It is important to secure competent legal counsel as soon as possible to argue your case successfully.

There are many defenses that can be explored to get a positive outcome in your case. For example, the first one that comes to mind is entrapment. These days law enforcement often pose as other users in chat rooms or on the dark net. They pose as someone actively seeking CSAM. You may not have ever done anything illegal but for their persuading you to so. There are legal motions we can file that may be dispositive for your case.  Remember, the government has become well versed in programs like BitTorrent, and can be on the dark net doing things illegal themselves all in their efforts to “combat crime.”

Additionally, when law enforcement comes to execute a search warrant for devices at your home or office, they must have a valid search warrant or everything they seized will be discarded and not used in the case against you. You need an experienced criminal defense lawyer to ensure law enforcement did not violate your Constitutional rights in executing the search warrant.

Sometimes, a download from a proper website can result in what is termed as an “accidental download”. We have experts ready to assist us in showing the government exactly what is and what is not on your devices and what is and what was purposely downloaded and accessed.

These are but some defenses that Conaway & Strickler, PC have successfully argued. Contact us to discuss your case in more depth. The consequences of a child pornography or CSAM (“Child Sexual Abuse Material”) conviction are severe and life-altering. And the collateral consequence of being on the sex offender registry can be devastating. We are here to help.

To understand the specifics of this case, below we have quoted directly from the Petitioner’s Brief:

This case concerns the constitutionality of geofence warrants. For cell phone users to use certain services, their cell phones must continuously transmit their exact locations to their service providers. A geofence warrant allows law enforcement to obtain, from the service provider, the identities of users who were in the vicinity of a particular location at a particular time. In this case, law enforcement obtained, and served on Google, a geofence warrant seeking anonymized location data for every device within 150 meters of the location of a bank robbery within one hour of the robbery. After Google returned an initial list, law enforcement sought— without seeking an additional warrant—information about the movements of certain devices for a longer, two-hour period, and Google complied with that request as well. Then—again without seeking an additional warrant—law enforcement requested de anonymized subscriber information for three devices. One of those devices belonged to petitioner Okello Chatrie. Based on the evidence derived from the geofence warrant, petitioner was convicted of armed robbery.

The last time the Supreme Court wrestled with cell phone privacy issues was in Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), which is a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the privacy of historical cell site location information. The Court held in that case that the government violates the Fourth Amendment when accessing historical cell phone Iocation records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant. That case, however, was after a suspect was identified, making it unlike the current case before the Supreme Court.

We receive terabytes of data in discovery for our cases. Motions to suppress can be filed for all of the data seized from search warrants of phones. We are cognizant of the ever changing landscape of Fourth Amendment case law. We ensure that law enforcement follows the appropriate procedures for every single case. Contact us now if you have a case you would like to discuss.

Synthetic child sexual abuse material (CSAM) may not involve a camera or physical contact but it will depicts a child in a sexual context and thus is subject to regulation. Artificial intelligence is used to create realistic images or videos of children in sexual situations. Sometimes, these materials depict completely fabricated children or the face or likeness of a real child, placing them into sexualized content without their knowledge or consent. When it is the face or likeness of a real child, there is a higher likelihood of charges being imminent.

Can I be Charged with Synthetic CSAM?

It is possible to be charged criminally when in possession of AI generated child sex abuse material. There has been some movement in this area to litigate the legality of charging such activity criminally and only time will tell what that means for how the Supreme Court will rule as recent cases move through the system. News continues to state that AI – Generated CSAM is on the rise and “a growing concern” which will in turn result in additional federal and state criminal charges for AI-Generated CSAM.

Regulation of AI-created intimate images, often referred to as “deep fakes” has been broadly adopted by most states and the federal government. In the state of Georgia, there have been several attempts to change legislation including this recent letter written by Jon Ossoff. There are also recent prosecutions including a man in KY who was sentenced to five years for using AI to create child sexual abuse material. Prosecutions at the federal level for CSAM is on the rise as well.

If you learn that you are under investigation for offenses related to CSAM, you should contact us immediately. We are here to help and have experience to fight these cases.

STEPS IN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROCESS (Note: this blog will discuss the procedure for a plea. For more information on what to expect at federal criminal trial, read more here.)

Initial Appearance

Generally, after an investigation, charges are brought via a federal criminal indictment. Hiring a federal criminal defense attorney as soon as possible results in a better resolution.

Once an indictment is filed, and you are arrested and processed, you are brought before a magistrate judge for an initial hearing on the case. At that time, you learn more about your rights and the charges against you, and the judge decides whether to grant you pretrial release or order you be detained.

Arraignment

This hearing can occur at the same time as the initial appearance. You are asked if you have read and understood the charges against you and you formally enter a plea of “Not Guilty”.

Discovery

Federal criminal discovery is governed by three sources of law: Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court cases of Brady and Giglio, and the Jencks Act.

Plea Negotiations

The plea bargain itself, called a “Rule 11” plea in the Federal Criminal Justice system, generally is memorialized in a 15-20 page document called the “plea agreement“.

Change of Plea Hearing

A change of plea hearing in federal court is scheduled when a defendant decides to plead guilty to a federal offense. During the hearing, the judge will ask questions to ensure that the plea is entered freely and voluntarily.

Preparation of Pre-Sentence Report

After you enter a plea of guilty to a federal offense or is convicted by trial, you will meet with a probation officer. The probation officer will conduct an interview you to get more information about the entire case and then submits a report for the judge to determine the proper sentence. The following information is gathered during this interview and pre sentence investigation: family history, community ties, education background, employment history, military history, physical health, mental and emotional health, history of substance abuse, financial condition, and willingness to accept responsibility for the offense. Learn more about the pre-sentence report and the pre-sentence report interview.

United States Sentencing Guidelines

The United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines are what the judge uses to decide an appropriate sentence for each case.

