Adams County Man Pleads Guilty To Making False Claims To IRS
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Mitchell Orewiler, age 34, of Adams County, pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Court Judge Sylvia Rambo in Harrisburg, to making false claims with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, on or about April 14, 2009, Orewiler filed a 2007 tax return in which he falsely claimed federal income tax had been withheld on interest he had earned. In his 2007 tax return, Orewiler requested a refund of approximately $288,000 to which he knew he was not entitled. The IRS sent Orewiler the $288,000 refund.
Orewiler was indicted by a federal grand jury in March 2014, as a result of an investigation by the IRS. Edward Wirth, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, said “As we rapidly approach the April 15th filing deadline, it is important for the public to note the ramifications of filing false and fictitious federal income tax returns. The Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation and the United States Attorney’s office are committed to aggressively pursuing those who attempt to enrich themselves at the expense of the American public.”
The government also filed a plea agreement in the case, which is subject to approval by the court. Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph J. Terz is prosecuting the case.
Indictments and Criminal Informations are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.
A sentence following a finding of guilty is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
In this case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is 5 years imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a $250,000 fine. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant’s educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.