Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: 115 Assault/Violent Crime Pre-Charge Victories

State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 12267) – Felony Mortgage Fraud ($140,000), Felony Fraudulent Schemes & Felony Vulnerable Adult Abuse – Not Charged – California Law Firm Investigated.

Mr. B owned a company that would buy houses, remodel them, and then “flip” them. He did this with the help of a partner. He became involved with an insurance agent that sold annuities to her clients. She would convince her clients to break their annuities in order to buy properties that Mr. B. would then sell. Unbeknownst to the clients, and unbeknownst to Mr. B., a $100,000 annuity that would be broken early by a client would have a $25,000 surrender fee to be paid to the insurance agent. When the insurance agent would refer over clients to buy houses from Mr. B., she would include her fee in the price (even though she wasn’t on the real estate documents) and he would send her the money for the property closed.

The alleged victim in this case was an 82 year old gentleman who claimed he did not know about the surrender fee on his annuities, and that he was basically taken advantage of by the insurance agent due to his age. He bought two houses from Mr. B. that were in Arizona while the alleged victim lived in California. One of the houses was being routinely vandalized and having copper and appliances stolen from it, so Mr. B. had one of his workers live in the house for six months (rent free) in order to protect it. The alleged victim was claiming that it was Mr. B. who was having the copper and appliances sold on the side in order to defraud additional funds out of the victim.

When Mr. B. received a threatening inquiry from a law firm in California regarding Mortgage Fraud, Fraud Schemes and Vulnerable Adult Abuse, he contacted us. After reviewing all documents involved in the sale, we then had Mr. B take a polygraph with the following two questions: “Did you work with [insurance agent] to encourage her clients to cash out stocks, annuity, etc. in order to purchase properties owned by your company?” and “Did [construction worker] pay you rent in order to stay in the property that was regularly vandalized?” He answered “No” to both questions, which was “truthful”. In addition, we obtained Affidavits from his business partner and the construction worker who lived in the house. All of this was assembled and sent to the Attorney in California. Working with the Attorney in California, he agreed that this was a civil matter and not a criminal matter. Mr. B. settled for a very small amount of money and was never charged with any crimes.

State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 15105) – (5 Counts) Felony Child Molestation (DCAC) – Not Charged – Phoenix Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXXX3).

Mr. B and his family were planning on relocating from Arizona to California. His 13-year old stepdaughter was not happy about this because she liked being in school in Arizona and had many friends. She made an allegation to a friend of hers that she was being touched inappropriately by Mr. B, and then her friend had her report it to the School Resource Officer, who was with the Phoenix Department.

She told the School Resource Officer that this had happened 5 times over the last couple of years. She said the first time was in a hotel room in Texas while she was laying in bed with her cousin while other relatives were in the room. She claimed Mr. B snuck in at night and touched her. The other 4 incidents all occurred in her bedroom in Arizona. She also went on to state that the first two times she “thought she was dreaming.” They then did a medical exam which found no trauma, and they gathered DNA swabs from her ears and her vagina.

The Police then did a Confrontation Call where they had his stepdaughter get on the phone and accuse Mr. B. of touching her. He did not know the police were on the phone and he stated “oh my God,” “get your mother and tell her, “and “why are you making all of this up.” He continued to deny all allegations. Eventually the mother was contacted and she immediately believed her daughter. However, about a week later, she called the officers and told them that she was concerned that her daughter may be making this story up and she may be lying.

Mr. B’s ex-wife who is the biological mother of his other daughter who also lived with him, was contacted by Detectives. She immediately filed to sever custody from Mr. B. We were involved in the case and we attended the Custody Hearings in order to hear all of the evidence. We utilized the statements that we gathered to present to the Detectives to show that Mr. B did not commit any crimes.

