Criminal Defense Attorney in NYC Misappropriation No Case

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.

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.

• 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.

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.

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.

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.

• 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.