1. Criminal Defense Attorney in NYC | Case Background and Initial Allegations
Prosecutors opened an investigation after organizational funds were routed through the client’s personal bank account.
Authorities examined whether this conduct constituted larceny or unauthorized grant diversion under New York law.
The criminal defense attorney in NYC immediately began reconstructing the internal power dynamics, the client’s lack of intent, and the coercive circumstances established by the supervisor.
Coercive Financial Instructions by a Supervisor
The client worked for a New York–based nonprofit style association that regularly handled public and private grant allocations.
According to the client, the executive director abruptly instructed him to receive grant-related funds into his personal account and forward those funds back to the director.
The client questioned whether the action could be illegal and warned that the process appeared improper.
The supervisor became hostile and threatened termination if the client refused.
The director continued issuing commands, insisting that the transfer was necessary due to internal “financial constraints.”
Fearing job loss and acting under pressure, the client complied.
He received several payments that were immediately forwarded to the director, without keeping or using any portion for himself.
Evidence Demonstrating Absence of Criminal Intent
The criminal defense attorney gathered evidence showing the client repeatedly objected to the financial arrangement.
Text messages revealed the client telling the director he did not want to continue the activity and feared legal consequences.
Each time, the supervisor threatened employment-related retaliation, creating a pattern of coercive control.
These communications became pivotal in demonstrating that the client did not knowingly engage in misappropriation and lacked the “intent to deprive,” which is required for larceny under NY Penal Law §155.
2. Criminal Defense Attorney in NYC | Legal Framework and Applicable New York Statutes
The attorney analyzed how the allegations fit within New York criminal statutes.
Because the client neither benefited nor initiated the transactions, the statutory elements of theft related offenses were not met.
By framing the facts within established legal definitions, the criminal defense attorney in NYC was able to show prosecutors that any liability rested with the supervisor, not the employee.
Applicable New York Criminal Statutes Reviewed
• NY Penal Law §155.05 (Larceny Definition)
: Requires intent to deprive another of property.
• NY Penal Law §165.45 (Criminal Possession of Stolen Property)
: Requires knowing possession of wrongfully taken property.
• NY Penal Law §175.10 (Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree)
: Requires intent to defraud.
• NY Penal Law §195.20 (Defrauding the Government)
: Often reviewed when grants or public related funds are mismanaged.
Because the client did not receive any financial gain, did not intend to defraud, and acted under employment related coercion, the statutory elements could not be met.
Internal Governance Failures Supporting the Defense
The attorney investigated internal compliance protocols and discovered that the supervisor routinely bypassed financial controls.
The client had no authority to approve, allocate, or manage grant funds.
This structural fact undercut any theory that he acted as a voluntary participant in a fraudulent scheme.
3. Criminal Defense Attorney in NYC | Defense Strategy and Evidence Development
Once the attorney secured all correspondence, employment records, and financial data, a structured defense strategy was developed.
The attorney emphasized the involuntary nature of the client’s participation and highlighted the retaliatory threats used by the supervisor.
Demonstrating Coercion and Lack of Voluntary Participation
The defense compiled:
• Text messages showing repeated objections
• Emails confirming hierarchical control
• Financial statements showing the client’s zero personal benefit
• Evidence that funds were immediately forwarded to the supervisor
• Proof that the client did not initiate any transfers
These facts established that the client acted purely at the direction of a superior, undermining the mens rea required for criminal liability.
Correcting the Narrative Created by the Supervisor
When the investigation began, the supervisor attempted to shift blame to the client, instructing him to deny communication and implying he should “keep quiet.”
The criminal defense attorney in NYC highlighted these manipulative tactics as evidence of consciousness of guilt, further supporting the client’s innocence.
4. Criminal Defense Attorney in NYC | Final Decision and Non-Prosecution Outcome
After reviewing the full evidentiary record submitted by the defense, prosecutors concluded that the client lacked criminal intent and did not personally profit.
The District Attorney’s Office formally declined prosecution, issuing a finding that the client could not be considered a co conspirator or a knowing participant.
Reasons Prosecutors Declined to File Charges
• No financial benefit to the client
• Clear evidence of coercion and job related threats
• Lack of criminal intent under New York Penal Law
• No attempt by the client to conceal transactions
• Supervisor’s conduct indicated primary culpability
The matter was closed with a non-prosecution disposition, and the client retained a completely clean criminal record.
08 Dec, 2025