A DNA swab was then taken from Mr. B’s mouth. It was compared to the swab of his stepdaughter’s ears and vagina. No DNA was found on her vagina whatsoever. On her ears, there was YSTR DNA showing that there were two male contributors. Officially, they could not rule Mr. B in or out as one of the contributors. In addition, because it was simply on her ears, it could have been “touch-transfer” from her own hands after simply touching any of boys that she came into contact with at school. Ultimately, we were able to package up all the information and present it to the Detective. They reviewed all of the evidence involved and presented it to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. The Maricopa County Attorney never charged Mr. B with crimes related to his stepdaughter’s allegation. If he would have been charged and convicted on all 5 Counts, he would have spent the rest of his life in prison.

State v. Mr. G (DMC No. 14255) – (2 Counts) Felony Kidnapping, (10 Counts) Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor (DCAC), (5 Counts) Felony Child Molestation, (2 Counts) Sex Abuse of a Minor and (10 Counts) Felony Aggravated Assault of a Minor – Not Charged – Phoenix Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXXX9); Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “Turned Down.”

Mr. G was the uncle and godfather of the alleged victim. He had not seen her in 3 years, when she reported multiple instances of Sexual Conduct and Abuse by Mr. G. She stated it started when she was 5 and ended when she was 7. She claimed that he would come into her room multiple times, hold his hand over her mouth and threaten to kill her or kill her whole family if she told anyone. He would then engage in sexual intercourse and other sexual activities with her.

Mr. G was told of these allegations by his family and he immediately contacted us. He denied all allegations and indicated that there were various issues going on between he and the rest of the family that had nothing to do with the alleged victim. He immediately stated he would be willing to do a Polygraph, which he passed regarding questions about touching the victim in any way in a sexual nature. We then prepared a letter and sent it over to the Detective handling the case. Even though he received all of these items, he still sent it to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for charges. We then spoke with the charging attorney in the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office Charging Bureau, and the case was ultimately “Turned Down.” If Mr. G were charged and convicted of all of these crimes, it could have carried a mandatory minimum of 10 consecutive life sentences, plus numerous additional years in prison. He was never charged with anything and has a clean record.

U.S. v. Mr. S (DMC No. 14784) – Federal Money Laundering ($50,000), Federal Bank and Wire Fraud, Federal Arms Trafficking (AK/AR-47s and 50-Caliber Rifles) and Felony Drug Trafficking (Meth, Marijuana) – Not Charged Due to Cooperation Agreement – Pinal County Attorney’s Office, US Attorney’s Office and ATF Investigated.

Mr. S had a female friend who asked to deposit some money into his bank accounts. He agreed and gave her his bank account numbers. Later on, she was contacted by a Pinal County attorney and she was questioned about the deposits. She said that she “sells cars” and that she would share the money with Mr. S. This turned out to be a lie. About one week later, the bank account of Mr. S was frozen, and he received a Forfeiture letter. Approximately $50,000 was deposited into his accounts over an 8-month timeframe.

Additionally, Mr. S had a male friend who would deposit money into the female friend’s account, who would then deposit it into Mr. S’ account. Every time Mr. S then returned an amount of $5,000 to the male friend, Mr. S would receive a $100 payment. It turned out that the male friend was selling drugs and was also running guns into Mexico for various organizations.

Once we became involved, the Pinal County Attorney’s Office had also brought the U.S. Attorney’s Office into the case. An Agent with the ATF also became involved, and we were able to negotiate a cooperation deal which would keep Mr. S from being charged with any crime. The US Attorney’s Office provided a Kastigar Letter and a Proffer Agreement. During the course of cooperation, Mr. S introduced undercover agents to various characters who were selling methamphetamine and guns. Ultimately, people were arrested and Mr. S was never charged with any crimes. In addition, we were able to stop any Forfeiture proceedings regarding the house owned by Mr. S by the Pinal County Attorney’s Office. Originally, Mr. S was facing decades in prison if he were to be convicted of all charges. Ultimately, he has no criminal record whatsoever.

