You are here

Justice News

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Middle District of Pennsylvania

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Harrisburg Couple Charged With Counterfeit U.S. Currency Offenses

     The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Richard Thomas Kramer, age 23, and Kristina Lynn Gates, age 21, both of Harrisburg were indicted today and charged with counterfeiting offenses.  Specifically, Kramer was charging with both manufacturing counterfeit obligations of the United States and passing counterfeit obligations of the United States.  Gates was charged with passing counterfeit obligations of the United States.

     According to U.S. Attorney Peter Smith, in August of this year, the couple began passing counterfeit $20 bills at businesses throughout Dauphin County in Pennsylvania.  It was later determined that Kramer was manufacturing the counterfeit $20 Federal Reserve notes.  If convicted, Kramer faces 40 years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to $500,000.  Gates faces 20 years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to $250,000.

     This case is being investigated by the United States Secret Service, the Pennsylvania State Police and the Susquehanna Township Police Department, and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Daryl F. Bloom.

     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.

     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.                            

****
Updated April 9, 2015