Bilecki Traces Soldier’s Investment and Repayment Records; Larceny Investigation Ends Without Charges

Bilecki Traces Soldier’s Investment and Repayment Records; Larceny Investigation Ends Without Charges

November 2025

MSAB, Jordan / Fort Drum, New York

Army Sergeant First Class – E-7

Allegations: UCMJ Article 121 Larceny of Private Funds; Improper Financial Relationship with a Junior Soldier; Improper Use of Rank for Personal Gain; Compromising Supervisory Authority

Facts

A retirement-eligible Sergeant First Class deployed in the Middle East was being worked as a larceny case that looked like it could end in court-martial. Tim Bilecki kept it out of charges, out of NJP, and out of the GOMOR lane.

When Bilecki took the case on, our client was serving in a senior personnel role in support of Task Force Syria in Iraq and Jordan. The allegations centered on a Philadelphia renovation project and money two Soldiers had sent toward that project. The government's theory was that she had stolen roughly $12,000 from one Soldier, another $5,000 from a junior Soldier, and used her position as a senior NCO to turn those transactions into personal gain.

That was the government's version of the story.

The actual facts were more complicated. The money was tied to a real estate renovation project and to a broader personal-finance and cryptocurrency discussion group that included Soldiers from different sections and ranks. The contributions were presented as at-risk capital, not guaranteed loans. The project then got hit with vandalism, theft, cost overruns, and delays. Throughout that period, updates were provided, site photos were shared, and when concerns arose, money started going back before notification of the investigation.

That mattered because the government was trying to force a criminal larceny theory onto facts that did not fit. There were no completed bank subpoenas tracing the money into personal use spending. There was no forensic accounting showing the kind of diversion you would expect in a real theft case. There was no clear evidence that rank had been used to pressure anyone, promise anyone anything, or turn the relationship into some obvious abuse of authority. One of the Soldiers had already been repaid in full before notification of the investigation. Those are not small details. Those are the details that determine whether a case is really criminal or whether it is being pushed too far.

Tim Bilecki got involved while the matter was still being worked as a criminal case and put it where it belonged. We pushed back on the larceny theory, the personal-gain theory, and the idea that this was some straightforward abuse-of-rank case. We showed the command what the discovery actually did and did not prove. We showed that this looked far more like a failed and delayed investment project mixed with bad judgment than a criminal theft case. We also made sure the command had the full picture of who this Soldier was: retirement eligible, a long record of honorable service, selected for positions of trust, and still deployed in the Middle East when this was unfolding.

That changed the posture of the case.

What started as a court-martial investigation did not turn into charges. It did not result in NJP. It did not result in a GOMOR. For a retirement-eligible senior NCO being looked at through a criminal lens while deployed in the Middle East, that mattered.

Result: Court-martial investigation ended with no preferral, no NJP, and no GOMOR.

---

FAQ

Q: What supported Bilecki's argument that this was an investment dispute?
The money went into a real renovation project with documented setbacks, shared updates and photographs. Repayments had begun before notice of the investigation, and one participant had been repaid in full. Bilecki used that sequence and the available financial record to challenge both theft and abuse of rank.

Q: Did the government have to obtain bank records or prove personal spending?
No particular forensic method is required to prove larceny, and repayment does not undo a completed theft. Bilecki's argument concerned the actual gaps in this investigation and the evidence supporting the investment account. No charges, NJP or GOMOR followed.