A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the defendant in a non-jury trial is charged with having committed the crime of Grand larceny in the First Degree by stealing a certain promissory note of the value of more than $500. owned by the Financial Corporation. The theft is alleged to have been committed by the use of fraudulent and false representations to the effect that certain accounts receivable were valid outstanding accounts representing sums due and owing to the defendant.
A Kings County Criminal attorney said that the defendant and his company, were indebted to the Finance Corporation in the sum of $10,000. As evidence of the debt, the finance corporation held a note in that sum. When the note was two or three weeks past due, the defendant requested a renewal of the note and offered a number of accounts receivable as collateral security.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the financial corporation refused to renew the note or to extend the time for payment thereof but stated that it would accept the accounts receivable in part payment of the note. Since the accounts receivable amounted to less than the amount owing on the note, the defendant, in effecting the payment of the full amount of the note, delivered a check for the difference.
The court found as a fact and beyond a reasonable doubt that the accounts receivable were fraudulent documents. They indicated a delivery to a tire company of a quantity of tires. The said accounts receivable, however, were false in that there had never been a delivery of the tires thereon indicated to the tire company, nor did the latter, in fact, order such tires from the defendant.
The defendant’s assertion that the financing corporation knew, at the time of the delivery of the accounts receivable, that the tires had not been delivered to the Tire Company, and that nevertheless it accepted them so that its records would show possession of alleged collateral for the loan, the court rejected out of hand as false and untrue. On the contrary, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the financing company, is surrendering the outstanding $10,000.00 promissory note, relied on the verity of said outstanding accounts receivable.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that thus the proof accepted and credited by me shows the defendant to be guilty of larceny. To constitute the crime of obtaining property by fraudulent and false pretenses, the People were required to prove (1) that the representations were false, with respect to a past or existing fact; (2) that they were made with intent to defraud; (3) that there was a reliance upon the false pretenses alleged; and (4) that property was obtained thereby.
A Staten Island Criminal Lawyer said that the only remaining question then is whether the defendant is guilty of the theft of the piece of paper or whether he is guilty of a theft in the amount of the face value of the note, to wit, $10,000.00?
At common law choses in action, including bonds, bills and notes were held not to be ‘personal goods’ and therefore not the subject of larceny. However, New York, by statute, has made the theft of ‘personal property’ larcenous.
A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said that the definition of larceny, so far as it is here pertinent, is defined as follows (Sec. 1290, Penal Law): ‘A person who, with the intent to deprive or defraud another of property wrongfully takes from the possession of the true owner any money, personal property, thing in action, evidence of debt or contract, or article of value of any kind, steals such property and is guilty of larceny.’
‘The same principle seems to have guided the framers of our statute upon this subject, which declares after defining the crimes of grand and petit larceny; grand larceny being the felonious taking and carrying away the personal property of another of the value of more than twenty-five dollars; and petit larceny the stealing, taking and carrying away the personal property of another of the value of twenty-five dollars, or under; that ‘the term personal property as used in this act shall be construed to mean goods, chattels, effects, evidence of right in action, and all written instruments by which any pecuniary obligation or any right or title to property, real or personal, shall be created, acknowledged, transferred, increased, defeated, discharged or diminished.’ This statute has reference very clearly to instruments which as such merely, have the legal effect and operation contemplated thereby. The instrument of itself alone must create, acknowledge, transfer, increase, defeat, discharge, or diminish a pecuniary obligation or a right or title to property, real or personal.’
Relating the facts found to the provisions of Section 1303 of the Penal Law makes it obvious that the acts and conduct of the defendant constitute Grand larceny in the First Degree.
Accordingly the defendant is adjudged guilty of Grand larceny in the First Degree.
Here in Stephen Bilkis and associates, we provide quality and reliable advice to our clients. Contact our Kings County Criminal Attorneys and they will advise you on the things to undertake in case of court litigations. For matters involving misdemeanors, you can also consult our Kings County Misdemeanor Lawyers.