Monroe County Man Enters Guilty Plea To Filing Of False ERISA Documents
The United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District Pennsylvania announced that on September 26, 2013, Charles A. Poalillo, Jr., age 80, of Monroe County, Pennsylvania, entered a guilty plea to the charge of filing false documents with the Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service.
According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, Poalillo was the former owner of Penn Hills Lodge, Inc., a Pocono honeymoon resort located in Analomink, Pennsylvania. While he operated Penn Hills Lodge and related businesses, Poalillo borrowed approximately $1 million from two pension funds. He was charged with falsely reporting the security of these assets to the United States Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service. Pursuant to a guilty plea agreement filed with the information, Poalillo agreed to attempt to make full restitution by the time of sentencing.
On September 26, 2013, Poalillo entered the guilty plea to the offense before Senior U.S. District Court Judge Edwin Kosik.
The United States Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration and the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General, Office of Labor Racketeering and Fraud Investigations, conducted the investigation. The Monroe County District Attorney’s Office initiated the investigation and assisted the federal authorities. Prosecution is assigned to Assistant United States Attorney Michael A. Consiglio.
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 these particular cases, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is five years of imprisonment and 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.
* * * *