Double Jeopardy Claims Fails Because There was no Second Prosecution for the Same Offense
Post 5057
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/dHta_-yp and at https://lnkd.in/ddck47wm and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Posted on April 24, 2025 by Barry Zalma
Tariq M. Abdulaziz was charged with larceny in the first degree by defrauding a public community, health insurance fraud, and failure to appear. The charges of larceny and health insurance fraud were tried to the court, and Abdulaziz was found guilty of health insurance fraud.
In State Of Connecticut v. Tariq M. Abdulaziz, No. AC 45916, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (April 8, 2025) the Court of Appeals found that Abdulaziz had submitted false claims for face-to-face services to the Department of Social Services’ Medicaid program while he was in Texas.
The trial court acquitted him of larceny in the first degree due to the state’s failure to prove the value of the wrongfully obtained property exceeded $2000 and the court found him guilty of health insurance fraud, as he had presented false statements to the insurer with the intent to defraud.
The court sentenced Abdulaziz to three months of incarceration, execution suspended, and eighteen months of probation. The state filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the court should apply the sentencing provisions for larceny in the second degree. The court partially granted the motion and resentenced Abdulaziz to three months of incarceration, execution suspended, and one year of probation.
The defendant claimed that the trial court violated the double jeopardy clause and his constitutional right to due process. The court rejected these claims and affirmed the conviction of health insurance fraud.
ANALYSIS
The United States Supreme Court has explained that the fifth amendment guarantee against double jeopardy gives rise to three separate constitutional protections.
It protects against:
1. a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal.
2. a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction.
3. multiple punishments for the same offense.
The defendant’s present claim invokes the first of these protections under the collateral estoppel branch of double jeopardy jurisprudence.
The defendant contends that the court’s findings on the ”intent to defraud or deceive” and the ”material[ity]” elements of health insurance fraud cannot be reconciled with his acquittal on the larceny charge because these elements both require that the ”alleged fraud concern something of value.”
The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not, as the defendant claims, find ”that no value . . . was proven.” In fact, the court expressly found that ”some value [was] proven,” which is precisely what the defendant claims the court was required to do.
The nature of the services the defendant and the recipients’ other providers and supporters were offering were supposed to be home and community based. It simply is not reasonable or logical to conclude that they could, or would, be offering these types of services from Texas, on 114 separate occasions, particularly when in-person, face-to-face meetings without the service recipient present are ”highly unusual.”
Instead, the reasonable and logical view of the evidence presented supports the court’s finding that at least some of the face-to-face services for which payment was sought and obtained were not performed at all, and thus the defendant was properly convicted of health insurance fraud.
The judgment was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
It takes a great amount of Chutzpah to claim that a health care provider in Texas did “face to face” treatment with a patient in Connecticut. It is not ”highly unusual” as the defendant claimed, it is impossible. He was convicted of insurance fraud for claiming face to face treatment and had the unmitigated gall to claim he did the impossible and the court was wrong because he was acquitted of a similar, but different crime. The Court of Appeals took dozens of pages to explain why it affirmed the trial court who was kind enough to keep the defendant out of jail. I would hope more insurance fraud perpetrators are sentenced to serve a long time in prison.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
