DISCLAIMER: These testimonials represent a small sampling of clients the firm has helped. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome in your case.
North Carolina Federal and State Crimes Defense
Fraud, embezzlement and identity theft are often referred to as "white collar crimes". These are serious charges and carry significant criminal penalties, including fines and prison time. If you are under investigation or have been arrested for a white collar theft crime, talk with us as soon as possible.
At the Roberts Law Group, PLLC, we provide experienced criminal defense for felony and misdemeanor white collar crimes in Chapel Hill and throughout the state of North Carolina. We have the experience and legal knowledge to protect your rights during the criminal process and to provide the aggressive representation that you deserve. When you are faced with a tough situation, get help from an attorney who has the experience to back it up.
U.S. vs. J.R. - Our client was convicted of nine counts of mail fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. Result: At the sentencing, the judge granted our motion for a downward departure and sentenced our client to one year and one day instead of the proposed three years in prison. Read more about our Proven Results in Difficult Cases.
White Collar Theft Defense in Chapel Hill
The Roberts Law Group represents people facing a wide range of white collar theft and other crimes, such as embezzlement, ID theft, forgery and fraud. Since these crimes often involve complex financial details and lengthy investigations, you do not want to trust your defense to a law firm without the resources and experience to fully understand your case.
Statutes for crimes such as embezzlement (§ 14-90), counterfeiting (§ 14-13) and other white collar crimes outline potential penalties and the burden of proof that prosecutors must meet when pursuing convictions. Learn more information at the Roberts Law Group.
North Carolina Embezzlement and Fraud Lawyer
Learn more about the experienced defense that we provide for white collar theft crimes, including embezzlement and fraud. Contact the Roberts Law Group in Raleigh. Schedule a free initial consultation by calling toll free at 866-630-2389 to make an appointment.
Maryland vs. R.A.
Charge:
1st Degree Murder, Attempted 1st Degree Murder, 2nd Degree Murder Attempted 2nd Degree Murder, Manslaughter, Second Degree Assault and Felony Handgun Charges
Facing:
Multiple Life Sentences
Result:
Not Guilty
This client allegedly fired shots into a New Years Eve party on January 1st 2006. The shooting resulted in the death of a 21 year old female (who was survived by her twin sister), and the wounding of the deceased's uncle.
Defense focused on:
- The week-long unexplained absence of an important Government witness after the shooting occurred;
- The lack of any witnesses testimony as to the Defendant firing a handgun;
- The inability of the State to produce a weapon;
- And the possibility of another shooter on the scene due to blood splatter evidence outside the home near the spot that the Defendant was standing.
Defendant was found not guilty on the murder charges. The jury was hung as to the manslaughter, assault and handgun charges. The defendant later pled to manslaughter and was given a ten year sentence, suspend all but 5 years.
Maryland vs. E.W.
Charge:
Domestic Violence -2nd Degree Assault (Two Counts), Deadly Weapon with Intent to Injure, Malicious Destruction of Property, and 4th Degree Burglary
Facing:
26 years, 60 days years
Result:
Dismissed
In a case of alleged domestic violence, cross examination of accuser, the government's main witness, cast doubt on the strength of the Government's case. The Judge granted the Defense motion for acquittal at the close of the State's case and dismissed all charges.
Maryland vs. M.W.
Charge:
Attempted Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Two Counts), Drug Possession
Facing:
44 years
Result:
Jury Trial - Not Guilty
Two officers testified at this jury trial. Inconsistencies elicited on the cross examination of the officers established that the Government did not do enough to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
