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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
