You are here

Justice News

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

Monday, February 27, 2017

Luzerne County Man Charged With Bank Fraud

SCRANTON – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Scott Capparell, age 46, of Drums, Pennsylvania, the former administrator of Heritage Mills Personal Care, Inc. (“HMPC”), was charged in a criminal information on February 23, 2017, with committing bank fraud.


According to United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, Capparell worked from April 2013 through July 2016 as the administrator of HMPC, which provides personal care services to its residents. During that time period, it is alleged that Capparell diverted $394,517 worth of HMPC residents’ monthly rent checks to an account at PNC Bank under Capparell’s control, instead of to the HMPC account at Mid Penn Bank. Capparell allegedly withdrew all of the diverted funds for his use and the use of other unnamed individuals. To conceal the scheme, Capparell allegedly lied to HMPC owners and managers, and falsified HMPC’s books and records.


The government also filed a plea agreement which is subject to approval of the court. A date for Capparell’s initial appearance has not been set.


The investigation was conducted by special agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Phillip J. Caraballo is prosecuting the case.


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 guilt is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.


The maximum penalty under federal law for the charge is 30 years of 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.


# # #

Financial Fraud
Updated February 27, 2017