Sean O’Donovan wrote in the motion that “no portion” of his payments to an unnamed relative of the police chief of Medford, Massachusetts, was intended to benefit or bribe the chief, but instead was lobbying activity protected by the First Amendment. “Investigators’ attempt to create a crime, for the sole purpose of prosecuting Mr. O’Donovan, constitutes outrageous government conduct warranting dismissal under the due process clause, “O’Donovan’s motion states.

O’Donovan wrote that he never had any direct contact with the chief. When he met with the relative, he said he “made clear” that “he did not want to ask the chief for any favors” but just wanted the chief to look at the application for his client to open a pot shop in Medford.

The chief was part of a town panel that reviews marijuana applications. O’Donovan said he did offer the relative between $25,000 and $50,000 for his efforts, as well as a consulting position with the client, but this does not constitute a quid pro quo between him and the chief.

O’Donovan believed that without his lobbying of the chief’s relative, no one on the panel would have even looked at his client’s application, and other applicants would have flexed political influence to gain an advantage, the motion claims.

Recorded conversations between O’Donovan and the relative, who was directed by the FBI to setup more meetings with O’Donovan, quote the attorney as saying the chief was “as straight and honest as they get.” O’Donovan reiterated multiple times that he was not looking for special treatment from the chief, just for him to take a look at his client’s application and base a decision on its merits, per the motion.

Acting at the FBI’s direction, the relative began setting up meetings with O’Donovan and falsely told him that the chief had been approached by another applicant, requesting part of the payments that O’Donovan had promised for the lobbying efforts, according to the motion. O’Donovan initially told the relative that the payments would only be made if the efforts were successful, but eventually gave the relative $2,000, the motion said.

O’Donovan argued that the chief’s awareness that his relative was being paid by O’Donovan to speak with him cannot “transform lobbying into bribery.”

The motion asserts that many lobbyists throughout the political world have some relationship with the officials they are hired to lobby.

“The present indictment seeks to criminalize this particular lobbying arrangement because, and only because, of Individual 1’s familial relationship with the chief,” the motion states. “But the arrangement proposed by Mr. O’Donovan falls comfortably within the category of constitutionally protected lobbying.”

Neither the state of Massachusetts nor the city of Medford has laws preventing family members from lobbying public officials, per the motion.

O’Donovan was hired by Theory Wellness in 2018 to assist with its bid to open a shop in Medford. He was paid a $7,500 monthly retainer and would have received 1% of the store’s gross profits if it had been approved, according to court documents. Prosecutors said Theory was not aware of O’Donovan’s plan to give money to the relative and fired him after the indictment was issued in June. O’Donovan was charged with honest services wire fraud and bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds.

“We contend that the government prosecution of an attorney for hiring a lobbyist to try and advocate for an attorney’s client is outside the precedential scope of both honest services fraud and program bribery,” said O’Donovan’s attorney Martin Weinberg.

The Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday.

The government is represented by Kristina E. Barclay of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts.

O’Donovan is represented by Martin G. Weinberg of Martin G. Weinberg Law PC.

The case is USA v. Sean O’Donovan, case number 1:22-cr-10141, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

“You don’t take minutes during a meeting of a criminal conspiracy,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jared C. Dolan said during closing arguments, paraphrasing — and sanitizing — a quote from a lead character in the gritty HBO drama.

No explicit evidence is needed, Dolan said, to prove that former chairman Cedric Cromwell and architect David DeQuattro agreed to exchange $54,000 and luxury gifts as bribes for protection of the design firm’s multimillion-dollar contract with the tribe’s gaming authority. The evidence of an agreement can be implied from the circumstances, he said.

“It’s true that you heard at this trial there is no email saying ‘bribe,’ no email saying ‘kickback.’ There’s no email saying ‘shakedown,'” Dolan said. “That’s the part you don’t say out loud.”

In their closing Tuesday, as they did during opening arguments, the defendants hammered the government for not putting forward testimony or other evidence that the gifts and checks were given specifically to protect the contract. The payments instead were political donations for Cromwell’s re-election, the defendants said.

Martin G. Weinberg, counsel for DeQuattro, told the jury that his client’s former business partner Joseph Beretta — the government’s “chief, star, immunized witness” with whom the architect discussed the payments — failed to spell out that the money and gifts were part of a quid pro quo.

“This case is about whether or not the government — with the most powerful law enforcement agency, the FBI — was able to produce a single witness or a single exhibit to prove to you that anyone ever discussed promising to protect the contract. Because if there was no such discussion, there was no quid pro quo,” Weinberg said.

Cromwell’s attorney Timothy R. Flaherty used a local landmark to underscore the point. “It’s not just a gaping hole — it’s the Ted Williams Tunnel,” he said, referencing the Big Dig project that burrowed Interstate 90 under Boston Harbor.

“They are asking you to infer something sinister, something nefarious, saying this can’t be a campaign donation, it can’t be because of the way it was received,” Flaherty said.

But Assistant U.S. Attorney Christine Wichers pointed to the apparent silence between DeQuattro and Beretta during their first meeting about cutting Cromwell the first of five $10,000 checks.

“Why?” Wichers said. “Because the red flags told them that this was not a legitimate payment.”

The prosecutor told the jury that the steps Cromwell took to conceal the connection to the payments through shell companies and bank treasurer’s checks are also evidence that something was rotten with the deal.

