Former Mount Airy Casino Resort Employee Charged With Money Laundering Conspiracy
SCRANTON - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Ashley Brosius, age 30, of Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, a former player coordinator for the Mount Airy Casino Resort, was charged on July 5, 2017, in a criminal information with conspiracy to commit money laundering.
According to United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, the information alleges that Brosius and an unindicted co-conspirator defrauded the Mount Airy Casino Resort by engaging in a money laundering scheme involving the use of stolen names and PINs (personal identification numbers) that were tied to players’ club cards. It is alleged that with the assistance of an unindicted co-conspirator, Brosius used the stolen information to create duplicate player club cards, which she then loaded with “free slot play” credits. The fraudulently created cards were then given to the unindicted co-conspirator to gamble with, primarily at slot machines. The criminal information also alleges that the scheme began in November 2014 and continued to November 2015, and that the fraudulent free play amounted to approximately $140,000.
The case was investigated by the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations and the Pennsylvania State Police. Assistant United States Attorney Michelle Olshefski is prosecuting the case.
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.
The maximum penalty under the federal law for this offense is 20 years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a $500,000 fine. The crime also carries a term of supervised release following imprisonment. 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.
# # #