijuana could be moved to Schedule III because 38 states now have approved medical marijuana programs leading to the conclusion that marijuana has a “currently accepted medical usage”. The finding by HHS still has to be approved by the DEA which has the ultimate say whether federal regulations on marijuana can be changed. Schedule III include such drugs as steroids and Tylenol with codeine.

With the advent of numerous state approved marijuana programs there is now a sufficient body of evidence for HHS to conclude that marijuana can be used therapeutically as well as to treat pain, vomiting and other medical conditions. HHS reported that there are more than 30,000 healthcare professionals authorized to recommend the use of marijuana, and more than 6 million registered patients in state regulated programs.

HHS also concluded that marijuana is not as dangerous as other drugs in Schedule I like heroin, or Schedule II drugs like cocaine and fentanyl, or even alcohol which is not scheduled at all. HHS studied these drugs potential for abuse by examining death rates and emergency room visits. Marijuana very rarely resulted in serious adverse outcomes compared with these other highly addictive drugs, particularly heroin and alcohol.

Thus, despite marijuana’s high prevalence of abuse, the lack of serious outcomes related to that abuse resulted in HHS’s conclusion that marijuana is more properly categorized as a Schedule III drug.

Should the DEA accept and adopt this recommendation, the real world consequences are a positive step forward for people using, growing and distributing marijuana because the criminal penalties are dramatically reduced. Given the empirical data now available, it seems antiquated and non-scientifically based to keep marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance. Whether it should de-scheduled completely and simply regulated like alcohol and tobacco is for another day, perhaps after a lengthier period of study.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys actively and aggressively protect clients’ rights and have represented numerous clients faced with drug charges in federal and state courts. 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.

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.

Although New Jersey is comprised of only one federal district, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has federal courthouses in Newark, Trenton and Camden. New Jersey is among the busiest federal courts in the country. A sample of criminal cases involving financial fraud and healthcare fraud before the U.S. District Court in the Newark Vicinage in the first half of 2023 provides a snapshot of the Court’s current cases.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) define financial fraud as any scheme or artifice to defraud, or to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises. Financial fraud can take many forms, including:

• Credit card fraud: This is the use of a credit card without the owner’s permission.
• Identity theft: This is the use of someone else’s personal information, such as their Social Security number or driver’s license number, to commit fraud.
• Investment fraud: This is the use of false or misleading information to sell or trade investments.
• Healthcare fraud: This is the intentional deception or misrepresentation that is committed in order to obtain money or property from a healthcare benefit program.
• Mortgage fraud: This is the intentional deception or misrepresentation that is committed in order to obtain a mortgage loan.

The DOJ and the FBI aggressively investigate and prosecute financial fraud. Here are some of the specific statutes that the DOJ and the FBI use to combat financial fraud:

• The False Claims Act: This law allows the government to recover money that has been lost due to fraud.
• The Mail Fraud Statute: This law makes it a crime to use the mail to defraud someone.
• The Wire Fraud Statute: This law makes it a crime to use electronic communications to defraud someone.
• The Securities and Exchange Act of 1934: This law prohibits fraud in the sale of securities.
• Health Care Fraud, Title 18 USC 1347: This law prohibits fraud of a health care benefit program.

Examples of recent cases handled by the Federal Court in Newark NJ include:

• Conspiracy to Steal Cryptocurrency, 23-May-23
• Leader of International Money Laundering Organization, 4-May-23
• Bank Fraud, Identity Theft Scheme, 4-May-23
• Money Laundering, 2-May-23
• Car Theft and Fraudulent Resale Scheme, 2-May-23
• Credit Cards Stolen from U.S. Mail to Defraud Banks and Commit Identity Theft, 28-Apr-23
• Wire Fraud and Wire Fraud in Connection with Romance Scam, 14-Apr-23
• International Scheme to Defraud Elderly Victims, 6-Apr-23
• $1.5 Million Fraud Scheme that Targeted over 100 Non-Profit Victims, Including Schools and Religious Institutions, 6-Apr-23
• Essex County Postal Employee Admits Mail Theft, 3-Apr-23
• Nigerian National Indicted for Wire and Copyright Fraud Scheme, 22-Mar-23
• Scheme to Steal Mail, Commit Credit Card Fraud, and Defraud United States, 16-Mar-23
• Health Care Fraud And Kickback Schemes, 26-Jan-23
• $24 Million Health Care Fraud and Kickback Scheme, 2-May-23
• False Claims Act Allegations, 28-Apr-23
• Health Care Fraud Targeting Amtrak, 26-Apr-23
• Health Care Fraud Scheme, 14-Apr-23
• $89 Million Health Care Fraud Kickback Scheme Involving Cancer Genetic Screening Tests, 28-Mar-23
• $10 Million Scheme to Commit Health Care Fraud, 24-Mar-23
• $101 Million Health Care Kickback Scheme, 23-Mar-23

If you are convicted of financial fraud, you could face significant penalties, including imprisonment, forfeiture and restitution. The specific penalties that you face will depend on the specific crime that you committed and the amount of money involved in the fraudulent scheme.

If you are facing charges for financial fraud, it is important to speak with an experienced white-collar crime attorney as soon as possible. An attorney can help you understand the charges against you and develop a defense strategy.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys have represented scores of clients facing serious financial federal charges. 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 rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

Universities around the country have been aggressively investigating hazing. These investigations have been propelled by several tragic events that have resulted in fatalities or serious injuries usually resulting from excessive alcohol consumption.

Most university policies, as well as state laws, broadly define hazing as any type of conduct in relation to joining a fraternity, sorority, eating club or sports team that is not purely an athletic competition. Most universities have language similar to the following:

“Any student shall have the right to be free of all activities which might constitute hazing, while attempting to become a member of, or maintain membership in, a fraternity, sorority, athletic team, student organization, eating club, or other organization. Organizations, their members, and their prospective members are prohibited from engaging in or encouraging others to engage in activities that are defined as hazing.

Hazing encompasses a broad range of behaviors that may place another person in danger of bodily injury, or that demonstrates indifference or disregard for another person’s dignity or well-being.

Examples of hazing include but are not limited to the following:

• Ingestion of alcohol, food, drugs, or any undesirable substance.
• Participation in sexual rituals or assaults.
• Emotionally or psychologically abusive or demeaning behavior.
• Acts that could result in physical, psychological, or emotional deprivation or harm.
• Physical abuse, e.g., whipping, paddling, beating, tattooing, branding, and exposure to the elements, or the threat of such behaviors.
• Participation in illegal activities or activities prohibited by University policy.

Students who participate in hazing pledges are potentially subject to both criminal and university charges. Even the pledges who are subjected to hazing can and often are charged with violation of university hazing policy. Further, it is no defense to hazing that the person (pledge) consented to the activity.

Similarly, under New Jersey law, a person is guilty of hazing, “a disorderly persons offense, if, in connection with the initiation of applicants to or members of a student or fraternal organization, that person knowingly or recklessly organizes, promotes, facilitates, or engages in any conduct, other than competitive athletic events, which places or may place another person in danger of bodily injury. A person is guilty of aggravated hazing, a crime of the fourth degree, if that person commits an act which results in serious bodily injury to another person. Consent shall not be available as a defense to a prosecution under law.”

Often, students are faced with a difficult decision – if they fail to cooperate and are not candid with university disciplinary investigators, they can be disciplined for failure to cooperate and lack of honesty, while full cooperation can lead to a wider investigation of the activities and result in additional disciplinary action by the university. Conversely, anything they reveal in the university setting may be used against them in a parallel criminal investigation.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys has successfully represented a number of university students investigated and charged with hazing. We have the experience and skills to effectively navigate our clients through these complex investigations to achieve the best possible outcome. To contact Mr. Stahl or Ms. Gasiorowski, 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 Ms. Gasiowski at lkg@sgdefenselaw.com.

