Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers is pleased to announce that three lawyers have been included in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America^®. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence.
Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers would like to congratulate the following lawyers named to 2026 The Best Lawyers in America list:

• Laura K. Gasiorowski – Criminal Defense: General Practice and Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Andrew Olesnycky – Criminal Defense: General Practice and Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Robert G. Stahl – Appellate Practice and Criminal Defense: White-Collar

About Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers

Mr. Stahl and Ms. Gasiorowski run a boutique criminal defense firm that defends individuals investigated or charged with serious federal and state crimes. With over 35 years of experience each, they are recognized by their peers as highly effective trial attorneys with the skills, knowledge, creativity and dedication to win. Recent notable federal cases include defending at trial a client charged with healthcare fraud involving compound medicines; representing a student from Kazakhstan charged with obstruction of justice in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing; defending at trial an Orthodox Rabbi charged with kidnapping recalcitrant husbands who refused their wives religious divorces; and obtaining a complete dismissal for an individual charged with murder for hire. For more information visit https://stahlesq.com.

About Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected lawyer ranking service in the world. For 40 years, Best Lawyers has assisted those in need of legal services to identify the lawyers best qualified to represent them in distant jurisdictions or unfamiliar specialties. Best Lawyers awards are published in leading local, regional and national publications across the globe.

Lawyers who are nominated for consideration are voted on by currently recognized Best Lawyers working in the same practice area and located in the same geographic region. Awards and recognitions are based purely on the feedback we receive from these top lawyers. Those who receive high peer reviews undergo a thorough verification process to make
sure they are currently still in private practice. Only then can these top lawyers be recognized by Best Lawyers.

Lawyers on The Best Lawyers in America list are divided by geographic region and practice areas. They are reviewed by their peers based on professional expertise and undergo an authentication process to make sure they are in current practice and in good standing.

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.

Once again, Super Lawyers^® named three New Jersey attorneys from the criminal defense law firm of Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers to its prestigious 2025 Super Lawyers list, and named firm founding partner Robert G. Stahl in the Top 100 list.

Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Each year, only five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected as Super Lawyers. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. A description of the selection methodology can be found at http://www.superlawyers.com/about/selectionprocess.html.
Robert Stahl has been recognized for 18 years, since 2007. The firm provides aggressively defends its clients and provides individualized attention and services to individuals and corporations in federal and state criminal investigations and charges.

About Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys

Robert G. Stahl, founding partner, has been selected a 2024 New Jersey Super Lawyer in the area of White Collar Criminal Defense for 17 years. He has handled multiple federal cases garnering national news coverage from news and legal outlets like the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, NPR, ABC, NBX, CBS, CNN, Fox, the Guardian, and the National Law Journal. He regularly defends individuals and corporations in complex criminal matters, including health care fraud, cyber-crimes, money laundering, tax evasion, securities fraud, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) matters, asset forfeiture and public corruption. Robert is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, a Certified Criminal Trial Attorney by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Laura K. Gasiorowski, partner, has been practicing criminal defense law for nearly 30 years and has also worked on a number of complex and high profile matters. She specializes in federal criminal law with a focus on complex criminal defense litigation, including health care fraud, bribery, public corruption, money laundering, securities fraud, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) matters, and asset forfeiture. Her criminal practice includes defending clients charged with drug trafficking, extortion, harboring, and RICO and VICAR prosecutions, as well as federal capital defendants in death penalty cases. Laura is an active member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Women’s White Collar Defense Association (WWCDA) and has been elected by her peers as Secretary of the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of NJ (ACDL-NJ). In addition, she is a regular lecturer at the NJ Institute for Continuing Legal Education (NJICLE) on topics related to representing non-citizens and federal sentencing guidelines issues.

Andrew Olesnycky, partner, has been recognized for his work in Criminal Defense. He is certified by the New Jersey Supreme Court as a Certified Criminal Trial Attorney. Andrew represents clients in federal, state and municipal courts defending individuals charged with wire fraud, public benefits fraud, bank fraud, drug trafficking, computer crimes, and child pornography. He also uses the skills and knowledge from his prior tenure as a supervisor-level assistant prosecutor at the Union County NJ Prosecutor’s Office Domestic Violence Unit to aggressively defend those charged in DV matters.

