Our Location

40 N. Central Ave, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004

Free Consultation

(602) 307-0808
Call Now, Open 24/7
September 4, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories Case Victories

State v. Mr. P (DMC No. 13169)

State v. Mr. P (DMC No. 13169) – Felony Voyeurism & Felony Surreptitious Viewing – Not Charged – Payson Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXXX2) & Gila County Attorney’s Office Investigated:

Mr. P was a 72 year-old man who had a cabin near the city of Pine in Gila County. He drove a blue Lexus sedan and he would frequently visit the Green Valley Park in order to walk around and enjoy the fresh air. On one of the occasions he was at the park, a woman had also taken her two children to the park, and had entered into the women’s bathroom. She claimed that she had seen an older man who was looking at a group of small girls who were standing outside of the women’s bathroom. As she began to go to the bathroom, she saw a pair of men’s shoes under the stall door and claimed that she saw a man looking at her through the crack outside the door.

After she finished, she exited and went to wash her hands. She then said that the man exited the stall and stood behind her without saying a word. She left the bathroom and claimed that she had taken a photograph of the Lexus with the license plate. Later, she told police that she had accidentally deleted the photograph and no longer had it. However, she claimed that she wrote down the license plate number. Police then tracked the number and called Mr. P into the police station.

He went voluntarily and spoke with Police and told them that the allegation was absolutely false. He also said that nobody else would have been driving his Lexus and he had no idea why these people were making these statements. We then became involved in the case and contacted the Police.

We explained to the Police that the story between the mother and her two children did not match. We also explained that it was possible that they confused one older man with white hair with another older man, and simply assumed he was the one that had been in the bathroom. Lastly, it was very suspicious that there was no photograph that they could produce on their iPhone after claiming they took a picture. Although the police forwarded the case to the Gila County Attorney’s office for Surreptitious Viewing pursuant to ARS 13-3019(A)(1), No Charges were ever brought against Mr. P.

September 4, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories Case Victories

State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 13387)

State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 13387) – Felony Voyeurism, Felony Surreptitious Videotaping & Felony Sexual Exploitation of a Minor – Not Charged – Phoenix Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXO):

Mr. S was seen going into a Wal-Mart in the west side of Phoenix. It was alleged that he was taking his cell phone, placing it in his sandal while it was turned on to video mode, and then going into the juvenile girls’ clothing department. He was then accused of placing his foot underneath young girls who were wearing skirts, in order to look up their dresses. Wal-Mart had claimed they had seen Mr. S in the store before, and that they had him on videotape. They then called the Phoenix Police Department the next time he entered in the store, and he was then arrested while allegedly engaging in the same activity.

When he was questioned, he stated that he would use his cell phone to track the number of steps he was taking while he was walking and exercising. When they asked him why his phone was on video mode, he stated that it would sometimes accidentally turn on. After he was released, the Police then got a Search Warrant and seized his cell phone and iPad. They asked if he would be willing to come down to the station, and he consented. That is when we became involved in the case.

We contacted the Police and indicated that Mr. S would not be giving any type of statement. We also indicated that once a Forensic Examination was complete on his cell phone and iPad, that we wanted those items “cloned”, in order for them to be analyzed by our Expert. Ultimately, we were able to have the Police place the case on an “Inactive Status” and No Charges were ever brought against Mr. S.

July 22, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 2500 Professional Board Hearings, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 38 Miscellaneous Sex Crimes Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. Z (DMC No. 13839)

State v. Mr. Z (DMC No. 13839) – (5 Counts) Felony Sexual Misconduct with Patient & (2 Counts) Attempted Sexual Misconduct with Patient – Reduced to Class 6 Open/Misdemeanor with Probation and Zero Days in Jail – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2015-005788).

Mr. Z. was employed by Terros as an Independent Licensed Counselor. He was treating a young lady who was a convicted felon. Her treatment was for alcoholism, addiction to pills, meth, and heroin. She also suffered from depression. Somewhere during the course of their counseling sessions, a sexual relationship developed. She eventually became married and then sought out a civil attorney and attempted to secretly tape Mr. Z in order to get admissions. She reported the conduct to the Arizona Board of Behavioral Health Examiners, and their Investigator interviewed Mr. Z.