Domestic violence cases pose a unique challenge for prosecutors because domestic violence incidents are at once difficult to prosecute, yet extremely common, occurring, on average, about once every eight seconds throughout New Jersey, according to the statistics compiled by the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office. Domestic violence is difficult to prosecute because incidents usually happen in the privacy of the home and are only witnessed by only two people: the defendant and the alleged victim. In many cases, victims may be ambivalent about assisting the prosecution because of the impact that a criminal conviction might have on the victim or her family. In others, the victim may be confused by lingering romantic feelings for the defendant or, more troublingly, might be unable to escape the overwhelming influence of a controlling perpetrator. On the other side of the spectrum, some allegations of domestic violence assault are embellished or even completely manufactured by an aggrieved romantic partner. Against this complex backdrop, domestic violence prosecutors must contend with the grim reality that every year in New Jersey, ever more victims of domestic violence will be killed by a perpetrator who had already been prosecuted for domestic abuse. Though these fatalities can seem preventable in hindsight, identifying the most vulnerable victims in a sea of domestic violence calls is no easy task.

Over the past decade, criminal justice and public health researchers have come to identify a single risk factors as perhaps the most powerful tool for identifying perpetrators who pose the greatest risk of a future domestic violence homicide: strangulation. A 2008 study found victims of strangulation to seven times more likely to die in a domestic violence incident as compared to victims who had never been strangled (Glass et al. 2008). As noted by the New Jersey Domestic Violence Fatality Near Fatality Review Board in its 2018 report, Fatality by Strangulation, “despite strangulation being a strong predictor of homicide, it is very difficult to identify as there are typically no physical signs, such as bruises, because most injuries occur internally.” According to the Board, strangulation is not only one of the strongest predictors of future serious violence, it is extremely dangerous in and of itself, and a strangled victim may have narrowly escaped a brush with death, despite showing few outward signs of an assault. In 2019 in New Jersey, seven percent of domestic violence homicides were accomplished through strangulation. (2021 DV Fatality Review Board Annual Report).

New Jersey did not have a statute specifically targeting and criminalizing strangulation until 2017, when it became the 37th state to criminalize assault by strangulation. Under this new subsection of the aggravated assault statute, a person who knowingly or under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, recklessly obstructs the breathing or blood circulation of a person by applying pressure on the throat or neck or blocking the nose or mouth in an act of domestic violence is guilty of a third-degree aggravated assault, punishable by up to five (5) years imprisonment, a $15,000 fine, or both, whether or not the victim lost consciousness, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(13). Prior to passage of the legislation, aggravated assaults were graded in severity by the extent of injury, so, unless a victim lost consciousness, a strangulation might be prosecuted as a simple assault in municipal court.

In 2021, Governor Phil Murphy increased the criminal penalties for strangulation as more studies highlighted the dangers of strangulation. The 2021 legislation elevated the criminal penalties for strangulation to a crime of the second degree, punishable by up to ten years imprisonment, a fine of up to $150,000, or both, and a presumption of imprisonment. At the time, Governor Murphy stated that “[r]esearch has shown that strangulation is often one of the strongest red flags for predicting future homicides of victims of domestic violence. This legislation recognizes the seriousness of strangulation assault and gives us the tools necessary to hold people accountable for their actions.”

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys has represented a number of individuals investigated and charged with domestic violence charges. To contact Mr. Olesnycky, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Olesnycky at ao@sgdefenselaw.com.

Law enforcement and intelligence agencies around the world use facial recognition technology and other AI in investigations to track targets’ movements and as evidence in prosecutions. While books and movies often portray this technology as highly advanced and foolproof, reality can be quite different. Recent cases have demonstrated that facial recognition technology is far from foolproof and may lead to even more misidentifications when identifying people of color.