Sentencing Hearing

A federal sentencing hearing is when final arguments are presented and a judge hands down the sentence.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) CyberTipline is a centralized reporting system for the online exploitation of children. Facebook/Meta, Google, Instagram, Snapchat, Yahoo, Microsoft, X, etc are required to report suspected CSAM detected on their platforms. These providers make reports of suspected online sex crimes issues and NCMEC reviews each report, and then forwards it to law enforcement for investigation. The report typically includes a description of the images, cryptographic hash values assigned to each file, and the Internet Protocol (IP) address linked to the account in question.

Cases can also occur when computer repair technicians encounter suspected CSAM on a device, or if a family member or peer sees something and informs law enforcement. Additionally, if an allegation of child molestation is made against a suspect, that suspect’s devices may be seized and contraband files discovered.

II. How is the Dark Net involved in These Cases?

In a recent case, the DOJ arrested 18 defendants and dismantled four dark web sites dedicated to images and videos containing CSAM in “Operation Grayskull”.

Bitcoin is the most popular dark web currency. Litecoin comes in second as the most popular currency. Administrators of dark web sites use multiple websites under multiple pseudonyms, employing cryptocurrency mixers, numerous cryptocurrency wallets, and intermediary accounts to move the funds in an attempt to evade detection.

When a dark web site is dismantled, the users are tracked and ultimately arrested along with the administrators.

III. What are Some Ways to Defend These Types of Cases?

Conaway & Strickler, PC always advises seeking digital forensic experts in these types of cases. They can mirror image the devices seized and analyze them. They help decipher some of the more technical aspects of the discovery we receive. Their expertise can pinpoint precise steps the government may have missed in their investigation. They can also determine whether files were intentionally accessed, whether timestamps were manipulated, and whether malware or remote-access software could have created the material without the accused’s knowledge.

We also employ forensic psychologists to do a psychosexual evaluation to help provide mitigation and/or to provide a defense to the charges.

Conaway & Strickler, PC represents clients charged with Child Sex Abuse Material at the state and federal level. For further information, please see here or contact us. We are here to help.

I. What charges can the government use to allege money laundering?

18 U.S.C. § 1956: This is for laundering monetary instruments and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $500,000 or twice the value of the funds involved, whichever is greater

18 U.S.C. § 1957: This applies to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity and can result in up to 10 years in prison and fines up to twice the value of the property involved.

18 U.S.C. § 1956(h): criminalizes conspiracy to commit money laundering. It makes it illegal for two or more people to agree to conduct or attempt to conduct a financial transaction involving the proceeds of specified unlawful activity (money laundering). The crime is the agreement itself, regardless of whether the money laundering was ultimately successful.

Bulk cash smuggling (31 U.S.C. § 5332): knowingly concealing more than $10,000 in currency or other monetary instruments on the person of such individual or in any conveyance, article of luggage, merchandise, or other container, and transports or transfers or attempts to transport or transfer such currency or monetary instruments from a place within the United States to a place outside of the United States, or from a place outside the United States to a place within the United States

RICO Act- the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)

II. Drug traffickers are purported to utilize some of the following tactics to money launder

-Purchase and or title assets in fictitious names, aliases, or in the names of friends or relatives

-Create and maintain Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency accounts. These are utilized because of the anonymity associated with the use of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency accounts and because cryptocurrency is decentralized.

III. Dark Net Explanation

The darknet is a part of the internet that requires special software, like the Tor browser, to access, and is not indexed by standard search engines. It uses layered encryption to make user activity anonymous

IV. Cryptocurrency

This is a type of virtual currency, that is a decentralized, peer to peer network based medium of value or exchange that may be used as a substitute for fiat to buy goods or services or exchanged for fiat currency or other cryptocurrencies. Examples of cryptocurrency are Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Dogecoin, Monero, among others.

Most cryptocurrencies have a blockchain which is a distributed public ledger, run by the decentralized network, containing an immutable and historical record of every transaction. It is still difficult for a number of reasons for law enforcement to track.

Cryptocurrency is stored in a virtual account called a wallet. Crypto wallets are designed to store your private key, keeping your crypto accessible at all times. They also allow you to send, receive, and spend cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum. Crypto wallets keep your private keys – the passwords that give you access to your cryptocurrencies – protected and accessible, allowing you to send and receive cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) has issued many notices discussing the various issues with cryptocurrency including recent concerns over regulatory risks related to convertible virtual currency kiosks. This notice dates back to 2019! It’s worth a read as it describes dark net marketplaces and cryptocurrency really well.

V. Recent cases in the news

The recent “Fire bunny” case was a case that operated on the darknet from January 2019 to August 2022. It operated on multiple dark web marketplaces and described itself as an “old vendor with the best in QUALITY SPEED OF DELIVERY and STEALTH.” In total, the defendants allegedly received nearly $8 million in Bitcoin proceeds and investigators found nearly $900,00 worth of cryptocurrency on one of the defendant’s phone. Some of the money received was laundered by converting Monero – a form of anonymized cryptocurrency that is extremely difficult to trace or monitor – into Bitcoin. The Bitcoin would then enter cryptocurrency exchange accounts controlled by the defendants and others. At least $2.4 million in Bitcoin was sent to a foreign based cryptocurrency exchange and laundered in the form of Chinese Yuan.

Samourai CEO Keonne Rodriguez and Samourai CTO William Lonergan Hill were recently sentenced for knowingly transmitting over $237 million in alleged criminal proceeds, coming from, among other things, drug trafficking, darknet marketplaces, cyber-intrusions, frauds, sanctioned jurisdictions, murder-for-hire schemes, and a child pornography (“CSAM”) website.

It utilized a Bitcoin mixing service known as “Whirlpool,” and coordinated batches of Bitcoin exchanges between groups of Samourai users. Through this process, the original source of particular Bitcoin holdings became obscured within the blockchain’s transactional record, effectively preventing law enforcement agencies and cryptocurrency exchanges from tracing funds back to their origins.

The second service, called “Ricochet,” enabled users to introduce additional and unnecessary intermediate transactions—known as “hops”—between sending and receiving addresses. This feature served a similar obfuscation purpose, making it substantially more difficult for monitoring entities to establish connections between cryptocurrency transfers and potential illicit activities. The scale of these operations was considerable: from Ricochet’s launch in 2017 and Whirlpool’s inception in 2019, more than 80,000 Bitcoin—valued at over $2 billion at the time—passed through these services. Samourai collected fees for both services, estimated to have a total value of more than $6 million.