Weinberg countered that the payments were cut on checks marked with DeQuattro and his wife’s name, from their shared bank account and in large lump sums, hardly a hallmark of criminal machination. The architect also openly told an FBI agent that he wrote the checks to Cromwell to support his re-election.

“You don’t commit crimes in broad daylight,” Weinberg said.

DeQuattro, indicted alongside Cromwell in 2020, sought a quick trial on the charges after the allegations cratered business at his architecture and design firm Robinson Green Beretta.

The jury, over a little over a week of testimony, heard how Cromwell asked DeQuattro for $54,000 in payments, plus a Bowflex exercise bike and a weekend stay in a luxury Boston hotel. Robinson Green Beretta at the time was the project manager for the Mashpee Wampanoag Gaming Authority on its $1 billion “Project First Light” casino proposal in Taunton, Massachusetts.

The jury started its deliberations in the afternoon after U.S. District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock’s lengthy legal instructions on the bribery and extortion charges.

The government is represented by Jared C. Dolan and Christine J. Wichers of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts.

Cromwell is represented by Timothy R. Flaherty.

DeQuattro is represented by Martin G. Weinberg and Maksim Nemtsev of Martin G. Weinberg Law PC.

The case is U.S. v. Cromwell et al., case number 1:20-cr-10271, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

–Editing by Michael Watanabe

Read full article here.

Law360, Boston (April 28, 2022, 3:58 PM EDT) — Boston federal prosecutors rested their case on Thursday in the Mashpee Wampanoag bribery and extortion case after an FBI agent testified that an architect admitted to giving a tribal chairman about $40,000 in political donations allegedly tied to a casino deal.

During five days of testimony, the government aimed to convince a jury that former Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Chairman Cedric Cromwell pressed architect David DeQuattro for gifts and more than $50,000 in checks in exchange for protecting the design firm’s multimillion-dollar contract with the tribe’s casino in Taunton, Massachusetts.

Cromwell and DeQuattro don’t dispute the checks and the gifts, which included a weekend stay at a luxury Boston hotel and a Bowflex exercise bike. But the defendants have long countered that there’s no evidence that the money and gifts were given in exchange for Cromwell not pulling the plug on the tribe’s contract with DeQuattro’s firm, Robinson Green Beretta.

The government’s key witness, DeQuattro’s former partner Joseph Beretta, spent two days on the stand but stopped short of spelling out that he knew the checks and gifts were payments to safeguard the contract, as prosecutors had outlined in their opening statement.

Beretta, to whom the government granted immunity for false statements he made to federal agents, told the jury he signed off on the checks and reimbursed his associate for what he was told were political contributions.

The jury heard Thursday from FBI Special Agent Lisa Crandall, who ambushed DeQuattro in the parking lot of the Rhode Island architecture firm in July 2020 to interview him about the Cromwell payments. The architect agreed to answer the agent’s questions.

Responding to a series of questions from Assistant U.S. Attorney Jared Dolan about what DeQuattro explained about the payments, Crandall said DeQuattro admitted to making about $40,000 in political donations to Cromwell indirectly through another organization.

“Did you ask Mr. DeQuattro where he was solicited for the money?” Dolan asked.

“He was solicited at a fundraiser on Cape Cod by the water,” Crandall responded, adding that DeQuattro couldn’t remember who asked him for the donation.

DeQuattro’s attorney Martin G. Weinberg pressed Crandall about what she was told after presenting the architect with a check he made out to Cromwell.

“He was essentially telling you — after showing him the check — that it was a political donation to a person he cares for and a person he admires?” Weinberg asked.

Crandall responded: “He expressed that he thought highly of Cedric Cromwell.”

After a handful of other witnesses testified briefly, Dolan told the court that the government had finished making its case.

U.S. District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock told the jury that — after two days off for the parties to argue over jury instructions and other matters — they would return Tuesday for the defense testimony and likely also hear closing arguments and get the case for deliberation.

Late Thursday, DeQuattro filed a request for Judge Woodlock to order him acquitted of the charges, arguing that the government’s evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction.

Cromwell allegedly extorted DeQuattro and accepted the purported bribe payments from 2014 to 2017, while Robinson Green Beretta served as the owner’s project manager for the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe’s proposed casino in Taunton, Massachusetts. Both men were indicted in November 2020.

DeQuattro sought a quick trial to clear his name after publicity surrounding the government’s claims cratered business for the firm.

The government is represented by Jared C. Dolan and Christine J. Wichers of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts.

Cromwell is represented by Timothy R. Flaherty.

DeQuattro is represented by Martin G. Weinberg and Maksim Nemtsev of Martin G. Weinberg Law PC.

The case is U.S.A. v. Cedric Cromwell et al., case number 1:20-cr-10271, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

–Additional reporting by Chris Villani. Editing by Dave Trumbore.

Update: This article has been updated with information about DeQuattro’s acquittal motion filed later Thursday.

Read full article here.

Joseph Beretta, former president of architecture firm Robinson Green Beretta, told the Boston federal jury that he signed off on his associate David DeQuattro’s decision to cut checks to Mashpee Wampanoag Chairman Cedric Cromwell’s reelection campaign and later reimbursed DeQuattro for the payments.