State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 15188) – Felony Fraudulent Schemes ($72,500), Felony Vulnerable Adult Abuse and Felony Theft – Not Charged – Adult Protective Services Investigated (Case No. 31XXXX).

Mr. M had a website building and SEO (Search Engine Optimization) company who would reach out to various website owners in order to sell them their services. The purpose was to improve their websites’ rankings and increase the actual organic traffic to the websites. Mr. M made contact with Bruce (a former lawyer) who was 79-years old. Bruce had a law website, but had a dream of building a directory website that was similar to “Angie’s List” for businesses. He was ultimately quoted a flat fee of $15,000 and he signed a contract.

Throughout the building of the site, he was repeatedly asked for more money and ultimately paid $72,500. The purpose of the site was changed from a directory to a site that would help people improve their credit scores. That particular site actually ended up generating approximately $30,000 in revenue to Bruce.

As Bruce was now in his eighties, his daughters sought to get a conservatorship and claim that he was suffering from dementia. They made a claim with Adult Protective Services that Mr. M had Taken Advantage of a Vulnerable adult in the amount of $72,500.

We became involved with the case and we contacted the Investigator for Adult Protective Services. We were able to show all the work performed on multiple sites, along with the change in direction of the site’s purpose, would justify the full $72,500. During this time, Bruce’s daughter sought to get a civil lawyer involved to potentially file a lawsuit. We also dealt with the civil lawyer and no civil complaint was ever filed. In addition, Adult Protective Services declined to seek any prosecution and they relayed the “turn down” of prosecution by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office to us. Mr. M was originally facing very serious felony charges which could have placed him in prison. Now, he has no criminal record whatsoever.

State v. Mr. E (DMC No. 14732) – Felony Fraudulent Schemes ($180,000 in Reversed Credit Card Charges) and Felony Theft – Not Charged – Tolleson Police Department and FBI Investigated.

Mr. E owned a waste solutions company and he acted as a waste broker working primarily in the state of Arizona however, he did some work in California, Texas and Colorado. As a broker of trash services, he was in the front load commercial service and roll off container business. He also placed portable toilets, fencing and storage containers for many fencing projects.

As a broker, he developed a close working relationship with a large international waste disposal company that he used as his primary hauling company. During a course of normal business, he used the following process: he would call or email in his request to customer service and they would charge a Visa debit card they had on file. The type of service requested was based on pre-determined and negotiated prices. When he placed the order, the large waste disposal company would charge his card and send him a purchase confirmation sheet receipt so that he would know that they received his order for the requested work, and that they were paid for the haul to the jobsites. This process was in place for an average of 50 times a month. Occasionally, he would receive invoices and he would call to see if they were actually paid or if he had open balances, and he was always told that they were paid in full. Lastly, as to the portable toilet service, he was billed every 28 days and the customer service representative of the large waste disposal company would simply run his credit card again and send him a receipt after it was completed.

Ultimately, Mr. E received a threatening phone call from one of the managers at the large waste disposal company claiming Mr. E had reversed charges for an amount of $180,000 over the past several years. He strongly disputed this and he was told by the company that they had contacted the Tolleson Police Department, and T.P.D. was referring the matter over to the FBI. We then became involved and immediately contacted the waste disposal company’s Attorney in order to get detailed spreadsheets of all charges and reversed charges. The company could not show that Mr. E had any knowledge of charges being reversed. In addition, it was questionable why it took years for the waste disposal company to see that charges had been reversed. Ultimately, the case appeared to be one of sloppy accounting practices. Civil resolution was reached in which $80,000 of the $180,000 disputed amount was paid in order to settle the case. Ultimately, no charges were brought against Mr. E for Fraudulent Schemes or Theft. If they had, he would have been facing a mandatory prison sentence if convicted due to the amount in question being above $100,000.

