Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Jerod Gunsberg | Criminal Defense Lawyer Los Angeles

By now you probably heard that three more people were charged in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing.  As Huffington Post reports:

Federal prosecutors allege that Dias Kadyrbayev, 19, and Azamat Tazbayakov, 19, tried to conceal and destroy a laptop computer and backpack full of fireworks belonging to Tsarnaev, a friend from the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, where all three were students at one time. They were charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Massachusetts.

A third man, Robel Phillipos, 19, was accused of lying to law enforcement officials, who questioned him about the bombing.

According the federal complaint filed against Phillipos, he initially told investigators that he never went to alleged bomber Dzokhar Tsarnaev’s dorm room after the bombings.  He later told federal agents that he lied to them earlier and that he actually had gone to Tsarnaev’s dorm room. 

So, you may be thinking what’s the big deal?  This is a 19 year old kid who was scared, he was friends with Tsarnaev, but wasn’t involved in the planning of the bombing, didn’t know about Tsarnaev’s involvement until after the photos were released, and when the FBI started to question him about whether or not he had contact with Tsarnaev after the bombing, he got scared and lied.  After some more questioning, he told the truth.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, that’s not the way the government or the law sees it.  Under 18 USC 1001(a)(2) , Phillipos is accused of making a “materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” to the federal agents during questioning. It does not matter if he was under arrest or whether or not his Miranda rights were invoked, the government believes he lied.  He’s facing a maximum sentence of 8 years in federal prison.  Usually the maximum penalty for this offense is 5 years in federal prison, but because this involves a terrorism investigation, the maximum imprisonment is increased to 8 years.

What is so sad about this is that this all could have been avoided.  The feds didn’t charge Phillipos with any other crime other than lying to the FBI. That means if he had an experienced federal investigation defense attorney representing him BEFORE he talked to the FBI, all of this could have been avoided.

It’s likely that the FBI initially believed that Phillipos was involved in the destruction of the evidence, which he wasn’t  but if he wanted to give an exculpatory statement, his lawyer very well could have advised his client not to lie or possibly negotiated a limited immunity agreement with the federal prosecutor on the case.  Of course, this is easier said than done in a case as serious and high-profile as the Boston bombing case.  The federal government wants as much leverage as possible over anyone they believe to be involved with the attack, but a scared young man like Phillipos didn’t stand a chance on his own when faced with highly trained and highly skilled FBI agents in this case.

Moral of the story:  Even if you are 100% innocent, never talk to federal investigators without talking to an attorney first.

Here’s 5 things you need to know about domestic violence in California

QUESTION #1: CAN THE “VICTIM” DROP THE CHARGES?  

ANSWER:  NO.  Bad night? Got a little drunk and things got out of control? You wanted to teach your spouse/significant other a “lesson” so you called the cops and said you got slapped around, even though it didn’t really happen?  Or maybe things got a little heated and you shoved each other during a loud argument and one of you or a neighbor called the police?  But now, after your loved one has been arrested, you want to take back the accusations and make this go away?   TOO BAD.  You see, you are no longer in control. The police refer every domestic violence arrest to the local prosecutor.  If the prosecutor thinks they have a case, they’ll file a case.

QUESTION #2:  IF I’M ACCUSED OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SHOULD I TELL THE “VICTIM” NOT TO SHOW UP TO COURT?

ANSWER:  ABSOLUTELY NOT.  This is a terrible idea.  First, if there’s a criminal protective order or “no contact” order in place, you shouldn’t even be talking to the alleged victim.  So the very act of talking to him/her could result in new charges being filed against you.  Second, even if you ARE allowed to talk to the alleged victim, it is a crime to dissuade a witness from testifying.  Third, if the alleged victim has been subpoenaed to go to court, YOU should not be the one to give him/her advice as to how to handle it.

QUESTION #3:   I’M THE SO-CALLED VICTIM, THE PROSECUTOR WANTS ME TO TESTIFY, I DON’T WANT TO.  WHAT DO I DO?

ANSWER:  CALL A LAWYER.  I know you’re reading a blog post written by a lawyer, so this is the answer you’d expect, but I’m serious.  Contact a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney who deals with domestic violence (yes, those links are to me). There’s lots of issues here: What is the nature of your testimony going to be?  Have you been served a subpoena or are you just being hassled by a prosecutor or the police? Are you worried about incriminating yourself?  If you have a subpoena in your hand, you need to call an attorney and show him/her the subpoena and get some advice before deciding whether or not to show up at court. If the subpoena was lawfully issued, you need to show up to court.  Only a qualified lawyer can tell you if it was lawfully issued.