But the testimony fell short of prosecutors’ promise to the jury during opening arguments last week that Beretta would say that — while he never asked DeQuattro — he knew the payments were being made to protect the casino contract.

Cromwell and DeQuattro, who were indicted in November 2020, have argued the lack of evidence of a quid pro quo is a “fatal hole” in the case. U.S. District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock allowed Assistant U.S. Attorney Christine Wichers to ask Beretta questions about his conversations with DeQuattro and what actions he took. But the prosecutor was not permitted to elicit testimony about Beretta’s state of mind or what he thought the payments were for.

The judge later sustained objections to Wichers’ questions to Beretta about whether anyone had previously asked him to write out a political contribution check to a business entity or whether he thought such arrangements were normal.

“The focus is on interactions by words between Mr. DeQuattro and Mr. Beretta,” Judge Woodlock said.

Beretta told the jury that after running the first donation by the firm’s outside counsel, they recommended he not make the payments.

“I went to David and said that they don’t recommend doing it,” Beretta said. “I said, ‘I’m not doing it.’ I said, ‘If you do this, make sure it’s correct because you don’t need a headache and the chairman doesn’t need a headache.'”

Hammering home the point, DeQuattro’s counsel Martin G. Weinberg prompted Beretta to agree that he never heard Cromwell and DeQuattro discuss the donations and that he never told DeQuattro to “go back to Cromwell and demand that he give a specific benefit to RGB for these donations.”

“You said you would not have signed off on donations if it was in any way connected with keeping RGB’s contract or business?” Weinberg said.

“Correct,” Beretta replied.

Beretta told the jury that he also made thousands of dollars in political donations annually to Rhode Island state and local officials to keep his “name out there” and develop business opportunities for the firm.

The government told the court they expected to call their last witness on Thursday.

The government is represented by Jared C. Dolan and Christine J. Wichers of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts.

Cromwell is represented by Timothy R. Flaherty.

DeQuattro is represented by Martin G. Weinberg and Maksim Nemtsev of Martin G. Weinberg Law PC.

The case is U.S. v. Cromwell et al., case number 1:20-cr-10271, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

–Editing by Orlando Lorenzo.

Read the full article here.

A sentencing appeal allows a higher federal court to review the lower court’s proceedings and determine if a specific error occurred or if the judge made an unreasonable sentence. If the higher court rules in favor of the defendant (or appellant), then he/she will be given a reduced sentence or perhaps a new trial.

The following are common sentencing errors committed by courts:

• The judge applies the incorrect sentencing factors
• The judge applies the incorrect penalty provisions
• The judge did not consider mitigating (favorable) factors
• The judge determines a sentence based on factual mistakes
• The judge’s sentence deviates from the normal sentence in similar cases

However, it is not uncommon for a federal judge to “depart” from federal sentencing guidelines when imposing harsher sentences than the guideline range for the offense. Only if an appeals court finds that the judge abused his/her discretion or imposed a sentence higher than the maximum set by law, then the sentence will be reversed.

By contrast, a judge may refuse to a “downward” departure from federal guidelines, meaning that he/she will not issue a lower sentence than the guidelines. If a judge wrongly presumed that he/she did not have the discretion to depart from the guidelines, the appeals court will review the sentence.

If you or a loved one has received a harsh sentence following trial and interested in filing an appeal, contact Martin G. Weinberg, Attorney at Law today at 617-227-3700 to get more than 40 years of federal appeals experience on your side.

Jury instructions are important to educate jurors on their role, the issues surrounding the case, how each party should conduct themselves during the trial, and the law that applies to the case. They must clearly and concisely explain what is being asked of the jury.

Furthermore, jury instructions serve as the law of the case. Lawyers generally consult jury instructions prior to filing complaints by performing research on the current state of law to make sure that the standard instructions adequately reflect it, as well as informing jurors how to apply these instructions to the evidence presented.

If a judge gives the jury the wrong legal standards to apply or otherwise improper instructions, they may find a defendant guilty when they should have reached a different verdict. If the judge in your case gave the jury incomplete or incorrect instructions, you may appeal your conviction and seek a new trial.

A new trial will be ordered if:

• The court had a duty to provide correct jury instructions;
• There was supporting evidence of the proper jury instructions; and
• Incomplete or incorrect jury instructions impacted the result of the trial.

The panel of appellate judges will review the jury instructions for error on appeal. The appellate court will determine which instructions were requested and ultimately given, if the given instructions match the written instructions, and what objections were made.

If you or a loved one has recently convicted of a federal offense and wish to appeal the verdict, contact Martin G. Weinberg, Attorney at Law today at 617-227-3700 to get more than 40 years of federal appeals experience on your side.

Although cryptocurrencies aren’t considered “real currencies” in the sense of a U.S. dollar, almost any transaction conducted with them is subject to tax reporting. If a person engages in cryptocurrency exchanges throughout the year but fails to report gains or losses on their tax return, they may be exposed to an IRS audit and/or criminal investigation.

Let’s explore cryptocurrency transactions and potential tax evasion charges further.

Does Cryptocurrency Have to Be Reported on Taxes?

As mentioned above, if a person makes any transaction with cryptocurrency – whether they buy it, sell it, or trade it for something of value – they must report the exchanges on their taxes.

