Theft and Fraud Pre-Charge Victories 23

NOT CHARGED – Insurance Fraud – State v. Mr. S. (DMC No. 9815): Mr. S. was involved in a nasty divorce with his wife. She had stored numerous items to be resold as antiques in her house. When she left, she filed an insurance claim stating that there was 40,000-50,000 in damage and theft. Mr. S reported her to the insurance company and informed them that he was the true insured party and was the one who suffered the actual loss. The insurance company tried to claim that this was somehow a fraudulent statement. We were able to show that the fact that he was a victim of theft (even though it was from his wife who he was divorcing) still entitled him to a lawful insurance claim.

(Maricopa County) (DMC No. ): Mr. W. worked at a local guitar shop and was accused of taking a guitar and selling it to a pawn shop. We were able to retrieve the guitar from the pawn shop and return it to the guitar shop, along with a specified amount of money, in exchange for a “release.” Detectives were satisfied and no charges were brought against Mr. W.

(Maricopa County) (DMC No. ): Ms. Y. was a Hospice worker who took care of an elderly woman during the last months of her life. After the woman passed on, her family members claimed there were gold coins missing from her house. We were able to sit with detectives and show them that our client had no involvement. In addition, we pointed out it was quite possible that one of the woman’s children had gone to the house first and taken the coins before the other siblings could arrive. Therefore, no charges were brought against Ms. Y.

(Maricopa County) (DMC No. ): Mr. M. was an employee of a local interior design shop. He allegedly embezzled over $30,000.00 during a 4 year span. We were able to negotiate a civil settlement of $20,000.00 in payments, and the detectives agreed not to file charges.

State v. Mr. P. and Mr. P. (Maricopa County) (DMC No. ): Two brothers were accused of stealing car parts from various tire stores and then selling them on-line. A search was executed by the police, and we discovered the search warrant was based on false information. Due to the fact that we were able to point out that items seized would be suppressed, the Maricopa County Attorney’s chose to not file charges.

(Maricopa County) (DMC No. ): Ms. P. was an employee of a local jewelry store and was accused of stealing a 3 carat diamond ring. She was fired, and detectives were contacted. It was suspected that these claims were being made as part of a false insurance claim, or in an attempt to fire her and hire a full-time employee. We were able to produce a newspaper ad showing that the store was looking for a full-time employee, which was placed several days before these accusations were made. We were able to convince detectives to not bring charges against Ms. P.

(Maricopa County) (DMC No. ): Mr. D. had 2 roommates who stole some gift cards and a child’s car seat from him. He went to the store and found they had returned the items and kept the money. He then called the police to report the theft, and the cops questioned the 2 roommates. The roommates then claimed that Mr. D. had stolen $400.00 in cash and gold coins. It was discovered that the female roommate’s parents were a former police officer and a current police dispatcher, and they were influencing the detectives in this case. We were able to point this out to the prosecutor, and no charges were brought against Mr. D.

State v. Mr. H. (Maricopa County) (DMC No. ): Mr. H. worked for a local restaurant chain as a Manager, where he would enter “discounted tickets” and keep the change. The total amount of his theft was approximately $10,000.00. We were able to negotiate a civil settlement with the restaurant in which he paid $5,000.00, obtained signed releases, and no criminal charges were filed.

U.S. Federal District Court of Arizona v. Mr. K. (DMC No. ): Mr. K. was contacted by I.R.S. Agents regarding an audit, who claimed he owed approximately $50,000 in taxes based upon income he did not declare. We were able to employ the services of a Forensic Accountant and meet with the I.R.S. Ultimately, we negotiated his liability down to $10,000, and no charges were against Mr. K.

State v. Mr. S. (Maricopa County) (DMC No. ): Mr. S. worked as a construction worker and was purchasing various appliances from the Superintendent on the job site. These items were then being reported as stolen. Mr. S. was contacted by detectives, and we were able to work out a “cooperation deal” in which our client would give them information regarding the superintendent on the job site. Through our agreement, Mr. S. was never charged with any crimes.

(Maricopa County) (DMC No. ): Mr. W. worked as a Vice President of a local technologies company. He had sold his laptop on E-Bay and this was discovered by his employer. He was terminated, and they were seeking criminal charges against him. We were able to work out a civil settlement with the company’s attorneys, and no charges were filed against Mr. W.

State v. Mr. M. (Maricopa County) (DMC No. ): Mr. M. was a former employee of a local bank and received too many benefits checks after he had left the company. Because he had been cashing these checks, the detectives were looking to charge him with Fraudulent Schemes and Theft. We were able to work out a civil settlement with the bank, which resulted in repayment of the $8,000.00 in question, and no charges were brought against Mr. M.