Founded in 1997, the firm’s criminal defense attorneys have a combined total of more than 80 years’ experience in criminal law on both sides of the courtroom, defense and prosecutions. Contact the firm by email, rgs@sgdefenselaw.com, online at stahlesq.com, or by phone 908-301-9001 for the NJ and 212-755-3300 for the NY office.

You are at home or at work, early in the morning or in the evening, and two federal agents show up at your door with a grand jury subpoena. What do you do and what is it about?

First, do not make any statements, do not talk with the agents about whatever it is they are seeking. Simply accept service of the subpoena, get their names and contact information, and let them know that your attorney will contact either them or the Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) listed on the subpoena.

A federal grand jury subpoena can call for the production of records – emails, texts, documents, bank records, credit card records, tax records and the like. It can also call for the person’s attendance at the grand jury to give testimony under oath.

Subpoenas are issued to people that are under investigation or to those individuals that may have relevant information about someone under investigation. Thus, it is critical for the person served with a subpoena to retain experienced criminal defense counsel. First, counsel will contact the AUSA to determine whether you are a witness, subject or target of the investigation. A “witness” sounds exactly like what it means – someone the government believes has information relevant to its investigation of someone else. A “target” also sounds like what it means – the government believes that the person has committed one or more violations of federal law and is subject to potential prosecution. A “subject” is a broad category that the government believes may have exposure to criminal prosecution but does not yet have enough evidence to make that determination.

Other issues to be handled by experienced defense counsel will include reviewing the relevant documents called for by the subpoena to make sure there are no act of production and privilege issues in turning over the documents, and perhaps filing a motion to quash or modify the subpoena based on unreasonableness or oppressiveness, or some type of privilege.

The grand jury is used as an investigative tool to subpoena documents and people. A grand jury is made up of 16 to 23 individuals. The grand jury’s main function is to determine if probable cause exists to secure an indictment. A vote to indict only requires 12 or more grand jurors agreeing. A grand jury does not decide if someone is actually guilty. Those indicted by a grand jury are presumed innocent until they either plead guilty to the offense or are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

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. To 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.

Laura K. Gasiorowski, partner at the Law Offices of Robert G. Stahl, LLC, is returning to the faculty at Tulane University Law School’s Criminal Litigation Boot Camp, a week-long training program held at the Law School in New Orleans, Louisiana. The program begins on January 6, 2024, and is one of several experiential learning programs at Tulane that have drawn acclaim. The program provides practical lawyering skills to law students, who will choose to participate as a defense attorney or prosecutor in a week long program of workshops, lectures and instruction. At the conclusion of a week spent writing and arguing a series of motions, the students brief and argue a suppression motion in front of judges who volunteer to hear arguments and offer post argument critique at the Courthouse at Tulane and Broad.

Ms. Gasiorowski, one of the original co-chairs of the program and author of the materials, joins leading lawyers from around the country who participate as instructors in Tulane’s cutting edge program. Now in its tenth year, the Winter Intersession program won Tulane Law School recognition as one of the nation’s 20 Most Innovative Law Schools by National Jurist Magazine, and has earned enthusiastic reviews from student participants who value and appreciate the insights and instruction of experienced l

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers is proud to announce that Robert G. Stahl, Esq., a leading figure in criminal defense, has received the 2025 Martindale-Hubbell® AV Preeminent^® Rating. This accolade is a testament to Mr. Stahl’s exceptional legal abilities, professionalism, and ethical standards.

An accomplished trial lawyer and Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, Mr. Stahl has built a distinguished career representing clients in high-stakes criminal defense cases. His work includes complex cases involving federal white-collar crime, healthcare fraud, cybercrime, and organized crime, among others.

The AV Preeminent® Rating from Martindale-Hubbell® is a testament to Mr. Stahl’s exceptional legal acumen, dedication to client advocacy, and his consistent pursuit of justice. Recognized by both clients and colleagues, Mr. Stahl is celebrated for his unwavering professionalism and strategic expertise in navigating the complexities of criminal law.

