Skip to main content
Press Release

Operator Of Northeastern Pennsylvania Check Cashing Business Charged In Stolen Identity Tax Refund Fraud Case

For Immediate Release
U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Pennsylvania

SCRANTON - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Diomedes Rodriguez-Nunez, age 27, of Allentown was charged in a Criminal Information filed January 15, 2016 in federal court in Scranton with conspiracy to make false claims against the government. 

According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, the Information alleges that Rodriguez-Nunez operated Dio Multiservices in Taylor, Pennsylvania, and that co-conspirators of Rodriguez-Nunez used the identities of unknowing third parties to prepare and file fraudulent federal income tax returns.  The Information also alleges that Rodriguez-Nunez deposited and cashed fraudulently obtained tax refund checks totaling more than $100,000 between July and September 2013. 

The government also filed a plea agreement with the defendant which is subject to the approval of the court.

The charge is the result of an ongoing investigation by the Scranton Office of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation with assistance from the Pennsylvania State Police, the Hazelton, Taylor, Dickson, Dunmore and Olyphant Police Departments, and the Lackawanna and Luzerne County District Attorneys’ Offices.  The case is assigned to Assistant United States Attorney William Houser for prosecution.

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 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.


# # #

Updated February 4, 2016