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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

When someone is facing criminal charges they usually worry about the effects on family, reputation and their freedom. And while one’s freedom is of primary importance, there are also serious collateral consequences from a guilty plea or conviction. The loss of voting rights, inability to own firearms, loss or suspension of professional licenses and freedom of movement are some of the long-lasting effects of a criminal record.

In addition to travel restrictions that may be imposed by probation, parole or the court, many countries will not allow entry of persons with criminal records. Some countries only ban visitors with recent, serious criminal violations, while others are much stricter and ban those with even minor or very old convictions. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are particularly vigilant about visitors with even relatively minor criminal records. The United Kingdom routinely denies entry to visitors with convictions that are less than 10 years old or ones that resulted in prison sentences of 30 months or more. European Union countries are generally less restrictive, but may prohibit entry if the sentence was greater than 3 years.

Entry into the United States is strictly monitored by U.S. Customs. Visitors convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude and aggravated felonies are prohibited from entry or obtaining Visas. These categories of crimes are very broad and encompass most types of offenses.

Just recently, U.S. citizens who have been convicted of sex offenses against children will be issued special passports that contain a declaration stating that fact. Under new legislation known as International Meagan’s Law, Homeland Security will notify the State Department to revoke the passports of citizens with these types of convictions. They will then be issued a new passport containing a declaration of the offense. This new law is intended to “protect children and others from sexual abuse and exploitation, including sex trafficking and sex tourism.”

When planning to travel abroad, those with convictions should check the country’s website for specific information about the types of offenses that will prohibit their entry.

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

A felony conviction has a serious impact on a defendant’s life, even beyond the obvious immediate consequences of sentencing. A person who has a felony conviction on their record forfeits certain rights that other members of the community enjoy. In some jurisdictions there exists a process by which an individual can seek to have a felony conviction expunged from their record, but even this process may not fully restore every right and privilege that the person held prior to their conviction.

Civic Participation

The right to participate in the civic process is one of the most fundamental rights of citizenship, but that right may be temporarily or permanently lost as the result of a felony conviction. Persons with such a conviction on their record may not vote, sit on a jury, or serve as a notary public. The terms of this disenfranchisement vary by state; some states permanently revoke these civil rights, and a person seeking to regain them must submit a petition for pardon or clemency. In other states, felons retain their right to vote even while serving their prison sentence (albeit by absentee ballot). Most states fall somewhere in between. New York and New Jersey restore an ex-offender’s voting rights after their sentence has been completely served, including incarceration and parole. In New Jersey, any probation must also be completed before civil rights are restored.

Firearms

Another significant restriction on the rights of former felony offenders involves possession of firearms. Any person convicted of a felony offense may not legally possess a firearm – even a hunting rifle – unless they have had their rights restored by the appropriate government agency. This is a much more significant hurdle than getting one’s voting rights restored, and the process involved depends on whether the person was convicted under state or federal law. The nature of the felony is irrelevant; even non-violent offenses result in the forfeiture of the offender’s gun rights.

Public Assistance

There are many forms of government aid directed toward people experiencing financial need that become unavailable to an individual if they are convicted of a felony. This includes student loans, housing aid, and several other financial assistance programs. This can be a problem for many former offenders, who may find their opportunities for legitimate employment limited as a result of their criminal record.

Deportation

A felony conviction can have even more serious consequences for individuals who are not United States citizens. There are large categories of felony crimes for which conviction may result in a non-citizen resident of the US being deported to their country of origin – even if they are residing in the country legally and with all proper documentation. The kinds of crime that may trigger deportation proceedings include aggravated felonies and “crimes of moral turpitude.” The latter category is poorly defined, but generally includes crimes involving fraud or deception, theft, or the intent to cause harm to others. Crimes of moral turpitude can result in deportation if the crime is committed within five years of the offender’s legal entry into the United States, or if the offender commits two or more such crimes (on separate occasions) regardless of the length of time since entering the country.

An aggravated felony includes any of a wide variety of serious offenses, including murder, sexual assault or abuse, treason or espionage, drug or weapons trafficking, and financial crimes such as fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion. Conviction of any of these crimes is almost certain to result in deportation unless the offender can prove that they are likely to be tortured upon return to their country of origin.

Employment Ramifications

A felony conviction is likely to make an individual’s professional future more challenging, not because of any direct government action, but because employers may hesitate to hire applicants who have committed felony offenses. The outlook for ex-offenders does improve with time, however, assuming they avoid any additional charges going forward. It’s critical to remember that while an applicant may have a harder time finding an employer willing to hire them with a felony on their record, lying to an employer about a criminal past is almost certain to result in firing when the employer finds out.