“I am honored to be recognized with the Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Rating,” said Robert G. Stahl. “This distinction reflects my unwavering commitment to providing my clients with the highest quality legal representation. I am grateful for the trust my clients place in me and the respect of my colleagues in the legal profession.”

Mr. Stahl has a long and distinguished career in law, specializing in criminal defense. He has successfully represented clients in a wide range of complex and high-profile matters, including the Mirai Botnet Internet Crime case, the Boston Marathon bombing, hedge fund insider trading, prescription drug fraud case, money laundering case, among others. Prior to entering private practice, Mr. Stahl served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, where he earned the Department of Justice’s highest award for his outstanding service.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers

At Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers, we have successfully defended hundreds of individuals targeted by investigations or charged with complex federal and state crimes. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have successfully defended individuals and companies charged with white collar crimes including Insider Trading/Securities Fraud, Healthcare Fraud, Bank and Crypto Currency Fraud, Drug Crimes, Tax Crimes, and more. The firm also conducts corporate investigations in matters involving allegations of fraud, embezzlement, employee malfeasance and regulatory inquiries.

The firm was founded in 1997 and our criminal defense attorneys have more than 60 years of combined criminal law experience for both defense and prosecution. This invaluable experience on both sides of criminal matters is key to our success. Contact Laura Gasiorowski by email at lkg@sgdefenselaw.com or Robert G. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com, online www.stahlesq.com, or phone 908-301-9001 for NJ and 212-755-3300 for NY.

About Martindale-Hubbell

Martindale-Hubbell is a well-respected legal directory that has been evaluating lawyers for over 130 years. The Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Rating is a widely recognized symbol of professional excellence, providing clients with confidence in their choice of legal counsel. The Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Rating signifies that a lawyer’s peers rank them at the highest level of professional excellence. The rating is based on evaluations by other members of the bar and the judiciary, considering factors such as legal knowledge, analytical capabilities, judgment, communication skills, and ethical standards.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers, P.C. has been ranked in New York Chambers Spotlight 2025 Guide and recognized as a top small firm handling high-quality work.

Stahl Gasiorowski evidenced significant expertise, calibre of talent and experience serving a range of clients in the market.

The Chambers Spotlight rankings were awarded to select firms in the state. These ranked firms were recognized for their strengths in key practice areas vital to New York’s businesses and residents, including Litigation, Corporate/Commercial and Labor & Employment and many more.

Stahl Gasiorowski stood out for its exceptional work and is recognized in Litigation, White-Collar Criminal Defense and Government Investigations.

Managing Partners, Robert G. Stahl and Laura K. Gasiorowski, expressed the firm’s gratitude: “Stahl Gasiorowski is honored to be recognized by Chambers and Partners in their Spotlight Ranking for New York. This acknowledgment reflects our commitment to providing top-tier legal services tailored to the unique needs of our clients and the complex matters that we help them navigate.”

This recognition underscores Stahl Gasiorowski’s position as a key player in New York’s legal landscape, offering clients throughout the state access to high-quality legal representation that combines big-city expertise with local specialized support.

The city’s diversified business community is reflected in the New York Chambers Spotlight 2025 Guide, with 204 leading small firms ranked across 24 distinct practice areas.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers

At Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers, we have successfully defended hundreds of individuals targeted by investigations or charged with complex federal and state crimes. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have successfully defended individuals and companies charged with white collar crimes including Insider Trading/Securities Fraud, Healthcare Fraud, Bank and Crypto Currency Fraud, Drug Crimes, Tax Crimes, and more. The firm also conducts corporate investigations in matters involving allegations of fraud, embezzlement, employee malfeasance and regulatory inquiries.

The firm was founded in 1997 and our criminal defense attorneys have more than 60 years of combined criminal law experience for both defense and prosecution. This invaluable experience on both sides of criminal matters is key to our success. Contact Laura Gasiorowski by email at lkg@sgdefenselaw.com or Robert G. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com, online www.stahlesq.com, or phone 908-301-9001 for NJ and 212-755-3300 for NY.