Failure to report is considered tax evasion. A conviction for this offense can result in severe criminal penalties, which we’ll discuss in more detail later.

How Is Cryptocurrency Taxed?

According to the IRS, cryptocurrency is treated as property. Thus, it is taxed similarly to how houses, stocks, bonds, and other investment instruments are taxed.

Taxable events concerning cryptocurrency include:

• Using it to buy goods
• Receiving it as payment
• Trading or selling it

Now, if someone purchased cryptocurrency but made no other transactions with it, they are not required to report the purchase on their taxes. Likewise, receiving cryptocurrency as a gift is not a taxable transaction. However, if the cryptocurrency is converted to cash or used to make other purchases, the capital gains and losses are taxable.

What Are the Consequences for Failing to Report Cryptocurrency Transactions?

Since 2014, the IRS has posted guidelines on how cryptocurrency is treated and what tax principles apply to transactions concerning it. Beginning with the 2020 Form 1040, one of the first questions taxpayers will be asked is whether they have made any cryptocurrency transactions. The update suggests that the IRS is starting to put the spotlight on virtual currency exchanges and crackdown on individuals who willingly fail to report gains or losses.

If anyone willfully avoids their tax obligations by hiding cryptocurrency transactions from the IRS, they may be subject to prosecution under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 – attempt to evade or defeat tax.

Earlier this year, in two separate incidents, anti-virus creator John McAfee and cryptocurrency founder “Bruno Block” were charged with tax evasion for allegedly failing to report cryptocurrency income. We can expect more and more such charges to arise as the IRS continues to focus on individuals engaged in virtual transactions.

A conviction for tax evasion can result in a fine of up to $100,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 5 years.

Generally, cryptocurrency doesn’t have a central issuing authority and cryptocurrency holders must keep track of fluctuations in prices and personal transactions on their own. Many people might be unaware of their tax reporting requirements and might not realize that even if transactions were conducted through foreign exchange, they must disclose this on their tax returns.

Still, even for those individuals claiming that they did not know cryptocurrency transactions were taxable, the IRS could counter by stating that tax forms specifically ask about these types of exchanges.

If you have been accused of tax evasion in Boston, discuss your case with Martin G. Weinberg, Attorney at Law. Call 617-227-3700 or submit an online contact form today.

Non-public information is that only a few people have access to and has not been released to the investing public.

It can include, but is not limited to:

• plans about future investments,
• negotiations,
• decisions affecting the company’s products or services
• acquisitions
• management changes

Information is considered material when it has the potential to impact the market value of the company’s stocks or securities.

Insider trading is illegal because it is considered a breach of fiduciary duty and decreases confidence in the financial markets.

Hypothetical Examples of Illegal Insider Trading

Insiders are typically people who have a significant interest in a company. Such individuals can include officers, directors, and employees. Because of their roles and involvement in the company, they are privy to information most others wouldn’t have.

Although insiders may be a key group of people within a corporation, they are not the only ones who can commit insider trading. Anyone who makes a buying or selling decision based on material, non-public information may be accused of the offense.

A few examples of illegal insider trading include:

• A CEO who purchases shares of their company because they know about a merger that’s about to happen.
• A friend of a high-level employee who, after being tipped off about a product defect that will decrease share prices, immediately sells their shares of the company.
• A board member with access to a non-released economic report who buys additional shares.

Why Insider Trading Is Illegal

Insider trading is illegal because it introduces unfair practices into the market. The individual who buys or sells shares makes their decision based on information many others didn’t have.

Additionally, insider trading is a breach of fiduciary duty. The people with access to material, non-public information are entrusted to do what is in the company’s best interest. When they disclose important details about the company to others or use it for their own gain, they violate the terms of their position.

Legal Insider Trading Exists

Not all instances of insider trading are illegal. If a CEO or other employee of a company wishes to buy or sell shares based on publicly available information, they must report their transactions to the SEC. When insider trading is done this way, it’s not considered illegal.

Cases involving insider trading are complex. Anyone accused of such conduct should speak with an attorney experienced in handling such matters.

At Martin G. Weinberg, Attorney at Law, we have more than 40 years of experience and are ready to put our knowledge and skills to work for you. For legal representation in Boston, call us at 617-227-3700 or contact us online today.

Penalties

Michigan is tough on alleged cyber stalkers. Convicts can face prison time of up to five years and fines of up to $1,000.

Defenses Against Cyber Stalking

You are innocent until proven guilty. Regardless of whatever transcripts or evidence the police believe they have, there are still credible arguments against cyber stalking allegations. Here are some common defenses you can use.

Freedom of Speech

If you were in a public fight with someone online, it’s easy to argue that your actions were simply expressions of free speech. High-profile, online squabbles are reported in the news daily. In a public forum, it’s difficult to prove that your interactions were targeted, malicious attacks. A difference of opinion is not stalking or harassment, no matter how heated it gets.

Your Interaction Was Not Stalking

Looking at the facts of the case, is it possible that your accuser has blown the situation out of proportion? Sending someone one hurtful text is not stalking. Stalking necessitates targeted, continuous maliciousness. Your communication may have been angry, and you have since calmed down. If you made one incendiary comment to someone and never spoke to them again, it’s difficult to prove you were stalking them.

