1. Forgery of Documents in New York | How the Case Began
The client sought legal assistance after being accused by a company representative of intentionally inflating prior work experience.
The resume listed three years of previous employment, whereas the accurate period was two years and six months. Although the difference was minor, the employer interpreted it as intentional deceit.
Employer’s Complaint and Investigation Trigger
The employer claimed that the applicant misrepresented employment duration to secure a job offer and receive financial benefit, asserting that such conduct amounted to forgery of documents.
This accusation initiated an internal review and a subsequent law enforcement inquiry, placing the applicant under significant stress and potential legal jeopardy despite the absence of malicious intent.
Initial Legal Exposure for the Applicant
In New York, cases involving inaccurate information on resumes or employment forms can sometimes be investigated under general principles prohibiting fraudulent statements or falsified business records.
These matters often turn on whether an individual had intent to deceive.
Without intentional misrepresentation, a simple mistake does not meet the threshold of a criminal offense.
Understanding this distinction was essential from the beginning of the defense strategy.
2. Forgery of Documents in New York | Defense Strategy Built Around Lack of Intent
The attorney structured a comprehensive defense centered on demonstrating that the resume discrepancy stemmed from an innocent miscalculation rather than willful deception.
Because New York law places significant emphasis on intent when evaluating document related allegations, establishing the applicant’s state of mind became the most effective approach.
Demonstrating Honest Mistake Rather Than Intentional Falsification
The defense showed that the applicant did not fabricate, alter, or forge any supporting document. Instead, the resume inaccuracy arose from a misunderstanding of employment start and end dates.
By presenting consistent records, communication logs, and supporting paperwork, the attorney illustrated that no deliberate attempt existed to mislead the employer or obtain an improper advantage.
Presenting Positive Character and Employment History
To reinforce the absence of fraudulent motive, the attorney highlighted the applicant’s clean personal history and record of responsible conduct.
Showing that the applicant had never been involved in prior investigations or misconduct supported the conclusion that the resume error resulted from carelessness rather than intentional wrongdoing.
The applicant also expressed genuine remorse for the oversight, which further strengthened the defense’s position that the incident lacked criminal characteristics.
3. Forgery of Documents in New York | Legal and Factual Clarification
To counter the employer’s claim that the resume discrepancy constituted forgery of documents, the attorney conducted a detailed examination of the factual and legal implications.
This analysis played an important role in shaping how investigators interpreted the situation.
Evaluating Whether the Information Was Material
The defense established that the six month difference did not materially influence the hiring decision and that the applicant met all job qualifications regardless of the corrected employment timeline.
The attorney demonstrated that the resume was not a falsified or fabricated instrument but a personal summary subject to human error.
This significantly weakened the argument that the applicant had submitted a deceptive document.
Clarifying New York’s Approach to Document Related Allegations
The attorney also clarified that New York treats accusations involving document inaccuracies differently depending on the presence of intent, harm, and the nature of the document itself.
A resume is not treated the same as an official filing or legal certification, and the mere presence of an incorrect date does not automatically constitute criminal conduct.
This explanation helped investigators understand that the situation aligned more closely with an unintentional mistake than with any form of fraudulent activity.
4. Forgery of Documents in New York | Case Resolution and Practical Lessons
After reviewing the attorney’s submissions and conducting their own examination, investigators concluded that the evidence did not support any claim of intentional wrongdoing.
With no demonstrable intent to deceive and no material harm to the employer, authorities declined to pursue charges.
Final Outcome: Non Prosecution Decision
The matter was formally closed with a non prosecution determination.
Investigators agreed that the resume discrepancy lacked the deliberate intent necessary for any misconduct based allegation related to forgery of documents.
The applicant avoided criminal charges, protected their reputation, and was able to move forward without legal consequences.
Lessons for Individuals Facing Similar Allegations
This case underscores how quickly employment related misunderstandings can escalate when employers assume malicious intent behind minor errors.
Anyone confronted with accusations tied to resume entries, employment forms, or other written submissions should seek legal counsel immediately to prevent misinterpretation of honest mistakes.
Establishing intent early, providing accurate documentation, and responding strategically are essential in preventing unwarranted criminal exposure.
02 Dec, 2025
