Lawyer Tied to Trump Pardon Charged in Extortion Plot

Joshua Nass, a New York lobbyist and attorney with connections to a Donald Trump presidential pardon, has been charged with attempting to extort a former client and the client's son over an alleged $500,000 debt. Nass, 34, was arrested on Friday after being charged in federal court in Brooklyn with attempted Hobbs Act extortion. US justice department prosecutors contend that Nass threatened the client for payment that he claimed he was owed for his services.

Nass played a role in the November 2020 pardon of David Correia, a man convicted of failing to pay $40 million in taxes. Correia was one of four men, including Rudy Giuliani associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, charged with campaign finance violations. Nass represented Correia and sought a pardon for him from the Trump administration.

{{IMAGE_PLACEHOLDER}}

The charges against Nass stem from an alleged $600,000 extortion plot involving a former client. Prosecutors say Nass threatened the client and the client's son, demanding payment for legal work he claimed he had performed. Nass allegedly used intimidation tactics, including threatening to file false criminal complaints, to pressure the client into paying the debt.

This is not the first time Nass has faced legal troubles. In 2019, he was charged with securities fraud for an alleged pump-and-dump scheme involving a cannabis company. Those charges were later dismissed, but the case highlighted Nass's history of questionable business practices.

{{IMAGE_PLACEHOLDER}}

The Trump pardon connection has added an additional layer of controversy to the case. Nass's involvement in securing a pardon for a convicted tax evader raises questions about the integrity of the pardon process and the potential for abuse. The Department of Justice has made it clear that it will not tolerate any attempts to use the criminal justice system for personal gain.

As the case unfolds, it will be important to closely examine Nass's ties to the Trump administration and the role he played in the pardon process. The outcome of this case could have broader implications for the transparency and accountability of the presidential pardon system.