QUESTION #4: BUT I TOLD THE COPS NOT TO ARREST MY HUSBAND/WIFE/BOYFRIEND/GIRLFRIEND?

ANSWER:  THAT’S THEIR JOB.  If the cops get called to a domestic disturbance and there’s ANY evidence that someone laid a hand on someone else, someone is getting arrested. That is just the policy of most police departments in California.  This is why when the police showed up, they separated the two of you and asked you questions out of earshot from each other.  Even if there were no bruises or visible injuries to either of you, if one person even admits to barely touching the other person, even if self-defense, someone is going to jail.  That’s just the way it is in our post OJ Simpson world. Sorry.

QUESTION #5  THIS SUCKS!  DON’T PROSECUTORS UNDERSTAND THAT COUPLES FIGHT SOMETIMES? 

ANSWER:  YES AND NO.  Look, no politician is going to ever get re-elected by passing a law that softens up the domestic violence laws.  And to be fair, there are many serious and legitimate cases of domestic violence out there.  But just as often, there are other agendas going on:  Revenge, trying to get leverage in a divorce or child custody case, substance abuse, mental illness, jealousy.  But that’s the job of a lawyer and possibly a private investigator to figure out.  DO NOT TRY TO INVESTIGATE OR DEFEND YOUR OWN CASE. Whether you are accused of domestic violence or if police and prosecution say you’re a “victim”, you need to talk to a lawyer before making any real decision about how to proceed.

If you or a loved one were arrested for grand theft, petty theft and/or commercial burglary in Los Angeles County or anywhere else in California, here’s five things  you need to know:

1)Remember when they told you to “Just Admit Everything And You Wouldn’t Be Charged?”  That Was a Lie.  Yeah, sorry.  That loss prevention officer who took you into that little room and told you that if you just told the truth that nothing bad would happen to you?  Lies.  All lies.  You may have figured this out by now, but that confession you made to the store detective or that you wrote out is going to be used against you.

2) Be wary of an attorney who promises you a “civil compromise” to prevent prosecution.  Technically speaking, if you are charged with a misdemeanor petty theft case, a civil compromise is available under Penal Code 1377.  In a civil compromise, the defendant negotiates a settlement with the store and the case gets dismissed.  But I’m telling you right now, if you stole from a big chain store or a store that is owned by a bigger corporation, the odds of getting a civil compromise is VERY low.  If a defense lawyer tells you that he/she will “get you a civil compromise” ask them to do the following:  1) Put the guarantee in writing in their retainer agreement; 2) Give you the last three cases (with case numbers) where they obtained a civil compromise from a big chain store.    Watch what happens.

3)  Do NOT pay the letter from a civil law firm demanding money until you talk to a lawyer.   You’re going to get a letter from a law firm, probably from Florida with a local office in California, making a “civil demand” for damages.  This letter will tell you to pay a few hundred bucks by a certain date under the threat of a higher payment.  Do not pay.  It has nothing to do with your criminal case.  Paying it will not make your criminal case go away.  This letter is a shakedown to get more money out of you.  They’re banking on the fact that you are scared and vulnerable.  Your lawyer can explain it to you in detail.  But do not panic and just pay what they’re asking.  You’re throwing money away.

4)  Get Honest With Yourself.  Do you have a problem with stealing?  Do you steal items you don’t really need. Do you steal even though you may be able to afford it?  Are you worried that you’re addicted to the thrill of it? Is there another underlying issue?  I know it is embarrassing and tough to admit, but  you MUST get some help to get this under control.  Why do you need help?  Because you can’t control this on your own.  You’ve now been arrested for it (maybe more than once). In California, petty theft (shoplifitng) is what’s known as a “priorable” offense.  This means the punishment will increase every time you get caught.  The third time you get caught, you could be charged with a felony. Also, if you get out in front of this and get into counseling to deal with the issue, an experienced criminal defense attorney should be able to use this to help your case.