The Results Were Unintentional

Recall that “malicious intent” is written into the law. As the law states, cyber stalking results in serious emotional distress. Not everyone has the same built-in barometer of what is and isn’t appropriate. What you perceived as a joke or as a minute criticism may have been wildly misinterpreted by the other person. We don’t always know when we’re triggering others, especially if they suffer from a mental illness. If the other person fell into genuine distress due to your interaction, you can explain to the court that you didn’t intend to harm anyone, and your actions were therefore not malicious.

Challenge the Amount of Communications

When, exactly, does communication become too much? If you are broken hearted and repeatedly texting your ex-partner to take you back, when does it become stalking? Ultimately, these are questions for the courts to answer. You can, however, demonstrate that your messages were not egregious. Maybe you texted them repeatedly for a week and eventually left them alone. Depending on the facts of the case, you can make the argument that you didn’t cross the line, and that the other person just didn’t want to hear from you anymore.

Call 617-227-3700 today or contact us online if you need help with a cybercrime charge. Martin G. Weinberg, Attorney at Law is up to date with internet crime laws, and he can help defend you against these allegations.

The UIGEA

In 2006, Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). This law cracked down on internet gambling. Before then, there was no centralized law on the issue, and internet gambling happened without repercussions.

Within this act, there was an exception for playing online fantasy sports. Some have interpreted this exemption to mean that online fantasy sports have been legalized. This is not the case. The exemption protects fantasy sports websites from UIGEA shutdowns. Another act could be passed that makes them illegal. Under the UIGEA, individual states are also free to create their own standards and ban online fantasy sports.

Illegal gambling has three components. First, players must risk something valuable. Second, the winners and losers are determined by pure chance. Finally, the winner gains something valuable. It is that second category, pure chance, that becomes debatable in fantasy sports websites.

Considering fantasy sports to be a “skill-based” activity, Congress felt it was not classified as gambling. Gambling, according to their definition, must involve chance, not skill. This is where the topic of fantasy sports websites becomes very interesting.

If you join a fantasy league that lasts an entire season, there is a strong argument that you are engaged in a skill-based activity. As the season progresses, you can switch your lineup and trade players with others. There is a lot of trial and error involved, and you must pay close attention to the players and the games. You must keep track of who has been hurt or suspended. Your predictive skills come into play with every fantasy game.

Fantasy sports websites, however, have moved to a model that is arguably chance-based. Subscribers play one-day or one-weekend games. There’s very little room to modify your team or make skill-based decisions as in a season-long game. Essentially, you pick your lineup and hope for the best. The major websites have advertised massive jackpots, where people win millions based on a single game.

This sounds quite a bit like gambling based on chance, and some states agree. For now, there are six states in the Union that have outlawed online fantasy sports. Massachusetts’s exclusion from that list is surprising. The state is hard on alleged gamblers, as guilty verdicts can lead to five years in prison. The law itself specifically mentions the internet. As time goes by and we learn more about fantasy sports sites, it will be interesting to see if Massachusetts illegalizes them.

If you are facing gambling charges, call us today at 617-227-3700, or contact us online. With over 40 years of experience, we have the skills to defend alleged gamblers in criminal court.

The following are the elements a defendant must prove that his/her lawyer was ineffective:

• The attorney’s performance was considered “unreasonable” – “Reasonableness” is generally determined by the legal strategies the lawyer used, the court rules the lawyer chose to follow, the ethical duties imposed by the lawyer, and the available evidence. Although the courts typically presume that an attorney’s representation was reasonable, such conduct is only questioned if the lawyer cannot explain his/her actions or there is an obvious indiscretion.
• The defendant experienced prejudice because of his/her attorney’s conduct – Prejudice occurs when there is a “reasonable probability” that a lawyer’s errors would have led to a different outcome. Similar to determining reasonableness, the courts will review the facts and circumstances in a case.

The courts will determine ineffective counsel based on the “fundamental fairness” of the outcome, rather than use mechanical rules. Furthermore, the court will not address a case in a specific order or perform both parts of the test mentioned above if the defendant does not provide evidence of each.

Common examples of ineffective counsel include:

• The lawyer fails to object to the use of the defendant’s incriminating statement
• The lawyer fails to object to errors in a presentence report
• The lawyer fails to object to the defendant’s excessive sentence
• The lawyer failed to file an appeal

The available remedies for defendants who have experienced ineffective counsel depend on the stage of the case where ineffective was founded. If the case is still ongoing, a defendant may request new defense counsel. If there is a finding after a trial, then a guilty defendant will have his/her verdict reversed and the court will order a new trial. If there is a finding during sentencing, then the court will vacate the sentence and resentence the defendant.

If you are interested in appealing a lower court’s decision due to a legal error, contact Martin G. Weinberg, Attorney at Law today at 617-227-3700. Let more than 40 years of legal experience protect your rights and freedom.

Common types of newly discovered evidence include:

• DNA evidence that clears a defendant of responsibility
• Forensic evidence that shows an underlying injury or an injury that was caused by another person
• New research that debunks the previous science the prosecution relied on at trial
• Evidence of mistaken identity
• Eyewitness evidence that gives a defendant a valid alibi or establishes that another person had committed the offense

It is important to understand that the newly discovered evidence is substantial in nature and will likely lead to an acquittal at a new trial or is otherwise result in a different verdict from the jury, as we mentioned above. On the other hand, minor or slightly helpful facts do not qualify as new evidence.

