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

SCRANTON – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Al T. Hughes, age 60, of Scranton, Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty on February 7, 2019 before United States District Court Judge James M. Munley to tax evasion.

According to United States Attorney, David J. Freed, Hughes admitted to diverting approximately $892,000 in corporate receipts to his personal benefit, and failed to report the diverted receipts as income on his federal tax returns.  The resulting tax loss to the United States is approximately $231,000.  Hughes also admitted that he began diverting corporate receipts in 2009 and continued through 2014, and that he cashed hundreds of customer checks, intended for payment of funeral home services, at various financial institutions, including a check cashing service in Scranton.  Hughes diverted corporate receipts from four area funeral homes, including the Thomas J. Hughes Funeral Home, the Eagan-Hughes Funeral Home, the McGoff-Hughes Funeral Home, and the Davies & Jones Funeral Chapel.

The investigation was conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service – Scranton Office.  Assistant United States Attorney Michelle Olshefski is prosecuting 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.

In this case, the maximum penalty under federal law for the crime of tax evasion is 5 years in prison, 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.

 

# # #