5) Even If You Were Caught and You Confessed, You Still May Have A Defense.  Look, I get it.  You were caught with the clothes in the bag or you confessed you changed price tags or whatever.  Plus you confessed.  Plus they say they have you on video.  Whatever the case may be, DO NOT just go to court and plead guilty.  Every courthouse deals with these cases differently.  I’m a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney.  I can tell you that the way these cases are handled in Beverly Hills courthouse is different than Airport courthouse which is different than downtown or Van Nuys.  It depends whether the District Attorney is prosecuting the case or the City Attorney is prosecuting the case.  It depends on the exact facts of the case. It depends on the specific circumstances of your life.  It depends on a LOT of things. Did you take not much more than $50 worth of stuff?  If so, you may be able to negotiate this down to an infraction.   Bottom line:  Call a qualified criminal defense lawyer to at talk about your case.  A good lawyer will be honest with you, give you a real assessment about your case and won’t just try to “close the deal” to get your money.

And hey, if you want to talk to me. You can always give me a call at 310-210-0744. I’m happy to talk to you at no charge.

By now anyone who is (or was) a fan of the 1980s British music scene knows that Bauhaus frontman and goth godfather Peter Murphy was arrested for hit & run DUI in Los Angeles County on Saturday.  Judging from the reaction in the social media universe, fans were more disturbed by the fact that ‘ol Mr. Moonlight was driving a Subaru Forester than they were by the fact that he was arrested.  I get it.

But there are some interesting things to learn here based on the way the story developed.

Lesson #1:  The charges you are arrested for are different from the charges filed against you.  Here’s how it works:  If you get arrested, the police agency who arrested you and set a bail.  The initial amount of bail is determined by a “bail schedule” which varies from county to county.  If the police think you’re a flight risk, the bail will be set higher.  The police also write a report.  They then give this report to a local prosecutor. The local prosecutor makes the ultimate decision as to which charges to file.

In Peter Murphy’s case, he was arrested on suspicion felony DUI, hit and run, and possession of methamphetamine. Because he is not a US citizen and lives in Turkey, the police thought he was a flight risk. So they set bail at $500K.

Once the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office took a look at the report, they didn’t think the facts warranted a felony.   All the charges Murphy was arrested on are what’s known as “wobblers”, which are offenses that can be filed as felonies or misdemeanors.  The DA decided that the  evidence presented did not rise to the level of a felony, so they filed misdemeanor charges instead and his lawyers were able to convince the judge to let him out without posting any bail at all.

Lesson #2:  In California, if the defendant has hired an attorney, he or she is not required to appear in court for misdemeanors:  This is why Peter Murphy can go on tour while the case against him is pending.  As long as he is in contact with his lawyer and following whatever instructions the court gave to him, he will be

Lesson #3:  Less Is More With Press.  Peter Murphy’s lawyer did an excellent job of handling the publicity on the case. According to the LA Times article, his lawyer declined to comment on the case, but reassured everyone that Peter will be able to go on tour and the case will be handled.  He summed it all up with one simple line:  “We are going to take care of business.”  Good stuff.  It’s about the client, not the lawyer and Peter’s lawyer understands this.  Peter Murphy is obviously not a Lindsay Lohan sized celebrity, but ain’t it refreshing to see a hard working lawyer doing the right thing for his client and not preening for the press?  Bonus pro move:  Attorney kept Peter in the lockup in the back of the courthouse and appeared in court on his behalf so his client wouldn’t have to deal with his fans sitting in the courtroom gallery.

Wishing all the best for Peter Murphy.

On Tuesday November 6, 2012, almost 70% of California voters supported Proposition 36, which changes how California administers it’s three strikes law.  Under that law, a person convicted of three felonies is sentenced to life in prison.  Proposition 36 changes that process with the respect to the third strike.  Specifically, California law now requires the third strike to be a serious or violent felony in order to trigger the life sentence.

The most immediate impact of the new law is to give an estimated 2,800 inmates who are serving a life sentence a chance to petition a judge to have their sentence reduced.  The right to seek a reduced sentence is limited to those inmates whose third strike was not a serious or violent felony.  In other words, if you or someone you know is serving a life sentence under the old version of the three strikes law, and their third conviction was NOT for a violent or serious felony, they have a right to ask a judge to reduce their sentence.  The technical name of the request that is filed with the court is a “petition for recall of sentence.”

