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.

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.

Healthcare fraud attorneys assist medical professionals who are facing allegations of False Claim Act violations. The False Claims Act “FCA” is an act that holds any person who knowingly submits, or causes to submit, false claims to the government civilly liable.  In general, such claims come from problematic practices related to billing federal government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and/or Tricare.  Any violation of federal regulations can cause issues.  

What types of Healthcare Fraud does the Government Target?

In general, the government will investigate situations involving:

-Billing for services not rendered

-Billing under the incorrect code

-Billing for services derived from illegal monetary kickbacks 

-Billing for services that are not medically necessary.  

How can the government Bring a Claim?

The Falsc Claims Act “FCA” is an act that holds any person who knowingly submits, or causes to submit, false claims to the government civilly liable.  

How can an individual purse a claim? 

In addition to allowing the government to pursue investigations on its own, the FCA allows private citizens to file suits on behalf of the government (called “qui tam” suits) against those who have defrauded the government.  Private citizens who successfully bring qui tam actions may receive a portion, (normally around 30 % of the recovered funds) of the government’s recovery.  Many DOJ investigations arise from qui tam actions.

What are the damages under the civil FCA?

If a lawsuit filed under the FCA is lost, the doctor or medical business owner will be liable for damages.  The district court is required to award damages in two ways: 

1. Triple the actual value of the fraudulently obtained funds and 
2. Mandatory fine per false claim submitted.  

A recent press release by the DOJ show settlements and judgments under the False Claims Act exceeded $6.8 billion in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2025.  

It is important to reach out and secure counsel, such as the experienced health care fraud attorneys at Conaway & Strickler PC as soon as practicable.  It is always the hope to navigate the situation prior to the situation being investigated for criminal charges. 

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.

What will this mean to clients charged with trafficking or possessing fentanyl? This concept has been debated for a few years now. Unfortunately, it is now official. This executive order will increase the penalties. 18 U.S.C. §2332 imposes a maximum sentence of life in prison for violation of this statute, and, if death results, this statute permits bringing the death penalty.

Despite intensified measures targeting drug supply and trafficking, there remains a lack of substantial efforts directed toward treatment, prevention, and broader accountability. Issues surrounding pharmaceutical companies such as the Sacklers, Purdue Pharma, and the ongoing opioid epidemic continue to be areas of public concern and debate.  

While federal enforcement efforts are intensifying, the current approach may further strain the criminal justice system, especially as courts and correctional facilities contend with rising caseloads linked to fentanyl offenses. The broader public health response—including investments in addiction recovery, harm reduction, and community education—remains crucial to preventing future tragedies and supporting individuals affected by substance use disorders. As policy shifts continue, we will need to balance aggressive enforcement with meaningful support for those impacted by the opioid crisis. 

The Department of Justice is currently citing “office policy” of very tough resolutions to drug trafficking cases with zero thought on the individual details of each case.

Contact us should you or a loved one be facing a possession with intent to distribute or drug trafficking charge.

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.

Recently, the Department of Justice highlighted enforcement efforts that allegedly aimed at protecting  Americans from transnational fraud schemes.  Here are some of the cases discussed:

United States v. Troy Murray and United States v. Cutter Murray. On June 11, 2025, DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch filed an Information in SDFL charging Troy Murray also known as “Steve Dixson” with conspiracy to commit wire fraud. According to court documents, Troy Murray sold to lottery fraud scammers, including Jamaicans, his lead list database containing the names, and personal information of over seven million elderly American consumers. These lists were allegedly then used to defraud elderly victims. Additionally, Cutter Murray, Troy Murray’s son, will plead guilty to one count of money laundering for receiving and then laundering $1.6 million of the fraudulent funds Troy Murray obtained.

United States v. Jimmy Smith. On April 1, 2025 the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut announced charges against Jimmy Smith, 30, a citizen of Jamaica, who resided in Hinesville, Georgia. According to court documents, Smith and others defrauded at least four victims residing in Connecticut, New York, Texas, and California, by telling them they had won a Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes and needed to pay taxes or money to claim the prize.