Mr. Z. stated that he had colon cancer and could not achieve an erection. However, he did admit to developing a relationship which included oral sex and digital penetration. He was unaware that this was a violation of the law, as he thought it was only an ethical violation. He was subsequently charged with Sexual Misconduct with a Patient per ARS 13-1418(B).

We became involved in the case and we began defending the criminal allegations. We also entered into a Consent Decree with the Arizona Board of Behavioral Health Examiners which included a revocation of Mr. Z’s license. We presented Mitigation to the prosecutor regarding the fact that his patient was an adult and they had a consensual relationship. It now appeared that she was trying to make it sound as if their relationship was nonconsensual in order to file a civil lawsuit. The Prosecutor agreed that the only violations were under ARS 13-1418(B), and an offer to a Class 6 Open/Misdemeanor plea was made. At Sentencing the judge imposed Probation with Zero Days in Jail. The judge also set a hearing for a year later to determine whether there would be Sex Offender Terms and whether the case could be designated as a Misdemeanor at that time. Originally, Mr. Z. was facing more than 11 years in prison if he were to be convicted on all charges and sentenced to the maximum.

July 22, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 43 Fraudulent Schemes Reduced, 47O Identity Theft Victories, 600 Drug Crimes Victories, 86D Acquisition of a Narcotic Drug Victories, Case Victories

State v. Ms. B (DMC No. 11862)

State v. Ms. B (DMC No. 11862) – Felony Fraudulent Schemes, (2 Counts) Acquisition of a Dangerous Drug by Fraud & Identity Theft – Reduced to Solicitation Class 6 Open/Misdemeanor with 6 Months Probation and Zero Days in Jail –Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2013-002734).

Ms. B worked in a Doctor’s office as a medical assistant. She routinely would call in scripts on behalf of clients to various pharmacies. She was pressured into calling in some scripts for a coworker for various opiates. In addition, she called in a prescription for herself for an appetite suppressant. This was all done without the knowledge of the Doctor and in violation of ARS 13-3407, Acquisition of a Dangerous Drug by Fraud. It also qualified as a Fraud Scheme per ARS 13-2310 and Identity Theft per ARS 13-2008.

The Doctor found out about the scheme when she was called by Walgreens and the pharmacist asked if she normally prescribed this many pills (60) in a refill of Tramadol. The Doctor had no idea what the pharmacy was talking about and Phoenix Police Department was contacted. Eventually the Arizona Attorney General’s Healthcare Fraud and Abuse sections became involved, and an Investigator contacted Ms. B. Ms. B was interviewed with her boss/doctor present and she was never read her Miranda rights. She admitted to what had happened. She was then charged with Fraud Schemes, 2 Counts of Acquisition of a Dangerous Drug by Fraud, and ID Theft.

We became involved in the case and we informed the Prosecutor that it was the other coworker who was coercing Ms. B. into calling in prescriptions. The other coworker never cooperated with investigators, and we discovered that she had been convicted of Identity Theft in the state of New Jersey. Ultimately, we presented detailed Mitigation to the Prosecutor and they agreed to offer a plea to a single count of Solicitation, which is a Class 6 Open/Misdemeanor. She received 6 months of Probation and Zero Days in Jail. After 6 months of Probation, she had the case designated a Misdemeanor.

Unfortunately, her conviction qualified under 42 USC 1320(A)(7) and 42 CFR 1001.101(C). This means that Ms. B. was excluded from participation in any capacity (including employment) regarding Medicare, Medicaid and all Federal Healthcare Programs as defined under section 1128 B(F) of the Social Security Act for a minimum statutory period of five years. This includes any state healthcare program which is funded by Federal money. The exclusion had a significant effect on her ability to work in the healthcare field. However, because her conviction was designated a Misdemeanor, she had the ability to challenge the exclusion which was issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General.

