Representative Cases
NOTABLE TRIAL CASESFederal Case № 04-20261-Cr-ASG Our client was accused of fraud and money laundering in this case. Through our aggressive pretrial work Mr. Rabin was successful in having all charges dismissed against our client. Federal Case № 88-4006-Cr-JP A pilot, who was originally represented by another law firm, was accused of flying a plane from the Bahamas to Miami loaded with narcotics. He was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to ten (10) years. He hired Mr. Rabin after his conviction and we successfully obtained a new trial for him after which we obtained a dismissal of all of the charges. Federal Case № 02-20669-Cr-UUB In this case we represented a Bahamian Banker who was lured to the United States in a drug and money laundering investigation and sting orchestrated by federal law enforcement agents. Our client was tape recorded and videotaped counting money and discussing banking and investment opportunities in the Bahamas. We represented him from the time of his arrest through the trial of his case on money laundering charges. The case proceeded to a trial before a jury and our client was found not guilty of all charges. Federal Case № 01-00835-Cr-JLK Our client was accused of possessing a firearm during the commission of a drug crime and possession with the intent to distribute marijuana. We defended the case before a jury and our client was found not guilty of all charges. State of Florida Case № F93-39508 This man was originally represented by another law firm. He was tried and convicted for robbery. We assumed his representation after his conviction and we obtained a new trial for him and thereafter, the dismissal of all charges. State of Florida Case № F95-030676 We represented a lawyer who was charged with DUI and threatening to kill a police officer. Through our investigation we were able to establish that the arresting officer fabricated the charges against our client (attorney) and eight other people. Our work in this case led to the dismissal of our client's case as well as the dismissal of the other eight cases in which the same police officer fabricated evidence. The police officer was fired as well. Federal Case in 1988 This case was dubbed the "River Cops" case. Mr. Rabin represented a City of Miami police officer charged with drug trafficking and civil rights violations resulting in the death of three men. The trial lasted four months and ended with a mistrial. Federal Case № 92-0044-Cr-SH In this case we represented the foreman of a freighter crew that was boarded on the high seas and found to contain 5000 pounds of cocaine. This case proceeded to trial and our client was acquitted of all charges. Federal Case № 01-208-Cr-Gold Mr. Rabin represented a Miami Police Officer charged with corruption which involved an allegation that our client planted weapons at the scene of a police involved shooting. The case resulted in a mistrial. Federal Case № 95-00917-Cr-KMM This case was one of the first prosecutions in the country in which the federal government prosecuted the owner and employees of a "spy shop" for selling small, easily concealed electronic listening devices. All of the defendants were convicted of serious felonies except Mr. Rabin's client who was convicted of a single misdemeanor. NOTABLE GRAND JURY CASES2007 We represented a real estate broker who was implicated in a fraud involving straw real estate buyers. The agents were initially of the opinion that our client was deeply involved in the fraud and that he reaped financial benefits from the fraudulent activities. We retained a forensic accountant and were able to demonstrate that he was not a participant in the fraudulent activity. He went from being classified as a "target" to being a witness. Through Mr. Rabin's artful representation, our client was not prosecuted. 2006 Our client was the target of a Federal investigation into Healthcare fraud. The investigation focused on an allegation that our client laundered Medicare funds which had allegedly been derived through healthcare fraud. As a result of Mr. Rabin's representation, which included consultation with investigators, agents and government lawyers, our client was not prosecuted. 2003 Our client, the general manager of the branch of a bank was investigated for money laundering and the failure to implement a comprehensive anti-money laundering program. The investigation was conducted by several federal law enforcement agencies and U.S. Department of Justice lawyers. Through Mr. Rabin's zealous representation, our client was not prosecuted. Grand Jury work is secret by nature and does not become public unless criminal charges are filed. Our firm has been very successful in our representation of companies, both large and small, lawyers, doctors bankers, realtors, mortgage brokers, real estate brokers, politicians, business executives, business people in many fields of business including the health care industry, the building industry, banking, and currency exchanges. When representing a witness before a Grand Jury it is imperative to determine their status as viewed by the government. People that are compelled to appear before a Grand Jury fall into one of three categories: witness, subject or target. The U. S. Attorney's Manual defines a "target" as a person to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant. An officer or employee of an organization which is a target is not automatically considered a target even if such officer's or employee's conduct contributed to the commission of the crime by the target organization. A "subject" is defined as a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation. In other words, a subject has the potential to become either a witness or a target. A "witness" is a person about whom no criminal conduct is known or suspected. Witnesses are involved because they have relevant information to offer in the investigation. A right guaranteed to all Grand Jury witnesses is to be informed whether they have been subjected to electronic surveillance. If so, they are entitled to listen to their tape-recorded statements, even though made without their knowledge. A lawyer engaged in the representation of a grand jury witness has a variety of sources of information to tap when ascertaining the best course of action for his client. The lawyer will be provided with limited information from the prosecutors seeking the testimony of the witness/client, but the lawyer may learn valuable information from other lawyers and witnesses who have already appeared before the grand jury. Ultimately, a subpoenaed person will be presented with three (3) options. They can testify without requesting or receiving immunity, they can demand immunity before testifying or they can refuse to testify regardless of whether they receive immunity. The first option generally occurs if a determination can be made that, there is no likelihood of exposure to any criminal charges, based upon a review of all of the known facts and evidence. The second option is prudent where the slightest suggestion of criminality is present. The third is a rare circumstance and one that is ill advised. The consequence of refusing to testify, after being compelled to do so, is swift and certain; contempt of court and the near certainty of incarceration, usually for no more than eighteen (18) months. |