Finally, in Operation RapTor, participating law enforcement agencies in the U.S., Europe, South America, and Asia arrested 270 darknet vendors, buyers, and administrators. Recently, as part of that large takedown, in the Southern District of New York (which is a district we are licensed to practice in) Incognito Market owner Rui-Siang Lin pled guilty for operating an online narcotics bazaar that existed on the dark web. It is alleged that Incognito Market sold more than $100 million of narcotics to anyone using the Tor web browser on the “dark web” or “darknet.”

Conaway & Strickler, PC is licensed to practice in NY, GA and CA. We can “pro hac” into any federal district in the country and have represented clients in New Hampshire, Vermont, Georgia, New Jersey, New York, California, Iowa, Texas, Tennessee, Florida, Pennsylvania, among others. We have “first chaired” many jury trials and have represented clients charged with RICO, drug trafficking and cryptocurrency money laundering cases. Please contact us for additional information or if you have a case you want to discuss with us. Please see here for additional blogs on this subject.

Over the past three decades, Conaway & Strickler, PC has represented physicians, nurses, dentists, CPAs, chiropractors, financial advisors, educators, lawyers, and many others. The list of licenses for the state of Georgia shows how many professionals rely on licensure for their livelihood. We provide strong defenses to protect your professional license and preserve your reputation and career longevity.

It is important to contact Conaway & Strickler, PC very early on so that we can make strategic steps to protect your livelihood. For example, a physician who is facing allegations of misconduct may face suspension, probation or revocation. It is important to have experienced legal counsel to effectively navigate these uncertain waters.

Here is a list of the top 10 of the Most Common Disciplinary Actions Against Healthcare Professionals published recently by GCMB. It helps explain some common pitfalls and responsibilities outlined by
the GCMB.

If you are facing any issues with your professional license, we are here to help.

Many people unknowingly waive their rights by speaking too soon or too freely. Even innocent statements can be twisted or taken out of context. That’s why one of the smartest things you can do is to invoke your right to remain silent and request legal counsel. Simply say, “I am invoking my right to remain silent. I would like to speak to an attorney.” Then stay quiet. You are not being difficult—you are being smart.

At Conaway & Strickler, we understand that early legal representation is crucial. Our experienced defense attorneys are here to protect your rights, guide you through the legal process, and fight for the best outcome possible. If you or a loved one is facing an investigation or has been arrested, don’t speak to the police first—speak to us. Contact Conaway & Strickler today for a free confidential consultation.

• Wire fraud
• Mail fraud
• Bank fraud
• Tax fraud (tax evasion or false statements)
• Healthcare fraud/FCA
• Medicare/Medicaid fraud
• PPP loan or COVID relief fraud
• Securities fraud
• Mortgage fraud
• Immigration or visa fraud
• Government contract fraud
• Identity theft or benefits fraud
• Trafficking in Counterfeit Goods or Services
• Anti kickbacks
• AML

The FBI gives this list of frauds and the DOJ publishes some of their cases here.

Fraud investigations can begin in a number of ways. In many cases, they are triggered by:

• A whistleblower or former employee
• A suspicious activity report
• A suspicious activity report (SAR) from a bank or financial institution
• Data flagged by automated fraud detection software
• A referral from another federal agency (e.g., IRS, SBA, USPS, HHS)
• A civil audit or regulatory review that uncovers irregularities
• Investigative journalism or public tips
• Problems in real estate transactions.  (FINCEN’s new rule extends Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) obligations to investment advisers involved in these transactions)

Once red flags are detected, the matter is referred to a federal investigative agency. These can include:

• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
• Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI)
• Office of Inspector General (OIG)
• Postal Inspection Service (USPIS)
• Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
• Health and Human Services (HHS)
• Small Business Administration (SBA)

If you have been contacted by federal agents FOR ANY REASON, contact a federal criminal defense attorney immediately.  Do not speak period.  If you have received a grand jury subpoena, contact a federal criminal defense attorney immediately.  If you have received a target letter, contact a federal criminal defense attorney immediately.  If you are being audited by the IRS, SBA, HHS or another agency, contact a federal criminal defense attorney immediately. It never hurts in this  last instance to have sage advice before the investigation goes any further.

At Conaway & Strickler, PC, we are here to help. Contact us to discuss your options.

Experienced federal criminal defense attorneys like those at Conaway & Strickler, PC may suggest early on about the possibility of entering into a “deferred prosecution agreement” which is essentially a contract with the Department of Justice. DPAs are frequently used in cases involving corporate fraud, bribery, and antitrust violations.  These pretrial agreements may involve an admission of wrongdoing, the payment of fines, and the implementation of compliance measures.  Charges may be dropped if the defendant complies with the requirements of the agreement.  Generally, the Assistant United States Attorney will file the criminal complaint and the DPA with the court, so it is of public record. This will be accompanied by a formal request to the court that any prosecution be delayed according to the terms of the DPA, allowing the defendant to fulfill its agreed-upon actions.  This is very similar to conditional discharge / pre trial diversion agreements found at the state level.

An example of a DPA would be one that was entered in to by the DOJ and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc in August 2023 in response to the company’s involvement in a price fixing conspiracy involving several pharmaceuticals.   As seen in this example, terms can include paying a fine, waiving certain rights, agreeing to a factual basis for the charges, and an agreement to cooperate and compliance monitoring and of course, agreeing to what will happen if there is a breach of the agreement.

The central benefit to entering in to a DPA is that the individual or business entity is not convicted of any crime. It offers an opportunity to have the federal criminal charges dismissed or dropped once the accused completes all the required conditions.

Here is an another example of a DPA entered in to with the NDGA and Avanir Pharmaceuticals.  This pharmaceutical manufacturer based in Aliso Viejo, California, was charged for paying kickbacks to a physician to induce prescriptions of its drug Nuedexta.   Of note in that case – the Northern District of Ohio indicted four individuals, including former Avanir employees and one of the top prescribers of Nuedexta in the country, who were involved in the kickback scheme.  So, the company itself entered in to a DPA but there was still fall out with respect to some individuals and receiving criminal indictments.