Companies such as Clearview AI have contracts with law enforcement agencies across the United States. Clearview scrapes billions of photos from social media for its database. Photos from LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram and the public web are uploaded to its database. For an annual fee, law enforcement has access to a face-based search engine. Obviously, a number of factors affect the reliability of the search results. The quality and resolution of the surveillance photo used for the search, the ethnicity of the subject, and the number and age of the comparison photos can all affect the results.

The most troubling, however, is that it appears that in a number of cases law enforcement failed to use other investigative means before seeking arrest warrants for the individuals “identified” by facial recognition software. As Clearview’s CEO made clear to the New York Times recently, when its technology comes up with an “initial result” that should be the starting point in law enforcement’s investigation, not the conclusion. In other words, facial recognition technology should only be used as one investigative tool that may provide a lead in an investigation that must then be coupled with other basic investigative steps.

A recent example of this is the case of Randal Quran Reid who was driving near Atlanta when he was stopped and arrested for alleged thefts in Louisiana. The police in Baton Rouge and Jefferson Parish had apparently used facial recognition from store videos purporting to show Mr. Reid stealing valuable items. Warrants for his arrest were issued and Mr. Reid was held for days pending extradition for crimes he did not commit. The NYT reports that it seems likely that local police simply used the faulty facial recognition identification to obtain the arrest warrants. It is difficult to know for sure because many law enforcement agencies do not reveal that such technology was used, or that it was the sole or primary basis for the warrant.

What should officials in Louisiana have done before issuing an arrest warrant based on facial recognition? First, actually compare the photos to Mr. Reid. According to the article, Mr. Reid is smaller, lighter and less muscular that the actual thief. Next, investigate to see if Mr. Reid was actually in Louisiana around the time of the thefts. How does one determine that? Examine credit card receipts for gas purchases or any other items in the state, travel records and EZ-Pass records, social media, license plate readers and the like. Conversely, look to see if there is evidence that Mr. Reid was in his home state during the thefts. In fact, had law enforcement checked, they would have discovered that Mr. Reid had never been to Louisiana.

Artificial intelligence is advancing at breakneck speed and law enforcement is eager to use all forms of technology to assist in their investigations. The key, however, is AI should only be used to “assist” not conclude. Traditional investigative techniques must be employed to corroborate and verify the alleged results of such database searches, lest more innocent people sit in jail hoping that their attorneys can free them.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys actively and aggressively protect clients’ rights and challenge the use of such AI based searches in pretrial hearings and trial. 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.

Many clients seek counsel after they have been interviewed by federal agents. They spoke with the agents after the agents surprised them at home or work. When asked why they spoke to the agents without contacting counsel first, clients routinely say that they thought it would be a brief interview and that they didn’t want the agents to think that they had anything to hide. Afterwards, many clients realize that the interview was lengthy, detailed and at times confrontational.

It’s understandable that people in that situation talk with the agents – they are approached without notice, the agents are friendly and suggest that it won’t take long and that they are simply trying to gather some information. Agents count on people’s desire to be helpful and non-confrontational. What the agents get are “statements” from people who have not had time to think about their answers, review documents or emails that might refresh their recollection, let alone meet and discuss the matter with counsel to determine whether it would be beneficial or harmful to be interviewed. Those statements become memorialized in a report of interview that can later be used as potential evidence against the client. In addition, if any of the statements are materially false, the client could be separately prosecuted for false statements to a federal agent, in addition to whatever criminal conduct was originally under investigation.

While it is understandable that agents often get people to speak with them without counsel, it is unfathomable that clients would speak with the media about their cases. One such glaring example of a client not following their attorneys’ advice is the founder of the now bankrupt crypto exchange firm, FTX. Sam Bankman-Fried has been on a media tour recently sitting down with Andrew Ross Sorkin of the New York Times, as well as reporters from Vox and an appearance on Good Morning America. All this is in addition to his letters, statements and tweets where he portrays himself as a naïve kid in over his head.

