Public Censure For Returning Stolen Shoes To Nordstrom

A criminal conviction has led to a public censure by the New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department

On December 8, 2015, the respondent pleaded guilty before the Honorable Richard Buchter, in Supreme Court, Queens County, to criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, in violation of Penal Law § 165.40, a class A misdemeanor. In her plea allocution, the respondent admitted that: (1) in or about July 2010 and August 2010, she had a series of conversations with Travis Lootawan, one of 33 indicted codefendants; (2) during these conversations, she was informed by Lootawan that “his operation involved stealing people’s identities and making fraudulent credit cards,” and that after stealing identities, he “made credit cards and would go shopping and purchase high end” merchandise using the fake credit cards; (3) in November 2010, she received a pair of shoes from Lootawan, knowing that they were stolen, that Lootawan used a fraudulent credit card to purchase the shoes, and that the shoes were valued in excess of $1,000; (4) on or about November 12, 2010, she asked Lootawan for “guidance and direction” as to how to exchange the stolen shoes she had received from him in November 2010; (5) on or about November 12, 2010, she went into a Nordstrom department store with the stolen pair of shoes and exchanged them for three different pairs of shoes; and (6) she knew that the shoes she obtained from Nordstrom on or about November 12, 2010, “were still purchased with credit from somebody other than the true owner.”

But no suspension

At the disciplinary  hearing, the respondent did not contest the allegations, and offered testimony in mitigation of the charges. During her testimony, the respondent expressed deep remorse for her actions, and regret for the suffering she has caused her family from the public humiliation resulting from the conviction…

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to impose, this Court has considered the following factors in mitigation: that the respondent’s misconduct was limited and did not involve a client matter, her genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility for her actions, as well as the character evidence presented, which described the respondent as someone with an excellent professional reputation, a person of high integrity, and a committed volunteer in her community with a history of good works.

Wired had a story on the crimes. (Mike Frisch)