Early intervention is key in a successful resolution in health care criminal matters.  We have extensively blogged about health care fraud.   Contact us if you need an experienced federal criminal defense litigator.  Our firm has vast experience in white collar criminal investigations including False Claims Act and antitrust investigations.

Jury Selection also known as Voir Dire

Jury selection is one of the most important parts of a federal criminal trial.  It will start with about 40 potential jurors brought in. Usually we move our chairs to the other side of the table to face them. We ask general questions, then individual questions. Then, we deliberate on who to choose. Then, the court asks us to do our strikes, and then a jury is empaneled.

This usually takes a full day.

Opening Statement

After the jury has been empaneled and sworn, and loads of logistical information is given to the jurors by the judge, then the federal district court judge will invite the AUSA to give their opening statement. Like the jury selection, the opening statement is a critical part of a federal criminal trial.

The purpose of the opening statement is to allow the parties to explain to the jury what the case is about. While the parties may discuss the evidence, and explain what they believe it will show, they are not allowed to make arguments about what they think the evidence means.

After the AUSA has given their opening statement, which they are required to do because they have the burden of proof, the federal district court judge will ask the defense attorney if (s)he wishes to give an opening statement. The judge asks this in the form of a question because the defense attorney is not required to give an opening statement.

In a criminal case, the federal criminal defense lawyer may either give an opening statement, waive the opening statement, or waive the opening statement at that time, instead giving their opening statement at the close of the AUSA’s case.  If this was a multi defendant trial, the judge usually will go in order as it is depicted on the most recent indictment.

Direct Examination begins after we are done with the opening statements.  The AUSA will begin calling their witnesses.  Federal criminal defense attorney teaches advanced evidence to LLM and JD students and GSU law and trial techniques at Emory Law.  She literally teaches the Federal Rules of Evidence on what comes in at trial and how to do direct and cross examinations to law students.

Most direct examinations include three stages:

1. Introduction and background of the witness.
2. Laying the foundation of their relation to the case
3. Substantive questions about the case.

Like all criminal cases, in a federal criminal trial, the entire burden of proof is on the AUSA. In thinking how to proceed, an AUSA will consider all elements of the crimes alleged. This is because every crime is made up of parts, or elements. The elements are set forth in the instructions to the jury. To prevail, the AUSA must prove each and every element of the crime. Consequently, the AUSA will call witnesses that have information they believe will help persuade the jury that an element has been satisfied.

Because this is direct examination, the AUSA may only ask open ended questions. This is often as simple as, “what happened next?” A question used for direct examination may not suggest an answer. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for the AUSA to tell the witness what they think happened, and then ask the witness to agree. Thus, the AUSA cannot properly say “and the next thing that happened was….do you agree?” This leading question would constitute cross-examination. The party who called the witness may not “lead” the witness and may only ask direct examination questions. Such a leading question would likely prompt the objection of any of us federal criminal defense lawyers.

There are some exceptions to this rule, however, and some leading questions are allowed during direct examination. For example, Rule 611 of the Federal Rules of Evidence suggests that an AUSA may use cross-examination as necessary to “develop the witnesses testimony.” Leading questions may also be used with a “hostile witness.”

Once the witness has testified on direct, the defense lawyer will get to conduct Cross-Examination of the government’s witnesses.

We may ask questions of the government’s witness after the AUSA has completed their direct examination. Again, the defense attorney is not required to ask questions because they have no burden of proof. While there may be strategic reasons for waiving a witness, in some instances, we will engage in extensive and detailed questioning or cross-examination of the government witness.

Most cross-examination questions include the following:

1. We draft question to elicit any positive information from the witness.
2. We work to limit the damage done by the cross-examination.
3. We will impeach the witness where appropriate.

The defense attorney’s questioning can proceed by either direct or leading questions. A leading question is one that suggests the answer. This is called cross-examination. The purpose of cross-examination is to expand on the witness’s testimony, and possibly to show that the witness lacks credibility or that their fact statements are wrong or misleading.

Cross-examination may also be used by us defense attorneys to show the jury that the government witness lacks actual knowledge, or that their knowledge is limited. This is especially true for expert witnesses. To expand on the above example, a defense attorney may cross-examine a forensic computer expert by asking them questions to show that they lack credentials. A cross-examination like this might be a simple statement to the witness such as “you don’t have a computer science degree?”

At the end of the government’s case, when there are no more witnesses or evidence, the AUSA will tell the judge that they “rest.” This means the AUSA’s case is completed.

At this juncture, we will all orally ask for a Motion for Directed Verdict

In a federal criminal case, a motion for directed verdict is a motion requesting the judge to acquit the defendant as a matter of law. If the motion is granted, the case is done, and the defendant is declared the winner. A motion for directed verdict is also called a judgment as a matter of law.

While a motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury, the first opportunity for a federal criminal defense attorney to make such a motion is after the government has rested its case. In the attorney’s motion, we will offer to the judge any applicable law and explain why, based on this law, the facts of the case entitle the defendant to be found not guilty. An AUSA may not make a motion for directed verdict after the defense has rested.

In a typical federal criminal trial, once the AUSA has indicated that the government has rested its case, the district court judge will instruct the bailiff to escort the jury out of the courtroom. The judge will then ask the defense attorney if they have a motion for directed verdict. If the answer is no, then the jury will be brought back into the courtroom and the case will continue. Motions for directed verdict are always made outside the presence of the jury.

A federal criminal defense attorney may also make a motion for directed verdict at the end of the attorney’s case; meaning, after the defense has indicated to the court that they rest. This is because, as indicated, Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Procedure allow a motion as a matter of law to be made any time before the jury has reached its verdict.

DEFENSE: 

The defendant in a criminal case enjoys a presumption of innocence. One of the benefits of this presumption is that a person accused of a crime does not have an obligation to prove their innocence to the jury. This means there is no obligation to call any witnesses or produce any evidence. However, depending on the facts and circumstances of a case, it may be in the your best interest to call witness or provide evidence.

