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.

The recent conviction involving AI-generated obscene material of women and children highlights complex legal issues arising from the intersection of technology and criminal law. The Department of Justice is saying this is the first in the nation – a conviction of violating the new Take It Down Act. This new legislation, targeting AI-generated content, opens the door to prosecution of newly-defined crimes, but also raises critical questions about evidence, intent, due process, among others. This is especially an issue with any charges alleging CSAM (Child Sex Abuse Material). Recent cases are increasingly alleging use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) to digitally alter clothed images of minors into child pornography.

Prosecutors now have the ability to pursue cases involving synthetic media that depict explicit material. The use of AI to generate highly realistic images and videos makes these cases unique, requiring forensic expertise to distinguish fabricated content from authentic imagery. The prosecution must prove that the defendant knowingly produced and distributed material deemed obscene under the law, regardless of its digital origins.

One avenue for CSAM prosecution involves demonstrating that AI-generated content was used with the intent to exploit, harass, or endanger individuals. The law may enable prosecutors to argue that even virtual representations pose real harm, especially when circulated widely. In such cases, expert testimony and digital forensics play a crucial role in examining detailed technological material.

However, the defense may challenge the scope and application of the new law, questioning whether AI-generated images constitute actual offenses under existing legal definitions of obscenity and exploitation. Furthermore, issues of free speech and artistic expression may arise, requiring careful legal navigation. It is essential for courts to weigh the balance between protecting society and safeguarding individual rights.

As technology evolves, so must legal strategies. Defense attorneys fighting for clients charged with CSAM must remain vigilant, not only in protecting the rights of the accused, but also in ensuring that prosecution under new laws is fair, evidence-based, and respectful of civil liberties. The emergence of AI-generated content cases marks a new chapter in criminal justice.

If you or a loved one is facing charges related to AI-generated content, contact the attorneys at Conaway & Strickler to discuss your legal options.

For example, the SEC recently filed charges against purported crypto asset trading platforms Morocoin Tech Corp., Berge Blockchain Technology Co. Ltd., and Cirkor Inc. and investment clubs AI Wealth Inc., Lane Wealth Inc., AI Investment Education Foundation Ltd., and Zenith Asset Tech Foundation alleging that they defrauded retail investors out of more than $14 million in an elaborate investment confidence scam.

“AI Wealth, Lane Wealth, AIIEF, and Zenith operated so-called investment clubs using WhatsApp and solicited investors to join the clubs with ads on social media. The clubs gained investors’ confidence with supposedly AI-generated investment tips before luring investors to open and fund accounts on purported crypto asset trading platforms Morocoin, Berge, and Cirkor, which falsely claimed to have government licenses, as alleged. The investment clubs and platforms then allegedly offered “Security Token Offerings” that were purportedly issued by legitimate businesses. In reality, no trading took place on the trading platforms, which were fake, and the Security Token Offerings and their purported issuing companies did not exist, according to the complaint. When investors tried to withdraw their funds, the complaint alleges that the defendants further defrauded victims by demanding that they pay advance fees. In all, the defendants misappropriated at least $14 million from U.S.-based retail investors and funneled those funds overseas through a web of bank accounts and crypto asset wallets, as alleged.”

In another recent case, a young man, Elmin Redzepagic was charged in a 21-count indictment offenses related to an alleged cryptocurrency fraud scheme. As alleged in the indictment, Redzepagic “held himself out to investors as a cryptocurrency investor who earned high rates of return. Once Redzepagic had victims’ initial investment, he told them they had earned a substantial profit but had to pay additional fees (“gas fees”) to withdraw it. Redzepagic claimed to work as part of a team that included someone known as “The Chef,” who supposedly led the operation and determined who, how, and when investors would receive their profits. In fact, Redzepagic did not invest victims’ funds in cryptocurrency but instead transferred the funds to Stake.com, an offshore gambling platform that Redzepagic used to receive and hold proceeds of the scheme, to generate cryptocurrency addresses for victims to use to transfer Bitcoin to him, and to make large “lulling” payments to victims throughout the course of the scheme.”

