If you are the subject of a federal embezzlement case, there are some things you may want to know about the process from the initial investigation to the trial. Generally, you will first be made aware of a federal embezzlement case against you when you receive a target letter from the United States Attorney’s Office. In most cases, this letter simply is intended to make you aware that you are being made the target of a grand jury investigation being conducted by the federal government. 

In some cases, the government may request your cooperation in their target letter. You may choose to cooperate or not. It’s best to contact an attorney at this point before making any decisions. If you do decide to cooperate, then you must retain counsel or have an attorney appointed by the court if you can’t afford one. As part of this cooperation, you may be expected to give a statement to the grand jury.

Anyone who receives a target letter like this should contact an experienced embezzlement attorney right away. Sometimes individuals think that all they have to do is speak with the police or a prosecutor and explain the situation or clear up a misunderstanding. However, the notion that you will be able to simply explain the situation and clear up the investigation is almost always wrong. By the time you have received the target letter, the government is reasonably certain that you are guilty and they just want to gather additional evidence against you. That’s why it’s important to speak with an attorney as soon as you receive the target letter.

There are a few other things which you should expect to happen as part of the federal embezzlement investigation. One thing which is very likely to happen is that a federal agent will show up at your house or workplace with a search warrant and search the premises for any evidence. They may take certain things with them such as hard drives or financial documents. They will generally leave and not arrest you. However, they will most likely return sooner or later with an arrest warrant.

If you are the subject of a federal investigation for embezzlement, the problem won’t just go away on its own. You should seek out an experienced embezzlement attorney right away. Attorney David M. Dudley has decades of experience defending clients around the country and has worked on numerous federal embezzlement cases. Call David at 800-805-6167 today for a free case evaluation.

In P. v. K.P., the defendant, who had owned an after-hours nightclub, was charged by local authorities with violating several city ordinances, all misdemeanors, in relation to the operation of that club. The defendant’s initial attorney advised her to plead guilty to one of those charges and accept county jail time as a condition of probation. The defendant then decided to hire Mr. Dudley for the purpose of negotiating a better disposition. After presenting the city prosecutor with two important mitigating circumstances which prior counsel had not brought to her attention, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss all the misdemeanor charges and allow the defendant to plead no contest to a minor infraction, with the imposition of court costs as the only penalty.

In U.S. v. S.G., the defendant was detained at an Albuquerque Greyhound bus station while traveling across the United States.  A subsequent search of her person revealed that she was carrying several kilograms of heroin strapped to her body.  Charged in federal court with possessing that heroin for distribution, she was facing a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence.  Prior to filing a motion to suppress evidence, Attorney Dudley presented to the prosecutor his claim that the detention and search of his client had been illegal.  To avert litigation of that motion, the government agreed to a settlement under which the defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser offense and faced no more than 27 months imprisonment.  At sentencing, the prosecution strongly argued that the defendant was deserving of the full 27-month possible term.  Countering that argument with the presentation of a psychological assessment which diagnosed the defendant as suffering from multiple psychopathological conditions brought on largely by childhood neglect and abuse, Attorney Dudley was able to persuade the Court to limit his client’s sentence to one year and one day of incarceration.

10-Year Minimum Sentence Reduced to 30 Months

In U.S. v. J.H., the defendant was accused of conspiring to distribute multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine to Alaska.  Although the defendant faced a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence with substantial Title III wiretap evidence against him, Attorney Dudley was able to use the safety valve provisions of the federal sentencing guidelines and a number of mitigating circumstances personal to his client to obtain a disposition under which the district court ultimately imposed a sentence of only 30 months.

R.B. is a medical doctor who was accused in Texas of distributing counterfeit merchandise in violation of federal and state laws.  To protect his client from possible criminal prosecution and the ramifications that such prosecution would have had for both his liberty and professional license, Attorney Dudley was able to resolve the matter through an early and quick civil settlement.

In P. v. D.E., the defendant was arrested after allegedly helping to load over 400 pounds of marijuana into a mini-van.  Charged with two drug-trafficking counts, he was facing years of jail time.  At preliminary hearing, however, Attorney Dudley was able to decimate the prosecution’s case resulting in an immediate DISMISSAL of all charges.

In S. v. W.R., the defendant was charged with possessing for distribution almost half a kilogram of cocaine in Houston, Texas.  Although he had no felony record, the defendant was out on bond for a murder case in Dallas at the time of his drug arrest.  The district attorney’s initial settlement offer was for eight years in state prison.  After Attorney Dudley successfully prosecuted a search and seizure motion that led to the suppression of an important part of the case against his client, the case was resolved for an actual sentence of only six months.

In P. v. C.S., a young woman with no criminal record at all was arrested at a hotel and charged with a prostitution offense.  If convicted of that specific charge, she would have been unable to secure the job she was seeking in the airline industry.  Attorney Dudley, however, persuaded the city attorney to accept a plea of no contest to a trespassing charge.  After the defendant completed a short period of summary probation, Mr. Dudley successfully moved to DISMISS the case.  That dismissal allowed his client to keep her newly acquired job and pursue the career she wanted.

In U.S. v. $29,000, a man traveling from Chicago to Los Angeles was stopped by DEA agents at an airport.  When asked to consent to a search of his bag, he agreed.  From the bag, the agents seized approximately $29,000 in cash.  Attorney Dudley provided some, but by no means definitive, documentary evidence to the government demonstrating that his client had lawfully earned the money through gambling in Las Vegas.  To avoid extended litigation of the claim, government counsel agreed to a quick settlement of the matter for half of the seized currency.