Criminal Trial Practice

Examples of Mr. Benice’s criminal trial practice include:

United States v. Vanderhoof
Jeffrey S. Benice currently represents a defendant in an alleged medical fraud proceeding in Pennsylvania.

United States v. Singhal
Jeffrey S. Benice currently represents a defendant in an alleged fraudulent scheme to steal funds from the State of Arkansas. The trial is pending in Arkansas.

United States v. Schultz
Jeffrey S. Benice represented a defendant in the United States District Court, Central District of California charged with wire fraud and theft in excess of over $2,000,000 from a former employer.

United States v. Gonzalez, et al.
Jeffrey S. Benice represents a defendant in a 30 defendant conspiracy case pending in the United States District Court, Central District of California. Mr. Benice’s client is charged with conspiracy to distribute in excess of $10 million of cocaine and laundering millions of dollars as an agent of the Sinaloa drug cartel.

People vs. Farah
Jeffrey S. Benice successfully represented an individual charged with felony grand theft of over $2,000,000 allegedly stolen during the construction of several custom homes in Newport Beach, California. Mr. Benice demonstrated that the District Attorney’s expert loss calculation was seriously flawed and negotiated a no jail time resolution including no restitution order.

People vs. Anderson
Jeffrey S. Benice represented a construction company owner charged with felony Worker’s Compensation fraud in Los Angeles Superior court. The matter was resolved with a plea agreement and no incarceration.

People vs. ServiceMaster, et al.
Jeffrey S. Benice represented ServiceMaster and its executives, a fire damage and flood abatement company, charged in the Superior Court of San Bernardino with 46 felony counts of insurance and worker’s compensation fraud; ServiceMaster was accused of wrongfully obtaining in excess of $10,000,000 of insurance proceeds. After completion of a 5 day preliminary hearing and before trial, all felony charges against the defendant ServiceMaster executives were dismissed.