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 that Anthony W. Redd, age 63, of Allentown, Pennsylvania, was indicted on June 12, 2019, by a federal grand jury on mail fraud and money laundering charges.
According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, the indictment alleges that Redd was a “Money Mule” and participated in a scheme to defraud individuals out of money by making them believe they were eligible for cash and other prizes. As part of the scheme, Redd is alleged to have caused the mailing of legitimate postal money orders from Mechanicsburg to his address in Allentown, Pennsylvania, and to have converted the known proceeds of the scheme to cash or to have sent the proceeds through Western Union or MoneyGram to Costa Rica. The 12-count indictment charged Redd with five separate counts of mail fraud, engaging in a mail fraud and money laundering conspiracy, and both domestic and international money laundering. The indictment also includes a notice of the Government’s intent to seize and forfeit more than $280,000 involved in the scheme.
The case was investigated by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. Assistant U.S. Attorney James T. Clancy is prosecuting the case.
Indictments and 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 the conspiracy offense is 5 years of imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. The maximum sentence for each of the mail fraud and money laundering counts 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.
# # #
