15698227419_4d4e2c9bb5_z

This is the 3rd post in my private investigator series discussing what private investigators can and cannot do legally when searching for assets.  My January 6th post mentions that on behalf of clients, former attorney Mary Nolan and her private investigator conspired to place illegal wiretaps in cars.  Their clients were reportedly never accused of

This is the 2nd post in my series about private investigators & what they can & cannot do legally when searching for assets.  It is also the 10th post in my Divorce & Hidden Money series.  The Huffington Post article “Uncovering Hidden Assets In Divorce Litigation” observes that information obtained by “surreptitious means” might be used by one divorcing spouse against the other.  Obtaining information through a surreptitious search can be critical to recovering assets in a broad range of criminal & civil cases.  Depending on the circumstances, surreptitious searches might involve wiretaps; bank searches; law enforcement databases; and physical surveillance.  These surreptitious means have however, sometimes been abused by private investigators, attorneys & others in the following ways:

WIRETAPS– As stated in testimony at a 1967 U.S. Senate hearing ‘private bugging in this country can be divided into two broad categories, commercial espionage and marital litigation.’ ¹  Former attorney Mary Nolan handled divorce & family law matters for nearly 30 years before pleading guilty to the wiretapping & tax fraud charges at counts 1-4 &/or 6 of her 2012 criminal indictment.  An amended judgment showed Ms. Nolan was sentenced to serve 24 months in prison, 3 years of supervised release, etc.  Ms. Nolan’s sentencing memorandum said her cases frequently involved allegations that husbands were hiding assets.  The prosecutor’s sentencing memorandum meanwhile, claimed Ms. Nolan had employed a private investigator “to install eavesdropping devices in cars used by her clients’ spouses for use in their divorce proceedings.”

BANK SEARCHES– Some private investigators try to surreptitiously search banks in the U.S. for accounts secretly opened by divorcing spouses, debtors, etc.  These investigators may claim they search through computer research; insiders; or information brokers.  Private investigators cannot ordinarily search banks legally because of privacy and other U.S. laws, as explained by the post available here.   The Court has also noted “it is more likely than not that the only way that information brokers can obtain private financial information from banks is through the use of deception and trickery, including impersonation of account holders.”  Commonwealth v. Source One Associates, Inc., No. CIV. A. 98-0507-H, 1999 WL 975120, at *6 (Mass. Super. Oct. 12, 1999) aff’d sub nom. Com. v. Source One Associates, Inc., 436 Mass. 118, 763 N.E.2d 42 (2002).
Continue Reading Private Investigators: A Surreptitious Search For Money Hidden In Divorce & Other Cases

"Illegally Accessing Customer Information At U.S. Banks" characterized the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act as a U.S. bank secrecy law.  On the one hand, it and other bank secrecy laws around the world protect the privacy of bank customers entrusting financial information to banks.  On the other hand, bank customers can easily abuse these laws during

The "Asset Search News Roundup: January 26, 2009 " mentioned that Heartland Payment Systems was subjected to what might have been the biggest credit / debit card information theft in the U.S.  Mr. Albert Gonzalez was ultimately indicted for that privacy law violation / computer intrusion and other ones.  In fact, Mr. Gonzalez pleaded

Attorney Arienne Irving’s December 4, 2009 Judgment of Acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, raises the general issue of lawyers or clients who might use illegal eavesdropping equipment to "research" an adversary.  I previously wrote about violating privacy laws via eavesdropping at "Attorney Christensen’s Wiretap Conviction".  That article explained how former

This "Asset Search News Roundup" is about two New York criminal defense attorneys who among other things, were accused of violating privacy law by possessing illegal eavesdropping equipment.  On August 20, 2009, attorneys Robert Simels and Arienne Irving were found guilty of importing and possessing illegal eavesdropping equipment in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§2512 (1)

Albert Gonzalez was arrested in the Southern District of Florida on May 8, 2008 pursuant to this warrant:

Click On The Arrest Warrant To Enlarge It

The arrest arose out of Mr. Gonzalez’s alleged computer hacking / identity theft scheme which was later outlined in a May 14, 2008 New York superseding indictment.  This superseding indictment in U.S.A. v. Yastremskiy, et. al., 08-cr-00160, claimed that Mr. Gonzalez and his co-defendants had stolen credit card information through computer intrusions at Dave & Busters, Inc. restaurants.  Mr. Gonzalez and / or his co-defendants were accused of violating federal laws including but not limited to: conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §371); fraud related to computers (18 U.S.C. §1030); wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343 ); access device fraud (18 U.S.C. §1029); aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. §1028A); etc.

Almost three months after the superseding indictment was filed against him in New York, Mr. Gonzalez was next indicted in Massachusetts.  According to the August 5, 2008 Massachusetts indictment in U.S.A. v. Albert Gonzalez, 08-cr-10233, Mr. Gonzalez had hacked computers which stored credit card information for BJ’s Wholesale Club, DSW, OfficeMax, Boston Market and others.

Like the New York superseding indictment, the Massachusetts indictment accused Mr. Gonzalez of: conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §371); fraud related to computers (18 U.S.C. §1030); wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343 ); access device fraud (18 U.S.C.§1029); and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. §1028A).  The Massachusetts indictment also essentially asserted that Mr. Gonzalez had hidden the proceeds of his hacking / identity theft scheme by money laundering through multiple jurisdictions.Continue Reading Using Foreign Computer Evidence Against An Accused Hacker

The "Asset Search News" for this week discusses my interview by AssetForfeitureWatch.com; Transparency International’s press release about Kenyan police corruption; and the file assistant who pleaded guilty to computer intrusions in violation of U.S. privacy law.

+AssetForfeitureWatch.com provides the law enforcement community with training / support in the area of asset forfeiture.  Last Tuesday