Skip to main content

Steven Mandala Stole More Than $780,000 From Merrill Lynch And He Gets 2 To 6

District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the sentencing of STEVEN MANDALA to 2 to 6 years in prison. MANDALA pleaded guilty to Grand Larceny in the Second Degree and Identity Theft in the First Degree on May 19, 2010, in New York State Supreme Court. In addition to having already forfeited the Ferrari purchased with the money he stole, MANDALA must repay an additional $360,000 in restitution.

According to court documents, MANDALA was employed as a stockbroker with Maxim Group, earning approximately $100,000 a year, when he applied for a job with Merrill Lynch. MANDALA falsely told Merrill Lynch that he was a partner with Maxim Group, that his clients entrusted him with $300 million of assets to manage, and that his work produced $1.5 million in revenue, for which he received compensation totaling $765,000. MANDALA produced false pay stubs, tax returns, and W-2 forms in support of his fraudulent claim.

Upon his hire, the parties executed a promissory note, under which Merrill Lynch advanced MANDALA $780,000, to be repaid over an 8-year period. MANDALA deposited the $780,000 check from Merrill Lynch in his parent’s account. Less than one week later, MANDALA withdrew $245,580 from the account, and used the money to purchase a Ferrari in his father’s name. Over the next two months MANDALA frequently did not show up at his new job, and brought in only two or three clients with assets of approximately $20,000. MANDALA resigned from his position with Merrill Lynch by e-mail on June 29, 2009, barely two months after joining the firm and receiving the $780,000, and asked his employer to discard his personal effects.

District Attorney Vance thanked Assistant District Attorney Vimi Bhatia who handled the prosecution of the case under the supervision of Deputy Chief Gary Fishman of the Major Economic Crimes Bureau, and Paralegal Eunice Choi who assisted with the case.

Defendant information:

STEVEN MANDALA, 1/6/1981
450 West 17th Street
New York, NY

Charges:

• Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, a class C felony
• Identity Theft in the First Degree, a class D felony

Comments

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.

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...

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 ...