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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

It’s 6 a.m. or 8 p.m., your doorbell rings and two people are standing outside holding up their badges and credentials. They say they are Special Agents with the FBI or IRS and would like to talk with you for just a few minutes about something important. They ask if they could come in to speak with you privately. Caught off-guard, and not wanting them to think that you have anything to hide, you invite them in (and, of course, you don’t want your neighbors to see them talking to you on your front steps). The agents are “friendly” and just have a few questions to get your input, your side of things, or to serve you with a grand jury subpoena. You decide to talk to them, only for a few minutes, in the comfort of your own home or office. At the end, they thank you for your time and hand you either a grand jury subpoena or a “target letter.”

After they leave, you start to wonder – what did I say? How much did I tell them? Am I in trouble, did I implicate myself or others? You start to look for an attorney. You can’t ask your family or friends who they hired last time the FBI or IRS visited them because you don’t know anyone who ever faced such a situation. So, you scour the internet to find an experienced criminal defense attorney, one with a lot of federal experience because it’s a federal investigation.

The next day you’re in the attorney’s office. After talking to the attorney you realize that what you thought was an innocuous 15 -30 minute chat with the FBI was actually an hour and a half where you told them some things, but not others. You discover that it is a federal crime to lie to the agents. You learn that it doesn’t matter that they didn’t read you your rights, like in the movies, because you weren’t “in custody.” When you tell the lawyer that you only spoke to them because you didn’t want the agents to think you were involved or guilty, the lawyer tells you that the agents already think that you’re involved, that’s why they were at your house to interview you in the first place. You then learn that there were two agents so that the interview was witnessed by two of them for credibility later on if you dispute what you said. You learn that a “target letter” is issued by an Assistant U.S. Attorney because she believes that you are involved in criminal activity and wants you to come in with your attorney to negotiate a plea of guilty. You realize that it was a mistake to say anything to the agents without first talking with an experienced white-collar criminal defense attorney.

So, what should you do in such a situation? The safest course would be to politely tell the agents that while you would like to talk with them, you need to contact your attorney and that he will get back to them. Ask them for their business cards so that you can give the information to your attorney. If they don’t have cards, write down their names, agency and contact information. Do not under any circumstances talk with them about the subject matter of their investigation. After they leave, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney to discuss your rights, potential exposure and your options.

If you did talk with the agents, experienced criminal defense counsel can help you get through the situation and protect your rights going forward. The task will be to mitigate any statements made and develop an overall strategy to succeed.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have successfully represented hundreds of individuals under federal and state investigations. 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.

In its June 3rd decision, the Supreme Court greatly narrowed the scope of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The CFAA, the main federal anti-hacking law, prohibits outside actors from illegally accessing – breaking into – government or private computer networks. In addition, it is routinely used to charge authorized users of a computer network who exceed the scope of their access, those who “access a computer with authorization and use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accessor is not entitled to obtain or alter.” Such instances include employees taking corporate secrets, customer lists, source codes and the like.

The case, Van Buren v. United States, involved a local police officer who accepted money from a third party for him to access the police database to check on whether an individual was an undercover officer. Thus, the officer exceeded the authorized use of the government database. In its 6-3 decision, the majority of the Court held that the CFAA’s language was too broad in scope, that it would “attach criminal penalties to a breathtaking amount of commonplace computer activity.” The majority sided with the defense’s argument that the CFAA’s broad language allows prosecutors, and private entities seeking civil remedies under the law, to pursue claims based on activities as minor as an employee breaching company policy by sending a personal email on a work computer or researchers who exceed the scope of a website’s terms of service.

The CFAA was enacted in 1984, and amended in 1986, at the infancy of the internet. It has since been used by corporate employers and the federal government to charge insiders with exceeding the scope of their authorized access or use. Since its enactment, the internet and use of computer networks have greatly expanded and access issues have become much more sophisticated and complex. The ill-defined, broad language in the statute was likely due to the nascent use of computers in 1984. The Court’s decision will likely result in Congress rewriting the statute to clarify its scope and reflect today’s computer usage. In the meantime, corporations will likely tighten their employment rules regarding access and privileged data, and the government will look to use other statutes in these types of cases.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense is here for all of your criminal legal needs during this time. 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.

With our societal addiction to the internet, smartphones, and computers, today’s teens face growing exposure to new forms of harassment and bullying. These can sometimes lead to criminal charges for those engaging in this conduct, and potentially anxiety, depression and, suicidal thoughts for the recipients.

