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.

I have received a subpoena from the SEC what do I do? 

It is important to understand that when you receive a subpoena from the SEC it is most definitely not the beginning of an investigation, but it is the beginning of your knowledge that there is an investigation.  If you have received a subpoena from the SEC, your first and immediate step is to contact an attorney who can help guide you through the process and get the best resolution possible.  

What is the process? 

First, the majority of the Securities and Exchange Commission must issue what is called a formal order of investigation. This is a formal order within the SEC that gives authority to start issuing subpoeanas, and the like. It is important to note that without that order, the SEC’s enforcement attorneys can request your cooperation, but they cannot require it.

The distinction is very important.  Before there is a formal order SEC staff can still conduct an investigation but it’s done in a more informal way. It is very similar to a federal agent coming by your office and just “asking a few questions”. They may imply it’s informal and no big deal – but it is. Even if you are contacted this way, it is imperative to understand that these conversations are not casual.   Everything you say and do can and will be held against you.   And it can be the information that is used to procure the formal order. 

What is a subpoena duces tecum? 

A subpoena duces tecum compels the production of documents. It is a legal order requiring a person to produce documents or tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial. The term “duces tecum” comes from the Latin phrase “you shall bring with you.”. It includes correspondence, emails, contracts, financial records, trading logs, and communications on all types of platforms that include WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram etc per the revised 2026 Enforcement Manual. The subpoena will specify a deadline and an address for production. An experienced attorney may be able to secure a delay in this deadline so that there is adequate time to comply.

What is a preservation obligation?

There is a duty to preserve once an investigation has begun. These obligations now extend to encrypted communications on personal devices.  The preservation obligation attaches at the moment of service, and in certain cases before: the 2026 Manual directs enforcement staff to issue preservation letters early in an investigation, which means the duty to preserve may predate a subpoena by weeks.

What is a subpoena ad testificandum? 

A subpoena ad testificandum compels you to appear at a designated time and place to give sworn testimony.

Securing counsel early on is key.  Contact us so we can help.  Complying with SEC subpoenas is complicated and time consuming. Even after complying, the investigation stage is a long process. It is important to have qualified counsel throughout.  Remember all of the aspects of the SEC investigation can and usually does run parallel to a criminal investigation by the DOJ.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

If your professional license is under review, you may be facing disciplinary action, suspension, or even revocation of your license. Professionals can face license challenges due to various reasons, including allegations of unethical behavior, negligence, or non-compliance with industry standards. Common grounds for disciplinary action in this context includes the following:

• Negligence or Malpractice:Claims that a professional has failed to meet the appropriate standard of care.
• Ethical Violations:Breaches of professional codes of conduct or ethical guidelines.
• Criminal Charges:Convictions that impact one’s suitability for professional practice. Generally, a criminal charge will almost always bring a professional license under review.
• Substance Abuse:Issues related to addiction or impairment affecting professional duties. This can arise simply from reports of substance abuse made to the licensing board, or a criminal charge related to substance abuse (DUI, unlawful possession of controlled substances, etc.).
• Fraud or Misrepresentation:Instances of dishonesty or deceptive practices. Again, this can stem from criminal charges or arise in the context of reports/evidence of fraud or misrepresentation.

The applicable licensing board often initiates the process for disciplinary action once a complaint has been filed. In some circumstances, such as pending criminal charges, it may be mandatory for the professional to self-report to the Board. This varies by state and different professional licenses have different requirements.

Following the initial notification, the Board conducts an investigation to gather evidence and determine if there is a basis for formal charges. It is crucial to respond promptly and thoroughly to any allegations. An experienced attorney can help you gather evidence, prepare statements, and formulate a defense strategy. Sometimes, it may be possible to resolve the matter through negotiation or a settlement, which can mitigate the impact on your license. If the case proceeds to a formal hearing, working closely with an attorney to present a robust defense is essential. This may involve testimony, evidence presentation, and cross-examination.

Hiring a skilled attorney is the best way to protect your career once your professional license has been challenged. At Conaway and Strickler, we have a proven track record in defending professional licenses can provide valuable insights and strategies for your case. Each case is unique, and we offer a personalized approach to understanding the specifics of your situation and providing customized legal solutions.Facing a challenge to your professional license can be a daunting experience, but with the right legal representation, you can navigate the process with confidence. Understanding the procedures, common issues, and having an attorney by your side can make a significant difference in the outcome of your case.

If you are facing allegations or disciplinary actions affecting your professional license in Georgia, contact our firm today to safeguard your career and future. Our experienced attorneys are here to help you defend your professional license. Schedule a consultation with us to discuss your case and explore your legal options.

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.

• You do not have more than 1 criminal history point.
• You did not use violence or credible threats of violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another participant)
• The offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury to any person
• You were not an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor of others in the offense and not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise
• You truthfully provided the government all information related to the offense.

It is necessary for an experienced federal criminal defense attorney to ascertain what constitutes a “criminal history point” for purposes of qualifying for the “Safety Valve” provision. In addition, “truthfully providing” information to the government is another dicey area that needs an attorney present. Conaway & Strickler, PC has handled many cases involving this provision. Please feel free to contact us any time to discuss.