Finally, in another case, Goliath Ventures founder Christopher Alexander Delgado has been arrested on a criminal complaint charging him with wire fraud and money laundering. It is alleged that this “was a “Ponzi scheme,” which is a form of investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Delgado’s scheme involved soliciting victims to invest substantial sums of money under false and fraudulent promises of monthly returns generated through cryptocurrency “liquidity pools.” Victims were induced to give money to Goliath through personal referrals, professional marketing materials, luxury events, charitable sponsorships, and some monthly payments of purported returns, all of which were designed to establish Goliath’s bona fides with investors. Based on these false and fraudulent representations, Goliath obtained at least $328 million from victim investors.

Although Goliath represented that it would place the victim investors’ funds in cryptocurrency liquidity pools, in reality, the funds were primarily used to pay purported returns to earlier investors, to return principal to investors who requested it, and for Goliath’s extravagant business gatherings, holiday parties, and luxury travel accommodations. With victim investors’ funds, Delgado purchased four residential properties each worth between $1.15 million and $8.5 million.”

The FBI has recently stated that “cryptocurrency investment fraud, which the media commonly describes as “pig butchering,” is one of the most prevalent and damaging fraud schemes today.” As a result, more and more DOJ prosecutions are happening. Please contact us if you have received any sort of indication that you are under federal investigation.

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.

• 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.

According to the NDGA DOJ news release:

According to Acting U.S. Attorney Moultrie, the charges and other information presented in court: Between approximately October 2017 and January 2020, Milan Patel, Bart Ross, Mark Melnick, Anthony Salandra, and Charles Parrino conspired to trade securities—primarily short-term call options—in large, publicly traded companies based on materially false rumors about those companies that they generated and disseminated. These materially false rumors were intended to increase the price of the securities (both the underlying stock and options).

Call options are essentially a contract that gives the options’ holder the right, but not the obligation, to buy shares of the underlying stock at a set price per share—the option’s strike price—on or before a set future date (the option’s expiration date). Generally, the holder of a call option benefits when the price of the underlying stock increases. Short-term call options are ones that generally expire within a week.

Ross, Salandra, and Parrino, were formerly registered brokers with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and were responsible for drafting some of the fraudulent rumors. The conspirators would often refine a proposed rumor by exchanging drafts among themselves using the Trillian instant messaging application.

Melnick was a day trader and T3 Live Senior Trading Strategist who often provided technical evaluations on whether a particular false rumor would be successful. These rumors were carefully crafted to: (a) appear plausible enough to other market participants to move the price of the underlying security; and (b) move the price of the security in a particular direction—namely move the stock or option price up—so that Patel and the other conspirators could profitably trade on the rumors.

Patel was responsible for disseminating the rumor via Trillian to multiple accounts, which would in turn result in the false rumor being distributed over one or more market subscription services, including Trade The News, TradeXchange, and Benzinga, as well as various Twitter accounts.

Before Patel disseminated the rumor, the co-conspirators would acquire a position in the publicly traded company that was the subject of the rumor. The co-conspirators purchased short-term call options often mere seconds before Patel disseminated the rumor. The conspirators often purchased short-term call options because the price of such options is more sensitive than the price of the underlying stock. The conspirators profited from their scheme by selling the options (or other securities) after they increased in price. They would then sell off their positions shortly after the rumor was disseminated and the price of the option or underlying stock had increased.

Most of these defendants ended up with a plea with one count of conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud.  When you see a case where the original situation with most defendants are charged in an indictment, and it ends with a plea to a one count, criminal information – this is good news. This means that the federal criminal defense lawyer has done their job well and worked out a resolution that limits the sentencing guidelines and ultimate months of incarceration.

In this case, if one has plead to Conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud, the base offense level would be a 6.  There will be an increase pursuant to the chart on what the intended loss amount is.  There also can be enhancements such as:

• the number of victims
• being a registered broker at the time of the offense
• abuse of position of trust
• sophisticated means
• use of a special skill

Then, there can be levels taken off for acceptance of responsibility and zero point offender.  And finally, if the defendant has any criminal history the final number will be amended pursuant to Criminal History Category.  Once the final number is determined by the judge, the second part of the sentencing hearing will occur – discussing 3553 factors.