United States v. Charles Uchenna Nwadavid. On April 9, the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) for the District of Massachusetts announced charges against Charles Uchenna Nwadavid, a citizen of Nigeria who was arrested after landing at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. In January 2024, a grand jury indicted Nawadavid on one count of mail fraud and two counts of money laundering. Between approximately 2016 to September 2019, Nwadavid allegedly participated in romance scams that tricked victims into sending money abroad.  He plead guilty to mail fraud, aiding and abetting money laundering and money laundering on June 26, 2025.  The DOJ states “romance schemes”  generally begin when the “bad actors” recruit victims through advertisements for online relationships on dating or social media websites. Individuals perpetuating romance scams often create fictitious profiles and then use them to gain victims’ trust through a purported romantic relationship. Perpetrators then direct their victims to send money or to conduct financial transactions involving other victims’ money under false pretenses, such as an urgent need for money to secure a multi-million dollar inheritance or to pay for an unexpected hospitalization.

Another romance scheme can involve investing in cryptocurrency. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio (USAO) has filed a civil complaint in forfeiture against 8,207,578 Tether (USDT) cryptocurrency, valued at more than $8.2 million in February, 2025.   In that case, investigators found that scammers initially contacted the victims through seemingly misdirected, or “wrong number,” text messages. The fraudster then gained the victim’s trust and affection using various manipulative tactics. Once trust was established with the victim, the fraudster would share how much success they, or someone they knew, had with investing in cryptocurrency. This personal testimonial lessened any uncertainties the victims may have had about virtual currencies and eventually had the intended effect to persuade the victim to proceed with the investment.

The fraudster would then guide the victim, step-by-step, on how to open a legitimate cryptocurrency account, most often with a U.S. based virtual currency exchange such as Crypto.com or Coinbase. The scammer would walk the victim through the entire process of transferring money from their bank to the newly created cryptocurrency account. Next, the victim received instructions on how to transfer the purchased cryptocurrency assets to an online “investment platform,” which would turn out to be a fake site created by the fraudsters to look like a legitimate company. Information on the platforms promised lucrative returns which encouraged victims to invest further. However, once the victim transferred their funds to the “investment platform” they unknowingly handed over complete control and ownership of their funds to the scammer.  These fake cryptocurrency trading platforms or fake versions of official crypto wallets to trick unsuspecting victims. These fake websites usually have similar but slightly different domain names from the sites they attempt to mimic.

The complaint also outlines that the perpetrators of such investment fraud schemes often allow victims to withdraw a portion of their “profits” early on in the scheme to build trust and reinforce their belief that the “investment platform” was legitimate. But as the scheme progressed, victims were unable to withdraw their funds and given excuses as to why they could not access their funds. For example, the fraudsters referred to a fake “tax” requirement, stating that taxes must be paid on the proceeds generated from the investment platform. Knowing that the scam would run its course soon, the fraudsters used last-ditch efforts to lie to victims that they had to pay a tax. Ultimately, victims were locked out of their account on the investment platform and lost their funds.

A woman in Lake County, Ohio became the target of such a scam when she responded to a text on her phone from an unknown number in November 2023. She began sharing information via text with the person and the two bonded over topics such as hobbies and religion. Over a period of time, the victim followed instructions from her new “friend” and opened an account at Crypto.com and then transferred funds into the account. When the victim wanted to withdraw funds, her “friend,” relented and said additional payments were needed and she complied. When the victim no longer had any funds left after making additional payments, her “friend” began to threaten her that he would send his friends to “take care of” her friends and family. Having lost her entire life savings of approximately $663,352, including funds from her Roth IRA, the victim filed a complaint with the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center to report the losses in June 2024. The FBI Cleveland Division subsequently initiated an investigation.

United States v. 679,981.22 Tether, et al. On June 3, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio announced the filing of a civil forfeiture complaint against 679,981.22 in the Tether cryptocurrency suspected of being fraudulently obtained as part of a romance/investment scam. According to court documents, one victim was targeted via LinkedIn and another victim was targeted though the dating App “Coffee Meets Bagel.”

The experienced federal criminal defense attorneys at Conaway & Strickler, PC are here to protect your rights, reputation, and future should you be under investigation. With decades of experience in defending traditional financial fraud paired with a deep understanding of the newer world of cryptocurrency, our firm possesses the skills and expertise to assist those accused of any type of fraud.  Call or contact us online for a confidential consultation.

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.

26 U.S.C. § 7201 defines what is tax evasion.  It states in relevant part that any 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 and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Federal prosecutors might also add additional charges beyond tax evasion. Those charges could include conspiracy charges, under 18 U.S.C. § 371, or tax fraud under 26 U.S.C. § 7206.  The United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) recently released its Tax Fraud Report for fiscal year 2023. It states that off the 64,124 cases reported to the Commission in fiscal year 2023, 363 involved tax fraud (down 27% since FY 2019).  It is unclear if this downward trend will continue.

