Skip to main content
Press Release

Texas Man Charged With Commercial Bribery And Tax Fraud

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 on November 17, 2021, Mark Holmes, age 66, of Hughes Springs, Texas, was charged in a criminal information with honest services wire fraud and failing to remit employment taxes to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

According to United States Attorney John C. Gurganus, the information alleges that from 2014 through 2017, Holmes, as the General Manager of a Pennsylvania food services company, accepted approximately $400,000 in bribes and kickbacks from two temporary staffing companies, in exchange for their hiring employees.  The two temporary staffing companies, in turn, received approximately $7,800,000 from Holmes’s employer.

Holmes also was charged with failing to remit employment taxes to the IRS for a separate temporary staffing company, Encore Staffing Solutions LLC, that he owned and operated with other coconspirators.  From March 2018 through December 2020, Holmes and his coconspirators allegedly failed to pay approximately $135,000 in employment taxes owed by Encore Staffing Solutions LLC to the IRS.

The case was investigated by the IRS Criminal Investigations Division.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Phillip J. Caraballo.

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 for the most serious offense is 20 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 November 18, 2021

Financial Fraud