<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><atom:link href="http://www.andrewdstine.com/blog-78/tag-183-mortgage-fraud.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><title>mortgage fraud</title><link>http://www.andrewdstine.com/blog-78/tag-183-mortgage-fraud.aspx</link><description>blog west palm beach criminal defense lawyer</description><managingEditor>support@vestadigital.com (Andrew D. Stine, P.A. - Florida Criminal Defence Attorney)</managingEditor><webMaster>support@viestly.com (Vesta Digital)</webMaster><pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 22:42:55 GMT</pubDate><lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 22:42:55 GMT</lastBuildDate><generator>Viestly</generator><ttl>60</ttl><item><title>Can You Be Forced to Decrypt Your Computer?</title><link>http://www.andrewdstine.com/blog-78/464-can-you-be-forced-to-decrypt-your-computer.aspx</link><description><![CDATA[<img src="http://ibdata.intellibuilder.net/ib-andrewdstine/files/Blog/78/464/fraud-lawyer-encryption-password_180x120.jpg" title="Can You Be Forced to Decrypt Your Computer?" alt="Can You Be Forced to Decrypt Your Computer?" align="left" style="margin-right:10px;" />According to an article posted on CNet, a federal judge in Colorado ruled in January that American citizens can be ordered to decrypt their hard drives to allow police room for more thorough investigations when acting on <strong>search warrants</strong> for cases that involves things like <strong>wire fraud</strong> or <strong>child pornography</strong>. This ruling could truly set precedents in terms of privacy and is encouraging people to argue the <strong>Fifth Amendment</strong>.<br /><br /><h6>The Fifth Amendment in Question <br /></h6>According to the article, Judge Robert Blackburn ordered a Colorado woman accused of being involved in a mortgage scam to decrypt the hard drive of a laptop computer. She was <strong>charged with bank fraud</strong>, <a href="http://www.andrewdstine.com/home/practice-areas/fraud.aspx">wire fraud</a>, and <strong>money laundering</strong> in an attempt to falsify court documents to illegally gain titles to homes near Colorado Springs. Blackburn, ruled that the <strong>Fifth Amendment</strong> (an amendment that states no one should be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself) does not provide protection from his order.<br /><br /><blockquote>Blackburn wrote: &#8220;I find and conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer.&#8221;<br /></blockquote><br />This is not the first time this issue has been addressed. In 2010, a federal judge in Michigan stated that a man accused of receiving <strong>child pornography</strong> did not have to relinquish his password in an effort to protect his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege. Clearly, these recent events will set a precedent in how legislation interprets Fifth Amendment protection when it comes to encrypted data. <br /><br />The key to this entire situation is what exactly a password amounts to. Many of the arguments are saying that PGP passphrases are similar to a person holding the key to a safe containing incriminating documents. In this case, a person can be legally compelled to hand over the key. However, the Fifth Amendment shields a person from &#8220;compelled testimonial communications,&#8221; which protects a person from admitting encryption passwords.<br /><br /><h6>Criminal Defense <br /></h6>If you have been <a href="http://www.andrewdstine.com/home/practice-areas/fraud.aspx">accused of fraud</a> (including <strong>wire fraud</strong>), and have questions about what documents or files you are required to hand over to the court, contact a <a href="http://www.andrewdstine.com">criminal defense lawyer</a> immediately.<p><a href="http://www.viestly.com">Distributed by Viestly</a></p>]]></description><dc:creator>Andrew Stine</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:11:49 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.andrewdstine.com/blog-78/464-can-you-be-forced-to-decrypt-your-computer.aspx</guid></item><item><title>What is the Penalty for Wire or Mail Fraud?</title><link>http://www.andrewdstine.com/blog-78/379-what-is-the-penalty-for-wire-or-mail-fraud.aspx</link><description><![CDATA[<img src="http://ibdata.intellibuilder.net/ib-andrewdstine/files/Blog/78/379/wire-mail-fraud_180x120.jpg" title="What is the Penalty for Wire or Mail Fraud?" alt="What is the Penalty for Wire or Mail Fraud?" align="left" style="margin-right:10px;" /><a href="http://www.andrewdstine.com/home/practice-areas/fraud.aspx">Fraud</a> is a <strong>criminal</strong> act and form of intentional deception perpetrated for gaining profit or personal gain. There are several different kinds of <strong>fraud</strong> and so Florida legislature has responded with a new act. The <strong>Florida Communications Fraud Act</strong> is a consolidation of former <strong>fraud</strong> statutes that considers it to be a crime to defraud another individual through mail, internet, fax, phone, or any form of communication. <br /><br /><h3>Florida Fraud in Boston</h3>According to the Associated Press, four Florida men have been indicted in Boston in a $3 million scheme in which they used application packages nearly identical to a free federal application to scam struggling homeowners out of hundreds of dollars at a time.<br /><br />The men <strong>arrested</strong> were 42-year-old Christopher Godfrey of Delray Beach, 40-year-old Dennis Fischer of Highland Beach, 51-year-old Vernell Burris Jr. of Boynton Beach and 34-year-old Brian Kelly of Boca Raton.<br /><br />According to the Associated Press, &#8220;The indictment alleged their company, Home Owners Protection Economics Inc., (HOPE), virtually guaranteed clients a federally-funded home loan modification and charged thousands of customers a $400 to $900 upfront fee.&#8221;<br /><br />The indictment also alleged that many of the applications were denied. The men face charges including nine counts each of <strong>wire</strong> and <strong>mail fraud</strong>. <br /><br /><h3>Florida Communications Fraud Act</h3>According to <a href="http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&amp;Search_String=&amp;URL=0800-0899/0817/Sections/0817.034.html">Florida Statute 817.034</a>, any person who engages in a scheme to defraud and obtains property thereby (property meaning anything of value) is guilty of organized fraud. If the amount of property obtained has an aggregate value of $50,000 or more, the defendant is guilty of a first-degree<strong> felony</strong>. A first-degree <strong>felony</strong> can result in up to 30 years in prison and a $10,000 fine plus restitution. <br /><br /><h3>Fraud Criminal Defense</h3>If you have been accused of scheming to defraud or of committing any type of <a href="http://www.andrewdstine.com/home/practice-areas/fraud.aspx">fraud</a>, whether it&#8217;s <strong>mail fraud</strong>, <strong>mortgage fraud</strong>, or <strong>wire fraud</strong>, you are still entitled to a fair trial. A <a href="http://www.andrewdstine.com">criminal defense lawyer</a> will conduct his own investigation into your case and will aggressively fight to protect your rights during your case. A <a href="http://www.andrewdstine.com">criminal defense lawyer</a> will most likely advise you to pay restitution which usually results in the prosecution backing down so your sentence will be mitigated significantly.<p><a href="http://www.viestly.com">Distributed by Viestly</a></p>]]></description><dc:creator>Andrew Stine</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:24:14 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.andrewdstine.com/blog-78/379-what-is-the-penalty-for-wire-or-mail-fraud.aspx</guid></item></channel></rss>
