*The case results reported on this website do not constitute a guarantee,
warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
My client was charged in federal court with securities fraud and conspiracy
to commit securities fraud. Prior to trial the government offered a plea
agreement whereby my client would have been sentenced to seven years in
federal prison. This was rejected and we went to trial. The trial lasted
14 days and resulted in a hung jury. Following the government’s
unsuccessful attempt to convict my client before a jury a second offer
from the government was made to resolve the case. The new plea offer from
the government was that my client would plead no contest to a petty offense
for which there was no term of imprisonment authorized under the law.
The only potential penalty was a $25,000 monetary fine. (case no. 0503)
My client was arrested by federal authorities and charged with conspiracy
to import heroin and conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute.
The client was one of many defendants named in the indictment. During
the course of the case, all defendants except my client pled guilty. The
only person to go to trial was my client. Due to diligent pretrial investigation
and vigorous defense at trial, we were able to obtain not guilty verdicts
on all charges. (case no. 0502)
My client was a businessman who was a consultant to a beauty supply company.
Both federal and state law enforcement utilized an informant to obtain
the product sold by the beauty supply company which the police contended
violated laws prohibiting sale of a mixture containing a chemical listed
as a Schedule 1 drug. Through an intensive defense investigation and depositions,
we were able to establish that our client did not conspire with anyone
to distribute a controlled substance and furthermore, the product sold
did not fall within the criminal prohibitions of the statute. The case
ended when the court granted our motion to dismiss. (case no. 0501)
This client was arrested in January 2015 for DUI. No citation or formal
information charging the client with DUI was filed until October 2016.
The State is required by law to file formal charges within the 90-day
speedy trial period and at the time of filing of formal charges, the 90-day
period had expired. A Motion to Discharge the case was filed on behalf
of the Client in January 2017 and a hearing on the motion was held 5 days
later. The State announced a Nolle Prosequi in court, dismissing the case.
(case no. 0504)
We were recently able to assist a client arrested on two separate cases
for Domestic Violence. After his arrest, the Judge ordered him to not
have any contact with his girlfriend and he was not permitted to return
to his own home. As soon as this firm was retained, we filed a motion
with the court to lift those orders. At the hearing, the Judge granted
our motion and our client was able to move back home with his girlfriend.
The State Attorney's Office decided to not go forward on one of the
cases but charged him in the other case. After negotiations with the Prosecutor
and vigorously preparing the case for trial, the State finally agreed
to drop the charges just days before jury selection was to begin.
Earlier this year, we were retained after our client learned federal and
state law enforcement authorities, specializing in cybercrime, were investigating
the client for illegally accessing a protected network. While no formal
charges had been filed yet, authorities were interviewing network administrators,
reviewing the client’s stored communications, and examining the
client’s digital footprints to determine what federal and state
cybercrime laws could be charged.
Retaining us before charges were brought allowed us to investigate the
client’s actual role, and develop a comprehensive strategy to deal
with federal and state law enforcement authorities. Our experience with
technology together with a full understanding of the facts allowed us
to effectively deal with law enforcement. Our client received immunity
and helped network administrators improve security. The criminal investigations
concluded without charges being filed.
To best safeguard your liberty, it is imperative to hire a lawyer if you
believe you might be under criminal investigation.
Past results do not constitute a guarantee or prediction regarding the
outcome of future legal matters.
The Law Offices of Mark L. Horwitz recently had the honor of representing
a client who was charged with a number of very serious charges. Fortunately,
the ordeal ended with great results. Our client was charged with two counts
of Aggravated Battery with a Firearm. Each charge carried a 25-year minimum-mandatory
sentence and a maximum sentence of life in prison. The client was also
charged with one count of Shooting into a Building and one count of Shooting
from a Vehicle.
After many months of thorough investigation, preparation, and analysis
of the case we were ultimately successful. The Office of the State Attorney
dropped all charges against our client. We welcomed the opportunity to
assist the client through this difficult and stressful ordeal. The vigorous
defense of liberty motivates us in our representation of every client.
We recently completed the representation of a husband and wife who were
under audit by the California taxing authorities. The audit was complex
because it involved state income tax that was tied to conversion and recharacterization
of retirement plans. The clients had previously been subject to an IRS
audit which reflected that their treatment of the retirement accounts
The state taxing authority, known as the California Franchise Tax Board,
conducted an extensive examination and investigation which lasted almost
2 years. We worked closely with a forensic accountant, retained by my
firm, and had the benefit of cooperation from the original CPA’s
who prepared the federal and state tax returns. Throughout the course
of dealings with the State auditor and providing significant amounts of
documentation, we were able to establish that the clients’ actions
We recently received the final closing agreement from the Internal Revenue
Service formalizing the successful completion of the
Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) for a husband and wife who had an unreported offshore bank account.
The couple received notice in 2014 from their bank in Portugal regarding
the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). The bank’s notice
advised of the agreement between Portugal and the United States under
FATCA. The bank in Portugal further advised that it would begin reporting
to the IRS information about any clients who are U.S. citizens.
My firm was retained by the couple and we were able to enter them into
the OVDP before the offshore bank reported the assets to the IRS. It was
important that we acted expeditiously on behalf of our client because
once the IRS receives information about an unreported offshore account,
a person is prohibited from entering the OVDP.
The IRS and Department of Justice are vigorously pursuing those with unreported
offshore accounts. The potential consequences for those targeted by the
IRS include criminal prosecution which can result in long terms in prison
and substantial fines: 50% of the value of the account each year that
it was not reported. The client’s prompt action in retaining us
allowed us to enter them in the OVDP before the government received the
bank records from Portugal under FATCA.
Once we entered the couple in the OVDP, we were able to successfully complete
the OVDP thereby avoiding criminal prosecution and large civil penalties.
Recently, we successfully convinced the Department of Justice to dismiss
charges against our client. Federal charges are significant, but in this
case even more so as our client was a federal employee who stood to lose
his job and benefits. The Department of Homeland Security interviewed
witnesses and conducted its investigation. We were retained after charges
were filed, but before the first hearing. Before the first appearance,
we made a meaningful and strategic presentation to the prosecutors which
included highlighting gaps in the government’s evidence, providing
additional exculpatory facts, and arguing the law that would make a successful
prosecution very difficult. A Federal Judge dismissed the case with prejudice
a month later.