Defending “white
collar” crimes – when taking money isn’t stealing
White
collar crime is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as “law violations by
corporations or individuals including theft or fraud and other violations of
trust committed in the course of the offender’s occupation (e.g., embezzlement
….).” It defines embezzlement as “willfully
to take … another’s money or property, of which the wrongdoer acquired
possession lawfully, by reason of some office or employment or position of
trust.”
Colorado’s
embezzlement statute - “embezzlement of public property” - is at CRS 18-8-407 and
requires proof of knowing conversion by a public employee of public monies or
property (note fraudulent intent is
not required).
Charges
of embezzlement at the state level in Colorado not involving public employees are
incorporated into the theft statutes at CRS 18-4-401 et seq., per CRS 18-4-403. It’s
a felony if it involves $2,000 or more.
Embezzlement
is a form of theft historically based on the relationship between the wrongdoer
and the victim. That relationship is not
as significant now, nor are any of the historical distinctions involving what
used to be known generally as “larceny.”
Defense
firms don’t like the phrase “white collar crime.” It’s not much of a definition. It’s really a media, editorial or political
phrase. It’s a way to put a bad spin – a
negative label – on the accused. People,
jurors, even judges, may sympathize with a robber (guy robs a liquor store to
get money for his drug habit, food, rent, etc.) versus the guy who allegedly steals
millions as part of a mortgage scheme and supposedly lives it up somewhere.
In
any event, so-called white collar crimes are defended best like most serious
criminal cases - by identifying and attacking the “seams” of the prosecution’s
case. One of the most obvious is intent,
or lack of it. Others include defining
the conduct away from criminal conduct, hammering the definitions and elements
of the charged offenses, putting forth other plausible non-criminal
explanations, minimizing amounts involved (to reduce the severity of the
charge), focusing on the lack of evidence.
Every case is different.
A
good defense team – lawyer, paralegal, investigator – learn the business of the
accused, the documents, the players, the details, better than the prosecution
(we have the benefit of talking directly with the accused). Federal cases are tougher because they have
more prosecution resources, longer investigations, shorter trial dates, more
severe consequences.
One
of the biggest issues – biggest seams - with white collar crimes is the
discretion in charging them - what the prosecution thinks is criminal intent
may not be. If you can get the case
looking more like a civil matter – as many of them really should be - good
things can happen.
The
legislative/political trend is to make it easier to convict at both the state
and federal level, starting with lumping “embezzlement” and other historically
different forms of larceny together under the theft statutes, to increasing
efforts to water down the need to prove a mental element like intent, aka mens rea. The National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers issued a report in 2010 focusing on “shoddy lawmaking that is
systematically diminishing the criminal intent requirement – a moral anchor of
the American criminal justice system,” citing among others a Florida statute
that removed the mental elements of intent and knowing from drug possession
(admittedly not the stereotypical white collar crime but alarming nonetheless).
This
trend makes it even more important that defense firms continue aggressively to
stand up for the accused and make the prosecution prove their cases.
(Excerpted from a recent talk given by lawyer Dave Sanderson to the Boulder County Bar Association, discussing defense of white collar criminal charges).
No comments:
Post a Comment