State v. Joseph Diorio (069597)
216 N.J. 598
| N.J. | 2014Background
- In 1999 Diorio, with Menadier and Fava, formed Packed Fresh Produce, Inc. (PFP) and used false financial information to obtain a favorable industry credit rating, then ordered produce on credit and diverted product/proceeds to related businesses.
- PFP paid promptly at first to build credit, then increased order volume and stopped paying suppliers; last known orders were January 11–12, 2000; suppliers placed holds and PFP’s bank account was closed January 2000.
- Diorio deposited and moved funds among business and personal accounts; notable post-order transactions include a Feb. 4, 2000 deposit to PFP’s account and a Mar. 17, 2000 $45,000 cash transfer from Diorio to Menadier used to settle a creditor claim.
- A Monmouth County grand jury indicted Diorio (and others) on Feb. 1, 2005 for, inter alia, second-degree theft by deception and first-degree money laundering; Diorio moved to dismiss as time-barred by the five-year statute of limitations.
- The trial court and Appellate Division treated both offenses as continuing offenses; Diorio was convicted and sentenced. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification to decide the statute-of-limitations questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether theft by deception (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4) is a continuing offense for limitations purposes | State: theft by deception can be continuous when part of a single scheme and statute permits aggregation | Diorio: Legislature did not expressly make theft continuous; offense focuses on discrete acts | Held: Theft by deception is a continuing offense when perpetrated as a single scheme to obtain property by deception |
| If continuous, when does limitations period begin for theft-by-deception tied to credit sales? | State: limitations run until suppliers refuse further credit; last acts extended into Feb. 2000/2001 | Diorio: limitations began when PFP received the last shipment (Jan. 12, 2000) | Held: When property is obtained on credit, the theft is not complete until payment is due and unpaid; limitations run from day after payment due (here: Jan. 27, 2000), so theft charge was time‑barred |
| Whether money laundering (N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25) is a continuing offense | State: statute’s broad sweep and aggregation permit treating successive laundering acts as one continuing course | Diorio: statute/language don’t show continuous nature; March 2000 deposit didn’t launder via PFP account and is untimely | Held: Money laundering may be continuous only if there is evidence of successive acts that facilitate/promote a common scheme; here the Mar. 17, 2000 $45,000 transaction facilitated the scheme and fell within limitations |
| Whether March 2000 $45,000 transfer constitutes money laundering facilitating the scheme | State: it facilitated concealment/settlement enabling Diorio to retain scheme proceeds | Diorio: transfer was of earlier-acquired funds and did not launder through PFP accounts | Held: The cash transfer enabled Diorio to retain proceeds and promoted the ongoing fraud; it constituted timely money-laundering conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) (test for when an offense may be treated as continuing for limitations purposes)
- Weleck v. State, 10 N.J. 355 (1952) (New Jersey discussion of continuing official-misconduct offenses)
- State v. Diorio, 422 N.J. Super. 445 (App. Div. 2011) (appellate opinion affirming convictions and treating offenses as continuing)
- State v. Childs, 242 N.J. Super. 121 (App. Div. 1990) (theft-by-deception held continuing when part of a scheme)
- State v. Rodgers, 230 N.J. Super. 593 (App. Div. 1989) (theft completed when defendant obtained funds via deception)
- State v. Harris, 373 N.J. Super. 253 (App. Div. 2004) (broad construction of New Jersey money-laundering statute and aggregation of transactions)