Giuliani can't be tried for fraud because the 5-year statute of limitations expired

[antiimperialist]

I am sad because the statute of limitations prohibits sending to jail someone who is guilty of the crime that Rudy Giuliani probably committed in providing police cars to Judy Nathan to take her shopping. This happened in 2000 (probably in 99 according to a law enforcement source).

I have lived in the Bronx and I have worked since 1999, so I would have loved to get my money back, or at least seen this guy prosecuted to determine if he had to go to jail or pay some huge fine, because the New York Post once spoke about Rudy's love trysts potentially costing the city $200,000. The Daily News has simply spoken about "Thousands".

"If Nathan was provided police protection prior to their being a security-threat assessment, it probably was an illegal use of city resources," said Dick Dadey of Citizens Union.

But Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau and others said that the state law's five-year statute of limitations would make impossible any prosecution for actions in 2000.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/08/2007-12-08_rudy_ducks_questions_on_judis_car_use-1.html

[nebenaube]

1. and how many times

Have I heard that the statute of limitations does not start until the crime is discovered?

[terisan]

2. Yes plus if he did this, there is probably more and his recent business dealings may qualify for

prosecution.

I suspect he thought he was teflon-coated and may have been careless about covering his business tracks.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Does the statute of limitations start when the fraud is discovered?

[antiimperialist]

4. I don't think so. I think it's when the crime was committed regardless of timing of discovery

I remember that Alan Placa, Rudy's buddy, who was a priest, avoided jail because the confession of the children came decades after he allegedly touched their private parts. The evidence against Placa was very strong, but the statute of limitations kept him from falling.