Laura K. Gasiorowski, a partner at Stahl Gasiorowski and an alumna of Tulane Law School, recently returned to her alma mater to lead a class on negotiating pleas for juvenile clients, as well as those with mental health issues and intellectual or developmental disabilities. Invited for her extensive experience in representing defendants with complex needs and her work in death penalty mitigation, Ms. Gasiorowski offered valuable insights into the unique ethical and legal challenges faced when advocating for clients whose disabilities, youth, or mental health conditions may impact their understanding of the legal process.

Ms. Gasiorowski emphasized the critical need for defense attorneys to recognize “red flags” in a client’s history—such as indicators in school records, family backgrounds, medical documentation, or personal interactions—that may suggest intellectual disabilities or mental health issues. These factors can profoundly affect an attorney’s approach to the case, as a client’s age, disability, or mental health condition may hinder effective communication, comprehension of legal matters, or the ability to waive constitutional rights. Disabilities can also impact a client’s interactions with law enforcement, which may be pivotal when evaluating the voluntariness of a Miranda waiver, consent to search, or failure to comply with police instructions.

Mental health and intellectual disabilities may further raise issues of competency or mens rea, directly affecting a client’s capacity to participate in their defense or understand court proceedings. In such cases, specific accommodations may be necessary to ensure fair representation throughout the trial process.

A key takeaway from Ms. Gasiorowski’s class was the importance of using expert evaluations and specialized testing to build a compelling mitigation report. Such reports can be essential in plea negotiations, as they provide prosecutors with a clearer understanding of a client’s diminished culpability. At Stahl Gasiorowski, Ms. Gasiorowski and her colleagues leverage this mitigation approach to advocate for dismissals, negotiated pleas, or reduced sentences for clients who, due to their unique circumstances, warrant special consideration.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers

At Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers, we have successfully defended hundreds of individuals targeted by investigations or formally accused of state and federal crimes. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have successfully defended individuals and companies charged by federal and state authorities for white collar crimes including Insider Trading/Securities Fraud, Healthcare Fraud, Drug Crimes, Domestic Violence and Tax Crimes, and more.

The firm was founded in 1997 and our criminal defense attorneys have more than 60 years of combined criminal law experience for both defense and prosecution. This invaluable experience on both sides of criminal matters is key to our success. Contact Laura Gasiorowski by email at lkg@sgdefenselaw.com or Robert G. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com, online www.stahlesq.com, or phone 908-301-9001 for NJ and 212-755-3300 for NY.

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.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers is pleased to announce that three lawyers have been included in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America^®. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence.
Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers would like to congratulate the following lawyers named to 2025 The Best Lawyers in America list:

• Laura K. Gasiorowski – Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Andrew Olesnycky – Criminal Defense: General Practice and Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Robert G. Stahl – Appellate Practice and Criminal Defense: White-Collar

About Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers

Mr. Stahl and Ms. Gasiorowski run a boutique criminal defense firm that defends individuals investigated or charged with serious federal and state crimes. With over 35 years of experience each, they are recognized by their peers as highly effective trial attorneys with the skills, knowledge, creativity and dedication to win. Recent notable federal cases include defending at trial a client charged with healthcare fraud involving compound medicines; representing a student from Kazakhstan charged with obstruction of justice in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing; defending at trial an Orthodox Rabbi charged with kidnapping recalcitrant husbands who refused their wives religious divorces; and obtaining a complete dismissal for an individual charged with murder for hire. For more information visit https://stahlesq.com.

About Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected lawyer ranking service in the world. For 40 years, Best Lawyers has assisted those in need of legal services to identify the lawyers best qualified to represent them in distant jurisdictions or unfamiliar specialties. Best Lawyers awards are published in leading local, regional and national publications across the globe.

Lawyers who are nominated for consideration are voted on by currently recognized Best Lawyers working in the same practice area and located in the same geographic region. Awards and recognitions are based purely on the feedback we receive from these top lawyers. Those who receive high peer reviews undergo a thorough verification process to make
sure they are currently still in private practice. Only then can these top lawyers be recognized by Best Lawyers.

