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
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
