Former Pennsylvania Department Of General Services Worker Charged With Theft
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Michael A. Gantz, age 43, of Marietta, Pennsylvania, was charged in a criminal Information with theft concerning programs receiving federal funds. If convicted of the offense, Gantz faces up to ten years’ imprisonment and $250,000 in fines, as well as restitution. A plea agreement was also filed whereby Mr. Gantz has indicated he will enter a guilty plea to the charge when he appears in federal court for his arraignment.
According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, Gantz was employed by the Pennsylvania Department of General Services until July 2014 and was an acquisition officer in the surplus property warehouse. In that position, Gantz had access to surplus military equipment which the federal government had provided the Pennsylvania Department of General Services for distribution to state and local law enforcement officers. The Information alleges that Gantz stole 610 U.S. Military combat helmets between July 2009 and January 2010 which were valued in excess of $5,000.
The case was investigated by the U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Criminal Investigation Service and the Defense Logistics Agency, Office of Inspector General. It is assigned to Senior Litigation Counsel Bruce Brandler for prosecution.
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 ten years imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a $250,000 fine, as well as restituition. 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.