Theft

October 1, 2014

Skokie Jewelry Home Theft

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

An unidentified person allegedly stole jewelry from inside a home during a Skokie estate sale last week. The case is interesting because it raises a number of different issues that the prosecution will need to overcome if an arrest is made and charges filed, as well as many possible defense strategies to explore.

Proving Skokie Theft Case

At the outset, the prosecution faces an uphill battle in obtaining a positive identification of the alleged thief. In reference to the estate sale, individuals were no doubt going in and out of the home. Any forensic evidence found at the scene – such as fingerprints, clothing fibers, or other DNA evidence – cannot provide a smoking gun. Here, the suspect was “invited” into the home for purposes of the sale. Absent any forensic evidence tying the suspect to the scene, an eyewitness identification is strongly in doubt. With the family talking to dozens of people while trying to make sales, without any distinguishing characteristics on the suspect’s part, it will be difficult for eyewitnesses to testify with certainty that the suspect was present in the home.

Even if caught – for example, if a local pawn shop reports purchasing the stolen jewelry – it is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect was the person who stole the jewelry. Without a positive identification or any forensic evidence tying him to the scene, there are any number of possible reasons the suspect could have come into possession of the jewelry. He could have purchased it from a different pawn shop, received it as a gift, or even found it discarded in a trash can or on the side of the road.

Skokie Defense of Theft

From the defense side, there are several issues to explore regarding the estate sale itself that could help cast doubt on the suspect’s guilt:

Was there a “free” table at the sale? If there was, it raises the possibility that another attendee, or even a family member, mistakenly laid the jewelry on that table, leading the suspect to believe it was free for the taking;

How many people were in charge of handling transactions? If there was more than one person handling sales, it is possible that the suspect actually paid for the item. Lack of communication between salespeople could cause the sale to not be properly recorded, thus leading to a misunderstanding that the item was stolen;

Do any of the people running the estate sale carry a criminal history of theft or similar crimes themselves? It is possible one of the salespeople simply pocketed the money from the sale and reported it as stolen to cover his tracks;

Is there animosity among the family members set to inherit the estate? Proceeds from the estate sale are deposited into the estate and used to pay estate bills before they are ultimately distributed to the heirs. If there was a disagreement amongst family members as to who should receive the allegedly stolen piece of jewelry, a decision of the majority of the heirs would win. A disgruntled family member who wanted the jewelry may have pocketed it and concocted the theft story to deflect blame.

Each of these scenarios would cast serious doubt on the defendant’s guilt, and are all avenues that David L. Freidberg would explore in working to get the charges dropped or the case dismissed. Continue reading

September 1, 2014

Chicago Police Chief Charged with Felony Theft

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A former Chicago police chief is set to stand trial in late September on charges of felony theft of government property, misallocation of funds and official misconduct. The police chief, who pled not guilty to the charges in February 2013, is accused of stealing more than $140,000 from the city’s drug asset forfeiture fund.

Chicago Felony Theft Charge

Felony theft of Illinois government property occurs when the defendant obtains or exerts control over property in the custody of any law enforcement agency. Felony theft of government property is a serious crime that imposes harsher penalties than other theft categories – in this case, a Class X felony due to the amount of money allegedly stolen and the fact that it was stolen from a government agency. A Class X felony carries the potential for a minimum of six years in prison, with a maximum of 30 years.

The defense attorney recently filed a motion requesting that the prosecution provide more details on the intent element and on the transactions themselves. This is an important motion, as it deals with an essential element of the crime, and whether the defendant should have been charged with a lower class of felony.

Intent to Deprive

Felony theft is a specific intent crime, which means that in order to prove guilt, the prosecution must be able not only to prove that the defendant took the money knowing he was not entitled to it, but that he also intended to permanently deprive the rightful owner of the use of the property, or used it in such a manner that would deprive the rightful owner of the use of the property.

How does this work in terms of defense? Let’s assume that the prosecution can prove that the defendant knew he was not entitled to the money when he took it. The prosecutor still must prove that the defendant intended to permanently deprive the city of its right to the money. It may be possible, therefore, to make the argument that at the time the defendant took the money, he intended to repay it; that he simply had fallen on hard times, and was using it as a stopgap measure until he was able to obtain other income.

Class 1 v. Class X Felony Theft

The defense attorney also requested more information on the details of each interaction. In Illinois, theft from a government agency is a Class 1 felony if the value of the property stolen was $500 or less.

