Skip to main content

DISTRICT ATTORNEY VANCE ANNOUNCES THE GUILTY PLEA OF HENRY VARGAS

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the guilty plea of HENRY VARGAS, 36, who attempted to sell a commercial building he did not own to the New York Road Runners, a Manhattan not-for-profit running organization that offers year-round races, including the ING New York City Marathon. VARGAS pled guilty to Attempted Grand Larceny in the First Degree and Forgery in the Second Degree. VARGAS is expected to receive a sentence of 5 to 10 years in state prison pursuant to today’s plea.

“As this plea reflects, white collar crime must be treated as seriously as street crime,” said District Attorney Vance. “Today’s plea and promised sentence is appropriate for a seasoned fraudster who has repeatedly used deceit to advance his criminal schemes.”

VARGAS admitted in court today that he fraudulently passed himself off as the majority owner of the building, located at 21-41 Lenox Avenue, just north of Central Park, using false statements and forged documents to trick investors into believing that he was the majority owner of the LLC that actually owns the building. In the fall of 2008, VARGAS entered into a contract to sell the building to the New York Road Runners for $8.5 million. Pursuant to that agreement, the New York Road Runners made a $1 million down payment into an escrow account.

Assistant District Attorneys Sally Pritchard and Peirce R. Moser of the Special Prosecutions Bureau handled the prosecution under the supervision of Assistant District Attorney Thomas Wornom, Chief of the Special Prosecutions Bureau. Detective Michael Turck of the District Attorney’s Office Squad assisted in the investigation, under the supervision of Captain Ronald Haas, Commanding Officer of the District Attorney’s Office Squad.



Defendant Information:
HENRY VARGAS, 2/23/1974
1122 130th Street
College Point, New York

Charges:

* Attempted Grand Larceny in the First Degree, a class C felony is punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

* Forgery in the Second Degree, a class D felony is punishable by up to 7 years in prison.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more