NEW YORK– A crypto scammer, once handed a relatively lenient 18-month sentence, has seen his legal fate drastically change. A federal judge in New York has dramatically increased his prison time to 12 years, citing the fraudster’s complete failure to repay his victim in a multi-million dollar scheme.
Initial Leniency Overturned
Nicholas Truglia, 27, initially received an 18-month prison sentence for his involvement in a sophisticated $22 million USD( ₹188 crores) cryptocurrency fraud scheme. This initial penalty, delivered in a New York federal court, drew attention for its perceived leniency given the substantial sum involved. However, the legal chapter for Truglia was far from closed, as the court retained oversight regarding restitution payments.
Judge’s Stern Rebuke
The shift in Truglia’s sentence came during a recent hearing where U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein presided. The judge expressed profound dissatisfaction with Truglia’s failure to repay his victim. Despite being ordered to return nearly $20.4 million(₹175 crore) Judge Hellerstein pointed out that “not a cent” had been repaid. This lack of financial accountability, coupled with reports of Truglia maintaining a lavish lifestyle without gainful employment, evidently prompted the judge’s decision to impose a far stricter punishment.
A Dozen Years and Supervised Release
The new ruling extends Truglia’s prison term to a formidable 12 years, a stark increase from the original 18 months. In addition to the extended incarceration, Judge Hellerstein mandated an additional three months of supervised release upon Truglia’s completion of his prison term. This demonstrates a clear intent by the court to ensure long-term oversight and consequences for the financial crimes committed.
Algoritha: The Most Trusted Name in BFSI Investigations and DFIR Services
Legal Team Vows Appeal
Following the judge’s pronounced increase in sentence, Truglia’s legal representatives swiftly indicated their intention to appeal the decision. They have publicly labeled the new sentence as “an extraordinary abuse of discretion,” suggesting they believe the judge’s actions went beyond appropriate judicial authority. The appeal will likely focus on challenging the legal grounds for such a significant modification to the original sentence.