FTX lost billions in investors’ monies. The court appointed liquidator has said that he has never seen such a complete failure of corporate controls and was having difficulty determining how much cash FTX has or where it could be. Recent reports indicate that Bankman-Fried and other corporate officers took “loans” in excess of $4.1 billion, with $121 million going towards 19 properties in the Bahamas, private plane trips, lavish parties and other luxuries. In the face of a bankruptcy liquidator, investigations by the SEC, law enforcement and a Senate Hearing, Bankman-Fried has publicly made material statements about the alleged facts, his knowledge and intent, and company operations. For instance, he has said that he didn’t knowingly commit fraud, that the company was disorganized and overleveraged, no one at FTX was in charge of risk management or for determining potential conflicts of interest, and that he didn’t know if funds were commingled with another one of his companies, the hedge fund Alameda Research, that may have borrowed significant sums of FTX customers’ monies.

Bankman-Fried readily admits that he is granting media interviews against the advice of his attorneys, but that staying silent it’s not who he is and that he has a duty to talk to people. Disregarding the advice of his attorneys, and likely his parents who are Stanford University law professors, will almost certainly turn out to be a huge mistake that will ultimately be used against him by the SEC, law enforcement and potential victims in a civil action. While it is human nature to want to defend one’s self and reputation, and a natural desire to try to counter bad press, with public reports of misuse of funds and potential fraud, it is reckless to talk to the media about an ongoing investigation.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys 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.

For years, courts around the country have admitted “expert” testimony on bitemark analysis. These so-called experts have opined that bitemarks on human skin, often presented in sexual assault and murder trials, are distinct and “match” the defendant’s dental records.

A new comprehensive federal report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), still in its draft/commentary stage, finds quite the opposite. The report states in relevant part, “forensic bitemark analysis lacks a sufficient scientific foundation because the three key premises of the field are not supported by the data . . . . First, human anterior dental patterns have not been shown to be unique at the individual level. Second, those patterns are not accurately transferred to human skin consistently. Third, it has not been shown that defining characteristics of those patterns can be accurately analyzed to exclude or not exclude individuals as the source of a bitemark.”

Bitemark analysis relies on the assumptions that teeth marks are unique, that they reliably transfer to surfaces such as skin, and that the marks can then be analyzed and linked to specific individuals. The NIST Report notes that it is not clear that bites leave distinct patterns because bites usually consist only of the front (anterior) teeth and the marks they leave can vary greatly depending on injuries, breakages, or obstructions. Second, skin is the surface most often analyzed for bitemarks, but it’s malleable and doesn’t reliably hold teeth marks over time depending on the rate and amount of swelling at the site, healing, and skin elasticity. Third, linking bitemarks that may or may not be unique, left on elastic surfaces that swell and heal, to people is riddled with uncertainty.

The Report’s key takeaways reveal that bitemark analysis lacks sufficient scientific foundation; dental patterns have not been shown to be unique; those patterns are not accurately transferred to human skin consistently; there is a lack of data to demonstrate that anterior (front teeth) dental patterns are unique; a number of studies have shown high levels of inaccuracies; and there is insufficient support in the scientific community as to the accuracy of such analysis.

Bitemarks, along with hair and shoe prints analysis, all have been debunked to a large extent in recent years as lacking objective test of scientific validity. Yet, scores of defendants remain in prison based, at least in part, on highly questionable “expert” analysis and testimony. The scope of the problem was evidenced in 2015, when the FBI admitted that nearly every one of the experts at its microscopic hair analysis lab had given scientifically invalid testimony. This erroneous testimony affected close to 270 cases, of those, 32 defendants were sentenced to death and 14 were executed or died in prison.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend our clients’ rights, including moving to exclude faulty analysis of crime scene “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.

On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision that dramatically altered a citizen’s ability to carry a firearm outside one’s home. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, was a challenge to New York State’s Law requiring justifiable need and good cause for an individual to secure a permit for concealed carry of a firearm. The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment afforded individuals the right to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense and that the necessity of justifiable need would be an infringement on that right.

The Bruen decision has led to a dramatic change in New Jersey law. Prior to Bruen, New Jersey, like New York, issued only a handful of such permits as N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4 required every applicant to “demonstrate a justifiable need to carry a handgun.” That need was strictly interpreted.