A felony conviction for licensed professionals in the fields of medicine, accounting, law, real estate and the like face an additional burden of losing their licenses to practice in their chosen fields. These individuals will have an especially hard time returning to work after a felony conviction.

A felony conviction is likely to change an individual’s life in many ways, some of which they may not initially expect, which makes the help of experienced legal representation critical for anyone facing felony charges.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend individuals charged with complex federal and state crimes. 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 rstahl@stahlesq.com.

But what can make matters worse in our legal minefield of state and federal criminal laws is that not only are there seemingly more mines being planted all the time, but the mines themselves are becoming bigger. What we are referring to is the trend toward increasing the jail or prison time, fines and other sanctions that you may face if you are convicted of crimes that are already serious in nature, such as white collar crimes.

The convergence of a steadily increasing body of criminal laws that you can find yourself in violation of, even inadvertently, coupled with the steadily increasing severity of the sanctions for such violations, means that if you find yourself accused of a serious offense such as fraud, or tax evasion, or embezzlement, you need legal representation that can keep up with the growing seriousness of the crimes that you can be charged with. You don’t go to a general practitioner when you are diagnosed with cancer; likewise, you should not trust your legal rights and even your freedom to a general practice attorney when agents and agencies of the New Jersey state government or the federal government set their sights on you.

At the Law Offices or Robert G. Stahl, our attorneys are highly experienced in defense against many kinds of serious, white collar crimes. We know that it is essential to get started on your legal defense as quickly, thoroughly and aggressively as possible to present the best case possible for our clients, whether in pretrial negotiations or in trial defense. If you find yourself under government scrutiny based on accusations of serious crimes, contact us as soon as possible. Time is not your ally when you are being targeted by the government.

Essentially, tax fraud comes down to the taxpayer’s intent. In other words, the IRS looks at whether the taxpayer willfully attempted to defraud the government by not paying taxes that he or she knows are due.

Tax fraud can take a number of different forms, including filing a false income tax return and intentionally failing to file a return. No matter the form, tax fraud is a very serious crime. A person convicted of committing tax fraud faces severe criminal and civil penalties. The penalties depend on the type of tax fraud.

Below are a few examples of possible penalties for tax fraud:

• Attempting to evade or defeat taxes is punishable by a prison sentence of up to five years, a fine of up to $250,000 for individuals, or both plus the cost of prosecution.
• Willfully failing to file an income tax return, supply information, or pay a tax is punishable by a prison sentence of up to one year, a fine of up to $100,000 for individuals, or both plus the cost of prosecution.
• Making fraud and false statements is punishable by a prison sentence of up to three years, a fine of up to $250,000 for individuals, or both plus the cost of prosecution.
• Attempting to interfere with the administration of tax laws is punishable by a prison sentence of up to three years, a fine of up to $250,000 for individuals, or both.

If you have been charged with tax fraud, you should speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

For many non-citizens, the threat of deportation is more terrifying than a prison sentence because it means permanent separation from the home that they have made here, and the family and friends who remain behind in the States. A criminal defendant’s immigration status also means that they may face mandatory detention awaiting trial or disposition, and more onerous prison conditions once sentenced. Such clients require the skills and experience of an attorney well versed in the intersection of immigration and criminal law to craft a plea or negotiate a sentence that avoids immigration consequences.

The attorneys at Robert G. Stahl, Esq. Criminal Lawyers, have this knowledge and experience. We have applied our knowledge and experience in representing clients who have been arrested and face trial in a wide variety of matters, including credit card fraud, mortgage fraud, obstruction of justice, health care fraud, terrorism, and drug possession and trafficking.

We also represent clients whose prior attorneys failed to give them advice about immigration consequences, or provided incorrect advice in this complicated and ever evolving field of law, by drafting and filing motions for post-conviction relief and coram nobis petitions in state and federal court.

We constantly educate ourselves in seminars and conferences where we learn about recent developments in the law, and consult with experts where necessary to ensure we give correct advice and achieve the best results while avoiding immigration consequences for our criminal clients. From a trial perspective, our experience representing non-citizens and immigrants has also been helpful in understanding and presenting cultural defenses, challenging admission of confessions and suppressing evidence where the client’s language proficiency and background may have precluded understanding his or her rights or waiving them properly, and preparing sentencing mitigation.

Attorney Laura K. Gasiorowski, Esq. frequently lectures on immigration consequences and criminal law. She has been a panel member and speaker for the “Immigration Law and Criminal Acts” seminar presented by the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education, New Jersey State Bar Association, every year since 2012 along with well-respected judges, defense attorneys and immigration lawyers. Her lectures have focused on representing non-citizens and immigrants in the criminal justice system, and the particular challenges of language and culture differences.

Source for Graph:https://stahlesq.com/wp-content/uploads/attachments/fy2015removalStats.pdf