Appeals based on newly discovered evidence are extremely complex, which is why you need an experienced appellate attorney to help you navigate these issues. With more than four decades of experience, Attorney Martin G. Weinberg has successfully challenged guilty verdicts and reversed convictions on behalf of many clients facing a wide range of serious federal criminal charges.

Do not hesitate to contact Martin G. Weinberg, Attorney at Law today at 617-227-3700 to learn more about the firm’s experienced and knowledgeable legal services.

Furthermore, businesses and individuals who have access to assets and property from the federal government or receive some or all of their income from U.S. taxpayers may be subject to federal embezzlement charges. Such parties include contractors, employees from private firms, and even individuals in the real estate industry.

The following are the potential penalties for embezzlement based on the value of money or property involved:

• Property worth less than $1,000 – Punishable by a maximum jail sentence of one (1) year and a fine of up to $100,000.
• Property worth more than $1,000 – Punishable by imprisonment for up to ten (10) years and a maximum fine of $250,000 or double the money embezzled (whichever is greater).

Furthermore, embezzling any instruments or tools that can be used to produce counterfeit currency is an aggravated offense that carries a maximum prison term of ten (10) years and a fine of up to $250,000. Keep in mind, prison terms can range from a few months in jail to over 30 years in prison, depending on the amount stolen, the timeframe of the alleged embezzlement activity, the amount of trust given to the defendant, and his/her criminal history.

There is also a point system to determine an appropriate sentence for the offense. The lowest number of points – generally referred to as the “Base Offense Level” – is six (6) points, while the highest possible number is 36.

If the loss is $5,000 or less, then six points are assigned. By contrast, a total of 36 points means the victim’s losses are more than $400 million.

If you or a loved one is facing federal embezzlement charges, contact Martin G. Weinberg, Attorney at Law today at 617-227-3700. Get more than 40 years of experience in federal courts on your side.

The following are some of the most common reasons why you received a letter from the IRS:

• You owe a balance
• The refund amount is smaller or larger than it should have been
• You are required to verify your identity
• The IRS has a question about your return
• The IRS changed your return
• There is a necessary delay in your payment
• You are required to submit additional information to process your return

How to Respond to the IRS

The letter will include the reasons for the notice and tells you how to respond. However, there are some letters that are simply notifications that require no response.

If you are required to respond, you must do so within the given deadline. If you delay your response, you may be subject to additional penalty fees and lose your right to appeal the adjustments.

If you do not agree with the agency’s adjustments, you can make an appeal in writing. Ensure you include any documents or information that supports your argument.

What Happens If I’m Accused of Income Tax Fraud?

Income tax fraud means willfully attempting to evade U.S. tax laws and defraud the IRS. Common examples include intentionally not filing a tax return, willfully failing to pay taxes, intentionally withholding income, making false or fraudulent claims, or filing a false return.

It is not uncommon for the IRS to assume a careless error is a sign of willful tax fraud. If you are being accused of income tax fraud, you must hire an experienced federal criminal defense lawyer to protect your rights and freedom.

At Martin G. Weinberg, Attorney at Law, we provide aggressive and personalized legal representation for taxpayers who are accused of income tax fraud. With more than 40 years of experience, Attorney Weinberg has represented clients in complex federal cases.

Contact us today at 617-227-3700 for more information about tax fraud.

The following are common options after getting convicted in federal court:

• Appeals – As we mentioned earlier, filing an appeal is generally the next move after conviction and/or sentencing. Common grounds for appeal include Improper admission or exclusion of evidence, lack of evidence to reach the verdict of guilty, ineffective assistance of counsel, juror or prosecutor misconduct, incorrect jury instructions, and improper sentencing.
• Habeas Corpus – This type of write brings an inmate before the court to determine if his/her detention or incarceration is lawful. This legal procedure prevents the government from holding you for an indefinite period of time without showing cause.
• Sentence modifications – If an error was made during sentencing that requires correction, the sentence fails to meet federal guidelines, you were convicted but now aiding another criminal investigation, or you have a terminal illness that prevents you from serving your entire sentence, you may be eligible to seek sentence modification.
• Pardons – A federal pardon occurs when the President of the United States completely sets aside the punishment for a federal offense. A presidential pardon is only limited to federal crimes. Keep in mind, a pardon does not mean you are innocent of the alleged offense, but rather you accept complete responsibility for it.

Attorney Martin G. Weinberg has handled hundreds of complex federal cases over the past 40 years. He has fought for his clients in more than 20 federal district courts, eight U.S. Courts of Appeals, and in the Supreme Court of the United States.

If you or a loved one has been convicted and interested in filing an appeal, contact Martin G. Weinberg, Attorney at Law today at 617-227-3700 to learn about your available legal options.

Getting convicted in federal court may appear to be the end of your case. However, if you believe you were wrongfully convicted at your trial, it is possible to file an appeal to either overturn the trial court’s decision or obtain a new trial, based on the circumstances of your case.

An appeal is a legal process in which a higher court reviews a criminal conviction and sentence and ensure the trial (lower) courts correctly applied the law. When it comes to federal trials, there are two tiers of appeals court: the United States Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

The U.S. Courts of Appeals review judgments from each circuits’ district courts. On the other hand, the SCOTUS reviews judgments from the federal courts of appeals and the highest appeals courts throughout the nation.

