State v. Joseph Diorio (A-110-11; 069597)

State v. Joseph Diorio (A-110-11; 069597)

 For purposes of the statute of limitations, when a
defendant engages in a scheme to obtain the property
of another by deception, theft by deception is a
continuing offense. If the scheme involves the
promise to pay at a later date, the limitations period
does not commence until the day after payment is due.
Money laundering is a continuous offense only when
there is evidence of successive acts that facilitate
the common scheme to defraud. Applying these
principles here, the statute of limitations on the
theft by deception charge expired prior to return of
the indictment, thereby barring Diorio’s prosecution
for that offense. In contrast, the money laundering
charge was timely since the relevant transactions
occurred within five years before the indictment was
filed. 2-12-14