Lawyers on The Best Lawyers in America list are divided by geographic region and practice areas. They are reviewed by their peers based on professional expertise and undergo an authentication process to make sure they are in current practice and in good standing.

Back in February, the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division Fraud Section released its annual review. Of the Fraud Section’s three litigation divisions, Health Care Fraud, Market Integrity and Major Frauds and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Health Care Fraud is the largest with nearly twice as many trial attorneys and the most active unit.

In addition to the usual statistics about the number of attorneys, defendants charged and number of trials, the report also announced a change in how their trial attorneys are assigned in the field. Previously, trial attorneys were assigned to strike force cities in 24 judicial districts. Under the new deployment, the cities are grouped into regions allowing a broader approach and sharing of resources in wider areas.

The report noted that enforcement actions were prioritized in areas involving pharmaceuticals, telemedicine, laboratory testing and durable medical equipment. There is also an emphasis on vulnerable populations, such as the elderly or addicted patients.

DOF continues to utilize its analytics unit to identify suspicious healthcare billing patterns and geographic hot spots for fraudulent activities. The analytics unit, formed in 2018, provides proactive referrals based on the data analysis.

In a rare opinion addressing the rights of innocent owners of property seized under state civil forfeiture laws, the Supreme Court of the United States held that innocent owners are not constitutionally entitled to a separate preliminary hearing to seek a speedy return of their seized property. The 6-3 ruling in Culley v. Marshall, published on Thursday, May 9, 2024, found that Alabama’s civil forfeiture procedures provided sufficient due process and timeliness, even as a majority of justices voiced grave concerns about the potential for abuse of state civil forfeiture statutes, generally.

What is Civil Forfeiture?

Civil forfeiture refers to a legal process by which law enforcement officers can seize assets and property that they allege are involved in a crime or were purchased with proceeds from criminal conduct. This can include cash, cars, real estate, and other valuables.

The main idea behind civil forfeiture laws is to disrupt criminal enterprises by taking away their ill-gotten gains. However, civil forfeiture laws have been controversial because:

1. Property can be seized based on mere suspicion of being connected to a crime, without the owner being charged or convicted.
2. The burden of proof is on the property owner to prove their innocence and establish they acquired the assets legitimately to get them returned.
3. Law enforcement agencies get to keep forfeited assets or proceeds from their sale, creating a perceived profit motive.
4. Civil liberties advocates argue the laws violate due process and property rights protections.

Critics contend civil forfeiture incentivizes policing for profit over fighting crime. Defenders view it as a necessary tool against criminal organizations. There have been reform efforts but civil forfeiture remains legally permissible under federal law and laws in many states.

The Case and the Court’s Holding

The case centered on a challenge brought by Halima Tariffa Culley and Lena Sutton, whose cars were seized by Alabama law enforcement after allegedly being used to facilitate drug crimes (including on case involving the mere simple possession of marijuana) by others who had borrowed the vehicles. Alabama state law permits the seizure of a car used to “commit or facilitate” a drug crime if the car is seized “incident to an arrest” as long as the state promptly initiates a forfeiture case. In the case of Culley and Sutton, the State of Alabama filed civil forfeiture complaints against Culley’s and Sutton’s cars within 10 and 13 days of seizure, but litigation continued for months after seizure. While the cases were pending, Culley and Sutton filed class-action complaints in federal court, alleging that their due process rights were violated because their cars were retained during the forfeiture process without speedy preliminary hearings at which to demonstrate their status as “innocent owners.”

