Federal investigators believe 120 people involved in fraud ring

The U.S. Attorney’s office has recently been busy processing numerous white-collar criminal charges against what they claim is a large identity theft ring. While no one from the office will comment on the charges or the supposed 120 people involved in the identity fraud, only eight people have been formally charged.

Several of the people facing white collar criminal charges for identity theft, money laundering and bank fraud have pled guilty, according to the Star Tribune. Although this could indicate that they are admitting their guilt, other sources indicate that many of the suspects who have pled guilty have also agreed to help federal investigators, indicating they may receive a reduced sentence for their assistance.

The first of the suspects to have pled guilty was a 31-year-old woman from St. Paul. She pled guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering in September after prosecutors said she used falsified identification and counterfeit checks to purchase items and then return them for cash.

Federal investigators have been looking into the supposed criminal ring and believe that there could be 120 people involved. They have also said the alleged money laundering and other activities may now be in at least 12 states.

A few of the people who have been charged in this supposed criminal enterprise have chosen to plead guilty in exchange for helping federal investigators. While this is certainly a difficult decision to make, it should only be done after considerable consultation with a criminal defense attorney. Blindly entering a plea deal because you believe you will get a reduced sentence can be extremely dangerous without an attorney by your side, explaining your options and protecting your Constitutional rights.

Source: Star Tribune, “Big Twin Cities ID theft ring unmasked,” Dan Browning, Jan .9, 2012

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

How a DWI Affects CDL Holders in Minnesota

Commercial motor vehicle drivers arrested or charged with driving while impaired (DWI) may need to know how a DWI affects CDL holders in Minnesota. You will lose your Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) for at least a year if you are convicted of DWI for the first time, and forever after a second conviction. The consequences go beyond the immediate legal implications of a DWI conviction. A CDL suspension or revocation will lead to job loss, difficulty finding employment, and serious financial challenges.

How a DWI Affects Rideshare Drivers in Minnesota

Knowing how a DWI affects rideshare drivers in Minnesota allows you to take the right steps to protect your license and livelihood. A DWI conviction will lead to suspension or cancellation of your driver’s license. Once you lose your license, you will be ineligible for a work permit required to work for rideshare companies as a driver. You may also face jail time, fines, or ignition interlock device (IID) installation, depending on the seriousness and number of related offenses on your record.

Can Police Search Your Phone Without a Warrant in Minnesota?

People under criminal investigation or whose phones have been seized by law enforcement officers may ask, “Can police search your phone without a warrant in Minnesota?” It’s illegal for police to search your phone without a warrant. However, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement. These exceptions include when you consent to the search, someone’s life is in danger, or there is an immediate risk of evidence destruction.