State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 15136) – Felony Fraudulent Schemes ($350,000 Misappropriated Wire Transfer), Federal Felony Bank and Wire Fraud, Felony Theft, Felony Vulnerable Adult Abuse and Felony Unlawful Use of Power of Attorney – Not Charged – Mesa Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXX3) and  CFA Institute Investigated.

Mr. D was a financial planner. His mother went in for surgery and passed away. After that, his father (actually his grandfather that adopted him when he was a child) asked for help with his financial affairs because he was getting older and more forgetful. They then met with an Attorney and signed a Power of Attorney. This gave Mr. D access to a joint account with his father.

At some point, Mr. D wired $350,000 into his own account which he used to pay off his own mortgage. Also, funds were used to pay off about $80,000 on a Discover card. That $80,000 was later clawed back by his father. Lastly, he took a $124,000 payment to himself.  The balance was then used to purchase a third condominium for his father’s trust. Mr. D also transferred two other condominiums into the trust, which resulted in a net positive of $65,000 to his father. Because everything totaled positive for his father’s trust, he assumed that he had done nothing wrong. However, he was contacted by Mesa Police and the CFA Institute regarding various improprieties. Mesa Police were looking into Felony charges of Fraud Schemes, Unlawful Use of a Power of Attorney, Theft, and Vulnerable Adult Abuse. There was also a potential for a Felony Federal Bank and Wire Fraud claim due to the use of the wire transfer to a federal banking institution.

We became involved and we were able to shut down the investigation and keep it purely as a civil matter.  Through the course of the civil lawsuit, a proposal was made to have Mr. D. repay his father $400,000, in exchange for merely keeping  all three condominiums. Ultimately, the case resolved civilly and there were no criminal charges ever brought against Mr. D. Originally, Mr. D was facing mandatory prison time due to the fact that the amount of loss was above $100,000.

FELONY THEFT NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. K (DMC No. 13863) (Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office DR No. 13-011995): A Yavapai County Sheriff’s Deputy came to Mr. K home indicating he was investigating a Theft per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1802. Mr. K voluntarily went to the police department and participated in a post-Miranda interview. During this interview Mr. K made incriminating statements. After the interview, he was booked into custody and subsequently released. After being released, he contacted our office.

After retaining our office, it was discovered that the Yavapai County Attorney’s Office had “furthered” the case for additional information and was not going to be proceeding with the felony charges at that time. At this time, we met with our Pre-charge team and discussed the steps we could take under the circumstances. We determined that we would obtain a copy of the police report and then reach out to the Prosecutor’s office to try to ascertain a “misdemeanor compromise”, or something which would preclude felony charges from being filed.

After receiving a copy of the police report, we reached out to the County Yavapai Attorney’s Office regarding status of the case. After multiple calls to the County Attorney’s Office, in an attempt to speak with the reviewing attorney, it was discovered the case was still under investigation. Finally, fifteen months after retaining our office, we were able to speak with the assigned County Attorney, regarding their intentions with the case. He had indicated that the case had been sent back for additional information to the police, however, he had not heard back from the Officers. We discussed a potential financial compromise, however the Prosecutor indicated they do not normally do those. By the end to the conversation with the Prosecutor, he had agreed that he would not follow up with the Officer and would let the file sit. He indicated the only way that charges would potentially come is if the Officer recontacted him. No charges were ever filed.

FELONY AGGRAVATED ASSAULT DANGEROUS (with Knife) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. T (DMC No. 13894) (Scottsdale Police Department DR No. 13-17308):   Mr. T lived with another man, the alleged victim in his case. One day, after a brief verbal and physical altercation the night prior, Mr.  T was served with an Order of Protection. In the Order of Protection his roommate was alleging that Mr. T had held a fork to his neck and drew blood, which would be an Aggravated Assault (Dangerous) per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1204. After being served with the order of protection, Mr. T met with our office and ultimately retained our firm for Pre-Charge services.