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Culley and Sutton’s claims, finding that a timely forfeiture hearing provided sufficient due process and that a separate preliminary hearing was not required. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court held that the 14th Amendment’s due process clause does not require courts to hold a separate preliminary hearing to allow property owners to quickly assert an innocent owner defense and seek an early return of their seized assets. The Court reasoned that prior Supreme Court precedent – United States v. $8,850 and United States v. Von Neumann – already requires a “timely post-seizure forfeiture hearing,” and that this satisfies the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Dissent Raises Alarm Over Abuses

The Court’s three liberal justices issued a scathing dissent, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, decrying the lack of safeguards in civil forfeiture schemes and the perverse financial incentives they create for law enforcement agencies. Sotomayor warned that these systems encourage the seizure of valuable property, even tangentially related to alleged crimes, and then subject owners to “labyrinthine processes” making it difficult and costly to recover their belongings.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, who concurred in the judgment, echoed similar concerns in a separate opinion, questioning whether contemporary civil forfeiture practices align with the nation’s historical insistence on due process protections against government overreach. The concurring opinion highlighted the potential abuses and injustices associated with civil forfeiture, including the financial incentives for law enforcement agencies, the burden on innocent property owners, and the lack of uniform procedural safeguards.

A Call for Reform?

While the Supreme Court’s ruling cemented the constitutionality of Alabama’s procedures, the strong voices of dissent signal that a majority of the Justices may be open to re-evaluating civil forfeiture schemes in a future case. The dissent highlights disturbing data on how these systems disproportionately impact low-income and minority communities least able to navigate the costly processes to reclaim seized property. As Justice Gorsuch provocatively suggested, even conservative justices are questioning whether it is “past time” to undertake a deeper examination of whether civil forfeiture regimes have strayed too far from constitutional principles safeguarding private property rights. This decision could embolden reform efforts by state legislators concerned about civil liberties violations and seeking to implement greater due process protections.

In the meantime, innocent property owners nationwide must continue to navigate the complex patchwork of byzantine state and federal civil forfeiture laws when property is seized under the theory the property was used to facilitate crime. But a majority of the Supreme Court has put the legal community on notice about the potential injustices arising from unfettered government seizure and forfeiture powers.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys are experienced in defending civil and criminal forfeitures in state and federal courts. The firm attorneys defend individuals charged with various criminal offenses, including Business Fraud, Healthcare Fraud, Medicare and Medicaid Fraud, Mortgage Fraud, Tax Fraud, Securities Fraud, Wire and Mail Fraud, Theft/Embezzlement, Falsifying Documents, Money Laundering, Internet Crimes, RICO Racketeering, Domestic Violence, as well as Drug Crimes and Trafficking. 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, Laura K. Gasiorowski at lkg@sgdefenselaw.com or Andrew Olesnycky at ao@sgdefenselaw.com.

Cryptocurrency has been at the forefront of debate between various law enforcement and regulatory efforts to impose stricter controls and regulations and those who view it as a form of currency that should not be closely regulated. Within the past two weeks, both the SEC and the Treasury Department have defended their enforcement actions and requested additional tools to combat cryptocurrency fraud and misuse.

The SEC again defended its authority to regulate crypto, despite critics claiming that cryptocurrency is a commodity not an SEC regulated security. At the SEC Speaks in 2024 event, Enforcement Chief Gurbir Grewal maintained that the SEC’s enforcement actions have been consistent and principled, tied to federal securities laws and court precedents. The SEC’s position is that if a crypto asset was offered and sold as an investment contract, it’s a security under the Howey test. The SEC rejects the argument that crypto products are currencies and beyond the reach of SEC regulation. To date, various courts have upheld the SEC’s position.

The Treasury Department has once again called on Congress for additional tools to combat cryptocurrency use by terrorist organizations who circumvent restrictions and embargoes to gain access to funds. One of the recent requests was to introduce secondary sanctions that would allow the Treasury Department to target digital asset providers, even extraterritorially. Included in the various requests was extra funding for the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

A number of Senators support strong anti-money laundering restrictions on cryptocurrency. Many in the crypto sector do not comply with know your customer, documentation of account holders, source of assets and other anti-money laundering measures. Other Senators want only a “light regulatory system” that imposes restrictions on centralized retail crypto exchanges to bring crypto out of the “Wild West”.

Clearly, cryptocurrencies will continue to be subject to increasing regulations and enforcement as Congress and regulatory agencies understand the nuances and complexities of ever developing and expanding platforms.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys are experienced in defending individuals charged with various crypto related offenses, including wire fraud, money laundering, unregistered currency exchange and securities fraud. 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

After a client decides to plead guilty and counsel negotiates the best possible plea agreement – negotiating what count of the Indictment to plead to or what statute for a plea to an Information; limiting the loss amount, negotiating the other Guidelines’ enhancements; and the like – the work is not complete until a comprehensive, persuasive sentencing submission is crafted.

