Assault Allegation Acquittal
Healthcare Fraud Allegations Charges Dropped
Healthcare Fraud Probation
Federal Corruption Charges Probation
Federal Securities Fraud SEC Settlement, No Criminal Charges
TIME
Super Lawyers
NACDA
Avvo Rating
10 Best
Newsweek

Cryptocurrency fraud has become increasingly prevalent in recent years. The lack of a centralized authority governing crypto along with the relative anonymity of transactions has contributed to this rise in digital financial crime. Specifically, cryptocurrency money laundering has grown significantly in recent years with billions of dollars stolen through hacks, Ponzi schemes, mixers. A recent report from Chainalysis estimates illicit cryptocurrency addresses received more than 50 billion dollars in 2024. 

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

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

The federal government may target organizations and businesses as well as individuals for violations of federal criminal statutes.  For example, in the health care realm, cases can include office managers, practitioners from doctors, nurses to pharmacists to all other aspects of the medical industry.  Recent federal investigations have targeted pill mills, medicaid fraud, and accepting kickbacks among others.

Experienced federal criminal defense attorneys like those at Conaway & Strickler, PC may suggest early on about the possibility of entering into a “deferred prosecution agreement” which is essentially a contract with the Department of Justice. DPAs are frequently used in cases involving corporate fraud, bribery, and antitrust violations.  These pretrial agreements may involve an admission of wrongdoing, the payment of fines, and the implementation of compliance measures.  Charges may be dropped if the defendant complies with the requirements of the agreement.  Generally, the Assistant United States Attorney will file the criminal complaint and the DPA with the court, so it is of public record. This will be accompanied by a formal request to the court that any prosecution be delayed according to the terms of the DPA, allowing the defendant to fulfill its agreed-upon actions.  This is very similar to conditional discharge / pre trial diversion agreements found at the state level.

An example of a DPA would be one that was entered in to by the DOJ and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc in August 2023 in response to the company’s involvement in a price fixing conspiracy involving several pharmaceuticals.   As seen in this example, terms can include paying a fine, waiving certain rights, agreeing to a factual basis for the charges, and an agreement to cooperate and compliance monitoring and of course, agreeing to what will happen if there is a breach of the agreement.

Milan Patel and four other defendants were charged both by the SEC and the Department of Justice for their role in an options trading scheme in the Northern District of Georgia.  Another defendant, Bart Ross was sentenced a few years ago for the same scheme.  In total, In total, the defendants executed more than 500 trades and made $2,651,320 in profits as a result of their fraudulent scheme.  And just last week, Mr. Patel was sentenced.

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).

Physicians who are arrested face a multitude of other issues. They will face possible termination from their job. But, also they will face issues with the Georgia Composite Board. It is very important to understand that those who are arrested may hire a firm like us and enter into an informal resolution to avoid formal proceedings, additional costs, and potentially more severe sanctions with the Composite Board. It is important to be aware of other possible consequences of such stipulations, including the following:

  1. NPDB Reports. Licensing boards are generally required to report such these informal agreements involving physicians to the National Practitioners Data Bank (“NPDB”). (See45 CFR § 60.8). Hospitals and other entities are required or permitted to check the NPDB during the physician credentialing process. An NPDB report can permanently tarnish a physician’s record and career, unless it is removed, and it may also result in the additional actions outlined below.
  2. Reciprocal Actions by Other State Licensing Boards. Many if not all state licensing boards automatically impose reciprocal sanctions against providers who were sanctioned in another state; thus, the action in one state may result in similar actions in other states in which the provider is licensed. That, of course, compounds the physician’s problems.

A federal criminal trial consists of several different stages.   The below will analyze a ONE defendant trial.  But, more often than not, trials can consist of multiple defendants at trial.  This just augments the time needed for each stage.
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 month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kousisis v. United States, a case that could have significant implications on the future of federal white-collar prosecutions. Specifically, the Court is considering the boundaries of federal fraud statutes in scenarios where deceptive practices are employed without causing direct financial harm to the victim.

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.

A five count indictment was unsealed this past week in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of New York.  The federal court in Brooklyn charged Gautam S. Adani, Sagar R. Adani and Vneet S. Jaain, executives of an Indian renewable-energy company, with conspiracies to commit securities and wire fraud and Securities Fraud for their roles in a billion dollar scheme to obtain funds from U.S. investors and global financial institutions on the basis of false and misleading statements.

The indictment also charges Ranjit Gupta and Rupesh Agarwal, former executives of a renewable-energy company with securities that had traded on the New York Stock Exchange, and Cyril Cabanes, Saurabh Agarwal and Deepak Malhotra, former employees of a Canadian institutional investor, with conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in connection with a bribery scheme also perpetrated by Gautam S. Adani, Sagar R. Adani and Vneet S. Jaain, involving one of the world’s largest solar energy projects.

The indictment alleges that more than $250 Million in bribes were promised to secure solar enery contracts worth 2 billion dollars over two decades.

Recently, Robert Purbeck of Idaho, also known as “Lifelock,” and “Studmaster,”  was sentenced to ten years after pleading guilty to federal charges of computer fraud and abuse.  He hacked into the computer servers of the City of Newnan, Georgia  and a Griffin, Georgia medical clinic, and then targeted at least 17 other victims across the United States – in the process stealing personal information of more than 132,000 individuals.  He also attempted to extort a Florida orthodontist for payment in Bitcoin, threatening to disclose stolen patient records and other personal information.

“Cyber extortion is unfortunately a rapidly growing threat and highlights the ever-growing need for corporations to remain vigilant in cybersecurity efforts,” said Sean Burke, Acting Special Agent in Charge of FBI Atlanta. “This sentencing is just one example of the FBI working together to hold criminals that hide behind their computers accountable, regardless of their location.”

According to information presented in court, in June 2017, Purbeck purchased access to the computer server of a Griffin medical clinic on a darknet marketplace. He then used the stolen credentials to illegally access the computers of the medical clinic and removed records that contained the sensitive personal information of more than 43,000 individuals, including names, addresses, birth dates, and social security numbers.

As we explained in our prior post about federal child pornography laws, 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.

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.

As a nurse, your license is one of your most valuable assets. Yet, complaints or accusations against you could jeopardize your ability to practice. At Conaway & Strickler, P.C., we understand the gravity of these situations and are here to help. Attorney Meg Strickler is experienced license defense attorney who has handled these issues for years.  Below are some questions and answers that will help you navigate any issues you might having with the Nursing Board.

Question: What types of issues come before the State of Georgia Nursing Board?

Answer: Below are some common issues the Board handles. Many of these issues may overlap, as most of this conduct also constitutes a crime.

Contact Information