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