Thus, on June 24, 2022, Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin issued Law Enforcement Directive No. 2022-07 urging all police departments to process concealed carry permits by continuing to implement statutory prohibitions, background checks and firearms familiarity as required by N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(1) – (11) and N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4(b). With the change in law, Governor Murphy predicted that 200,000 applications for concealed carry permits would likely be filed. The system, however, was designed to handle a very small number of applications. For instance in 2014, in a state with a population almost 9 million residents, only 496 concealed carry permits were issued.

New applications have already overloaded the application process, police departments and the Courts. Several counties are requiring hearings before the Presiding Criminal Division Judge to determine the eligibility, restrictions, and approval of concealed carry permits. These courts, already severely backlogged with criminal cases that were on hold during the COVID-19 pandemic, are now deluged with carry permit applications. While it remains to be seen how the Courts will adjust to the volume of applicants, as well as, what new or additional restrictions may be introduced by law makers, one thing is certain, applicants will endure a long and arduous process. These delays will be met with pressure from applicants citing N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4, which states: “If the application is not approved by the chief police officer or the superintendent within 60 days of filing, it shall be deemed to have been approved, unless the applicant agrees to an extension of time in writing”.

In the wake of Bruen, Governor Murphy also implemented new training and safety requirements for those applying for a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (FID). An FID is required for any New Jersey Resident to purchase a firearm. On July 5, 2022, Governor Murphy signed into law new revisions to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3 to take effect immediately. Revisions included “In order to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun or firearms purchaser identification card, the applicant shall demonstrate that, within four years prior to the date of the application, the applicant satisfactorily completed a course of instruction approved by the superintendent in the lawful and safe handling and storage of firearms. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate completion of a course of instruction only once prior to obtaining either a firearms purchaser identification card or the applicant’s first permit to purchase a handgun.” In addition, a NJ FID Card must now display a color photograph and thumb print of the card holder and the card holder must now renew their FID Card every ten (10) years. NJ FID Cards previously had no expiration date.

The immediate implementation of these revisions caused further confusion and delays. A number of municipalities stopped processing applications, uncertain which training course(s) would be approved by the State Police Superintendent. Another issue involves the cards themselves. FID Cards now must bear both the photograph and thumbprint of the card holder. The current system, however, was designed to distribute approved FID cards in a digital format. Towns are now concerned whether new equipment to print the FID cards with photographs and thumb prints must be purchased. Indecision regarding the new statutory amendments reached its peak when the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office issued a directive to all municipal police departments in the county to stop processing and issuing FID cards until clarification on fulfillment of new protocols was established by both the Superintendent and Governor.

In a speech to members of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, the Governor announced that the Superintendent had approved a new online course to satisfy the training requirement of the new law. This instructional safety course, provided free of charge to first time applicants, was implemented on Monday, September 16, on the New Jersey Firearms Application & Registration portal found on the NJSP’s website. The Governor also confirmed that all County Prosecutors were to process first-time purchaser applications without the requirement of the new amendments.

Undoubtedly, New Jersey has one of the nations’ strictest set of gun laws. Experienced and skillful legal advice can greatly assist applicants navigating the ever-changing landscape of firearm ownership in New Jersey.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys have represented numerous clients facing a variety of issues involving firearms and firearm ownership at both the state and federal level. 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

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.

Cybercrimes – hacking, phishing, ransomware and the like – are well-known to every user of the internet. We are bombarded weekly with emails and texts claiming that we need to update our passwords, personal profile, and the like. Now comes the rise of what has been called “romance scams”. The typical scheme starts with a fake dating profile on an online dating site. Fake name, picture, background, likes and what the alleged person is looking for in a mate is established. Once selected, the fraudster starts a series of on-line communications that lure the unsuspecting victim in with attention, romance and affection. The fraudster then sets out a story about why s/he needs money – lost their passport and credit cards while on a trip; a co-worker was injured and it was the fault of the scammer; needs money for a sick relative – always with the promise to return the money.