U.S. Federal District Court of Arizona v. Mr. G. and Mr. S. (DMC No. ): Mr. G. and Mr. S. had come in from California and were accused of using hundred dollar bills which had been forged by way of a color copier. These particular bills were of high quality. We set up a “cooperation deal” with the U.S. Secret Service in which the actual source of the counterfeited bills was produced in California. Due to our client’s cooperation, they were never charged with any crimes and their arrest records were sealed.

U.S. Federal District Court of Arizona v. Mr. C. (DMC No. ): Mr. C. worked for a company that dealt with the U.S. Military where he had high level security clearance. He was a suspect in the removal of certain high level training materials. We had him submit to a polygraph, which he passed. We then had our client meet with F.B.I. agents in order to submit to their polygraph. The F.B.I. polygraph examiner began asking questions about drug usage and indicated he had “turned up the heat” in order to get our client’s “sweat glands going.” We terminated the polygraph at that point. We then had a second polygraph conducted with our polygraph examiner. We turned over the results of both polygraphs to the F.B.I. and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. We made a decision that Mr. C. would no longer be speaking to the F.B.I. The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined the filing of any charges against Mr. C.

(Maricopa County) (DMC No. ): Ms. R. was employed with a Valley stucco company and was accused of embezzling over $100,000.00 from them. Through a civil settlement, we were able to negotiate a pay-back spread out over a number of years. We convinced the detectives to not file charges, since this was now a civil matter. No charges were ever brought against Ms. R.

U.S. Federal District Court of Arizona v. Ms. O. and Ms. D.: Ms. O. and Ms. D. were bringing in counterfeit Rolex watches from Los Angeles and selling them in the Valley. They were arrested by the F.B.I., and were facing numerous years in prison. Through a “cooperation deal” with the Agents, we were able to keep them from being charged with any crimes, and their arrest records were sealed. Their cooperation helped in the confiscation of over 1 million dollars of counterfeit Rolex watches.

(DMC No. ): : Mr. C. was an intern for a medical association. He was accused of forging prescriptions in order to obtain narcotic drugs. We pressured detectives into proving that he forged the signature by way of a handwriting analysis. The State could not do so, and no charges were brought against Mr. C.

(Maricopa County) (DMC No. ): Mr. M. worked at a local car dealership where he was accused of stealing $70,000.00 worth of parts with 2 other employees. Due to his full cooperation with Detectives, we were able to keep Mr. M. from being charged in exchange for information on the other 2 individuals involved. This prevented Mr. M. from facing prison time.

(Maricopa County) (DMC No. 3942): Mr. K. worked for an armored car company. After a pick-up at a local bank, the armored car company claimed there was $1,000.00 missing from the bag. Mr. K. had been working with 2 other employees during the pick-ups and counting of the money. Various tactics were used by his employer to pressure Mr. K. into a confession, but he denied all wrongdoing. They subsequently fired him, and we became involved. After having our own expert review their accounting procedures, it was discovered there was no money missing. No charges were brought against Mr. K. and he was offered his old job back (which he declined).

(Maricopa County) (DMC No. 4085): Mr. U. was an employee of a local hotel chain. He had a $5,000.00 plasma TV shipped to his own home, rather than to the resort he worked at. The shipping company was confused, and had the TV delivered to the resort instead of to Mr. U.’s address. He was charged with Theft (even though he never took possession of the TV). We were able to contact his employers (who had terminated him), and they agreed not to aid in prosecution with the State. We then spoke with the Detective, and he agreed to not submit the case to the County Attorney’s Office for charges.

(Maricopa County) (DMC No. 4218): Ms. S. had 3 pending felony cases regarding stolen vehicle, drugs, and money laundering. We contacted detectives and put together a “cooperation deal” which resulted in the detective not routing the case to the County Attorney’s Office. As a result, not only was Ms. S. not charged, all 3 cases became “invisible” within the system.

(Maricopa County) (DMC No. 4158): Mr. S. was originally cited for Driving on a Suspended License, and the judge issued a Bench Warrant with a bond of $3,800 dollars. Bond was posted by a local bailbonds company after Mr. S. paid a 10% fee. Mr. S.’s turned in a form to the bailbonds company indicating the bond had been released by the Court in order to get property (a quad runner) released as collateral. Allegations were made that Mr. S. had forged the judge’s signature on the release form. Through working with the bailbonds company and speaking with detectives, we were able to resolve this as a civil matter and the detectives agreed not to file any charges.