Proposition 36 includes an important deadline.  For inmates who are currently serving life sentences because of the old version of the three strikes law, the petition to “recall a sentence” must be filed on or before November 7, 2014. That’s two years from the date Proposition 36 went into effect.

What’s A Serious or Violent Felony?

California law includes two somewhat overlapping lists of felonies.  Section 1192.7 of the Penal Code lists 42 crimes that are defined to be “Serious Felonies.”  Section 667.5 of the Penal Code includes 23 crimes that are defined to be” Violent Felonies.”

For the purposes of Proposition 36, an inmate serving a life sentence under the three strikes law may seek a reduction of their sentence only if their third strike DID NOT involve a conviction for any of the following crimes.

Serious Felonies

(1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter;

(2) mayhem;

(3) rape;

(4) sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person;

(5) oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and

unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person;

(6) lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 years of age;

(7) any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life;

(8) any felony in which the defendant personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person, other than an accomplice, or any felony in

which the defendant personally uses a firearm;

(9) attempted murder;

(10) assault with intent to commit rape or robbery;

(11) assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer;

(12) assault by a life prisoner on a non-inmate;

(13) assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate;

(14) arson;

(15) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure;

(16) exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing bodily injury, great bodily injury, or mayhem;

(17) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder;

(18) any burglary of the first degree;

(19) robbery or bank robbery;

(20) kidnapping;

(21) holding of a hostage by a person confined in a state prison;

(22) attempt to commit a felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life;

(23) any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon;

(24) selling, furnishing, administering, giving, or offering to sell, furnish, administer, or give to a minor any heroin, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), or any methamphetamine-related drug, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 11055 of the Health and Safety Code, or any of the precursors of methamphetamines, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1)of subdivision (f) of Section 11055 or subdivision (a) of Section 11100 of the Health and Safety Code;

(25) any violation of subdivision (a) of Section 289 where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person;

(26) grand theft involving a firearm;

(27) carjacking;

(28) any felony offense, which would also constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22;

(29) assault with the intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation, in violation of Section 220;

(30) throwing acid or flammable substances, in violation of Section 244;

(31) assault with a deadly weapon, firearm, machine gun, assault weapon, or semiautomatic firearm or assault on a peace officer or firefighter, in violation of Section 245;

(32) assault with a deadly weapon against a public transit employee, custodial officer, or school employee, in violation of Section 245.2, 245.3, or 245.5;

(33) discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, vehicle, or aircraft, in violation of Section 246;

(34) commission of rape or sexual penetration in concert with another person, in violation of Section 264.1;

(35) continuous sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Section 288.5;

(36) shooting from a vehicle, in violation of subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 26100;

(37) intimidation of victims or witnesses, in violation of Section 136.1;

(38) criminal threats, in violation of Section 422;

(39) any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than an assault;

(40) any violation of Section 12022.53;

(41) a violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418;

(42) any conspiracy to commit an offense described in this subdivision.

Violent Felonies

(c) For the purpose of this section, “violent felony” shall mean any of the following:

(1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter.

(2) Mayhem.

(3) Rape as defined in paragraph (2) or (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261 or paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 262.

(4) Sodomy as defined in subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 286.

(5) Oral copulation as defined in subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 288a.

(6) Lewd or lascivious act as defined in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 288.

(7) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life.

(8) Any felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice which has been charged and proved as provided for in Section 12022.7, 12022.8, or 12022.9 on or after July 1, 1977, or as specified prior to July 1, 1977, in Sections 213, 264, and 461, or any felony in which the defendant uses a firearm which use has been charged and proved as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 12022.3, or Section 12022.5 or 12022.55.

(9) Any robbery.

(10) Arson, in violation of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 451.

(11) Sexual penetration as defined in subdivision (a) or (j) of Section 289.

(12) Attempted murder.

(13) A violation of Section 12308, 12309, or 12310.

(14) Kidnapping.

(15) Assault with the intent to commit a specified felony, in violation of Section 220.

(16) Continuous sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Section 288.5.

(17) Carjacking, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 215.

(18) Rape, spousal rape, or sexual penetration, in concert, in violation of Section 264.1.

(19) Extortion, as defined in Section 518, which would constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22 of the Penal Code.

(20) Threats to victims or witnesses, as defined in Section 136.1, which would constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22 of the Penal Code.