So, should any of us federal criminal defense attorneys call a witnesses, just as when the AUSA calls witnesses, the attorney may only ask this witness direct examination question, and the AUSA may cross-examine this witness using leading questions.

One of the witnesses that is available only to the defense attorney is the defendant. In a criminal case the accused has the right to remain silent. Therefore, only the defense attorney can call the accused to the stand. Whether to call the accused as a witness is often one of the most difficult questions for a federal criminal defense attorney. However, the final answer to this question resides completely with YOU. The decision must not be made by the lawyer.

Once all of the defense attorneys call all of their witnesses (if any), they will indicate to the court that “the defense rests.”

Next, we move to The Government’s Rebuttal Witnesses

The defense may call rebuttal witnesses after it has rested because the government has the burden of proof. Rebuttal witnesses serve largely the same function as cross-examination in that they are used as part of an attempt, in this case by the government, to disprove evidence submitted by the defendant or to disprove what the defense witnesses said. It is rare, but possible, for the federal district court judge to allow what is called surrebuttal on the part of the defense. A surrebuttal witness is called by a party to respond to the opposing party’s rebuttal.

Closing Arguments

Once all the witnesses have been called, both the AUSA and we, the federal defense criminal defense attorneys, have presented all their evidence, and both have indicated to the court that they have rested, the next step is closing argument.

According to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the government goes first, the defense attorneys goes next, then the government gets another opportunity to rebut what the defense attorney has argued. The government gets to go first, and last, because they have the burden of proof.

Unlike the opening statement, in their final arguments, the AUSA and the federal criminal defense attorney may not only summarize the evidence presented but may also forcefully argue why the jury should find in their favor.

It is important to note, that district court judges will typically deny us the time, at the end of the trial, to leave and prepare our closing arguments.  It is typical to move right into closing arguments after all the evidence has been received by the jury, and any directed verdict motions made and denied.

The Jury is then instructed as to the applicable law through what is known as jury charges.

The main purpose of a jury is to resolve issues of fact. A jury will reach its verdict by taking the law as provided to them by the judge and applying to this law to the facts as they find them. In this way they will arrive at their verdict. This law is set forth in the jury instructions.

Judges routinely state they will rely mainly on the pattern instructions prepared by the Circuit Committee on Pattern Criminal Jury instructions.  We certainly research notable and useful jury charges and file such if we determine the pattern charges are not sufficient.

Deliberations and Verdict

The final stage in a federal criminal trial will be jury deliberations and verdict. The first thing the jury will do is select, often by voting, who will be their foreperson. Pattern jury instruction for the 11th circuit provides that the foreperson’s job is to do two things: (1) guide the jury’s deliberations and (2) be a liaison for communications with the court.

If the jury has questions, then normally, the foreperson will write it down, give it to the court officer who then gives the question to the judge. The jury may not tell anyone outside the jury where their “vote” stands or anything else about their deliberations. There is, however, no rule that says that only the foreperson may write down questions or give them to the court officer. In this way all jurors are “equal”.

In a criminal case the verdict must be unanimous in favor of acquittal or conviction. In a federal criminal case, a jury will be instructed they are to continue their deliberations until they have reached a unanimous decision. Pattern Jury Instructions on this issue provide that to find a defendant guilty in a federal criminal trial, the jury must unanimously agree that the government has overcome the presumption of innocence as to every element of the crime alleged and have done so with evidence that proves the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

As set forth in another Pattern Jury Instruction, the jury will be told that they are not to consider punishment in their deliberations. Punishment is solely the province of the judge presiding over the case.

Once the jury has reached its verdict, another Pattern Jury Instruction provides that the foreperson mark the appropriate place for guilty or not guilty, have each member sign the form, then give it to the court officer, who will then give the form to the judge.

Upon learning that the jury has reached its verdict, the judge will resume the trial, making sure the defendant is in the courtroom. Finally, the verdict will be read in court.

Once the verdict is read, if you are found guilty, the deputies (who have moved in to position for this moment) will come forward and ask you to put your hands behind your back and take off shoe laces, jewelry, etc in order to go in to custody.  The federal criminal defense attorney immediately asks that the defendant remain out on an appeal bond, and the judge decides on whether or not to take the defendant in to custody at this time.

If you are found not guilty on all charges, then the case is over and closed.

Should you have any further questions about federal criminal defense trials please contact us.  We are here to help.

Kousisis comes before the Court after a Philadelphia-area government contractor was found guilty of fraud after it failed to comply with a contract provision intended to promote diversity. Stamatios Kousisis and Alpha Painting and Construction Co., Inc. (Alpha) secured two substantial contracts with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). These contracts mandated a certain percentage of work to be allocated to Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs). Kousisis and his company misrepresented their compliance with this requirement by using a DBE as a mere pass-through entity, thereby falsely claiming adherence to the DBE participation goals. Despite this deception, the contracted work was completed to PennDOT’s satisfaction, and no direct financial loss was incurred by the department.

Federal prosecutors charged Kousisis and Alpha with wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and making false statements. The prosecution’s argument was based on the “fraudulent inducement” theory, suggesting that the defendants obtained the contracts through deceptive promises, even though PennDOT did not suffer a financial loss. Ultimately, Kousisis was sentenced to 70 months’ imprisonment for the multi-million dollar fraud he perpetrated following a jury trial in 2018.

However, the defense has argued that for a fraud conviction, there must be an intent to cause economic harm, which they claim was absent in this case. During oral arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson posed the question, “Why isn’t this a classic scheme to obtain property under false pretenses?” For years in federal white-collar cases, the “scheme” itself has always been recognized as the “harm” that triggers application of the federal fraud statutes. Despite that precedent, defense argued: “If there’s no harm that occurs in those transactions, there is no fraud.”

It seems that conservative justices were receptive to the defendant’s argument. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that “such crimes were better handled by state prosecutors.” Justice Samuel Alito expressed that “the court really doesn’t like the federalization of white-collar prosecutions and wants that to be done in state court and is really hostile to this whole enterprise.”