Contact an experienced federal criminal defense lawyer like Conaway & Strickler, PC. We have close to 30 years experience in federal criminal and SEC defense.

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.

The indictment also charges Ranjit Gupta and Rupesh Agarwal, former executives of a renewable-energy company with securities that had traded on the New York Stock Exchange, and Cyril Cabanes, Saurabh Agarwal and Deepak Malhotra, former employees of a Canadian institutional investor, with conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in connection with a bribery scheme also perpetrated by Gautam S. Adani, Sagar R. Adani and Vneet S. Jaain, involving one of the world’s largest solar energy projects.

The indictment alleges that more than $250 Million in bribes were promised to secure solar enery contracts worth 2 billion dollars over two decades.

The SEC also unveiled a complaint charging Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani, executives of Adani Green Energy Ltd., and Cyril Cabanes, an executive of Azure Power Global Ltd., for conduct arising out of the same massive bribery scheme discussed in the EDNY. complaint. The SEC also alleges that the bribery scheme was orchestrated to enable the two renewable energy companies to capitalize on a multi-billion-dollar solar energy project that the companies had been awarded by the Indian government. During the alleged scheme, Adani Green raised more than $175 million from U.S. investors and Azure Power’s stock was traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

The indictment alleges, among other things:

1. There was a FBI raid in March 2023.   Gautam Adani failed to inform SEBI and the Indian stock exchange of this FBI raid and the DOJ investigation, which he was required to do. But he also thereafter lied when he denied that either had happened.
2. False statements in the annual reports. Guatam Adani emailed himself photographs of the search warrant of his nephew in March 2023.  He will be unable to say he was not aware of being investigation at that time.
3. False statements to US investors
4. When the search was executed on the nephew, Sagar Adani, electronic devices were seized.  This will be a treasure trove of data for the government to use in their prosecution.  The government cites “bribe notes” that Sagar kept on his phone to track specific details of bribes offered and promised to government officials.  It may very well be possible as this case proceeds that a superceding indictment is forthcoming and both Gautam and Sagar Adani will be charged with FCPA violations as well.
5. Co-Conspirator #1 and #2 may have cooperated with the government, and thus they may help corroborate what “numero uno” and other code names meant when texting amongst themselves about the conspiracy.

The defendants do not live in the United States, and it appears only one has dual citizenship in the US.  So, should any of these defendants enter US soil, they will be immediately detained and transferred to the EDNY for processing. Both Gautam and Sagar Adani have not been arrested yet and US prosecutors would need to ask the Indian government to extradite them under the terms of the countries’ extradition treaty.  India would need to consider whether the crime he was charged with in the US is also a crime in India, whether the charges are politically motivated or whether he could face inhumane treatment in the US.  As Meg Strickler stated in The Quint, there probably will be a superceding indictment that will include more charges.

Conaway & Strickler, PC handles many bribery cases.  Contact us if you need more information or are facing such charges.

“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.

In investigating PPP loan fraud, the government first looks at the application itself.  How many employees does the company have?  Does that number match their payroll tax filings?  Are the 941‘s the same as what is on file at the IRS?  Has the owner(s) been convicted of or pled guilty to a felony with the past 5 years?  Do the bank statements submitted on the PPP loan application match the actual bank statements? Are there business expenses on the bank statements?  Was the bank account in a business checking account? When was the entity created?  Did the company apply for more than one loan?  Does the individual owner have multiple entities and apply for multiple loans?  Any inaccurate statements on the application can result in a charge under Under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (bank fraud) – making false statements to an FDIC-insured financial institution, or making false statements to the SBA.  In addition, the CARES Act also has requirements for how companies use, and account for the use of, PPP loan funds.  Some of the more outrageous PPP loan fraud prosecutions have resulted due to individuals buying Range Rovers, Lamborghinis and rolex watches with PPP loan proeeeds, i.e. converting PPP loan funds for personal use.  Also, when seeking forgiveness for loans, companies must be very careful in what they submit.  Any false documentation submitted can result in prosecution.

