HARRISBURG — This is an official press release from the U.S. Department of Justice (USAO - Pennsylvania, Middle), published as received.

HARRISBURG - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that a Criminal Information was filed in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg charging the former president of the United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) Local 304 with stealing almost $67,000 in union funds during an eleven month period that he held the office.

According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, on over a hundred occasions between December 15, 2009 and November 16, 2010, Howard Royal, age 50, of Steelton, Pennsylvania, abused his position as the union president to make fraudulent unauthorized electronic transfers and withdrawals of $66,989.02 of the labor organization’s money.  UGSOA represents security officers in state government agencies throughout Pennsylvania.  Local 304 is headquartered in Harrisburg.

The investigation was conducted by U.S. Department of Labor and prosecution was assigned to Assistant United States Attorney Peter Hobart.

The government filed a plea agreement together with the Criminal Information.  The agreement is subject to the approval of the court.

Criminal 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 Wire Fraud is 20 years of 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.

 

# # #