A well-crafted sentencing submission allows the judge to see the client as an individual rather than a Guideline calculation. While the lengthy Presentence Report (PSR) completed by the federal Probation Officer lists details of the offense, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines’ calculations, the plea agreement terms, the defendant’s background – personal history, family, financial history, physical and mental health, drug or alcohol use or abuse – these reports are formulaic and are not designed from a defense perspective.

Experienced counsel weaves together how the client’s personal history and life experiences brought her to this moment; how those factors affected the client’s conduct or offer a high probability against recidivism; why the client became involved in the offense; the client’s limited involvement or role in the offense; the client’s unique family circumstances; the client’s good deeds in life as explained through letters from family, friends, community or religious organizations; the client’s special health issues that the Bureau of Prisons may not be able to treat or monitor effectively; and the adverse personal and business consequences of a custodial, or lengthy sentence would have.

The goal, of course, is to provide the sentencing judge with reasonable, credible reasons for varying from the suggested Guideline range the client faces pursuant to the negotiated plea agreement. Departure, usually based upon client’s cooperation with the government, or variances based upon a variety of personal factors, must be persuasively argued to the judge, both in the written submissions and orally at the sentencing hearing.

In a recent case in the Southern District of New York involving the hacking of the Port Authority computer system for taxi dispatch to JFK terminals, we were able to successfully argue for a sentence that was almost 70% lower that the Guidelines called for in the plea agreement (24 months rather than 60 months). We successfully argued three factors that reduced our client’s sentence. First, that our client was a minor participant, not as defined by the particular section of the Guidelines, but rather in the scheme itself given his limited knowledge, role and abilities. Second, the amount of loss was exaggerated because the Port Authority chose to replace its antiquated computer system that was never designed for security with an expensive upgrade. Third, our client’s background, family circumstances and good deeds should factor into a lesser sentence.

Crafting a convincing sentencing submission requires a great deal of time, effort and skill. A coherent theme must be developed that is supported by the PSR, letters from friends and family, health records, expert reports if necessary, remorse, and reasons that support that the client is unlikely to recidivate.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys are known for their comprehensive, persuasive sentencing submissions that place their clients in the best possible position at sentencing. 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.

Mountainside NJ – We are pleased to announce the promotion of Andrew Olesnycky to Partner at Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers. With offices in Mountainside, New Jersey, and Manhattan, New York, Stahl Gasiorowski. P.C. is recognized for its unwavering excellence and dedication in defending white-collar criminal cases and related litigation.

Mr. Olesnycky’s practice includes matters in all types of criminal cases, from federal to municipal courts, defending a wide variety of criminal charges including wire fraud, public benefits fraud, drug and gun trafficking, computer crimes, child pornography, aggravated assault and domestic violence. Recognized by his peers as an expert in domestic violence law, Andrew has handled hundreds of cases involving domestic violence and restraining orders.

Certified by the New Jersey Supreme Court as a Certified Criminal Trial Attorney, Mr. Olesnycky’s formerly served as an Assistant Prosecutor at the Union County Prosecutor’s Office in Charge of the Domestic Violence Unit.

About Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have represented hundreds of individuals targeted by investigations or formally accused of crimes at the federal and state level. We have successfully defended individuals and companies charged by federal and state authorities for White-Collar crimes including Insider Trading/Securities Fraud, Healthcare Fraud, Wire Fraud, CFAA Violations, Money Laundering, Crypto Currency and NFT schemes, and more.

The firm was founded in 1997 and our firm’s criminal defense attorneys have a combined total of more than 75 years’ experience in criminal law on both sides of the courtroom, defense and prosecutions. Contact the firm by email, rgs@sgdefenselaw.com or lkg@sgdefenselaw.com online at stahlesq.com, or by phone 908-301-9001 for the NJ and 212-755-3300 for the NY office.

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.