So, should the government be inquiring about your PPP loan(s) or EIDL loans or any disaster relief funds, it is important to contact us immediately.  Being evasive or being unable to produce documentation of PPP Compliance will only increase issues that you will be facing.  Allow Conaway & Strickler, PC to help you with expert advice from experienced federal counsel. We are very familiar with the federal criminal investigative process with the SBA-OIG, IRS and the DOJ.

Conaway & Strickler, PC handles PPP loans nationwide. Meg Strickler has 25 plus years experience fighting federal criminal cases in the district courts across the country.

What is the “Free Money Hack”?

The trend usually involves TikTok users claiming they have found ways to manipulate the financial system, offering viewers methods to “hack” or exploit bank accounts, cash apps, or credit systems to obtain free money. Some of these schemes involve:

• Overdraft exploits: Encouraging users to overdraw bank accounts and then supposedly avoid the consequences.
• Fake check schemes: Depositing fraudulent checks into accounts and withdrawing the funds before the bank detects the fraud.
• Refund fraud: Filing fake claims with companies to get refunds for purchases that were never made.

These tactics promise fast cash with minimal effort, but what they really deliver is financial and legal disaster.

Why Following the Trend is Illegal

What these TikTok videos don’t explain is the serious legal consequences of participating in such schemes. Fraud, theft, and exploiting banking systems for personal gain are criminal acts, regardless of how trendy or harmless they may seem in a 60-second clip.

Here are some common legal charges that can result from participating in these activities:

1. Bank Fraud: This is a federal crime that can result in hefty fines and imprisonment. Intentionally defrauding a financial institution is illegal under U.S. law, and following these TikTok hacks can quickly escalate into a federal investigation.
2. Wire Fraud: Many of these hacks involve electronic transfers or communications, which falls under wire fraud. This also carries severe penalties, including long prison sentences.
3. Check Fraud: Depositing fake or altered checks with the intent to withdraw funds is considered check fraud. Even if you think you’re being clever by pulling out the money before the bank catches on, it’s still a criminal act.
4. Identity Theft: Some of these schemes suggest using fake names or other people’s banking details, which could lead to identity theft charges. This is a serious offense with strict penalties.
5. Theft by Deception: If you knowingly mislead a financial institution or another individual to gain money or assets, this is classified as theft by deception. Penalties can include jail time and significant fines.

Participating in these “hacks” isn’t just risky from a financial perspective—it’s a direct pathway to legal repercussions that can follow you for the rest of your life. Depending on the scale of the fraud or theft, you could face:

• Criminal Charges: These could range from misdemeanors to felonies, depending on the amount of money involved and the nature of the crime.
• Restitution: If convicted, you could be required to pay back any money that was wrongfully obtained, along with additional penalties.
• Permanent Criminal Record: A fraud conviction can make it difficult to secure future employment, housing, or loans, and can damage your reputation permanently.

The allure of easy money is tempting, but it’s important to remember that many social media trends, like the “free money hack,” come with significant risks. Engaging in these activities can lead to criminal charges that affect your financial future and personal freedom. Before following any advice from TikTok or other social media platforms, it’s vital to understand the full legal ramifications.

If you’ve been accused of fraud or any criminal activity related to online schemes, our experienced legal team is here to help. Don’t hesitate to contact us today for a free consultation. The legal system can be complex and unforgiving, but with the right defense, you can navigate the process and work toward the best possible outcome

One way in which acceptance of responsibility is often demonstrated is through the defendant’s guilty plea. When a defendant pleads guilty, they are admitting to the charges against them and accept the consequences that come with those charges. This can be seen as a sign of acceptance of responsibility, as the defendant is acknowledging that they committed the crime and is willing to accept the punishment for it. Aside from pleading guilty early in the legal process, acceptance of responsibility is often demonstrated through actions such as cooperating with law enforcement or prosecutors, showing remorse for one’s actions, or taking steps towards rehabilitation and/or restitution.

During federal sentencing, a defendant who has exhibited remorse can be awarded either a two- or three-level decrease in their calculated guideline range based on USSG § 3E1.1 Acceptance of Responsibility. A majority of federal criminal defendants who plead guilty receive this sentencing decrease; but, whether it applies to a case is ultimately within the court’s discretion. Section 3E1.1 is relevant only in the federal system; however, on the state level, the general concept of accepting responsibility is still applicable at sentencing.