Sexting is the sending, receiving or forwarding of sexually explicit material over electronic devices, including cellphones and computers. Sexually explicit material includes nude or partially nude photos or videos. Studies have revealed that more than 50% of young adults have sent nude or seminude photos of themselves to others, and more than 70% have received such materials. New Jersey, like many states, criminalizes the sending, possession, sharing or viewing of sexually explicit photos and videos of anyone under the age of 18 under its child pornography laws. That means that a student under 18 who sends a nude photo of themselves to another student under 18 could face criminal prosecution. While there is a diversionary program available for juveniles charged with their first sexting offense, these are serious matters that persist in middle and high schools across the country.

Revenge porn, also referred to as non-consensual pornography, is the distribution of sexually explicit images of an individual without his or her consent and without legitimate purpose. It is an ever-increasing, invasive form of cyber harassment. It usually involves a former sexual partner, who sends nude photos or videos to the victim’s family, friends, or employer in an effort to degrade, embarrass, and harass. In New Jersey, this form of harassment is a third-degree crime, exposing the perpetrator to 3-5 years in state prison.

Cyberbullying is the repeated and intentional harassment of another person over electronic devices. Cyberbullying is rampant among teenagers and has recently resulted in a number of highly publicized suicides by victims. Studies have demonstrated that the adverse impact of cyberbullying can last much longer and cause greater damage than traditional forms of in-person bullying.

These activities are the latest form of domestic violence, stalking, and harassment. They carry serious criminal penalties and require experience and expertise to handle correctly, as they risk incarceration, criminal fines and penalties, and civil restraining orders.

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

Former Rutgers Student Charged with Computer Crimes in the Mirai Botnet Internet Attack

Robert Stahl, leaving the federal courthouse in Trenton on Wednesday, Dec. 13, 2017 with former Rutgers student, left. (Jeff Granit | For NJ.com)

News Coverage on the Mirai Botnet Internet Crime Case:

Represented NJ Rutgers student charged in the District of New Jersey and the District of Alaska with a massive cyber attack identified as the Mirai botnet, which infected Internet connected devices, known as the internet of things (IoT) to attack major websites with a “distributed denial of service” (DDoS) attacks, bringing the sites down. Infected devices included unsecured webcams, security cameras and wireless routers. The Mirai botnet was distributed online, and affected the French hosting provider OVH and Brian Krebs own security website that reports on such attacks. Mirai was later used to bring down Dyn, the domain name system used by Twitter, PayPal, Spotify, and Reddit.

• NJ.com, January 6, 2018
  Cybercrime, murder and ‘The Situation’: The top court cases to watch in 2018
• Fox 5 NY, January 4, 2018
  How the Mirai botnet attack is linked to a Minecraft stunt

• Reuters, December 13, 2017
  Three U.S. men plead guilty to crimes tied to 2016 botnet attacks
• The Times of London, December 19, 2017
  Student gamers behind Mirai cyberattack
• NJ.com, December 14, 2017
  How much did hacker who taunted Rutgers cost the school?
• NJ.com, December 13, 2017
  Former Rutgers student admits to creating code that crashed internet
• The Economic Times, December 19, 2017
  What fuels the demand cycle, as Bitcoins despite concerns, surge to 20K?
• Law 360, December 13, 2017
  3 Men Cop to Mirai Malware Attacks in NJ, Alaska
• ZDNet, December 13, 2017
  Mirai botnet attackers plead guilty for roles in cyberattacks
• American Security Today, December 13, 2017
  Guilty Pleas in Computer Crime Cases Involving Massive DDoS Attacks

• KTUU Channel 2 NBC News, December 13, 2017
  Alaska spearheads investigation into ‘one of the most powerful cyberattacks in history’

• Internet of Business, December 18, 2017
  Three plead guilty in US to developing Mirai botnet
• Wired Magazine, December 13, 2017
  How a Dorm Room Minecraft Scam Brought Down the Internet

Read More News on Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers

If you have been charged with an Internet crime, it is wise to seek legal advice whether you are an individual or a business. Our attorneys can represent not just individuals but also businesses of all sizes. These include from small shops to Fortune 100 companies.

Common Internet crimes today include computer hacking, Internet identify theft and illegal Internet gambling. People can also be accused of engaging in work-at-home schemes that are considered fraudulent, stealing trade secrets or proprietary computer software, or selling illegal drugs via the Internet. It is also possible for people to be charged with the intentional harming of another person’s computer using electronic viruses.

