Three New York City Men Plead Guilty To Possession Of Counterfeit Credit Cards
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that 3 New York City men pleaded guilty today in United States District Court in Harrisburg, before Senior U.S. District Court Judge William J. Caldwell to charges they possessed 62 counterfeit credit cards.
According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, Danillo Vargas, age 26, Jeriel Delosangeles, age 25, and Miguel Almonte, age 22, all from the Bronx, NY, pleaded guilty to an Indictment in July of 2014 charging them with one count of possession of 15 or more counterfeit or unauthorized access devices.
The trio was arrested on November 19, 2013, following a PA State Police traffic stop for speeding on Route 30 near Hellam Township, York County. A consent search of the defendants’ vehicle yielded 26 counterfeit Mastercard, American Express and Visa credit cards plus a counterfeit Florida driver’s license. A subsequent search of the vehicle pursuant to a search warrant yielded another 36 counterfeit credit cards and a counterfeit Connecticut driver’s license. The drivers licenses bore the photographs of Almonte and Vargas. Fifty-Four of the 62 counterfeit credit cards were in Almonte’s name. The government’s investigation revealed no charges had been incurred on any of the counterfeit credit cards.
No date was set by Judge Caldwell for sentencing.
The investigation was conducted by the U.S. Secret Service and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Kim Douglas Daniel.
A sentence following a finding of guilty is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
In this case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is 10 years imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a $250,000 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.