July 22, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 114 Theft and Fraud Pre-Charge Victories, 1900 Federal Court Victories, 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 47 Miscellaneous Theft/Fraud Victories, Case Victories

U.S. v. Mr. S (DMC No. 15036)

U.S. v. Mr. S (DMC No. 15036) – Federal Felony Misappropriation of Postal Funds ($301) – Reduced to Probation with Zero Days in Jail – U.S. District Court, District of Arizona. (Case No. 4:17-CR-01474-TUC-LCK).

Mr. S. was a U.S. Postal carrier who had his route in a suburb of Tucson. Part of his duties included the delivery of U.S. Mail with Cash on Delivery (“COD”) service requested. Per the USPS Domestic Mail manual, the COD recipient pays postage and the cost of the mailed article upon delivery, the delivery employee collects payment for the COD from recipient, remits it to the Postal Service and the Postal Service delivers the payment to the sender. Mr. S. had delivered a COD package to a customer who had remitted $301 to Mr. S. Mr. S. did not turn the COD payment over to the USPS in order to remit to the sender. When he was questioned by the USPS Office of Inspector General, Special Agents, he acknowledged he experienced a lack of personal funds while retaining the $301 COD payment, and thus used a portion of the COD money for personal expenses. He was then charged with Felony Misappropriation of Postal Funds per 18 USC 1711.

Mr. S. then retained our services and we contact the Assistant U.S. Attorney in order to resolve the case. We explained that Mr. S. had put the money in his wallet and was planning on remitting the money to the Postal Service within the next couple of days. He was merely short on cash before his paycheck, and he used some of the COD money to pay his expenses. While acknowledging the wrongfulness of his actions, he did plan on only keeping the money for a couple of days. The Assistant U.S. Attorney then offered us a plea which included a reduction to Probation and Zero Days in Jail.

July 22, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 114 Theft and Fraud Pre-Charge Victories, 1900 Federal Court Victories, 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 47 Miscellaneous Theft/Fraud Victories, Case Victories

U.S. v. Mr. A (DMC No. 12448)

U.S. v. Mr. A (DMC No. 12448) – Federal Felony Theft of Mail by Postal Employee ($175) & Federal Felony Unlawful Possession of Stolen Mail – Reduced to 1 Year Probation and Zero Days in Jail – U.S. District Court, District of Phoenix (Case No. 2:14-CR-14-00534-001-PHX-SPL).

Mr. A. was a postal carrier in Glendale. One of the households on his route contacted the Postal Inspector to claim that they had not received a card that was mailed from Wisconsin which contained cash. There had been several complaints against Mr. A. along his route in the past. The Postal Inspector then prepared a mailing which contained a $25 Target gift card. This mailing was called a “test mailing” and it would have an address that has “no such number.” Whenever a piece of mail ends up with having no such number, it is to be designated as UBBM (Undeliverable Bulk Business Mail). It is then to be returned by the Postal Carrier to the station. In this case, the card was never returned and he instead utilized it to buy goods at Target.

Mr. A. was brought in to be questioned by the Postal Inspector and he was requested to sign a Garrity Form. In this form, which is designed for questioning government employees, it states that if the Employee makes any admissions, they can be used against them “in any future criminal proceedings.” It also states “If I refuse to answer questions because my answers might result in criminal charges being brought against me, I will not be disciplined solely for remaining silent.” However, usually if the employee invokes their right to remain silent, they will lose their job with the government.

During the interview process, Mr. A. denied the allegations. When he was confronted with the used Target card, he then made an admission. He then invoked his right to remain silent and secured our services. Shortly thereafter, charges of Theft of Mail by Postal Employee per 18 USC 1709, & Felony Unlawful Possession of Stolen Mail per 18 USC 1708 were filed against Mr. A. We contacted the Assistant U.S. Attorney in this case in order to come to a resolution. It was determined that the total amount of loss was $150 to the individual household on Mr. A’s route and the $25 spent int the gift card by the Postal Service. In exchange for a $600 fine and the $175 in restitution, Mr. A’s case was reduced to one year of Probation with Zero Days in Jail.

