Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Mastercard's Lawyer Kiela Ravelo Disbarred After Arrests of The Reserve Bank of Australia Document Racket by The USA's Organised Crime's Agencies

    Uploaded by

    Maverick Minitries
    80 views2 pages
    SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT In the Matter of Keila D. Ravelo, an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Keila D. Ravelo, Respondent. M-1366 June 28, 2018, Order Filed June 28, 2018, Decided THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS. Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Raymond Vallejo, of counsel), for petitioner. Keila D. Ravelo, Respondent, Pro se. John W. Sweeny, Jr., Justice Presiding, Dianne T. Renwick, Angela M. Mazzarelli, Ellen Gesmer, Anil C. Singh, Justices. All concur. Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Kaila D. Ravelo, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on July 20, 1992. PER CURIAM Respondent Keila D. Ravelo was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on July 20, 1992. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Department. In 2017, respondent was convicted, upon her plea of guilty, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 USC §§ 1343 and 1349 , and tax evasion in violation of 26 USC § 7201 . Respondent is scheduled to be sentenced on June 28, 2018. Respondent's conviction stemmed from her involvement in a conspiracy with her husband by which she defrauded two law firms (where she was employed as a partner) along with a client of approximately $7.8 million by submitting false invoices for litigation support services purportedly rendered by two entities formed by respondent and her husband. Now, the Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee) seeks an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a) and (b) and the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.12(c)(1) , on the grounds that she was convicted of a felony as defined by Judiciary Law § 90(4)(e) , namely, conspiracy to commit wire fraud ( 18 USC §§ 1343 and 1349 ), and has therefore been automatically disbarred. The Committee served respondent with its motion by mail, on consent, but she has not submitted a response. The Committee's motion to strike respondent's name from the roll of attorneys should be granted. Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a) authorizes automatic disbarment of an attorney convicted of a felony. Under this statute, a "felony" includes "any criminal offense classified as a felony under the laws of this state or any criminal offense committed in any other state, district, or territory of the United States and classified as a felony therein which if committed within this state, would constitute a felony in this state" ( Judiciary Law § 90[4][e] ). Thus, a federal felony conviction will result in automatic disbarment if an equivalent felony exists under New York law (Matter of Rosenthal, 64 AD3d 16 , 18 , 880 N.Y.S.2d 603 [1st Dept 2009]). For a determination that a federal felony has a New York analogy, the federal felony does not have [*2] to be a "mirror image" of a New York felony but must be "essentially similar" (Matter of Margiotta, 60 NY2d 147 , 150 , 456 N.E.2d 798 , 468 N.Y.S.2d 857 [1983]). Thus, we must compare the applicable federal and state felony statutes, as well as look to our own precedent on this issue. If this initial analysis is inconclusive, "essential similarity" can be established by admissions made under oath during a plea allocution, read in conjunction with the indictment or information (see Matter of Adams, 114 AD3d 1 , 2-3 , 977 N.Y.S.2d 248 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Lin, 110 AD3d 186 , 187 , 971 N.Y.S.2d 47 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Sor

    Original Title

    Mastercard's lawyer Kiela Ravelo disbarred after arrests of the Reserve Bank of Australia Document Racket by the USA's Organised Crime's agencies;

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT In the Matter of Keila D. Ravelo, an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Keila D. Ravelo, Respondent. M-1366 June 28, 2018, Order Filed June 28, 2018, Decided THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS. Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Raymond Vallejo, of counsel), for petitioner. Keila D. Ravelo, Respondent, Pro se. John W. Sweeny, Jr., Justice Presiding, Dianne T. Renwick, Angela M. Mazzarelli, Ellen Gesmer, Anil C. Singh, Justices. All concur. Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Kaila D. Ravelo, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on July 20, 1992. PER CURIAM Respondent Keila D. Ravelo was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on July 20, 1992. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Department. In 2017, respondent was convicted, upon her plea of guilty, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 USC §§ 1343 and 1349 , and tax evasion in violation of 26 USC § 7201 . Respondent is scheduled to be sentenced on June 28, 2018. Respondent's conviction stemmed from her involvement in a conspiracy with her husband by which she defrauded two law firms (where she was employed as a partner) along with a client of approximately $7.8 million by submitting false invoices for litigation support services purportedly rendered by two entities formed by respondent and her husband. Now, the Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee) seeks an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a) and (b) and the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.12(c)(1) , on the grounds that she was convicted of a felony as defined by Judiciary Law § 90(4)(e) , namely, conspiracy to commit wire fraud ( 18 USC §§ 1343 and 1349 ), and has therefore been automatically disbarred. The Committee served respondent with its motion by mail, on consent, but she has not submitted a response. The Committee's motion to strike respondent's name from the roll of attorneys should be granted. Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a) authorizes automatic disbarment of an attorney convicted of a felony. Under this statute, a "felony" includes "any criminal offense classified as a felony under the laws of this state or any criminal offense committed in any other state, district, or territory of the United States and classified as a felony therein which if committed within this state, would constitute a felony in this state" ( Judiciary Law § 90[4][e] ). Thus, a federal felony conviction will result in automatic disbarment if an equivalent felony exists under New York law (Matter of Rosenthal, 64 AD3d 16 , 18 , 880 N.Y.S.2d 603 [1st Dept 2009]). For a determination that a federal felony has a New York analogy, the federal felony does not have [*2] to be a "mirror image" of a New York felony but must be "essentially similar" (Matter of Margiotta, 60 NY2d 147 , 150 , 456 N.E.2d 798 , 468 N.Y.S.2d 857 [1983]). Thus, we must compare the applicable federal and state felony statutes, as well as look to our own precedent on this issue. If this initial analysis is inconclusive, "essential similarity" can be established by admissions made under oath during a plea allocution, read in conjunction with the indictment or information (see Matter of Adams, 114 AD3d 1 , 2-3 , 977 N.Y.S.2d 248 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Lin, 110 AD3d 186 , 187 , 971 N.Y.S.2d 47 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Sor

