Harrisburg Man Charged Federally With Use Of The Telephone And Text Messaging To Entice A Minor To Engage In Sexual Activity
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, along with Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane and Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan announced that a federal grand jury in Harrisburg returned an indictment today charging Matthew Baratucci, age 29, of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for attempted coercion and enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity.
According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, the charge resulted from Baratucci allegedly soliciting several women via the telephone and text messaging in October 2013, to allow him to engage in sexual activity with minor females aged five through nine years old. Baratucci is also facing state charges related to the alleged incidents.
The case is the result of a joint investigation by the United States Postal Inspection Service, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, the Pennsylvania State Police, and the Lower Paxton Police Department.
Anyone with information about this case or the defendant, Matthew Baratucci, is asked to contact U.S. Postal Inspector Michael Corricelli at 717-257-5581.
Prosecution is assigned to 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.
In this case, the minimum penalty under the federal statute is ten years’ imprisonment and the maximum is life imprisonment, term of supervised release following imprisonment of up to life, 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.