New York Men Charged With Federal Access Device Fraud

HARRISBURG - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that a federal grand jury in Harrisburg returned an indictment yesterday against Vernal Moffet, age 29, of Queens, New York, Rushane Kennedy, age 23, of Rosedale, New York and Shavouy Paisley, age 24 of Queens, New York.  The indictment charges the three men with possession of unauthorized access devices and criminal conspiracy to possess unauthorized access devices.

According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, Moffet, Kennedy and Paisley were stopped in Cumberland County in September 2014 by Hampden Township Police Department  after making suspicious purchases at CVS and Rite Aid establishments located on Carlisle Pike in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. The police seized more than 100 counterfeit Visa cards from the vehicle the three men had been traveling in, along with gift cards.

During the investigation, the United States Secret Service determined the account numbers associated with the magnetic strips on the cards belonged to account holders from dozens of banks and institutions across the country.  After reviewing bank records, the Secret Service identified more than a half a dozen retail establishments on the Carlisle Pike where the defendants attempted or made purchases using these unauthorized account numbers.

This investigation is being conducted by the United States Secret Service and the Hampden Township Police Department and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Meredith A. Taylor.

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 is 10 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.

# # #