Dughi, Hewit & Domalewski, P.C. is proud to announce that Robert J. Brass (moderator) and Brandon D. Minde (panelist) will be part of the panel program “Ethical Considerations for Criminal Practitioners” at the New Jersey State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting in Atlantic City, on May 13, 2026. Both Mr. Brass and Mr. Minde are Past-Chairs of the NJSBA Criminal Law Section.
This Continuing Legal Education program will provide a discussion about some of the hot-button ethical issues criminal law practitioners are facing today. Joining Mr. Brass and Mr. Minde on this panel will be the Director of the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics, current judges, prosecutors and public defenders.
For additional information and to register for the N.J. State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting, please go to https://njsba.com/meetings-events/annual-meeting/
Dughi, Hewit & Domalewski, P.C. is proud to announce that twelve of its attorneys have been selected to the 2026 New Jersey Super Lawyers list in six practice areas: business litigation, criminal defense, medical malpractice, family law, civil litigation, and personal injury.
The DHD attorneys recognized on the 2026 Super Lawyers List are:
The DHD attorneys recognized on the 2026 Rising Stars List are:
Super Lawyers is a part of Thomson Reuters and is a research and peer-review rating service. The Super Lawyers selection process comprises hundreds of thousands of statewide or regional surveys supplemented by a comprehensive examination of each nominee’s background and experience, focusing on such criteria as verdicts and settlements, transactions, representative clients, honors and awards, educational background, and any other outstanding achievements. Only 5 percent of the total lawyers in the state are selected for inclusion on the Super Lawyers List.
To be eligible for inclusion on the Rising Stars List, attorneys must be 40 years old or younger or have been in practice for 10 years or less, and are selected based on a patented process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates, and peer reviews by practice area.
…
For more information about the selection process methodology for the awards referenced above, please visit SuperLawyers.com
No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Dughi, Hewit and Domalewski, PC is pleased to announce that Robert J. Brass, Esq., of Counsel to the firm, is moderating and speaking at the NJ Institute for Continuing Legal Education presentation of “An Introduction to Criminal Trial.” This is part of the “Welcome to the Legal Profession” program for recently admitted attorneys.
This “how to” primer for newly admitted attorneys, including prosecutors and defense counsel, will take you step-by-step through the criminal trial process in New Jersey. It covers key topics such as case preparation, jury selection, opening statements, presenting evidence, and closing arguments. Attendees will also gain practical insights into courtroom strategies and common pitfalls to avoid. Attendees can register at: https://njsba.com/njicle/cle-programs/welcome-to-the-profession-a-cle-event-for-recently-admitted-attorneys/
Dughi, Hewit and Domalewski P.C. is pleased to announce that Robert J. Brass, Esq., Of Counsel to the Firm, is moderating and speaking at the New Jersey State Bar Association’s Mid-Year Meeting, in Sorrento Italy, on Friday, October 17th.
Mr. Brass will moderate the program, which will cover a number of topics of interest to criminal law practitioners; and, he will speak on the topic of Criminal Motion Practice and Discovery Issues. Other speakers at the program will include U.S. District Court Judge the Hon. Evelyn Padin, Bergen County Prosecutor Mark Musella, Burlington County First Assistant Prosecutor Brenda Maneri, and other noted members of the bar.
The 2025 State Bar Mid-Year runs from October 12th thru October 18th, at the Sorrento Hilton; and, expects to have over 350 people in attendance.
Dughi, Hewit and Domalewski P.C. is pleased to announce that Robert J. Brass, Esq., Of Counsel to the Firm, has been appointed by New Jersey State Bar Association President Chistine A. Amalfe as Co-Chair of the New Jersey State Bar Association Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Advisory Standing Committee.
The CLE Advisory Committee facilitates the production and delivery of quality CLE programs and publications for the benefit of New Jersey attorneys generally and NJSBA members in particular. The Committee makes recommendations to the NJSBA Board of Trustees in connection with NJSBA’s CLE activities, including delivery of services, programming, pricing and budgetary issues. The Committee also monitors and oversees the NJSBA’s compliance with appropriate CLE rules to ensure the NJSBA maintains its CLE accreditation.
Investor fraud charges often stem from conduct regulators allege was intended to mislead investors or manipulate the market. What may seem like routine financial decisions can be framed as deceptive practices.
