Attempted Fraud New York Forged Document Acquittal

The central issue involved a set of business settlement documents prepared in digital format rather than handwritten form. 

Although prosecutors viewed the typed structure as suspicious, a certified forensic handwriting expert confirmed that the signature and seal on the documents belonged to the deceased partner.

Key steps supporting the defense included:

• Independent forensic confirmation that the signature was genuine.

• Demonstration that New York courts accept typed agreements as legally valid when properly signed.

• Evidence showing that the client had historically executed documents in digital form.

• Proof that no benefit was taken beyond what had been previously agreed.

These findings significantly weakened the attempted fraud narrative by establishing that the documents were neither forged nor created to deceive.

To rebut the allegation that no financial relationship existed, the defense gathered contextual materials demonstrating the decedent’s long term acceptance of funds.

Supporting evidence included:

• Statements from individuals who had personally witnessed cash transfers.

• Communications showing ongoing discussions regarding settlement repayment.

• Records from the assisted living facility where the decedent resided, confirming repeated visits by the client for payment related conversations.

• A handwritten ledger maintained over several years documenting cash advances.

These materials proved the existence of a legitimate debt, thereby removing the foundation for attempted fraud under New York Penal Law §110.00.

Attempted fraud in New York requires proof that the accused intended to cause financial loss by deceptive means. 

By showing that:

• the client had long established financial ties,

• the documents were legitimately executed, and

• the client initiated a proper civil action instead of covertly demanding  payment,

• the defense dismantled the argument that any fraudulent scheme existed.

New York Penal Law §170.10 (Forgery in the Second Degree) requires proof that the defendant falsely created or altered a written instrument with intent to defraud.

The defense established:

• no alteration occurred,

• the signature was authentic, and

• the document content reflected earlier agreements.
 

This eliminated the statutory basis for the forgery charge.

Professional examiners evaluated:

• signature pressure depth,

• ink characteristics,

• digital metadata,

• stamping consistency.

Their findings confirmed genuineness and disproved theories of manipulation, directly refuting NYPL §170 based arguments.

Attempted fraud prosecutions rely heavily on showing purposeful deception. 

The defense emphasized:

• transparency of the civil litigation process the client initiated,

• absence of fabricated motives,

• full disclosure of documents prior to any dispute,

• consistent statements by the client from initial investigation to trial.

This prevented prosecutors from establishing the intent element required for attempted fraud.

The court emphasized several decisive factors:

• The signature on the documents was authentic.

• Financial exchanges were supported by credible third party testimony.

• No evidence suggested the client sought unlawful gain.

• All documents and supporting materials formed a coherent and believable narrative.

These findings collectively eliminated all grounds for attempted fraud under New York Penal Law.