After being retained, the Pre-Charge team met to discuss the plan of attack in his case. The immediate plan was to (1) order a copy of the police report from the Scottsdale Police Department, and (2) send a Trebus letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s office as a precaution. After these steps were taken, we had multiple calls with Mr. T and his father regarding the status of the order of protection and steps Mr. T was taking to remove his property from the home.  During one of these calls, Mr. T’s father advised that the alleged victim had contacted him regarding our client getting the rest of his property out of the house. After obtaining  the  telephone  number  for  the  alleged  victim  we  reached  out  to  speak  with  him regarding his side of what happened. The call was very short and ended with the alleged victim telling us to obtain a copy of the police report. Given his demeanor, the pre-charge team discussed the concern we had of potential class 3 dangerous charge coming Mr. T’s way.

Approximately a month and a half after being retained, a Detective from the Scottsdale Police Department reached out to our client and left a message requesting a call back. At this point, we returned the Detective’s call and submitted the Trebus letter, previously sent to the County Attorney’s Office. Later, we received  the  police  report  which  was  only   two  pages  long  and  indicated it was a “furthered investigation.” After multiple follow-up calls to the Scottsdale Police Department and we finally received the full police report one month later. In that report, it delineated that there was a physical  fight  between  our  client  and  his  roommate  over  using  a  fork  on  a  nonstick  pan. According to the alleged victim, our client was intoxicated. The alleged victim indicated that our client put the fork to his neck and held hot oil in the other hand as if he was going to dump it on him, however he didn’t. Our client is alleged to have said “I should kill you.” It was at this time that the alleged victim left. The report also indicates that an Order of Protection was in place and that the civil standby had occurred. The report ends with the following quote, “based on the fact that Michael T is not responding to my voice message personally and he is now represented by an attorney, I am unable to confirm the version of events described by the victim and have classified this case as inactive.”

FELONY CHILD ABUSE NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. P (DMC No. 13376) (Phoenix Police Department DR No. 2012-02271258): Mr. P had a 5 year old daughter who was at school when a teacher noticed a bruise on her ear. When the child was questioned, she stated “my daddy spanked me”. The school then called the Police Department.  When Mr.  P arrived at school he was contacted by an Officer of the Phoenix Police Department and he was questioned. He denied noticing any bruising prior to the school day or causing any injury to his daughter.

 

CPS were called and they began an investigation for Child Abuse per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-3623. After both Police contact and the CPS contact, Mr. P (who had just graduated from Law School) contacted our office. Once our services were retained, I met with the Pre Charge team and we decided (1) to have Mr. P take a polygraph, (2) we would be with him when he was interviewed by CPS, (3) we would contact the Detective and then later send him a letter with the polygraph results. 5 days after we were retained, we sat down with the CPS interviewer and his Supervisor we explained to the CPS investigators that the 5 year old had previously gotten in trouble for stealing gum from the Principal’s purse. The theft was previously documented by the school. We then also explained to them that the child admitted that she was mad at her father after she got in trouble for stealing the gum. The real story as to her injury was she fell off the monkey bars and blamed her father due to her anger. Ultimately, no parenting plan or sanctions were put into place by CPS.

 

Approximately 1 week after the CPS meeting, we spoke with the Detective. He stated that the daughter’s allegations were that Mr. P had slapped her, pulled her hair and spanked her. We explained the situation that she had made the story up, and we also informed him that we had met with CPS and they were taking no action. He then requested to speak with Mr. P’s wife in order to receive confirmation of the daughter’s story.

 

Shortly thereafter, we contacted the polygrapher and explained the situation. We crafted the 3 questions would be asked of Mr. P at the exam, and he went in and took the polygraph (which he passed). We then sent a letter with a copy of the results to the Detective. The Detective then reviewed all the evidence and stated “there is no evidence to support a charge of Child Abuse at this time. This report will be closed.” After another contact with the Officer, he filed a supplemental DR stating “This case has been previously closed, and will remain closed.”

1 2 3 7
Call Now Button