Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: 16C Theft of Means of Transportation / Auto Theft Victories

NOT CHARGED | FRAUDULENT SCHEMES ($200,000) BANK and WIRE FRAUD, MONEY LAUNDERING, and THEFT of MEANS of TRANSPORTATION ($85,000) NOT CHARGED due to CIVIL SETTLEMENT – State v. Mr. G. and Mrs. G. (DMC No. 6372 and 6373) (IRS and JP Morgan Chase Bank Investigated): Mr. and Mrs. G. discovered that the bank had placed $100,000 in their checking account on two successive days by mistake.  This total of $200,000 was perceived to be a “wind fall”.  Mr. and Mrs. G. immediately transferred the money out and began spending it.  When the mistake was discovered, the bank and legal authorities began to investigate.  We were able to step in and negotiate a “civil settlement” with a payment schedule, and no charges were brought against Mr. and Mrs. G.  Originally they were facing a potential of decades in prison.


INSURANCE FRAUD ($23,000) and THEFT of MEANS of TRANSPORTATION NOT CHARGED; FALSE REPORTING DISMISSED – State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 8485) (Surprise City Court CR07-01028/Surprise Police Department DR 07096356): Mr. C had gone to Las Vegas to get married, and when he got back his truck was missing. It was found by the Peoria Police Department burned out in the desert. This was then reported to the Surprise Police Department, and Mr. C had filed a stolen vehicle report. The police and insurance company became suspicious and interviewed a friend of Mr. C’s who stated that Mr. C had another friend named “Greg” steal the vehicle and burn it so he could file an insurance claim in order to recover $23,000.

We became involved in the case, and dealt directly with the Detective on Mr. C’s behalf. The Detective filed a direct complaint into the Surprise City Court for False Reporting. We ultimately got this charged Dismissed. In addition, the Detective routed his file over to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to be reviewed for charges of Insurance Fraud and Theft of Means of Transportation. Due to our intervention, no charges were brought against Mr. C. If he would have been charged, he could have done time in prison.

TRAFFICKING AND STOLEN PROPERTY ($67,800), THEFT OF MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION and BURGLARY ALL REDUCED to PROBATION with 6 MONTHS DEFERRED JAIL – State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 9012) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2009-119368): Mr. D had stolen a trailer along with various all-terrain vehicles from his former landlord. He then painted the trailer and removed the VIN numbers on the vehicles before putting them on Craigslist for sale. The vehicles and trailers were ultimately purchased, and then it was discovered they were stolen during the titling process. Mr. D was contacted by police and arrested. His wife admitted to Mr. D’s crimes, and also the police pulled up video surveillance from a local U-Haul storage facility showing Mr. D with the trailer and vehicles. Although the original Victim and State Farm Insurance company sought prison time, we were able to convince the Judge to give Mr. A 6 months of “Deferred” jail which was later Deleted after he had paid back full restitution. Mr. D originally was looking at years in prison.

INSURANCE FRAUD/AUTO THEFT NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. P. (DMC No. 8525) (Arizona Department of Insurance Investigated): Mr. P had purchased a 1 year old Chevy 4×4 truck with lots of amenities. He had the truck for several months, when it was stolen. He reported the theft to his insurance company and filed a claim. He later received a call from Police stating the vehicle was found in Mexico. When he called his insurance company to inform them, they stated that they were already aware of this and felt that he was involved in the theft of his own vehicle in order to file an insurance claim.

After receiving a letter from the Department of Insurance Investigator, he contacted our office. We were able to show that there was no motive for Mr. P. to steal the vehicle (i.e. He was not in financial hardship, nor was there a mechanical problem with the vehicle), and that he was willing to take a lie detector test. After all documentation was forwarded to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, we met with the charging Attorney who agreed that no charges would be filed against Mr. P. We also sent a scathing letter to the Insurance company indicated that if they pursued this further that they would be sued for “bad faith”. Mr. P. has no criminal history.


THEFT of MEANS of TRANSPORTATION with 2 PRIOR FELONIES CONVICTIONS REDUCED to a MISDEMEANOR with ZERO DAYS in JAIL at TIME of SENTENCING – State v. Mr. W. (DMC No. 5170) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2003-033716): Mr. W. had 2 prior felony convictions, and was accused of stealing motorcycles and “parting” them out.  His original Public Defender had secured an offer to 6 years in prison.  When we became involved we immediately attacked the proof of his prior convictions.  This allowed us to secure a class 6 “open” offer, and we were able to argue at the time of sentencing for the charge to be reduced to a misdemeanor upon successful completion of probation.  Mr. W. eventually got drug counseling, completed probation and did not serve any jail time or prison time regarding this case.

REDUCED | FELONY AUTO THEFT – State v. Mr. H. (DMC No. 7129) REDUCED to Misdemeanor & Probation – Felony Auto Theft, (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CR2007-101364): Mr. H. was observed with 2 others stealing a motorized scooter from a parking lot. He was caught taking the scooter to his vehicle. He was ultimately indicted for Theft of Means of Transportation (Auto Theft), and was now facing prison time. We were able to demonstrate that this was a prank that he and his friends were pulling at the college, and we were able to secure an offer of 18 months of probation with no jail. At the conclusion of probation, the charge was designated a misdemeanor, thereby not leaving a felony on Mr. H.’s record.


REDUCED | THEFT OF MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION / SALE OF COUNTERFEIT MERCHANDISE –State v. Mr. D. (Tempe City Court No. 03-672467): Mr. D. had worked for a local car dealership, and he had taken 3 different vehicles and driven them for extended periods of time without permission. In some cases, the vehicles were driven for several thousand miles, thereby reducing the value of the vehicles substantially. After conducting extensive witness interviews, we were able to show that Mr. D. did have permission given to him by his General Manager, however, he did question the validity of this permission. On the eve of trial, the prosecutor extended a misdemeanor deal with zero days in jail and small amount of restitution.

DISMISSED | THEFT OF MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION – State v. Mr. D. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. 2003-020415CR) Mr. D. was charged with class 3 felony Theft of Means of Transportation. In this particular case, Mr. D. asked the alleged victim if he could borrow his truck, and the alleged victim agreed. When Mr. D. returned, he indicated he had loaned the truck to “somebody else.” The victim felt that Mr. D. had exchanged his truck for drugs and called the police. The vehicle was recovered, and due to the fact that the victim also knew the person Mr. D. had lent the vehicle to, we convinced the State to dismiss all charges.

DISMISSED | AUTO THEFT – (Maricopa County Superior Court No. 0100166CR): Mr. B. borrowed a vehicle from a friend of his. The person he borrowed the vehicle from misunderstood the amount of time that he would be borrowing the vehicle, and made a stolen vehicle report. During the interview process, the alleged victim admitted that he may have been intoxicated when he filed the report. Mr. B. was released from custody and all charges were dismissed.

DISMISSED | THEFT OF MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION / EMBEZZLEMENT – State v. Ms. S., (Maricopa County Superior Court No. 020561CR): Ms. S. was a bookkeeper for a local construction company. She was given permission by the owner to pay certain personal expenses and to purchase a jeep as part of her payment package. Eventually, the owner had a falling out with Ms. S. and claimed she had embezzled funds and stolen the jeep. After extensive financial reviews (which included forensic reviews of the checks and the memo sections of each check) the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office agreed to dismiss all charges.

Call Now Button