Attorney Patrick Winn represents people charged with theft, larceny, fraud, robbery, embezzlement, breaking and entering, and other property crimes throughout Massachusetts. These cases range from relatively minor allegations to serious felonies carrying the possibility of state-prison sentences.

Massachusetts property crimes cover a remarkably broad range of conduct. They include Larceny from a Person, Larceny by Stealing Over $1,200 (felony), Larceny by Stealing Under $1,200 (misdemeanor), Identity Fraud (including credit card fraud), Embezzlement, Larceny by False Pretenses, Armed Robbery, Uttering, Breaking and Entering, and Forgery.

Although property offenses generally do not involve the same physical harm as violent crimes, they should not be treated casually. A conviction can result in incarceration, probation, restitution, and a permanent criminal record. Theft and fraud convictions can also be particularly damaging to employment because they involve allegations of dishonesty.

Larceny and Theft Charges

The fact that property is missing does not necessarily establish a criminal larceny.

The Commonwealth must prove the elements of the particular offense charged, including the defendant’s involvement and the required criminal intent. That can make the circumstances surrounding possession, ownership, authorization, and the defendant’s state of mind extremely important.

Larceny cases also vary considerably depending on what was allegedly taken, its value, and how the Commonwealth claims the property was obtained. An allegation involving merchandise from a store presents a very different defense from an accusation involving money, an employer’s property, or a disputed financial transaction.

Attorney Winn examines not simply whether property changed hands, but whether the Commonwealth can actually prove a criminal taking beyond a reasonable doubt.

Embezzlement, Fraud and Financial Crimes

Embezzlement and fraud prosecutions often depend heavily on documents rather than eyewitness testimony.

The Commonwealth may rely heavily on bank statements, checks, credit-card records, accounting records, and other financial documents. Prosecutors may subpoena these records from banks and other institutions and seek to introduce them at trial under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The existence of those records, however, does not necessarily prove criminal intent. A financial transaction may be documented perfectly while the reason for the transaction, the defendant’s authority to make it, or the defendant’s state of mind remains disputed.

But financial records do not necessarily establish criminal intent.

Transactions that appear suspicious when viewed in isolation may have legitimate explanations. Questions about authorization, ownership, accounting practices, business relationships, or the purpose of a payment can become central to the defense.

These cases therefore require careful examination of both the financial evidence and the Commonwealth’s theory of what that evidence supposedly proves.

Robbery

Robbery is substantially different from ordinary larceny because it involves allegations that property was taken through force or threats.

Depending on the circumstances, robbery charges can expose a defendant to significant incarceration. Cases involving allegations of a weapon are particularly serious.

Identification is often an important issue. A robbery investigation may depend on eyewitness descriptions, surveillance video, photographic arrays, cell-phone evidence, or circumstantial evidence connecting a defendant to the incident.

The defense should examine not only whether a taking occurred, but whether the Commonwealth can reliably prove who committed it and whether it can establish every element of the particular robbery offense charged.

Breaking and Entering

Breaking-and-entering charges frequently depend on the defendant’s alleged intent at the time of entry.

The prosecution may attempt to infer that intent from surrounding circumstances rather than direct evidence. Where the Commonwealth alleges that a person entered a building intending to commit another crime inside, proving the entry itself is not necessarily enough.

The circumstances surrounding the entry, the defendant’s relationship to the property, what occurred inside, and the evidence of criminal intent can therefore become critical issues.

Defending Massachusetts Property-Crime Cases

Property-crime cases often look stronger on paper than they ultimately are in court.

Police reports may characterize a disputed transaction as theft or fraud without resolving questions about authorization or intent. Financial records may show that money moved without establishing why. An eyewitness may identify a suspect without providing a reliable identification. And circumstantial evidence may create suspicion without proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Attorney Winn examines the evidence underlying the accusation rather than accepting the characterization contained in the police report. Depending on the case, the defense may involve challenging identification evidence, attacking proof of criminal intent, contesting the admissibility or meaning of financial records, filing motions to suppress evidence, seeking dismissal, negotiating an appropriate resolution, or taking the case to trial.

If you have been charged with larceny, theft, fraud, robbery, embezzlement, breaking and entering, or another property crime in Massachusetts, call (857) 415-2415 or send a message through this website for a free assessment of your case.