Due to the lapse in appropriations, Department of Justice websites will not be regularly updated. The Department’s essential law enforcement and national security functions will continue. Please refer to the Department of Justice’s contingency plan for more information.

You are here

Justice News

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

Monday, March 23, 2015

New York Man Charged With Possession Of Counterfeit Money And Fraudulent Credit Cards

The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, announced that on Friday, March 20, 2015, federal criminal charges in U.S. District Court in Scranton were filed against Robert Cagle, age 50, Bronx, New York.

According to U.S. Attorney Peter Smith, a criminal information was filed charging Cagle with access device fraud and aggravated identity theft.  Allegedly, in April 2014, Pennsylvania State Police conducted a search of a disabled vehicle on Interstate 81.  Cagle, a passenger in the vehicle, was allegedly found to be in possession of counterfeit $100 bills and fraudulent credit/debit cards.  The government also filed a plea agreement with the defendant which is subject to approval by the court.

The investigation was conducted by the U.S. Secret Service and the Pennsylvania State Police. Prosecution is assigned to Assistant United States Attorney Michelle Olshefski.

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 maximum penalty under the federal statute is 12 years imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a $500,000 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.

Criminal Complaint

Updated April 20, 2015