The outcome of Kousisis v. United States holds the potential to redefine the scope of federal white-collar prosecutions. A decision favoring the defendants could lead to a substantial shift in prosecutorial responsibilities from federal to state authorities. A ruling that limits federal jurisdiction in such cases would compel companies to adapt by focusing more on state-level compliance and legal frameworks. Engaging with experienced legal counsel will be essential for businesses to remain compliant and mitigate risks in this evolving legal landscape.

“Cyber extortion is unfortunately a rapidly growing threat and highlights the ever-growing need for corporations to remain vigilant in cybersecurity efforts,” said Sean Burke, Acting Special Agent in Charge of FBI Atlanta. “This sentencing is just one example of the FBI working together to hold criminals that hide behind their computers accountable, regardless of their location.”

According to information presented in court, in June 2017, Purbeck purchased access to the computer server of a Griffin medical clinic on a darknet marketplace. He then used the stolen credentials to illegally access the computers of the medical clinic and removed records that contained the sensitive personal information of more than 43,000 individuals, including names, addresses, birth dates, and social security numbers.

In February 2018, Purbeck purchased access to a City of Newnan Police Department server on a darknet marketplace. Purbeck used the stolen credentials to hack into the City of Newnan’s computer systems and stole police reports and other documents, including personal information of more than 14,000 individuals.

Purbeck also attempted to extort a Florida orthodontist in July 2018, demanding a ransom payment in Bitcoin in return for his stolen patient files, threatening to sell the patient and personal information unless the orthodontist paid the ransom. Additionally, Purbeck threatened to sell the personal information of the orthodontist’s minor child. Purbeck harassed the orthodontist and his patients for 10 days with numerous threatening emails and text messages.

Song Wu, Chinese national, was indicted in September 2024, on charges for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft arising from his efforts to fraudulently obtain computer software and source code created by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”), research universities, and private companies.

“Efforts to obtain our nation’s valuable research software pose a grave threat to our national security,” said U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Buchanan. “However, this indictment demonstrates that borders are not barriers to prosecuting bad actors who threaten our national security.” According to information presented in court, Song allegedly engaged in a multi-year “spear phishing” email campaign in which he created email accounts to impersonate U.S.-based researchers and engineers and then used those imposter accounts to obtain specialized restricted or proprietary software used for aerospace engineering and computational fluid dynamics. This specialized software could be used for industrial and military applications, such as development of advanced tactical missiles and aerodynamic design and assessment of weapons. In executing the scheme, Song allegedly sent spear phishing emails to individuals employed in positions with the United States government, including NASA, the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Army, and the Federal Aviation Administration.  Song also sent spear phishing emails to individuals employed in positions with major research universities in Georgia, Michigan, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Ohio, and with private sector companies that work in the aerospace field. Song’s spear phishing emails appeared to the targeted victims as having been sent by a colleague, associate, friend, or other person in the research or engineering community. His emails requested that the targeted victim send or make available source code or software to which Song believed the targeted victim had access. According to the indictment, while conducting this spear phishing campaign, Song was employed as an engineer at Aviation Industry Corporation of China (“AVIC”), a Chinese state-owned aerospace and defense conglomerate headquartered in Beijing, China.  AVIC manufactures civilian and military aircrafts and is one of the largest defense contractors in the world.

Ilya Lichtenstein, 35, of New York City, was sentenced recently to 60 months in federal prison for his involvement in a money laundering conspiracy arising from the hack and theft of approximately 120,000 bitcoin from Bitfinex, a global cryptocurrency exchange. According to information presented in court, Lichtenstein hacked into Bitfinex’s network in 2016, using advanced hacking tools and techniques. Once inside the network, Lichtenstein fraudulently authorized more than 2,000 transactions transferring 119,754 bitcoin from Bitfinex to a cryptocurrency wallet in Lichtenstein’s control. Lichtenstein then took steps to cover his tracks by deleting from Bitfinex’s network access credentials and other log files that could have revealed his conduct to law enforcement. Following the hack, Lichtenstein enlisted the help of his wife, Heather Morgan, in laundering the stolen funds. Lichtenstein, at times with Morgan’s assistance, employed numerous sophisticated laundering techniques, including using fictitious identities to set up online accounts; utilizing computer programs to automate transactions; depositing the stolen funds into accounts at a variety of darknet markets and cryptocurrency exchanges and then withdrawing the funds; converting bitcoin to other forms of cryptocurrency in a practice known as “chain hopping;” depositing a portion of the criminal proceeds into cryptocurrency mixing services; using U.S.-based business accounts to legitimize Lichtenstein’s and Morgan’s banking activity; and exchanging a portion of the stolen funds into gold coins. Additional information on this case is available on the United States Department of Justice’s website for large cases here.  

Early on, Conaway & Strickler defended cases that stemmed from activity on classic peer-to-peer applications like Limewire.  These type of networks were simply software applications that provided a central hub for various computers to connect.  Napster, for example, was a peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing service that allowed users to share and download music files from other users’ computers.  These types of programs were utilized to distribute music, movies and child pornography.  Law enforcement was able to track those cases more easily.

Today, however, the government has also become well versed in programs like BitTorrent, Limewire and e-Donkey, among others.  When a hard drive or device is analyzed by the government, they now will produce a report detailing their forensic examination.  They will detail all of the evidence found on the device showing evidence of P2P Networking, search history, bookmarks  and they even cite images or image fragments found in cache locations.  Here is a recent example of a federal criminal prosecution of someone who downloaded images from the BitTorrent Network.

The P2P software programs allow the P2P networks to break large files into smaller segments that are then shared independently. The original purpose of this was to only optimize the download process by balancing the load among multiple users but it also increased the overall download speeds, as users can simultaneously download multiple segments from different sources.  BUT, in early prosecutions of federal child pornography cases using P2P applications, the government was unable to show the actual images on the devices anymore.   But, as described above, it is rare for a sophisticated user to have any actual images of CSAM on their devices.  So, today, the government’s forensic report will draws a picture of all activities on the device to show that the user intentionally downloaded child pornography.  We, at Conaway & Strickler, are well versed on the technicalities of defending a complex case like this and have years of experience of defending federal child pornography cases nationwide.  We also have a variety of top notch experts ready to assist us to mirror images these devices in order to do our forensics to mount the proper defense to any federal criminal charges lodged.