(21) Any burglary of the first degree, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 460, wherein it is charged and proved that another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during the commission of the burglary.

(22) Any violation of Section 12022.53.

(23) A violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418.

Thus, if the third strike conviction was for a crime that is not on the list above, a petition can be filed to reduce the life sentence.

What Happens After a Petition for a Reduced Sentence is Filed?

Proposition 36 gives judges discretion whether to reduce a life sentence. It is not automatic.  Judges are supposed to look at three factors to determine whether the life sentence should be reduced: (1) The inmate’s criminal conviction history, including the extent of injury to victims, and how long ago the crimes took place; (2) The inmate’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while in prison; and (3) Any other evidence the judge thinks is relevant  to determining whether a lower sentence would result in an unreasonable risk of public safety.

At this stage, it is hard to predict how judges will apply these factors.  Proposition 36, however, makes clear that an inmate cannot get a higher sentence as a result of filing a petition.  As a criminal defense lawyer in Los Angeles, I know that any inmate who thinks that they may be able to benefit from seeking a reduction of a life sentence under California’s three strikes law should contact an experience criminal defense lawyer to determine whether the changes made by Proposition 36 apply to them.

According to The Los Angeles Times, three individuals were arrested last night (October 30) in the Palos Vedes Peninsula on suspicion of trying “to smuggle contraband.”

A Coast Guard helicopter and two Coast Guard vessels were involved in the events that led to the arrest, which took place after the boat landed near Malaga Park.

Federal authorities did not indicate what kind of contraband was involved.  As a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, I know that most such arrests involve the alleged smuggling of illegal drugs or their precursor chemicals.  Specifically, under 21 U.S.C. Sections 955 and 959, possession, manufacture, and distribution of a controlled substance applies to a boat, aircraft or other vessel that is within 12 miles of the coast of the United States or is intended to be with in the territorial waters of the United States.

Contrary to what many people believe, however, in ths context contraband can involve a wide array of substances that are generally legal to possess. For example, the United States Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. Section 331) prohibits the importation of unapproved new drugs,.  Federal law also prohibits importation of certain firearms and even perscription drugs.

Given that a small vessel was involved here, it is likley that the authorities are trying to collect information that would help them tie this isolated act to a broader network or conspiracy.  That is one avenue of the questioning that is likely being directed to the three individuals who were arrested.  It is also possible that federal authorities may be trying to gain the cooperation of those arrested by emphasizing the lengthy prison sentences thay will face if convicted of violating federal smuggling laws.

Los Angeles is known for high-profile celebrities and high-profile criminal prosecutions.

Currently, Los Angeles County Assessor John Noguez is attracting more than his share of headlines and media attention.

Last week, he and a few others were arrested and charged with accepting more than one million dollars in bribes in exchange for agreeing to reduce tax property assessments for certain tax payers.

According to the prosecutors, Ramin Salari, a tax consultant, bribed Noguez on behalf of his wealthy clients. Prosecutors claim that this criminal conspiracy cost tax payers 1.16 million dollars.

As a criminal defense lawyer in Los Angeles, I know that most people, including lawyers who are not familiar with the criminal justice system, don’t realize just how important the prosecution’s charges are in a case involving fraud or other financial crimes.

Most people believe that the presumption of innocence applies to this aspect of the charges. After all, the prosecutors haven’t proven that Noguez and Salari have done anything criminal, and they certainly haven’t proven the specific dollar amounts of the harm caused by this alleged crime.

In reality, however, the allegation that Noguez and Salari fraud caused $1.16 million in damages has two immediate practical consequences. First, the judge set bail for Noguez and Salari in the amount of $1.16 million. This is the amount they need to produce to get out of jail pending trial.  Second, and perhaps more importantly, California forfeiture laws provide that the accused must show that the money they use to pay for bail wasn’t tainted by the allegedly criminal conduct.  This leads to the following anomalous situation, as described by The Los Angeles Times:

Salari is a multimillionaire, court records show. But since he has to prove that the money he uses for his defense is not tainted by the alleged criminal conspiracy, his mother and sister are putting up their Encino homes as collateral for the bail, [according to Salari’s lawyer.]

Noguez isn’t as fortunate.  According to his lawyer, Noguez doesn’t have the money to pay for bail. That is why since his arrest he has spent almost a week in jail.