The following are common grounds for appeal:

• Improper admission or exclusion of evidence
• Lack of evidence to support a guilty verdict
• Juror or prosecutor misconduct
• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Incorrect jury instructions
• Sentencing errors

The appeals process starts by filing a notice of appeal within 14 days of the judgment. When the notice is filed, the Court of Appeals will set a schedule for filing briefs.

The appellant – or the party appealing the case – must assemble the “record” on appeal by gathering transcripts of the lower court’s trial proceedings, such as any relevant motions that have been filed or trial exhibits. Each party must submit a brief that argues whether to affirm or reverse a judgment.

A panel comprised of three judges will decide the case by reading the briefs and reviewing the record. While most federal appeals are decided solely on the briefs alone, a panel may request each party to present an oral argument.

In the end, the appellate court issues a written decision, which includes a detailed opinion to explain the outcome. Federal criminal appeals can be a long process, lasting nine months or even years.

Since reversing a decision through the appeals process is complex and rare, it is imperative to hire an experienced federal criminal attorney to review your case and determine whether you can obtain a favorable outcome. Martin G. Weinberg, Attorney at Law has more than 40 years of federal trial experience and has represented clients in over 20 federal district courts, eight U.S. Courts of Appeals, and in the U.S. Supreme Court.

For more information about federal criminal appeals or our legal services, contact us today at 617-227-3700.

On the federal level, these crimes are generally investigated by the FBI and their investigations are lengthy, complex, and intensive. These investigations can be regional, national, or even international in their coverage and can take up to years to complete in search of enough evidence to convince a jury in federal prosecution.

According to the FBI, one the most common white collar crimes is corporate fraud. This is a crime that can cause substantial monetary losses to the public and can bring extreme damage to our economy as witness the Wall Street fiasco that engendered the 2008 recession. The FBI reports that the most of the corporate fraud cases that it investigates involve falsified accounting schemes or fraud, obstruction of justice, self-dealing by insiders, and the misrepresentation of services.

The activities used in such schemes can include but are not limited to:

• Fake accounting records leading to a deceitful picture of one’s financial state
• Hiding losses or inflating profits through the use of fraudulent trades
• Illegal transactions
• Insider trading
• Hiding flaws or defects of products through misrepresentation

As an example, a company may falsify its financial records in order to make it appear to have an abundance of profitability which it does not really have. This may be done for a number of reasons, to conceal losses or large expenses, to make the company look better to investors, or to protect its stock.

Examples of Corporate Fraud

When employees at Wells Fargo Bank were given ridiculously high sales quotas, to meet them they began to open bogus accounts under the names and information of existing customers. For example, a customer with a checking account would then have a savings account or a credit card opened by an employee without the customer knowing it. These resulted in more than two million false accounts being opened leading to short-term success for the bank. Once this scam was discovered by the Department of Justice and the SEC, the bank was required to pay $three billion in fines and lost public trust in a scandal that was widely publicized.

Another famous example of corporate fraud included Volkswagen. The German carmaker was found to have created a type of software that it put into approximately 11 million of its diesel cars that could falsify the results of emission tests. This was done to save money for the company but, when it was discovered, cost the company enormous sums. In the U.S., more than 480,000 cars had to be recalled and Volkswagen wound up owing approximately $25 billion in fines. The CEO eventually resigned and this scandal was also a blow to the company’s otherwise positive reputation.

Accused of Corporate Fraud?

As you can see, corporate fraud committed by the directors or employees of businesses can result in serious consequences. Ensuring that you have legal representation that can match the intensity of federal law enforcement agencies and prosecutors is vital in these situations. That is why we highly recommend that you turn to Martin G. Weinberg Attorney at Law in Boston. Our federal defense lawyer has decades of intensive experience that can be used on your behalf to defend against any accusations of corporate wrongdoing.

Contact our firm at 617-227-3700 to arrange for a consultation with our distinguished attorney today.

Per The U.S. Department of Justice, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) was passed into law to make it a crime “for certain classes of persons and entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business.” This Act outlaws bribery to foreign officials through the mail or any other means of interstate commerce. Under the FCPA, bribery consists of making an offer, a payment, promise to pay, or authorization of payment of money or anything else of value done in a corrupt manner. These types of payments or offers are done to influence the official in his office, to induce the official to do or not do something that violates his duty, or to attempt to secure an advantage for one’s business.

The FCPA is divided into three parts, these include:

• A requirement for corporations to maintain accurate accounts and records
• A requirement for those groups registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to keep internal accounting systems that are maintained in a responsible manner
• A prohibition against bribery of foreign officials by U.S. corporations

The FCPA is enforced by The Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Justice Department mainly enforces criminal violations of the FCPA while the SEC handles civil cases. Violations of the FCPA can result in significant penalties, both civil and criminal. Criminal fines can range up to $100,000 per count of FCPA violation as well as up to five years in a federal prison. In the past, other sanctions have included suspension or banishment of the ability to procure federal contracts for offenders.