Although the total value of the money allegedly stolen by the defendant was $140,000, the law does not specifically state that the total value is cumulative. Meaning, if the amount allegedly stolen was taken in numerous increments of $500 or less, an argument could be made that each separate occurrence should be charged as Class 1, rather than a Class X, felony. This would result in a significant reduction in sentence if the defendant is found guilty – up to three years in prison for a Class 1 felony versus the potential 30-year sentence for a Class X felony. Continue reading

October 4, 2013

Got Arrested in Chicago? Be worried about what gets posted online! MUG SHOTS

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

Have you or someone you know been arrested in Chicago? It doesn’t matter if it’s a simple battery charge or a more serious charge of first degree murder.

Getting arrested can affect you in more ways than you can imagine. Apparently, there are a few websites, such as mugshots.com, that post your mug shot online upon arrest.

While this initially doesn’t seem like a big deal, it is. Let’s say someone is arrested and later released without having charges filed against them. Your mug shot is now all over the internet for anyone to see.

This article lays out the issue: http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/online-mugshots/

And let’s then go with the scenario that someone is charged and goes to trial and is found not guilty. Guess what? His or her mug shot is STILL online for anyone to see. So, these people who were either not charged or found not guilty go about their daily lives and decide to obtain employment. As we all know, employers now go online to check out potential employees. What are they going to find? Probably your Facebook and Twitter posts, which may or may not be innocuous, but also your MUG SHOT! How are you going to explain that one?

If you want to remove your mug shot, guess what now? You have to pay upwards of $100 PER SITE to have it removed. And how can you be sure that once you pay this fee, the site will actually remove it? You can’t.

Again, you have to be careful in life on how you comport yourself. There are consequences that can be long-lasting. Continue reading

August 23, 2013

Chicago Identity Theft News – The Growing Epidemic of Identity Theft Across the U.S.

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

As someone who has recently been arrested for Chicago identity theft, you are probably more than aware of the ever growing epidemic of ID theft in the United States.

The problem of identity theft is not contained to one group of people or another, and, contrary to popular belief, is not due to carelessness. Identity theft is also nothing new although there are new ways to accomplish the crime. In the mid-90’s, Steven Spielberg had his personal information hacked by an inmate in a Tennessee prison who was angling to use Spielberg’s American Express card. Oprah Winfrey had her social security number, birth dates of friends and relatives and personal addresses stolen by a busboy and Anthony Taylor obtained Tiger Woods’ personal information, purchasing more than $50,000 in merchandise.

Taylor additionally procured a fake driver’s license, social security card and military I.D. in Tiger’s name—even though he apparently was not bright enough to spell Tiger’s middle name correctly on the illegal documents. High-tech online thieves have even stolen personal information from Michelle Obama, Vice-President Joe Biden, the director of the FBI and even the Los Angeles Police Chief.

On a more local level, four women recently attempted to board a Chicago flight to Las Vegas when they were arrested and charged with identity theft. The four women’s plane tickets were purchased with a stolen Discover card and each woman was in possession of a variety of other stolen items including credit cards, keys to a Hertz rental car, stolen driver’s licenses and counterfeit I.D.’s. Bonds set for the four women ranged from $25,000 to $75,000, with three of the women being held in lieu of bond. The Chicago Police Financial Crimes Unit, along with the U.S. Secret Service, are currently investigating the incident.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, over 8 million households reported one instance of identity theft in 2010, costing victims over $13 billion. Victims of identity theft typically suffer losses of about $2,200. Identity theft occurs when an individual uses the personal information of another without knowledge or permission and with a goal of personal gain. This information can include social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, banking information, birthdates and credit card numbers. Personal information stolen from another can be used to apply for credit cards—or even a mortgage to buy a home.

Anyone charged with identity theft today will face a wide range of potential charges as well as state and federal law enforcement bent on pursuing the maximum penalties possible. The five basic types of identity theft are:

Character and criminal theft
Theft of Social Security numbers
Theft of medical information
Theft of DMV records
Financial theft

Financial theft involves using stolen credit cards or banking information in order to steal another’s financial assets. Stealing another’s identity in order to commit crimes—while keeping one’s own record clear—falls under character and criminal theft. Social Security theft is rampant simply because there is a huge amount of personal information which can be accessed with this coveted number. Theft of a Social Security number can in turn allow thieves to avoid debt or taxes or can be used to directly steal money. Some identity thieves steal medical information as a means of getting necessary medical procedures done while avoiding the bill, and, finally, driver’s license theft—like Social Security number theft—can be used to gain access to other personal information. Theft of driver’s licenses is the number one form of ID theft in the United States.

There are certain “enhancers” to the crime of identity theft which can increase the eventual sentence. Aggravated identity theft involves the commission of a felony in conjunction to the identity theft and can add two years to the sentence. If you held a position of power over your identity theft victim you can expect a significant increase in your sentence. Those involved in phishing scams may also receive an additional two years added to their sentencing. (Phishing is a practice which makes Internet users believe they are receiving an email from a trusted sources or that they are securely connected to a trusted web site when that is not the case). Continue reading