This in turn makes it harder for Noguez or any person in his situation to fully defend himself.  It may turn out that the prosecutors’ charges are exaggerated or totally erroneous.  But at this stage of the proceedings, a good criminal defense lawyer focuses on getting his client out of jail on bail. The forfeiture laws complicate this process, which is another reason why it’s critical to work with an experienced criminal defense lawyer.

Money laundering is one of the least understood federal crimes.  That ignorance can come with a heavy price.  As a criminal defense lawyer in Los Angeles, I know that it can be shockingly easy to violate federal money laundering laws.

A recent case out of the federal court in Santa Ana shows how money laundering prosecutions unfold.

The primary actor in this saga is Chad Peter Smanjak from Long Beach, California.  He pled guilty to securities fraud charges involving the shares of a sport and nutrition company headed by Daniel E. Ruettiger.  If that name doesn’t ring a bell, you may have heard of Ruettinger under a different name—Rudy.

Ruettiger was the pint-size player who won the hearts of [Notre Dame] Fighting Irish fans in the 1970s by walking on to the then-dominant football team.  His story inspired the 1993 film “Rudy.”

Ruettiger served as the CEO of Rudy Nutrition, which prosecutors said “purported to sell health-conscious beverages as an alternative to high-sugar soda and sports drinks.”

But the venture attracted the attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and in 2008, the agency revoked the registration of each class of registered securities of Rudy Nutrition for failure to make required periodic filings with the commission.

In December 2011, the agency filed a complaint against Ruettiger and 12 others based upon the Rudy Nutrition scheme.

That same month, Ruettiger agreed to pay federal regulators $382,866 to settle claims that he and 12 others crafted the stock scheme related to the now-defunct sports drink company. He did not admit or deny the allegations.

Smanjak pled guilty to using Rudy’s name to drive up the price of the stock and then dump the stock on the market—at a substantial profit.  This maneuver, which is often called a “pump and dump,” is reported to have generated 5 million dollars in profits.

So what do you do with that kind of money? You can’t just put in a mattress, and it’s tempting to move that money, or at least part of it, so it will be harder to trace back to the pump and dump scheme.

That’s where money laundering comes into play.

In 1986, Congress passed the Money Laundering Control Act, which specifically makes it a crime to move money with the intent of hiding the results of a broad range of criminal activities.  Under 18 U.S.C. Section 1856, the key element of money laundering is making a transaction with the intent to conceal the source, ownership, location, or control of funds related to criminal activity.

Although some money related crimes require the money to pass through a financial institution such as a bank before it can be money laundering, Section 1856 does not.  You can violate Section 1856 just by handing money to someone with the intent to conceal its source.  Moreover, under Section 1856 there is no minimum dollar threshold.  So long as someone is found to have committed specific underlying crimes, any amount of money transferred with an intent to conceal can be prosecuted as money laundering.

In the case of Mr. Smanjak, prosecutors focused on the federal securities crime.  Money laundering was an additional charge.  Specifically, Smanjak was charged with laundering $1 million of the $5 million in profits generated by the pump and dump scheme.

This is a fairly typical way for federal prosecutors to use money laundering charges.  They act as an additional penalty for someone who is already facing other charges.  These penalties can, however, be severe.  People convicted of violating federal money laundering statutes face both hefty fines and lengthy prison sentences.  Under Section 1856, the monetary fine can be up to twice the amount of money that was laundered and the prison sentence can be as much as 20 years.

Money laundering may not sound like a very serious or dangerous crime.  But with these kinds of potential penalties, make no mistake.  People facing federal money laundering charges need a criminal defense attorney who knows how such cases are handled in the specific federal court in which their case will be prosecuted.

A recent marijuana seizure off the coast of Southern California is a good example of how federal marijuana cases differ from marijuana prosecutions in California courts.  Most notably, the amount of marijuana seized by the Coast Guard was more than four tons.

Crew members on a U.S. Coast Guard cutter on Wednesday seized 8,500 pounds of marijuana worth an estimated $7.7 million.

The pot was confiscated from a Mexican “panga” boat about 160 miles west of Los Angeles by crew members of the San Francisco-based cutter Aspen, the Coast Guard said.  The drug was packaged in more than 340 bales.

