Luzerne County Man Charged With Jewelry Store Robberies, Bank Robbery And Insurance Fraud

     The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Kirk Robinson, age 45, of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, was charged by a federal grand jury in Scranton Tuesday, with allegedly being involved in two Luzerne County jewelry store robberies, a bank robbery, as well as, an insurance fraud scheme. 

     According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, Robinson allegedly conspired with others to carry firearms in connection with the robbery of Steve Hydock Diamonds Jewelry store, Kingston, Pennsylvania, on May 5, 2008 and Dunay Jewelry store, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, on May 14, 2008.  He was also charged with the involvement in an armed $17,000 bank robbery of the M&T Bank, Hanover Township, occurring on October 30, 2010. The indictment alleges that Robinson acted as a planner and getaway driver in those robberies. Additionally, the Grand Jury charged Robinson with a mail fraud scheme involving a fake jewelry robbery staged to fraudulently obtain $43,000 from an insurance company in 2009.

     The case was investigated by the FBI, and the Kingston, Hanover Township and Wilkes-Barre Police Departments. Prosecution has been assigned to Assistant United States Attorney John C. Gurganus.

     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 particular case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is life 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.