Any conduct or statements by the defendant that are viewed as inconsistent with genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility can and will result in the Court ruling that the two- or three-level decrease does not apply at sentencing. Recently, “Rust” armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was sentenced to the maximum penalty of 18 months in prison after prosecutors argued that she showed no remorse for her conduct.

In a filing to the Court, the prosecutors highlighted several jail calls where Gutierrez-Reed demonstrated her “complete and total failure to accept responsibility for her actions.” The filing states she complained about how the shooting had negatively affected her life and modeling career while never expressing genuine remorse at any time. In those recorded jail calls, the defendant made several crude comments, including calling the jurors “idiots” and “retards.”

The full filing submitted to the Court highlighting the jail calls is available here. Ultimately, after seeing the defendant’s conversations in jail, the judge agreed that Gutierrez-Reed had not accepted responsibility or exhibited genuine remorse for her conduct. Accordingly, she was sentenced to the maximum punishment per the recommendation of the prosecutors.

Airports are high security environments with strict rules enforced through law enforcement, federal agents, TSA checkpoints, drug-sniffing dogs, US Marshals aboard flights, and more. Being arrested at an airport is overwhelming, scary, and often times, completely unexpected. However, the consequences of these arrest can be serious and long-lasting. An arrest at an airport could lead to detention by law enforcement, criminal charges, and the need to retain legal representation.

If you are arrested at an airport, you may be taken into custody and transported to a detention center or police station where you will be held and processed until further legal proceedings. However, this does not always happen at the airport – you may leave the airport and later have a warrant issued for your arrest. In that case, you would still need to turn yourself in for processing with law enforcement. In either circumstance, it is essential to remember your rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel. Contacting an experienced criminal defense attorney will help you navigate that distressing process with an advocate by your side.

Airport arrests can lead to severe criminal charges depending on the circumstances of your case. Common criminal charges in this context cover a broad range including drug offenses, sexual offenses, firearm offenses, DUIs, disorderly conduct, battery, theft, trafficking, and fraud. You could also be arrested at the airport for entirely unrelated criminal charges if you are simply identified and apprehended pursuant to an active arrest warrant, such as this recent arrest in Atlanta. Committing crimes while aboard an aircraft (like interfering with the performance of the duties of a flight crew) can lead to federal criminal charges and even more severe penalties. Many of these charges carry significant terms of imprisonment and hefty fines.

A strong legal defense is crucial if you have been arrested at an airport or are under investigation for alleged conduct at an airport. A skilled criminal defense attorney will guide you through the process, explain the charges against you, and evaluate the evidence to develop a defense strategy tailored to your case.

At Conaway and Strickler, we craft a defense based on the unique circumstances of each case and work closely with our clients to pursue favorable resolutions. If you have been arrested or detained at an airport, it is important to hire an attorney that is experienced in this area of law and can safeguard your rights throughout each step of the process. Contact us for a free consultation regarding your case.

In deciding whether to terminate probation early, the Court will consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The 3553(a) factors include: the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense, the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, the need for the sentence imposed to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, the need for the sentence imposed to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment, and the need for the sentence imposed to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.

After a defendant files a petition to have their sentence modified or terminated, it is the Judge’s decision whether probation should be terminated early. This judge will often be the same judge that imposed the original sentence. In most cases, judges deny requests; however, certain factors can strengthen a defendant’s request for early termination of probation. Overall, to successfully terminate a term of probation, the defendant must show that they have earned it through good conduct, and it would be in the interests of justice.

Judges may consider the following factors in their determination of a request to terminate or modify the term of probation:

• Whether your probation officer and the Prosecutor support your request;
• The nature and seriousness of the crime you were convicted of;
• Your criminal history and/or mental illness history;
• Whether the judge believes you are a threat to the public;
• Whether the judge believes you have been sufficiently punished;
• Whether you have completed any substance abuse treatment or rehabilitation programs;
• How your sentence compares to the federal sentencing guidelines recommended sentence;
• U. S. Sentencing Commission policy statements;
• Whether you’ve paid restitution to the victims.

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.