Former Vice President At Harrisburg Area Community College Charged With Wire Fraud
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced the filing of an Information in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg today charging Nancy Rockey, age 55, of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with wire fraud.
According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, Rockey, was employed by Harrisburg Area Community College (HACC) from 1980 until her resignation in February 2012. At the time of her resignation, Rockey was Vice-President of the Harrisburg campus and Vice-President of College and Community Development.
In connection with her position, HACC provided Rockey with a HACC credit card to be used to purchase work-related items such as text books, training materials and other educational items.
Rockey is charged with using the HACC credit card to make online purchases of Target gift cards which she then used to purchase non-work-related items for herself, her family and her friends. It is alleged that Rockey created bogus invoices, later submitted to the HACC Finance Office, to conceal the unauthorized purchases.
Rockey is charged with purchasing $228,000 worth of gift cards with her HACC credit card.
The investigation was conducted by the FBI and the Dauphin County Criminal Investigations Division. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph J. Terz.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office also filed a plea agreement which must be approved by the District Court.
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 20 years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a 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.