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    80 views2 pages

    Mastercard's Lawyer Kiela Ravelo Disbarred After Arrests of The Reserve Bank of Australia Document Racket by The USA's Organised Crime's Agencies

    Uploaded by

    Maverick Minitries
    SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT In the Matter of Keila D. Ravelo, an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Keila D. Ravelo, Respondent. M-1366 June 28, 2018, Order Filed June 28, 2018, Decided THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS. Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Raymond Vallejo, of counsel), for petitioner. Keila D. Ravelo, Respondent, Pro se. John W. Sweeny, Jr., Justice Presiding, Dianne T. Renwick, Angela M. Mazzarelli, Ellen Gesmer, Anil C. Singh, Justices. All concur. Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Kaila D. Ravelo, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on July 20, 1992. PER CURIAM Respondent Keila D. Ravelo was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on July 20, 1992. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Department. In 2017, respondent was convicted, upon her plea of guilty, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 USC §§ 1343 and 1349 , and tax evasion in violation of 26 USC § 7201 . Respondent is scheduled to be sentenced on June 28, 2018. Respondent's conviction stemmed from her involvement in a conspiracy with her husband by which she defrauded two law firms (where she was employed as a partner) along with a client of approximately $7.8 million by submitting false invoices for litigation support services purportedly rendered by two entities formed by respondent and her husband. Now, the Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee) seeks an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a) and (b) and the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.12(c)(1) , on the grounds that she was convicted of a felony as defined by Judiciary Law § 90(4)(e) , namely, conspiracy to commit wire fraud ( 18 USC §§ 1343 and 1349 ), and has therefore been automatically disbarred. The Committee served respondent with its motion by mail, on consent, but she has not submitted a response. The Committee's motion to strike respondent's name from the roll of attorneys should be granted. Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a) authorizes automatic disbarment of an attorney convicted of a felony. Under this statute, a "felony" includes "any criminal offense classified as a felony under the laws of this state or any criminal offense committed in any other state, district, or territory of the United States and classified as a felony therein which if committed within this state, would constitute a felony in this state" ( Judiciary Law § 90[4][e] ). Thus, a federal felony conviction will result in automatic disbarment if an equivalent felony exists under New York law (Matter of Rosenthal, 64 AD3d 16 , 18 , 880 N.Y.S.2d 603 [1st Dept 2009]). For a determination that a federal felony has a New York analogy, the federal felony does not have [*2] to be a "mirror image" of a New York felony but must be "essentially similar" (Matter of Margiotta, 60 NY2d 147 , 150 , 456 N.E.2d 798 , 468 N.Y.S.2d 857 [1983]). Thus, we must compare the applicable federal and state felony statutes, as well as look to our own precedent on this issue. If this initial analysis is inconclusive, "essential similarity" can be established by admissions made under oath during a plea allocution, read in conjunction with the indictment or information (see Matter of Adams, 114 AD3d 1 , 2-3 , 977 N.Y.S.2d 248 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Lin, 110 AD3d 186 , 187 , 971 N.Y.S.2d 47 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Sor

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    7/13/2016 CM/ECF LIVE ­ U.S.

     District Court for the District of New Jersey

    U.S. District Court
    District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Newark)
    CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:14­mj­07269­CLW­1

    Case title: USA v. SEARCH WARRANT Date Filed: 12/24/2014

    Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Cathy L.
    Waldor

    Defendant (1)
    SEARCH WARRANT

    Pending Counts Disposition
    None

    Highest Offense Level (Opening)
    None

    Terminated Counts Disposition
    None

    Highest Offense Level (Terminated)
    None

    Complaints Disposition
    None

    Plaintiff
    USA represented by ANDREW D. KOGAN 
    OFFICE OF THE US ATTORNEY 
    970 BROAD STREET 
    ROOM 702 
    NEWARK, NJ 07102 
    (973) 645­2754 
    Email: [email protected] 
    LEAD ATTORNEY 
    ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 
    https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi­bin/DktRpt.pl?973736146186226­L_1_0­1 1/2
    7/13/2016 CM/ECF LIVE ­ U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey

    Designation: Assistant US Attorney

    Date Filed # Docket Text
    12/24/2014 1  SEALED APPLICATION AND AFFIDAVIT AS TO PEN REGISTER BY USA. (tjg, )
    (Entered: 12/24/2014)
    12/24/2014 3  Order to Seal Case as to SEARCH WARRANT.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy L.
    Waldor on 12/24/14. (tjg, ) (Entered: 12/24/2014)
    06/07/2016 4  Order to Unseal Case as to SEARCH WARRANT.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy
    L. Waldor on 6/7/16. (tjg, ) (Entered: 06/07/2016)

    PACER Service Center
    Transaction Receipt
    07/13/2016 17:35:09
    PACER Client
    Login: Code:
    2:14­mj­07269­CLW Start
    Search
    Description: Docket Report date: 1/1/1970 End date:
    Criteria:
    7/13/2016
    Billable
    Pages:

    https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi­bin/DktRpt.pl?973736146186226­L_1_0­1 2/2

    You might also like