Internet crimes in the state of New Jersey may result in penalties, such as prison time for interstate wire fraud. Criminal charges related to the Internet are usually leveled with other types of charges, such as business fraud and securities fraud. No matter how serious your charges are, our criminal defense attorneys will strive for the most favorable outcome for you — whether that means proceeding to trial or accepting a plea deal, if offered by prosecutors — while also ensuring that your applicable legal rights are not violated during any stage of the criminal proceedings.

A federal investigation into the activities of one Facebook user that resulted in criminal charges and a trial recently drew the attention of the United States Supreme Court. The criminal case focused on threats a man was alleged to have made against his wife and several other people and groups by posting violent lyrics from a rap song on Facebook.

The criminal defense strategy offered at the trial was that the federal statute under which the defendant was charged required prosecutors to prove the intent to make a threat. The trial judge took the position that the context or circumstances under which the allegedly threatening statements were made was sufficient without a showing of actual intent.

Although an intermediate appellate court agreed with the trial judge and refused to overturn the conviction and penalties, the Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the conviction. The Court ruled that even though the cybercrime did not include a provision making proof of intent a requirement, a conviction of a violation of a criminal law must be based upon proof that the defendant intended the wrongdoing for which he or she is charged.

People frequently forget that social media, email and the Internet are relatively recent developments. It might come as a surprise to many that this case is the first one from the Supreme Court pertaining to social media. If you have been charged with a computer or Internet-based crime, having your criminal defense handled by attorneys with experience representing clients facing such complex criminal charges is essential.

Source: The National Law Review,”Supreme Court Limits criminal Law’s Reach to Social Media Posts; Avoids First Amendment Issue,” June 8. 2015

Many of us have made comments online that we later regret. So how do you know if you committed the crime of cyber-bullying?

New Jersey law refers to cyber-bullying as cyber-harassment. Under that law, you may have committed the crime of cyber-bulling if you:

• threatened to harm or injure another person or the property of another person;
• posted, sent, requested, or suggested indecent or obscene material about another person; or
• threatened to commit a crime against another person or the property of another person.

Moreover, you must have communicated the threats or comments online through some electronic device or social networking website. Another key element of the crime is your intent. In other words, you must have acted with the specific purpose to harass the other person.

The severity of punishments for cyber-bullying depends on a number of factors. Typically, cyber-bullying is considered to be a crime in the fourth degree. This means that it carries a possible jail sentence of up to 18 months. Cyber-bullying can be considered a crime of the third degree, which is more serious, if you are 21 or older at the time of the offense and you impersonated a minor for the purposes of harassing a minor. Under New Jersey law, crimes of the third degree carry a potential penalty of three to five years in prison.

Cyber-bullying can still be a crime even if the person who committed the act is a minor. Children and teenagers under the age of 16 who are found to be delinquent for cyber-harassment may face consequences. For example, they could be ordered by a court to complete cyber-harassment classes or programs. Or, their parents or guardians could be ordered to pay a fine.

Has you or a loved one has been charged with the crime of cyber-bullying? You should speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

Ulbricht, who went by the darknet moniker “Dread Pirate Roberts,” could face imprisonment for up to 30 years. He has also been accused of attempting to arrange the murders of six people because he allegedly thought that they posed a threat to the anonymity and operations of the Silk Road.

The tactics and techniques used by federal agents and federal attorneys offer a glimpse into the various ways that they use to investigate and prosecute Internet crimes. They monitored Bitcoin transactions (an alternative and supposedly anonymous way to make purchases online) and chat logs, including supposedly secure servers and social media sites. Nor did they confine their activities to the virtual world; federal agents placed Ulbricht under physical surveillance, arresting him in a public library as he was logging onto a notebook computer using a Silk Road alias.

One lesson to take away from this case is that if you are accused of an Internet crime in New Jersey, it is possible or even likely that the activities of others in different states or even foreign countries can also be entwined with the illegal acts with which you have been charged, and that multiple federal agencies will be involved against you. In such an eventuality, you will need the services of a legal defense team that is already familiar with federal prosecutions, federal laws, federal rules of criminal procedure and federal courts.

You can count on the federal government to bring to bear a vast array of both technical and legal resources against you. The protection of your legal rights, including any possibility of acquittal or at least mitigation of the charges against you, is also something that you will need to count on.

