Dauphin County couple facing Federal charges in Harrisburg student imposter case
HARRISBURG – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that a Dauphin County couple was indicted by a federal grand jury on October 19, 2016, for social security fraud, harboring an illegal alien and confiscating a passport for forced labor and services.
According to United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, the grand jury alleges that Stephayne McClure-Potts, age 51, provided false information to the Commissioner of Social Security on numerous occasions with the intent to obtain a social security card with a fictitious identity for another person. Additionally, the grand jury alleged that McClure-Potts confiscated the passport and immigration documents of that citizen of Ukraine for labor and services and threatened to have that individual deported.
Finally, Stephayne McClure-Potts and her husband, Michael McClure-Potts, age 60, are both charged with harboring an illegal alien from March 2013 through August 2015. The indictment was unsealed today following the arrest of the defendants.
This case was investigated by the Department of State Diplomatic Security Service, the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General and the City of Harrisburg Bureau of Police. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Daryl F. Bloom.
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 each of Counts 1 and 3 is five years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release of three years and a $250,000 fine. The maximum penalty under federal law, for Count 2 is ten years’ imprisonment, a three 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.
SOURCE: US Attorney’s Office press release