Pennsylvania Woman Charged with Social Security Fraud

From the 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 a Criminal Information was filed on July 8, 2015 in U.S. District Court in Scranton charging a Newtown woman with allegedly defrauding the Social Security Administration of financial benefits intended for low-income individuals and families.

According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, in 2002 Dorothy Madison, age 51, of Newtown, Bucks County, was married but failed to report the marriage to the Social Security Administration’s Office in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Madison’s husband was gainfully employed, and by failing to report the resulting spousal income to the Social Security Administration, Madison obtained $58,901 in benefits to which she was not entitled over the 10-year period following the marriage.

The government also filed a plea agreement which is subject to the approval of the court.

The case is the result of an investigation by the Social Security Administration. Prosecution is assigned to Assistant United States Attorney Peter Hobart.

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.

In this case, the maximum penalty under federal law for fraudulent acts in relation to Supplemental Security Income is five (5) 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.

SCRANTON - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that a Criminal Information was filed on July 8, 2015 in U.S. District Court in Scranton charging a Newtown woman with allegedly defrauding the Social Security Administration of financial benefits intended for low-income individuals and families.

According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, in 2002 Dorothy Madison, age 51, of Newtown, Bucks County, was married but failed to report the marriage to the Social Security Administration’s Office in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Madison’s husband was gainfully employed, and by failing to report the resulting spousal income to the Social Security Administration, Madison obtained $58,901 in benefits to which she was not entitled over the 10-year period following the marriage.

The government also filed a plea agreement which is subject to the approval of the court.

The case is the result of an investigation by the Social Security Administration. Prosecution is assigned to Assistant United States Attorney Peter Hobart.

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.

In this case, the maximum penalty under federal law for fraudulent acts in relation to Supplemental Security Income is five (5) 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.