Source: PC World, “5 technologies that betrayed Silk Road’s anonymity,” Joab Jackson, Feb. 9, 2015

Secondary source: USA Today, “Silk Road mastermind tied to alleged murder plot,” Kevin McCoy, Feb. 2, 2015

A new type of Internet crime is the focus of an investigation by the Federal Drug Administration. “Medjacking” refers to a hacker’s ability to interfere with the remote delivery of medication through a medical device that is controlled through a computer. The possibility of such a crime occurring is so real that even the Department of Homeland Security is involved.

The specific device under the microscope is an infusion pump that remotely delivers medication to a patient on a schedule determined by a hospital’s computer system. As with almost any computer system, the hospital’s may be vulnerable to hacking. And hacking the delivery system of the medication could result in serious medical issues or even death without the hospital or the patient having any idea of how it occurred.

Until now, if someone wanted to cause serious injury to another person, there generally had to be some form of personal interaction. But now, a weak firewall, or an outdated one that hasn’t been programmed to anticipate such cyberattacks, can lead to death. Under this theory, a wife who wants to inherit her husband’s insurance policy no longer has to hire a hitman with a gun, but just a hacker with a keyboard.

While no reports of actual injury have been found in New Jersey or any other state, the risk is so real that the FDA has recommended that hospitals no longer use the product. And, as an added layer of protection, the manufacturer is offering patients who have already been equipped with the devices additional security against hacking.

Cybercrimes can be serious offenses but sometimes the end results were not intended by the person charged with the crime. Third parties can hack another person’s technology to cause harm another person without the knowledge of either victim. If you have been charged with computer or Internet-based crime that either you didn’t commit or that had consequences you hadn’t intended, contact an attorney familiar with state and federal cybercrime laws to discuss your rights.

What is relatively new is the misuse of the Internet as an extension of stalking activity. But while “ordinary” stalking is easy to identify, for example, following a person, showing up at his or her home or place of work unexpectedly, making unwanted phone calls, leaving unwanted gifts, or even issuing threats, the question in the age of the Internet becomes, “How does one ‘virtually’ stalk another?”

The answer to this question is based on how the Internet has changed, added to or extended the activities that constitute stalking. Some ways that a person can engage in cyberstalking include, but are not necessarily limited to:

• Sending unwanted emails. This is perhaps the most common form of cyberstalking with more than 80 percent of cyberstalking victims report receiving such unwelcome attention.
• Using the Internet to follow another person in improper ways. As an example, the availability of sites that can make another person’s address, phone number, identity of relatives or even court records available for a small fee opens a range of unwanted and even dangerous possibilities for cyberstalking or even in-person stalking.
• Using social media and other virtual means to maliciously damage the reputation of another. An ex-spouse or lover who posts compromising photos on the Internet, or who spreads false or defamatory statements about another person, is engaging in a form of cyberstalking. This particular form of behavior is related to “cyberbullying,” and in some cases the effect can be so devastating that the victim has even committed suicide as a result.

The advent of cyberstalking, and both federal and New Jersey laws meant to combat it, can at times risk confusing innocent curiosity with unhealthy obsession. Although most of the time those accused of virtual stalking may deserve the accusation, it can be possible to be charged with such behavior when there was no malicious intent.

Anyone who has been charged with cyberstalking may want to retain an experienced criminal defense law firm to protect his or her rights in negotiations and, if necessary, at trial.

Today the Internet is not only seen as a peripheral tool to help people but it has become a business itself. So many people can now enter into transactions and conduct business without any paper, and cross international borders without ever leaving their home because of the Internet. The former niche tool has become the lifeblood of many businesses

As with every young technology or industry, the law must adapt and learn as the technology advances and the industry grows. The Internet is no different and what many online users may believe is innocent conduct may in fact be a violation of a new law that was enacted to regulate and control Internet activity.

Many businesses, large, medium and small are vulnerable to charges of Internet crimes because their employees may be using company resources to upload illegal viruses, steal another person’s identity or engage in illegal computer hacking.

Internet crimes are particularly complex because they are often accompanied with other charges. It is these factors that a skilled criminal defense attorney will have to prepare for when defending against charges of Internet crimes.

The lawyers at the Law of Offices of Robert G. Stahl have experience in defending New Yorkers who have been charged with various Internet crimes, and are familiar with complexity of the law concerning these charges. If you or a loved one is facing a charge of an Internet crime, please contact our office to learn how we may be able to help.

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

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

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

Wire Fraud and Mail Fraud

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

Bankruptcy Fraud

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

Health Care Fraud

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

Securities Fraud

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

The False Claims Act

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

Material False Statements

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

The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010

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

Bank Fraud

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

Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act

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

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

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

Immigration Fraud

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

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

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

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