Charges: Receiving Stolen Property and Theft by Deception
Court: Bergen County, New Jersey Municipal Court
Result: All charges dismissed
A client was charged with receiving stolen property and theft by deception after another person’s credit card was used to make a payment on the client’s automobile insurance policy. On its face, the transaction appeared suspicious: a stolen payment method had been used to benefit the client’s insurance account.
What Did the Defense Investigation Reveal?
Attorney Carl Spector conducted an independent review of the discovery and the client’s financial and insurance records. The defense investigation revealed a substantially different story.
The records showed that multiple unrelated and apparently unauthorized payment instruments had been applied to the client’s insurance policy over a period of several months. The client denied knowing the credit-card holder and denied possessing or using the card. Significantly, the police investigation itself indicated that the client and alleged victim were strangers.
The defense also obtained records showing that after the questionable transactions were reversed, the client paid the resulting insurance balance with his own funds and continued making subsequent insurance payments from his own bank account. The insurance company’s records corroborated those payments.
What Evidence Showed the Client May Have Been a Victim of Fraud?
Additional evidence supported the client’s claim that he had actually been a victim of fraud rather than a participant in it. The insurance company had warned the client about fraudulent websites and individuals impersonating the insurer and potentially obtaining customer account credentials. The client’s bank records also provided additional information consistent with his claim that he had been experiencing suspicious financial activity.
How Did Attorney Carl Spector Challenge the Theft Charges?
Attorney Carl Spector assembled the financial records, insurance documentation, payment history, and other evidence and provided reciprocal discovery to the Municipal Prosecutor. The defense demonstrated that there was no evidence establishing that the client knowingly possessed or used the other person’s credit card and that the documentary evidence instead supported the client’s assertion that he had been victimized by a third-party fraud scheme.
Why Can an Independent Defense Investigation Matter in a Criminal Case?
After reviewing the reciprocal discovery and the defense presentation, the Municipal Prosecutor moved to dismiss the charges, and the case was dismissed by the Judge.
This case illustrates why a defense investigation should not necessarily end with the discovery supplied by law enforcement. By independently obtaining and analyzing financial and insurance records, the defense was able to place an apparently incriminating transaction into its proper context and present evidence supporting the client’s innocence.
Every case is different, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome in another matter. If you’re facing criminal charges, please don’t hesitate to contact The Law Office of Carl Spector today.