Skip to main content

BROOKLYN MAN FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER AND FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH TWO MISSING PERSONS AND A COLD CASE HOMICIDE

Following two weeks of trial, a federal jury in Brooklyn today returned a verdict convicting Dmitriy Yakovlev on all counts of a 15-count indictment charging him with stealing the identities of three Brooklyn residents – Michael Klein, Viktor Alekseyev, and Irina Malezhik – and murdering Viktor Alekseyev and Irina Malezhik in connection with the theft of their identities.

The conviction was announced by Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Janice K. Fedarcyk, Assistant Director-in-Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office, and Raymond W. Kelly, Commissioner, New York City Police Department.

At trial, the government established that the defendant exploited the identities of three victims to commit credit card fraud and bank fraud immediately following their disappearances in November 2003, December 2005, and October 2007, respectively. Using a variety of evidence, including the testimony of five forensic experts, the government proved that the defendant murdered Alekseyev and Malezhik. Alekseyev’s remains were found in New Jersey in January 2006. Malezhik’s remains have never been found.

“Today’s verdict is the result of years of hard work and dedicated investigation by a team of law enforcement officers committed to bringing the defendant to justice for his crimes. I am proud of the cooperation of the FBI, NYPD, and United States Department of Labor, and their partners in law enforcement, in bringing this investigation to a successful and satisfying conclusion.” Ms. Lynch thanked the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office in Essex County, New Jersey, for their assistance.

When sentenced by United States District Judge I. Leo Glasser, Yakovlev faces a maximum of 30 years’ imprisonment for each of the four counts of bank fraud and bank fraud conspiracy, and 20 years’ imprisonment for each of the two counts charging him with committing crimes of violence in connection with identity theft, among other counts of conviction.

The government’s case was tried by Assistant United States Attorneys James Gatta and Amanda Hector.

The Defendant:



DMITRIY YAKOVLEV
Age: 43
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