Contact us anytime if you have any questions. We are here to help.

The FAA’s zero-tolerance policy, implemented in 2021, marked a shift from warnings to immediate enforcement. With incidents like physical assaults on passengers and crew members, the FAA has consistently referred the most egregious cases to the FBI. The FAA can impose civil penalties up to $37,000 per violation, but when these cases are referred for criminal prosecution, offenders face much harsher outcomes.

In 2023, over 1,240 incidents of unruly passenger behavior were reported. Of those, 43 cases were referred to the FBI for criminal prosecution due to their severity. These cases often involve physical altercations or inappropriate behavior that pose a threat to the safety of everyone on board. The FAA’s clear stance on holding individuals accountable shows that passengers who engage in such behavior will face serious repercussions.You can read more about the FAA’s referral process and efforts in their official statement and in further detail from FAA’s unruly passenger policy page.

Once referred to the FBI, many unruly passenger cases lead to federal charges, especially when sexual misconduct or violence is involved. These cases often involve unwanted touching, and allegations of individuals under the influence of alcohol or medication. Federal prison time and long-term consequences await those convicted of these serious crimes. For more information about how the FBI and federal prosecutors handle these cases, you can review this detailed account from the Department of Justice.

Beyond hefty fines, individuals charged with federal crimes for unruly behavior aboard a flight face significant prison time. Sexual misconduct in particular is treated severely, with offenders often sentenced to years in federal prison. The FAA and FBI are clear in their mission: passengers who pose a threat will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

For those facing such charges, it is crucial to seek legal representation immediately. At our firm, we are experienced in defending against federal charges related to in-flight incidents and can provide the guidance needed to navigate these complex cases. Contact us today for a consultation.

What reports are generated from my devices?

Cellebrite reports provide information about phone calls and text messages; but now it also provides a report on the data stored on these devices such as voicemails, images, and browsing history. From GPS location data to social media activity, cell phones can provide a treasure trove for law enforcement agencies to use to build their cases.

What protections do I have to prevent law enforcement from searching my devices?

Laws on the admission and use of this evidence in court are still evolving. In the Georgia Supreme Court case State v. Wilson, the court ruled search warrants for cell phone contents must specify the items being sought. This is to prevent a general search of a person’s belongings, which is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

Do I have the same legal rights at the border that I would elsewhere in the United States?

The Supreme Court ruled that the police must get a warrant before searching someone’s cell phone in Riley v. California. The Supreme Court held that a warrant is generally required before a search of a cell phone seized incident to arrest. BUT, at the border, there is less protection. According to US Customs and Border Protection a person may be chosen for inspection for many different random reasons and thus there is less protections when crossing the border in or out of the US. What this means – you can be pulled for a secondary inspection and all of your devices can be searched without a warrant. They can also get an image from the hard drive of these devices and / or seize the devices at the border.

What do I do if I am asked to give my cell phone to law enforcement?

If you know your rights, you can comply when necessary. So, for example, if you are traveling internationally – do not travel with devices that you would not want searched. Furthermore, if you are driving and pulled over with drugs or a high amount of currency in your car, etc, your cell phone and / or other devices WILL be seized and analyzed.

And, please remember anything uploaded to the cloud is fair game for law enforcement. That’s a broad statement – but when you signed up for Instagram, Whats App, Google, TikTok, Facebook, Signal, Twitter/X, etc, you signed away any privacy rights. Those companies are fast to comply with law enforcement subpoenas giving whatever you posted/uploaded immediately to them.

What is a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR)?

A Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) is a document that financial institutions are legally required to file with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) when they detect potentially suspicious behavior involving financial transactions. Once filed, these reports are sent to FinCEN, a division of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which shares the information with law enforcement agencies for further investigation if necessary.

Why Do Banks File SARs?

Banks must comply with a variety of regulations designed to prevent financial crimes. One of the core elements of these regulations is monitoring customer transactions for anything that might indicate illegal or suspicious activity. A SAR is typically filed when a bank suspects that a transaction, or series of transactions, might involve:

• Money laundering: Attempting to disguise the origins of illegally obtained money by passing it through a legitimate banking system.
• Fraud: Including wire fraud, identity theft, and other deceptive financial activities.
• Structuring: Breaking down large sums of money into smaller deposits to avoid triggering reporting requirements (also known as “smurfing”).
• Unexplained large transactions: Transactions that don’t align with an individual’s or business’s typical activity or appear inconsistent with known financial patterns.

Common Triggers for SARs

Financial institutions are trained to spot red flags, and there are a number of scenarios that could trigger a SAR filing. Here are some of the most common:

1. Unusually Large Transactions: If an individual or business is suddenly moving unusually large amounts of money, especially in cash, this can raise red flags. Large deposits, withdrawals, or transfers that don’t align with normal activity patterns may prompt the bank to investigate further.
2. Frequent Cash Deposits Below $10,000: To avoid the $10,000 threshold that triggers an automatic Currency Transaction Report (CTR), some individuals break down larger sums into smaller deposits (a practice called structuring). If a bank detects this behavior, it will likely file a SAR.
3. Wire Transfers to High-Risk Countries: International wire transfers to or from countries that are known for terrorist activity, money laundering, or lacking robust financial regulations may result in a SAR filing.
4. Multiple Accounts Under One Name: Using multiple accounts to shuffle money back and forth—especially if the accounts seem unrelated to legitimate business or personal activities—can appear suspicious.
5. Account Activity Inconsistent with Known Business Practices: If a company typically processes small, regular transactions and suddenly starts handling large, irregular amounts, it might trigger suspicion. Likewise, if a personal account shows business-level activity, this could raise alarms.
6. Use of Shell Companies: Banks scrutinize accounts associated with shell companies that lack a clear purpose or business activity, as they are often used in money laundering schemes.
7. Unexplained Source of Funds: If the origin of deposited funds is unclear, or if large amounts of money are transferred without any legitimate explanation, the bank may file a SAR.