You almost never see these kinds of quantities involved in state court marijuana cases in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  And this is no accident.  Federal prosecutors and federal criminal law generally focuses on big fish.  Rather than go after street-level distributors, the DEA, FBI, Coast Guard and other law enforcement agencies prefer to go after the leaders of large-scale drug conspiracies.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines also provide extremely long sentences for a wide range of drug-related charges.  Moreover, additional penalties are imposed on people who are perceived to be leaders.  Here, for example, everyone arrested on the boast is facing a ten-year minimum sentence, plus huge enhancements for the quantity of marijuana seized on the boat.  For example, a first-time offender on the boat who was not the captain is facing up to an additional 151-188 months in prison.  The captain of the vessel as well as anyone who is charged with having greater involvement is facing even longer prison sentences.

And unlike sentences given out in some states, federal sentences cannot be reduced greatly for good behavior in prison. Generally, someone who is sentenced to 20 years in federal prison will serve at least 17 years of actual jail time.  Thus, in a case involving this much marijuana, everyone charged is facing decades in prison.

Even lawyers sometimes underestimate just how different federal court is when it comes to criminal law.  The law is different, as are prosecutors, judges, and juries.  Federal law operates by its own set of rules, which why it is critical to work with a criminal defense lawyer who is experienced in federal law and federal courts.

As a criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles, I sometimes feel that I live in an alternate reality.  On a weekly basis, I experience things that most well-educated and well-read people are confident don’t exist anymore.  One of those is debtors’ prisons.  Surely, you are thinking to yourself, they are a relic of the past.  And officially they are.  But in practice many court systems, including Los Angeles Superior Court, impose fines and penalties on indigent defendants and those who have been convicted of minor offenses that have the effect of imprisoning them for failing to pay their debts.

The New York Times reported on July 2 about for profit companies that help generate revenues for court systems by collecting fines.  The article, entitled, “Poor Land in Jail as Companies Add Huge Fees for Probation,” focuses on Alabama, and details the flight of Gina Ray, who was fined $179 for a speeding ticket, but three years later, after the imposition of a variety of fines and penalties, owes more than $3,000.

Three years ago, Gina Ray, who is now 31 and unemployed, was fined $179 for speeding. She failed to show up at court (she says the ticket bore the wrong date), so her license was revoked.

When she was next pulled over, she was, of course, driving without a license. By then her fees added up to more than $1,500. Unable to pay, she was handed over to a private probation company and jailed — charged an additional fee for each day behind bars.

For that driving offense, Ms. Ray has been locked up three times for a total of 40 days and owes $3,170, much of it to the probation company. Her story, in hardscrabble, rural Alabama, where Krispy Kreme promises that “two can dine for $5.99,” is not about innocence.

It is easy to dismiss what happened to Ms. Ray as a by-product of living in Alabama.  But this is also a problem throughout California and in Los Angeles in particular.  Faced with budgetary pressures, state and local governments are increasingly turning to fines and penalties as a way to finance court systems.  A report from the Brennan Center for Justice entitled, “Criminal Justice Debt: A Barrier To Reentry” details disturbing practices in 15 states including California.  For example, California Penal Code section 1214.1(A) authorizes courts to impose a $300 civil assessment for people who fail to appear in court or who fail to pay a fine ordered by the court.  Los Angeles Superior Court imposes this civil assessment.

If you’re wondering about the wisdom of imposing fines on poor people for their failure to pay existing fines, you aren’t alone.  Unfortunately, this isn’t a question of sound public policy or wisdom.  Too often, a financial incentive exists to create a cycle that makes it hard for the poor to escape the criminal justice system.  The New York Times article describes Judicial Correction Services, Inc., a Georgia-based company that, according to its website, helps provide courts with “a comprehensive solution to recidivism or just a boost in the fine collections.”

The company claims but there efforts impose costs on tax payers, but this seems to be true only in the narrowest sense.  Much of the fines imposed on Gina Ray were payable to this for profit company. So what do you suppose happens when people faced with ever increasing fines have to decide whether to decide whether to pay their fines or the child support obligations?  Who bears the cost of that?  The community at large, which, of course, includes tax payers.  And what happens when people can’t pay their debt burden.  Some, as outlined in the Brennan Center report, “choose” to go to prison as a way of paying off their debts.

People who are on probation are faced with a cycle of fines and penalties that can land them in prison. Yes, this is really going on in the United States in 2012.