July 22, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 114 Theft and Fraud Pre-Charge Victories, 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 43A Fraudulent Schemes Pre-Charge Victories, 46 Theft Pre-Charge Victories, 47J Forgery Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 11444)

State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 11444) – Felony Fraudulent Schemes (Counterfeiting $20 Bills), Felony Counterfeiting, Felony Theft & (2 counts) Felony Forgery – Not Charged – Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office investigated (DR#20XXX-XXXXX7).

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office was called to a CVS Pharmacy located in Queen Creek. When they arrived, they spoke with a manager who sated that Mr. M. had come into the store and utilized a counterfeit $20 bill to purchase a $1 item and then he received $19 in change. They stated that this had occurred to them in the past also. The manager had taken down the license plate number from the video in the parking lot before Mr. M. left. The Officers ran the license plate and then showed up at Mr. M’s residence. Mr. M lived with his parents, and only the father was home when the Police arrived. The father allowed them to search Mr. M’s room, and it was discovered there was a computer, a scanner and a shedder inside the room. Contained in the shredder were several pieces of shredded counterfeit money.

When contact was made with Mr. M, he invoked his right to remain silent. We then became involved in the case and we had Mr. M. sign an Affidavit that he was invoking his right to remain silent if he were to be contacted by Detectives in the future. We also spoke with Detectives about the fact that the computer in the household was a “community computer”, and it was not password protected. Lastly, we pointed out that they had no video evidence of the alleged prior incidents occurring at that CVS and other stores in the surrounding neighborhoods. Eyewitnesses could not pick Mr. M out of any photo line-ups, and he had made no admissions to knowledge of the counterfeit money. Ultimately, the Sheriff’s Detective routed the case to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office seeking a charge of Fraud Schemes, Theft, and two counts of Forgery. It was also possible that a charge of Counterfeiting could have been tacked on. However, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office made the decision to “turn down” the case. Mr. M has no criminal record.

July 22, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 47 Miscellaneous Theft/Fraud Victories, 47B Racketeering (RICO) / Illegally Conducting an Enterprise (State Charge) Victories, Case Victories

State v. Ms. S (DMC No. 13490)

State v. Ms. S (DMC No. 13490) – Felony Illegal Control of an Enterprise/ RICO & Felony Conspiracy – ­Reduced to Misdemeanor Facilitation with Zero Days in Jail – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2011-007595).

The Phoenix Police Department had received information that a place known as the “Phoenix Temple Goddess” was running an Illegal Enterprise as a House of Prostitution. A six month long investigation ensued in which they found there was numerous reviews posted on “The Exotic Review” (TER). That particular website purportedly detailed specific sex acts performed by employees of the temple in exchange for money. The Phoenix Police Department then deployed three female Undercover Detectives to go to the temple in order to secure employment.

The Undercover Officers were told that a “gatekeeper” for the Temple would take a “donation” in order for them to perform “naked life coaching.” They were also to be known as “healers” and “practitioners.” They were then given a handbook that showed that the donation amounts would range from $125 for a half hour, up to $804 for a 4 hour session. It also specified what percentage of the money would go to the Temple, and what percentage would go to the “Practitioner.” After that point, an indictment was handed down against multiple codefendants, and Ms. S was arrested for being one of the Practitioners.

We became involved in the case and we immediately discovered that we would have to reduce the case to a misdemeanor, otherwise our client would be deported to Canada, and she would not be allowed back into the United States. This has to do with the immigration rules as her charges were regarded as a crime of “moral turpitude.” We ultimately were able to show the Prosecutor that there was no direct evidence that Ms. S engaged in any sexual activity. In addition, she would be more useful as a witness for the Prosecution, as opposed to just being regarded as a defendant. Ultimately, the Prosecutor agreed to extend an offer to a misdemeanor of Facilitation which included Probation and Zero Days in Jail. Ms. S was allowed to remain in the country, and she has no Felony convictions on her record.