The Impact of a SAR Filing

When a bank files a SAR, it is confidential. The individual or business subject to the report is not directly informed; However, the bank may decide to take action based on its findings, which can include:

• Account closures: If the bank believes the activity is risky or potentially illegal, it may close your account or freeze any available funds.
• Increased monitoring: Your account may come under closer scrutiny, with more restrictions placed on transactions.
• Law enforcement involvement: If the behavior in question warrants it, the SAR could lead to a broader investigation by federal or state law enforcement agencies.

What to Do if You Believe a SAR Has Been Filed Against You

While you won’t be directly informed if a SAR has been filed, you may suspect something is amiss if your bank account is frozen, closed, or you’re contacted by law enforcement regarding your financial activity. If you find yourself in this situation, here are some steps to take:

1. Seek Legal Counsel: The most important thing you can do is consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney. A SAR filing could be the beginning of a serious investigation, and you’ll want legal guidance to protect your rights and interests.
2. Gather Financial Records: Be prepared to provide your attorney with all relevant financial records. This can help explain the nature of your transactions and demonstrate that they are legitimate.
3. Do Not Attempt to Explain Yourself to the Bank: Anything you say to the bank could be misinterpreted or used against you in a later investigation. Your attorney will be able to navigate these communications appropriately.

A Suspicious Activity Report can be a precursor to serious legal trouble, but it’s important to remember that it is not an accusation of a crime. Banks are required to report anything that appears suspicious, even if the behavior is ultimately lawful. If you find yourself facing consequences related to an SAR filing, don’t wait—contact us today for a consultation and take control of your situation before it escalates. If you are facing financial crime allegations, our skilled team of criminal defense attorneys is here to help.

Money Laundering refers to the illegal process of concealing the origins of money obtained through criminal activities, making it appear as if it comes from a legitimate source. This is criminalized under 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Money laundering using NFTs involves the illicit use of these digital assets to disguise the origins of illegally obtained funds. In this context, individuals create a fake record of sales on the blockchain by selling NFTs to themselves using different accounts. Once finished, they sell the NFT to an unsuspecting buyer and repeat the process.

Fraud has grown increasingly common in the crypto landscape due to its anonymous and decentralized nature. Fraud involving NFTs can manifest in various ways due to the unique characteristics of these digital assets. This is mostly being prosecuted as wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Some common forms of fraud associated with NFTs include:

1. Fake or Stolen NFTs: Fraudsters might create counterfeit NFTs by copying digital content and attempting to sell them as original or rare pieces. Additionally, they might steal someone else’s artwork or content and mint NFTs to sell without the creator’s consent.
2. False Representation: Individuals might misrepresent the ownership or authenticity of an NFT by falsely claiming it is associated with a particular creator or source, leading buyers to believe they are purchasing something of higher value or legitimacy than it actually holds.
3. Pump-and-Dump Schemes: Similar to traditional financial markets, some individuals may engage in pump-and-dump schemes within the NFT market. This involves artificially inflating the value of certain NFTs through false hype or manipulation, only to sell them off at a high price, leaving unsuspecting buyers with devalued assets.
4. Phishing and Scams: Scammers may use phishing techniques to trick NFT owners into providing their private keys or access to their digital wallets, allowing the fraudster to steal the NFTs. Additionally, fraudulent schemes and fake NFT marketplaces can deceive buyers and sellers into making transactions for non-existent or misrepresented NFTs.
5. Rug-Pull Scheme: As the term suggests, a “rug pull” refers to a scenario where the creator of an NFT and/or gaming project solicits investments and then abruptly abandons a project and fraudulently retains the project investors’ funds.

Law enforcement is continuing to prosecute these types of NFT schemes across the nation, in cases that allege millions of dollars being defrauded. Two defendants were charged for executing a $1 million NFT money laundering and fraud scheme in January 2022. In another NFT rug-pull, Aurelien Michel was charged for diverting $2.9 million dollars in an international fraud scheme.

Tax evasion is the most common federal tax crime and involves the failure to report taxes, reporting taxes inaccurately, or failing to pay taxes. Federal law defines the crime broadly; 26 U.S.C. 7201 states, “[a]ny person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony. . .” The penalties for tax evasion can include significant monetary fines, imprisonment, or both.

To establish a case of tax evasion, the Government must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The Defendant attempted to evade or defeat a tax or payment of a tax;

2. An additional tax was due and owing; and

3. The Defendant acted willfully.

The Government is generally required to prove that the taxpayer owed substantially more tax than was reported; however, the Government does not necessarily need to prove the exact amount of tax evaded. In most tax evasion cases, this comes in the form of understatements or omissions of income, claims of fictitious or improper deductions, false allocations of income, or improper claims of credit or exemption.

The Government can offer direct or circumstantial evidence to prove the required elements. This may include evidence of specific transactions affecting taxable income which were inaccurately reported, unexplained increases in the taxpayer’s net worth or expenditures not reflected in the taxpayer’s net worth, or evidence of taxable receipts in a taxpayer’s bank deposits.

Finally, the language of the statute gives the crime of tax evasion a broad scope. Specifically, the crime of tax evasion applies to “[a]ny person” – not just individual taxpayers. Tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. 7201 can also be used to prosecute an individual taxpayer’s tax preparer, accountant, or bookkeeper, a corporate officer attempting to evade their corporation’s tax, or the administrator of an estate attempting to evade the estate’s tax. Further, the statute applies to “any tax” and tax evasion in “any manner” (emphasis added).

Recent tax evasion cases include the federal criminal jury trial of reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley. They were convicted of tax evasion and other charges. The DOJ alleged the Chrisleys knew the law was clear on taxable income and were required to file and pay taxes. The IRS CID agent on the case was quoted as saying, “These convictions should send a clear message regardless of your fame or notoriety, everyone will be held accountable for paying their fair share of taxes.” As a result of their case, they unfortunately are now in prison.

For more information on criminal tax charges, please contact us. We are more than happy to discuss your situation.