What exactly does New York Penal Law §175.10 say and how has it been applied historically?
Executive summary
New York Penal Law §175.10 makes falsifying business records a felony when the actor commits the misdemeanor offense defined in §175.05 and does so with an intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime; otherwise falsifying business records is a misdemeanor under §175.05 (class A misdemeanor) while §175.10 is a class E felony (first degree) [1] [2] [3]. Courts and commentators have long treated §175.10 as a gateway felony that elevates routine record-falsification into a serious crime only when prosecutors can link the falsification to another criminal objective, and that elevation has been a focal point in recent high-profile prosecutions and litigation over scope and proof [4] [1] [5].
1. What the statute actually says: elements and grading
The text and official summaries explain that a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when that person commits the crime set out in §175.05 (making, altering, erasing, omitting, or preventing true entries in business records with intent to defraud) and when that intent to defraud “includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof,” thereby elevating the offense from a misdemeanor to a class E felony [6] [3] [1].
2. How prosecutors use the two-tier structure in practice
New York’s law intentionally separates §175.05 (second degree, misdemeanor) from §175.10 (first degree, felony) so prosecutors can charge routine book‑keeping fraud as a misdemeanor but pursue felony exposure when there is a reasonable theory that the record falsification furthered or concealed an additional crime; scholars and practice guides note prosecutors have employed the statute thousands of times and rely on its ability to attach to underlying criminality [4] [1].
3. Key judicial interpretations and contested elements
New York courts have emphasized that the prosecution must prove the defendant acted with the requisite “intent to defraud,” which courts have construed to include intent to commit or conceal another crime, but litigation focuses on what counts as “another crime” and whether the fraud must target a particular victim or can be aimed at the government or the public at large — a contested issue raised repeatedly in appellate briefing [7] [5].
4. Notable applications and recent attention
The statute resurfaced in public debate with high‑profile indictments alleging falsified business records used to conceal payments tied to political activity; commentators and defense lawyers argue about whether a state felony may rest on conduct that mirrors or depends on federal election statutes, while others note the statute’s long history of use by New York prosecutors in varied contexts [4] [1] [5].
5. Penalties, defenses, and legislative tweaks
First‑degree falsifying business records is a class E felony punishable by up to several years in prison — commentators contrast that with longer sentences for other financial felonies and caution that the statute often serves as an adjunct to more serious charges; the law also recognizes an affirmative defense for low‑level clerks who merely followed orders without personal benefit, and legislators have proposed amendments to expand felonies in specific contexts such as law‑enforcement false reporting [8] [2] [9].
6. Broader implications and divergent perspectives
Prosecutors and victim‑advocates see §175.10 as a necessary tool to punish sophisticated fraud that uses bookkeeping as a cloak, while defense lawyers and some scholars warn that expansive readings risk criminalizing ordinary corporate or campaign recordkeeping mistakes or importing federal crime definitions into state law; authoritative surveys and recent scholarship call for careful judicial construction of “intent to commit another crime” to avoid overbroad application [1] [5] [4].