Skip to main content
Press Release

Wilkes-Barre Couple Charged With Bank Fraud And Mail Theft

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 today that Michael Mejia, age 20, and Niskauri DeJesus-Toribio, age 19, both of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, were indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiring to commit bank fraud and mail theft.  The indictment was returned on August 29, 2017, but remained under seal until the defendants were apprehended on October 18, 2017.

 

According to United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, the indictment charges Mejia, and DeJesus-Toribio with conspiring to commit bank fraud between May 11, 2017 and August 23, 2017.  The indictment also charges both defendants with mail theft on June 29, 2017.  Mejia and DeJesus-Toribio allegedly stole mail from public receptacles in the Luzerne County and Carbon County, Pennsylvania regions, and deposited checks found in the stolen mail into bank accounts under their control.  The defendants subsequently withdrew the stolen funds in cash.

 

The case was investigated by the United States Postal Inspection Service.  Assistant United States Attorney Phillip J. Caraballo is prosecuting the case.

 

Indictments 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 penalties under federal law for the most serious charges are up to 30 years of imprisonment.  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 October 30, 2017

Topic
Financial Fraud