In 2021, it was reported that victims were scammed out of at least $547 million, an 80% increase over 2020. This figure is likely conservative since many victims of romance scams are too embarrassed to report them or the amounts are too small for law enforcement to actively investigate. Not unexpectedly, recently divorced and windowed women are frequent targets of romance scams.

Federal law enforcement has discovered that many of these types of scams are run out of Nigeria by organized groups, a well-known hotbed for cyber fraud and money laundering schemes. Many others, however, are simply con artists here in the United States looking for easy marks by preying on someone’s kindness, loneliness and vulnerabilities.

While older woman are common targets, the government reported that people between the ages of 18-29 are increasingly targets resulting in a tenfold increase from 2017 to 2021. Netflix documented one such scam in its documentary “The Tinder Swindler”. The film recounted the exploits of Shimon Hayut who held himself out as the son of a famous Russian-Israeli diamond scion. He lavished his victims with first class travel, jewelry and clothing using the proceeds from prior victims. His promotion of his lavish lifestyle on social media – private jets, yachts, expensive watches and clothes – was one way he recruited his victims. Once he lured a woman in, he then fabricated tales of being in danger and needing money for his safety.

These types of schemes are particularly heinous. They not only deprive the victims of often limited resources, they prey on their vulnerabilities, often leaving the victims psychologically scarred and feeling deeply violated. Victims are often too embarrassed to tell family, friend or law enforcement. Some are even left believing that the person who romanced them was genuine and something bad must have happened to him after they lose contact.

Recently, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, FBI and other federal agencies have been aggressively investigating and prosecuting these hideous schemes as often there are multiple victims totaling substantial losses.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys 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 rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

In response to a dramatic surge in car thefts across New Jersey, State Attorney General Matt Platkin announced today that he is reversing a policy that prevented police officers from pursuing stolen cars. In late 2021, Platkin effected a statewide policy that prohibited police from chasing a stolen car unless they suspected it had been used in the most serious of crimes, such as murder, vehicular homicide or kidnapping. Thus, the A.G.’s policy prohibited police from pursuing a car simply because it had been stolen.

After scores of stolen vehicles, and complaints from citizens, local government officials and police, Platkin relented to now permit police to chase a car they think has been stolen.

Last year, Platkin said he wanted to limit police chases because high-speed car chases are dangerous, and can put police officers and innocent drivers alike at risk. It was part of an overhaul led by Governor Murphy to reduce the use of force by police. However, with motor vehicle thefts up 127% from last January state officials recognized that the policy needed to be changed.

In addition, Platkin and Gov. Murphy announced that the state would use $10 million in American Rescue Plan funds to purchase automated license plate recognition technology. The funds will allow local police departments to purchase high-speed, automated camera systems that capture and store computer-readable images of license plates. These license-plate readers will be placed at “strategic locations throughout” towns and the N.J. State Police will also deploy cameras along major highways.

According to the Attorney General’s office, the most commonly stolen luxury vehicles are BMW X6, Land Rover Range Rover Sport, Audi Q5 and BMW X3.

The top vehicles stolen statewide in 2022 include Honda Accord, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Honda CR-V, BMW X5 and BMW 3-Series.

High speed chases are dangerous to the officers involved, as well as innocent drivers and pedestrians that may be injured when the stolen vehicle or the police crash. Police must use common sense, as well as policy guidelines, in their pursuits. More often than not, a stolen vehicle is just that – stolen – not a car being used to commit a serious felony. Many high end cars are stolen from wealthy suburbs because the owners negligently leave the keys in their car in their driveway or unlocked garage. Others are left running at convenience stores while their owners run in for a quick purchase. These types of thefts are crimes of opportunity and can be easily eliminated. Other car thefts involve use of force, specialized electronic equipment or fraudulent schemes that obtain access to vehicles that are much more difficult to combat.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have extensive experience representing 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.