The FCPA became law in 1977 when it was discovered that hundreds of American companies had made what consisted of bribes to foreign officials or politicians. These exceeded $300 million and were for various purposes, from obtaining official favors such as getting business licenses issued or to secure other favorable actions. The law applies to any person, agent, employee, or stockholder of a U.S. firm. It also applies to foreign nationals operating in the U.S. under our court system who receive such bribes. Under the FCPA, payments made must have been done so to have the recipient provide an advantage that constitutes a misuse of his authority.

To be found guilty of a FCPA violation, it is not necessary to have actually paid the bribe. An offer of a bribe by itself violates this federal law. Violations of the FCPA can also include more than just offers of money; offers of gifts, loans, offers of jobs, educational fees/tuitions, business interests, and more can be considered valid violations as well. It can also include making these offers through third parties without full knowledge of whether or not the offer or payment will go through; it is the intent that the offer could reach its target that is enough to act as a violation.

Get Knowledgeable & Experienced Legal Help

Because of the danger of being found guilty of even an inadvertent or unwitting violation of this law, it is vital that companies institute a compliance program to ensure against it. Companies who create and maintain such programs have far less of a chance of violating its terms. Should they still be found to have committed a violation, they will likely be faced with only reduced penalties. Compliance guidelines should be put into effect for all employees, officers, and directors that can detect and handle any payments that could be construed as violations.

At Martin G. Weinberg Attorney at Law in Boston, our federal defense attorney has four decades of experience in defending individuals and corporate entitles against both common and sophisticated white collar crimes. Attorney Weinberg has been repeatedly recognized for his distinguished record as a trial lawyer as well as an appellate attorney; he is the attorney of choice for industry professionals and leaders across the nation.

Need help understanding federal law, compliance programs, or how to defend yourself in federal court? Call us at 617-227-3700 to schedule a consultation today.

Examples of cyber crimes include but are not limited to the following:

• Identity theft, through internet means, in order to use the victim’s personal information for financial gain or benefits, often done through phishing or spoofing, designed to gain passwords, usernames, social security numbers, credit card numbers, and more
• Computer or system hacking that can include planting viruses and malware into other’s systems, cause other damage, or done for the purpose of stealing data
• Child pornography, downloading and/or distribution
• Cyberbullying which can involve stalking and intimidation of another via texts, emails, or done on social media
• Solicitation or luring of minors over the internet, done through chat rooms and via other means
• Sexting that involves sending explicitly sexual images or photos of someone to others
• Piracy that includes the theft of others’ intellectual property, including media such as music, movies, books, and more
• Various types of fraud such as wire fraud, business email compromise, ransomware, and more
• Work from home scams, lottery fraud, online shopping scams

Potential Penalties for Cybercrimes

Penalties will depend on whether you are charged with a state or federal crime. Some crimes involving the internet can have minor consequences. These would include misdemeanor crimes that may carry fines of up to $1,000 and a few months up to a year in jail.

Federal crimes involving serious felonies, such as those involving child pornography or serious data breaches can be punishable by fines of up to $100,000 and prison terms of up to 20 years or more. You may also face a lengthy probation term in which you will be subject to various conditions handed down by the court.

In cases where victims have suffered monetary damage, you may be ordered to provide restitution to the victims.

An example of penalties associated with a cybercrime is that of cyberbullying in Massachusetts, which is a crime that can be charged to both minors and adults. It is considered a stalking and harassment crime that, in a first offense, can lead to misdemeanor charges involving fines and community service. Repeat offenses or instances where it has led to serious damages such as the injury or death of a victim can lead to felony charges.

Facing Cybercrime Charges?

If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges for an internet or cybercrime, it is vital that you seek defense representation that you can trust. At Martin G. Weinberg Attorney at Law, you can bring your case to a well-respected criminal defender with over four decades of legal experience at both the state and federal level. Attorney Weinberg represents clients across the nation and is prepared to provide you with the excellent legal service for which he is known.

Contact our firm at 617-227-3700 to schedule a consultation about your case today.

The prosecution said our client was a flight risk and should report to prison on May 19, claiming his resources and wealth enable him to easily flee the country and live a similar, sustainable lifestyle overseas. Prosecutors also cited the case of Carlos Wanzeler, the co-founder of TelexFree Inc. who was accused of taking part in a $3 billion Ponzi scheme and fled to South America and spent years there prior to getting arrested again last year.

The legal team contended that Wanzeler is a Brazilian citizen who failed to appear in court. On the other hand, the defendant is a U.S. citizen who has appeared at every scheduled court hearing for the past two and a half years after initially being arrested.

In addition, our client is 76 years old with a preexisting health condition, which makes him particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. In regard to fleeing to his native India, his attorneys said he would have to obtain a new passport, take multiple flights, and live in a crowded country where social distancing can prove more difficult than staying in his home in Arizona.

Lastly, the prosecution previously pushed back the prison report dates for four other former Insys executives, who were convicted with our client. His legal team explained their client was unfairly singled out for harsher treatment compared to his co-defendants.

Judge Burroughs, who has presided over the trial, also rejected a government motion to have our client taken into custody following his sentencing in January. Furthermore, a magistrate judge who started handling his case also said he wasn’t a flight risk.

If you’re facing a federal criminal investigation or you wish to seek early release for a loved one currently behind bars during the COVID-19, contact Martin G. Weinberg, Attorney at Law today at 617-227-3700 to let our firm review your case. Get one of the nation’s most prominent and insightful criminal and appeals attorneys on your side.