Criminal Defense NY after File a Fraud Complaint Dismissal

The client, a New York based entrepreneur, had known the complainant for several years through prior professional interactions and informal networking. 

When the complainant sought to launch a new venture, the client agreed to assist by introducing potential business contacts and facilitating preliminary discussions. 

As part of that process, the complainant voluntarily transferred approximately USD 18,500 to cover anticipated consulting, referral, and administrative costs associated with the proposed collaboration.

Despite initial communications progressing normally, the complainant’s business preparations proved incomplete, leading to repeated delays and missed milestones.

These delays were unrelated to any conduct by the client and stemmed from the complainant’s inability to secure regulatory approvals and operational readiness.

As the project stalled, tensions escalated between the parties, and the complainant abruptly terminated the informal arrangement without completing the agreed preparatory steps. 

Shortly thereafter, the complainant demanded immediate repayment of the transferred funds, asserting without contractual or factual basis that the transaction should be treated as void.

When repayment was not made on the complainant’s unilateral timeline, the complainant sought to file a fraud complaint with New York law enforcement authorities, alleging that the client never intended to provide assistance and had knowingly misappropriated the funds. 

The accusation reframed a civil disagreement as an alleged criminal scheme, exposing the client to potential criminal fraud charges under New York law.

In New York, prosecutors routinely examine whether disputed payments constitute advance compensation, conditional fees, or refundable deposits. 

Absent clear evidence of fraudulent intent at the time of receipt, such matters are typically civil in nature. 

However, complainants often attempt to bypass civil litigation by alleging fraud, hoping criminal pressure will force repayment or settlement.

In this case, the complainant’s allegations, if accepted at face value, could have subjected the client to charges involving larceny by false pretenses or scheme to defraud, offenses that carry serious penalties including incarceration, fines, and permanent criminal records.

Because fraud investigations frequently rely on initial complainant statements, early narrative framing is decisive. 

Once law enforcement adopts a criminal lens, reversing course becomes more difficult. 

Recognizing this risk, the client retained a criminal defense attorney in New York immediately after learning of the attempt to file a fraud complaint, allowing counsel to intervene before formal charges were filed.

The defense established that the client had taken concrete steps to assist the complainant, including documented communications, referral attempts, and scheduling efforts. 

These actions directly contradicted any claim that the client accepted funds with the intent to deceive or misappropriate.

Additionally, the defense demonstrated that the transferred funds were consistent with legitimate business facilitation expenses and that no representations guaranteeing success or refunds had been made. 

Under New York law, disappointment with an outcome does not equate to criminal fraud.

The complainant’s allegations relied heavily on hindsight and subjective assumptions rather than contemporaneous evidence. 

The defense highlighted that the complainant’s own lack of preparation and failure to perform essential obligations caused the breakdown of the arrangement.

By reframing the dispute as a civil disagreement improperly recast as a criminal matter, counsel raised concerns regarding misuse of the criminal justice system. 

Investigators were urged to recognize that the attempt to file a fraud complaint was driven by frustration rather than factual proof of criminal conduct.

Investigators determined that the facts did not support the elements required under New York fraud statutes and that the matter, if pursued at all, belonged in civil court. 

The attempted effort to file a fraud complaint did not result in an arrest, indictment, or criminal record for the client.

The client was formally notified that no charges would be filed and that the investigation had been terminated. 

By securing early dismissal, the defense protected the client from criminal exposure, reputational damage, and the long term consequences associated with fraud accusations in New York.