Recently, a man in New Jersey plead guilty to tax evasion. According to the Department of Justice, “for tax years 2015 and 2016, Matthew Tucci, of West Long Branch, NJ, filed tax returns that stated he owed more than $2 million in taxes for both years. Despite admitting that he owed those taxes, Tucci did not fully pay them when they were due. Instead, Tucci purchased real estate and engaged in a series of transactions designed to conceal his interest in those properties.

In 2017, the IRS sent notices to Tucci that he owed taxes, interest, and penalties for 2015 and 2016. After receiving these notices, Tucci transferred multiple properties to an entity owned by another individual, but he continued to exert control over at least two of them. Of the two properties Tucci continued to control, he sold one and refinanced the other. Tucci used the proceeds from these transactions to pay his personal expenses rather than his tax debts. In 2019, Tucci submitted documents to the IRS that falsely claimed that he had no connection to the entity that owned the 12 properties.

He faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison as well as a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.”

In another case, a Florida businessman was sentenced to prison for tax evasion.  According to the  Department of Justice, “David Albert Fletcher, of Deltona, Florida owned and operated furniture liquidations businesses, including Century Liquidators. For tax years 2004 through 2013, Fletcher did not timely file his federal income tax returns or pay the taxes he owed. After an audit, the IRS assessed a total of $1.7 million in taxes, interest, and penalties against him.

To evade collection of these taxes, Fletcher concealed his income and assets from the IRS. For example, Fletcher used nominees to hide his purchases of luxury vehicles, including Rolls Royces. Fletcher also filed false income tax returns that understated his income by several million dollars, and when an IRS special agent interviewed him, Fletcher falsely represented the amount of income he earned.

In addition to his prison sentence, U.S. District Judge Wendy Berger for the Middle District of Florida ordered Fletcher to serve three years of supervised release and to pay approximately $7,112,689 in restitution to the United States.”

Recently, Meg Strickler was able to ensure that no tax evasion charges were filed against her client.  Contact us if you think you might be facing tax evasion or tax fraud charges.  We are here to help.

• 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.

Crypto money laundering follows the same pattern used for fiat (government-issued) currencies by “cleaning” funds gained through illicit means, before exchanging or withdrawing them for cash. Traditionally, money laundering involves disguising financial assets so they can be used without detection of the illegal activity that produced them. In the context of crypto, tokens are moved through various digital addresses to obscure their illegal origin and make them more difficult to trace.  

The privacy-preserving nature of crypto has opened the door for criminals to conceal the origin of illicitly gained funds through a variety of methods. Cybercriminals ultimately funnel assets through several businesses and online addresses to hide the money trail before transferring the funds to a seemingly legitimate source. 

There are several methods that criminals will use when engaging in cryptocurrency money laundering, including: 

• Smurfing: Splitting up large sums of money into smaller amounts so they can be sent via multiple transactions.  
• Exchange Hopping: Using multiple cryptocurrency exchanges to transfer funds across several platforms and obscure the money trail.  
• Crypto Swaps: Using multiple cryptocurrency wallet addresses to directly convert funds without an intermediary or a centralized exchange. 
• Offshore Transactions: Creating offshore accounts to hide the origin of funds. 
• Mixing: Blending together the crypto assets of multiple users, making it difficult to determine who owns what.   
• Gambling Platforms: Depositing tokens into online gambling websites to be either withdrawn as cash or used to place coordinated bets.  

Cybercriminals require other actors (individuals and sometimes shell companies) to facilitate this crypto money laundering. Like traditional money laundering, criminals recruit “money mules” to move or launder the illicit funds, often unknowingly. In the context of crypto, this is often done under the guise of a cryptocurrency investment scheme.  

Just as traditional money laundering can be federally prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1956, crypto money laundering is a crime under that same law. In addition to money laundering charges, involvement in a cryptocurrency scam can lead to charges including conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud, and more. Further, individuals at all levels of these schemes can face prosecution, including those who may have unwittingly played the role of a money mule. 

With decades of experience in defending traditional financial fraud paired with a deep understanding of the newer world of cryptocurrency, our firm possesses the skills and expertise to assist those accused of crypto fraud. Contact us for a free consultation.  

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.