July 22, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 100A Computer Crime Victories, 114 Theft and Fraud Pre-Charge Victories, 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 43 Fraudulent Schemes Reduced, 47B Racketeering (RICO) / Illegally Conducting an Enterprise (State Charge) Victories, 47J Forgery Victories, 800 Miscellaneous Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. H (DMC No. 11744)

State v. Mr. H (DMC No. 11744) – Felony Illegally Conducting an Enterprise/RICO ($132,755 in Counterfeit Checks), Felony Computer Tampering, Felony Attempted Fraudulent Schemes & (2 Counts) Forgery – Reduced to Possession of a Forgery Device with Probation and Zero Days in Jail – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2013-002470).

Mr. H was involved in an Illegal Enterprise which was engaged in manufacturing fake checks and then cashing them. The checks were manufactured by utilizing a computer to print false checks with false bank routing numbers. This particular activity is known as “Computer Tampering.” Once the Illegal Enterprise would create the fake checks, they would then be distributed to individuals to cash at various retail outlets. Mr. H. was one of the people who received checks that were created by the Enterprise and he was one of the individuals responsible for cashing them. Once the Police became aware of this, they arrested several of the check cashers and had them become “Confidential Informants.” Eventually, a 61 co-defendant indictment, which included 328 charges, was handed down by a Grand Jury.

When we became involved in the case, we immediately began working with Detectives and Prosecutors in order to cooperate and to provide Mitigation on Mr. H’s behalf. Unfortunately, Mr. H. had become addicted to heroin, and had only gone for various brief stretches in his life where he was sober. He was married and had several small children when he fell off the wagon. He had lost his job and started using heroin again.

He became involved in the Conspiracy in order to receive money to support his drug habit. During the Pretrial phase of the case, we had Mr. H. go into inpatient rehab, which he successfully completed. We also had him make Restitution in full for his portion of the Fraud Scheme. Ultimately, the Prosecutor offered a plea to Possession of a Forgery Device, which included Probation and Zero Days in Jail. If Mr. H. had been convicted of all charges, there would have been mandatory Prison time required due to the amount of the loss being greater than $100,000. He is now sober, and his family is intact.

July 22, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 114 Theft and Fraud Pre-Charge Victories, 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 43A Fraudulent Schemes Pre-Charge Victories, 46 Theft Pre-Charge Victories, 47B Racketeering (RICO) / Illegally Conducting an Enterprise (State Charge) Victories, 47N Embezzlement Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. A (DMC No. 9146)

State v. Mr. A (DMC No. 9146) – Felony Embezzlement/RICO ($88,000 Misappropriated from Law Firm), Felony Fraudulent Schemes & Felony Theft – Not Charged – Resolved with Civil Settlement – Scottsdale Police Department Investigated (DR#20XX-XXXX2); Maricopa County Superior Court, Civil Division (Case No. CV2008-015240).

Mr. A. owned a collection service business. He contracted with a local Phoenix law firm to conduct their collections regarding overextended accounts receivables. Things were not going well at first, and Mr. A. convinced the law firm to let him take over all of the bookkeeper’s duties. This gave him access to all of the law firm’s bank accounts and he was authorized to sign checks into a bank (cost account) only. Over the course of a two month span, he began transferring all of the law firm’s money into various accounts. He would then use electronic transfers, write checks or use “check by phone” transfers to transfer money to himself. These were monies that he was not entitled to.

In addition, Mr. A. began charging the law firm for overhead incurred while working on the law firm’s accounts. The law firm received no benefit for this and they had no idea that this was going on. In essence, Mr. A. was “padding” the bills. The total amount of loss for the two months totaled $88,000. Once this was discovered, Mr. A. secured our services.

We began negotiating with the lawyer who was working on behalf of the law firm. As we were in Settlement negotiations, they filed a Civil Lawsuit against Mr. A., which included accusations of, among other things; RICO, Theft, Breach of Contract and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. We were eventually able to work out a Settlement with the law firm and they agreed that this appeared to be a situation of a miscommunication and bad bookkeeping practices. They decided that they were not going to seek any criminal charges against Mr. A. Initially, he could have been facing mandatory prison time, however, he has no criminal charges on his record.

1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 156
Call Now Button