New York Man Indicted On Mail Theft, Bank Fraud, Identity Theft, And Conspiracy Charges
HARRISBURG - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that on May 29, 2020, Marlon Valoy De La Rosa, age 21, of Bronx, New York was indicted by a federal grand jury on mail theft, attempted bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and criminal conspiracy charges.
According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, the indictment alleges that on January 4, 2020 in the borough of Steelton, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, De La Rosa along with two other individuals, tampered with a U.S. Mail blue collection box using a white rope with an object attached to it to “fish” into the mailbox’s opening.
The indictment also alleges that De La Rosa, along with two other individuals, were in possession of what appeared to be a “washed” check—a check from which the writing had been visibly removed—several debit cards in different names, and a stolen license plate that is believed to have been used for mail fishing.
The case was investigated by the United States Postal Inspection Service and the Steelton Borough Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ravi Romel Sharma is prosecuting the case.
Indictments 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 attempted bank fraud is punishable by up to 30 years’ imprisonment. Mail theft and conspiracy are each punishable by up to five years in prison. Aggravated identity theft carries a mandatory two-year sentence consecutive to sentences imposed for other offenses. All three charges may also carry a fine and a term of supervised release following imprisonment. 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.
# # #