By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell Book
SDNY MAG COURT EXCLUSIVE, May 25 - In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on December 28, 2022 a guilty plea was taken by Magistrate Judge Kathleen H. Parker from a man charged with blackmailing a "prominent health care provider whose practice is located in Manhattan and Chicago."
Luca Trippitelli, the defendant, had a romantic relationship with the health care provider until November 2019.
When it ended, the blackmail began. According to the complaint, Trippitelli demanded payment for his new apartment, his cell phone service and utilities or he would ruin the health care provider's business and marriage. In July 2021 he added the demand for $5000 a month.
All told, Trippitelli extorted at least $130,000 from the health care provider.
Inner City Press was present in the morning as the only media in the Mag Court. Related Mag Court live-tweeted thread (more on Patreon here) vlog here
Now on the guilty plea - to a reduced / stripped down charge in a new Information, threatening to portray the health care provider as wrongfully disclosing individually identifiable health care information in violation of 42 USC 1320d-6 - Trippitelli has a sentencing submission due on May 5, for a May 9 sentencing not before a District Judge, but Magistrate Judge Parker.
On May 3, Trippitelli's Federal Defender wrote to Judge Parker asking for a non custodial sentencing, quoting Trippitelli that "[REDACTED] and I were once very much in love and I am truly story for the harm I caused him."
On May 5, the US Attorney's Office wrote to Judge Parker asking for a sentence of three months.
On May 9, Magistrate Judge Parker sentenced Trippitelli to 60 days in prison: "Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker: Sentencing held on 5/9/2023 for Luca Trippitelli (1) Count 1. Defendant appeared in courtroom 17D...Victim Impact Statement by Daniel Alonso. Sentencing for guilty plea to Count One of the Misdemeanor Information that was taken by Judge Parker on 12/28/2022. Defendant sentenced to 60 days imprisonment /one year supervised release /75 hours community service / $25.00 special assessment/ $131,049 restitution paid to the victim through the court. Defendant shall report to the prison to which he his assigned within 60 days - 07/10/2023 Probation will notify the Defendant of the facility to which he is to report."
On May 25, Judge Parker issued a detailed decision on Trippitelli's bid to get his passport back before he surrenders: "ORDER as to Luca Trippitelli. Defendant Luca Trippitelli requests the return of his passport from the United States Pretrial Services. For the reasons set forth below, Trippitelli's motion is granted in part and denied in part. On December 28, 2022, Trippitelli pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of blackmail. On May 9, 2023, the Court sentenced him to 60 days of imprisonment recommended in a minimum security camp, followed by one year of supervised release and restitution of $131,049. The Court also ordered Trippitelli surrender by July 10, 2023. The Government opposes the application on the basis that the Probation Department informed the Government that it is not in its practice to return passports for defendants sentenced to a term of incarceration prior to the defendant's surrender date. (Letter from AUSA Matthew R. Shahabian, ECF No. 41). Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that a person aggrieved "by the deprivation of property may move for the property's return." Where "no criminal proceedings against the movant are pending or have transpired, a motion for the return of property is treated as [a] civil equitable proceeding[ ]." Mora v. United States, 955 F.2d 156, 158 (2d Cir. 1992). Courts consider the Government's interest in retaining property when deciding whether property should be returned to a defendant. See, e.g., United States v. Beras, 2003 WL 21136727 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2003) (finding the Government may retain seized a passport when it has possible evidentiary value or where the defendant was undergoing exclusion proceedings); United States v. Sarna, 2009 WL 2633153, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2009) (denying return of passport where defendant was under supervised release and terms of supervised release required prior approval from the Probation department to travel out of the country). Additionally, passports may be returned after sentencing. United States v. Dominguez, 2009 WL 2245064, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2009) (passport allegedly returned after sentencing). Here, the Government objects to returning Trippitelli's passport because it is not Probation's practice to return passports until after a surrender date. The Government's interest in holding his passport until Trippitelli's surrender date is reasonable to ensure surrender. Therefore, Tripitelli's motion is granted, but not as to timing of the return. Probation is ordered to return Tripitelli's passport to him immediately after Trippitelli surrenders on July 10, 2023. By July 12, 2023, Probation shall file a letter with the Court informing it that it has complied with this Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 5/25/2023)."
More on this case, & Trippitelli, on Patreon here
The case is US v. Trippitelli, 22-cr-707 (Parker)
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
