Philadelphia Men Convicted Of Mail Fraud And Identity Theft

HARRISBURG—The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Nana Mensah, age 34, and Patrick Barkers-Woode, age 27, both of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were convicted on November 22, 2019, on fifteen counts of mail fraud, four counts of aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy to commit mail fraud and aggravated identity theft after a three-day trial before U.S. District Court Judge Yvette Kane.

According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, Mensah and Barkers-Woode, along with other co-conspirators, some located in West Africa, were involved in an international scheme in which co-conspirators would obtain the personal identification information of identity theft victims and use that information to purchase cellular phones.  The conspirators would have the products delivered to homes which appeared vacant.  They would then track the delivery of the packages on line, pick up the packages, and eventually resell them.  The evidence showed that the conspiracy involved over 270 packages containing over 830 cell phones, valued at over $595,000.  The conspiracy took advantage of well over 100 victims. 

The case was investigated by Homeland Security Investigations, the Pennsylvania State Police, the Delaware State Police, and the Derry Township Police Department.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Scott R. Ford and Christian Haugsby prosecuted the case.  

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.

As a result of their convictions, the defendants face a total of 333 years in prison, fines of up to $5,250,000, as well as restitution.  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.       

# # #