But fraud accusations are not just about potential financial harm to investors—they can lead to criminal charges, large fines, imprisonment, and lasting damage to your career and reputation.
Understanding the nuances of investor fraud and the specific actions that can lead to these allegations is critical. By gaining a clear picture of the legal landscape, you can better navigate the charges against you and develop a strategic defense tailored to your situation.
Fraud takes many forms, whether through misleading tactics or outright deception. It might seem like a tempting shortcut to financial success, but these practices can ensnare even the most cautious, savvy investors. Here are the most prevalent forms of investor fraud.
One of the most infamous forms of investor fraud, Ponzi schemes promise high returns with little risk. Returns are paid out to earlier investors with the capital from new ones rather than legitimate profit. Eventually, the scheme collapses when the stream of new investors dries up, leading to massive losses.
Like Ponzi schemes, these rely on recruiting new participants who are encouraged to recruit others, often selling a product or service. The model also collapses when recruiting slows.
Insider trading happens when someone uses confidential, non-public information to gain an unfair advantage in the market. Like having a secret playbook and using it to make deals other investors do not see coming, insider trading skews the playing field by giving a significant financial advantage to a privileged few.
By artificially inflating stock value with false or exaggerated claims and then selling when the price peaks, people executing these schemes “pump up” the stock price only to “dump” the shares before the price crashes.
This form of fraud targets specific, close-knit communities—like religious or ethnic groups—exploiting trust to offer what seems like exclusive investment opportunities. By highlighting a shared heritage, a false sense of credibility is created that makes the fraud harder for victims to detect.
Investor fraud carries serious legal consequences. Those responsible for the fraud may face fines, restitution, imprisonment, loss of professional licenses, and long-term reputational damage. However, the specific consequences depend on whether the alleged crimes are being tried as civil or criminal matters.
Civil cases aim to compensate victims financially, and plaintiffs only need to prove fraud by a “preponderance of evidence”—that it is more likely than not that fraud occurred. Penalties for civil judgments include financial restitution for investors and injunctions that prevent the accused from engaging in certain business practices in the future.
Criminal cases have a much higher burden of proof—beyond a reasonable doubt—and carry more severe consequences, such as heavier fines and imprisonment.
In some cases, civil and criminal cases occur simultaneously, allowing authorities to address fraud from multiple angles.
Several key agencies can play a role in uncovering fraudulent activities:
These agencies share information and combine resources and expertise to uncover fraud, protect investors, and uphold market integrity.
Fraud is often uncovered through investor complaints, routine regulatory audits, or monitoring systems flagging suspicious activity. Whistleblowers play a role, too, offering insider knowledge to help authorities zero in on fraud. Many agencies, including the SEC, offer incentives and protections to motivate whistleblower reports.
Once suspected fraud is revealed, investigators undertake a comprehensive audit to examine transactions, contracts, and business operations for further signs of deception. In the process, auditors assess accounting practices for regulatory compliance and interview key players like executives, employees, and investors.
If enough evidence is found to support charges, legal proceedings may follow.
When facing allegations of investor fraud, defendants employ several key strategies to challenge the prosecution’s case.
One of the most common defense strategies is arguing that the actions were not intended to intentionally mislead or defraud anyone but were the result of a misunderstanding, oversight, or honest mistake.
Example: A company executive accused of misleading investors might argue that discrepancies in financial projections resulted from unexpected market changes, not deliberate deception.
This can involve highlighting weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, questioning witness credibility, or disputing the accuracy of financial records.
Example: The defense may identify flaws in the government’s evidence, such as demonstrating that financial records were manipulated by others without the defendant’s knowledge.
Another powerful defense strategy is demonstrating compliance with existing financial regulations. By showing that all actions were in accordance with required financial disclosures, filings, and industry practices, the defendant can argue to have not committed fraud.
Example: A broker might present documentation that shows that the trades in question were properly reported and compliant with SEC regulations rather than evidence of alleged insider trading.
The good faith defense asserts that the accused acted based on the best information available at the time, without any intent to deceive investors. It highlights a belief that the actions were lawful.
Example: A financial advisor accused of promoting risky investments could argue that they genuinely believed the investments were based on accurate and credible information.
While these strategies can help individuals and organizations avoid liability, broader consequences often emerge. Fraud allegations can lead to increased regulatory scrutiny and stricter enforcement measures industry-wide.
Given the gravity of investor fraud charges and potential fall-out, it is important to have experienced legal counsel and a defense strategy tailored to your specific circumstances.
