NBA executive director acting improperly, but not illegally

Minneapolis basketball fans may have heard that the NBA’s players’ association executive director is coming under fire after a number of missteps were reported in a review that was initiated by the union president.

The report said the executive director not only had poor judgment, but also never had his $3 million contract approved in the proper manner. Since it was not appropriately approved, the NBA can choose whether to keep him or to negotiate updated terms of the contract. While these may be serious missteps on the part of the executive director, they do not constitute criminal activities. While he may have been accused of improperly using funds, the review has found no evidence of criminal activity and, thus, the executive director should not face white-collar criminal charges.

Specifically, it was reported that the executive director improperly used funds of more than $100,000 for committee member gifts, which included a watch for more than $20,000. Travel expenses were also part of the large sums of money spent.

It is true that the executive director did not care if his actions created a sense of impropriety, but just because a situation gives the impression that something is criminal doesn’t mean that it is. Individuals in Minnesota cannot be convicted of white-collar crimes on mere suspicions and feelings; there must be concrete evidence that an individual has stolen money from an employer, for example, to be convicted of a crime.

Though this executive director may not be facing criminal charges, he may wish to speak with a criminal defense attorney to assure that he won’t face any future investigations.

Source: KSTP 5 ABC, “Billy Hunter’s actions deemed wrong, not criminal,” Jan. 18, 2013

If you want to learn more about Minnesota’s white-collar crimes, stop by our Minneapolis embezzlement page.

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.