Whether you are an investor who has been impacted or someone accused of fraud, understanding your legal options is critical for protecting your interests.
At Dughi, Hewit & Domalewski, our experienced team is ready to aggressively fight investment fraud charges and ensure your preparation for every stage of the investigation and trial.
Reach out to learn more about our firm’s defense experience and schedule a consultation with our team today.
Dughi, Hewit and Domalewski P.C. is pleased to announce that Robert J. Brass, Esq., Of Counsel to the Firm, has been re-appointed by New Jersey State Bar Association President Chistine A. Amalfe as Co-Chair of the New Jersey State Bar Association Legal Education Committee.
The State Bar Association Legal Education Committee serves to recommend reforms in legal education and works to maintain and strengthen the working relationship between the State Bar Association and the three law schools in New Jersey: Seton Hall, Rutgers – Newark, and Rutgers – Camden.
After securing a directed verdict at the end of Plaintiff’s case for claims of intentional wrongdoing against all parties and a dismissal of the negligent treatment claims under the Covid Immunity statute against the doctor and nurse, Rachel Schwartz secured a defense verdict on behalf of the medical practice following a 9-day jury trial in Union County on the sole remaining claim for negligent disclosure of medical records. The jury returned a unanimous 8-0 defense verdict after less than 25 minutes of deliberation.
Plaintiff, a firefighter, presented to the defendant medical practitioners in April 2020, with Covid symptoms and tested positive for the virus. Despite the active symptoms following a Covid test, Plaintiff returned to work in violation of fire department guidelines. Plaintiff denied Covid symptoms. The fire department requested copies of the Covid test results and the medical practice staff provided both the medical records of the visit as well as the Covid-19 test results, which revealed both active Covid symptoms and a positive test result. Plaintiff was disciplined for returning to work with active Covid symptoms and claimed he was forced to retire. Plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging that the defendants inaccurately recorded his complaints to include multiple, severe Covid symptoms (which he contended did not exist) and improperly disclosed medical records.
Through both cross examination and affirmative evidence, Ms. Schwartz presented a persuasive defense of a lack of any basis for the claims of intentional conduct. After the close of the Plaintiff’s case, the Court found there was no evidence to support the claims of intentional wrongdoing and granted a directed verdict on the intentional torts. Following dismissal of the intentional tort claims, the Court then ruled that the New Jersey Covid Immunity barred any claims for negligent treatment and dismissed the claims that the defendants had inaccurately recorded Plaintiffs’ symptoms. The jury returned a unanimous defense verdict on the sole remaining claim that the group defendant had negligently disclosed medical records.
This case presented unique Covid Immunity issues, requiring Ms. Schwartz to distinguish between medical treatment and non-treatment conduct and to make a persuasive defense that established there was not a scintilla of evidence to support Plaintiffs’ allegations of intentional conduct.
Amelia R. Lyte, an associate with Dughi, Hewit & Domalewski, P.C., provided invaluable support to Ms. Schwartz throughout the trial.
As part of the State of New Jersey’s new budget, (i) tax rates will increase on certain high-value real estate transactions, and (ii) responsibility for the State of New Jersey “Mansion Tax” will shift from the Buyer to the Seller.
Multimillion dollar real property sales in New Jersey will be subject to higher fees. The tax used to be paid by homebuyers, who were charged a 1% transfer tax upon buying a home worth $1 million or more. Taking effect on all agreements beginning on July 10, 2025, this new bill will shift the burden of this tax from property buyers to sellers.
This bill also changes the transfer tax rates on more expensive real property sales. For sales worth $1 million to $2 million, the tax remains at 1%. However, beginning at sales between $2 million and $2.5 million, the fee goes up to 2%. It then increases to 2.5% for sales between $2.5 million and $3 million. From $3 million to $3.5 million, it increases again to 3%. And finally, for properties sold for $3.5 million or more, the rate tops out at 3.5%.
This new tax applies to residential real estate, as well as commercial properties, farm properties, and other forms of real property, as well as property interests. There are exemptions to the tax, for entities which are deemed to be tax-exempt under the IRS, as well as for incidental transfers of property due to corporate acquisitions and mergers.
Lori C. Duffy, Esq. handles commercial and residential real estate matters and is available to help answer any specific questions you may have regarding these changes to New Jersey law. Please contact Ms. Duffy with any questions.
