Skip to main content

NEFERTITI GARNETT And ZOE WALMSLEY, Have Been Indicted

Defendants Each Stole More Than $100,000 from Chase Bank; Impersonated & Stole Personal Information from at least 15 People

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced a 106-count indictment against NEFERTITI GARNETT and an 80-count indictment against ZOE WALMSLEY, on charges of Grand Larceny, Identity Theft, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument , Scheme to Defraud, and Attempted Grand Larceny.[1] Each defendant is charged with stealing more than $100,000 from Chase Bank by impersonating victims using stolen personal identifying information and bank account numbers at various bank branches in New York State and New Jersey. GARNETT was arraigned on June 25, 2010, and WALMSLEY was arraigned on July 19, 2010.

“For more than a year, the defendants brazenly used stolen personal information from unsuspecting victims to steal money from Chase Bank,” said District Attorney Vance. “Fortunately, an astute employee discovered the fraudulent transactions and promptly reported the crimes to the attention of the Cybercrime and Identity Theft Bureau of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.”

According to the indictments, the defendants conducted multiple bank transactions in their victims’ accounts, including withdrawals, deposits, and the cashing of forged checks. At least one of the victims was impersonated by both GARNETT and WALMSLEY, who each conducted fraudulent bank transactions using the same victim’s name. The investigation is continuing to determine whether there may be further connections between the two defendants.

GARNETT is charged with identity theft for impersonating at least seven individuals. She conducted at least 35 transactions involving her victims’ bank accounts between October 6, 2009 and March 30, 2010.

According to her indictment, WALMSLEY is charged with identity theft, for impersonating at least eight different victims. She conducted at least 28 transactions involving those victims’ accounts between February 24, 2009 and March 8, 2010.

District Attorney Vance thanked Assistant District Attorney Tracy Conn of the Cybercrime and Identity Theft Bureau, who is prosecuting the cases under the supervision of Bureau Chief David Szuchman and Deputy Bureau Chief Nitin Savur. Investigative Analyst Joseph Marazzo assisted in the investigation.

The District Attorney also thanked investigators from the following institutions: Chase Bank, particularly fraud investigator Karen Kelly, New York City Police Department Officers from the Identity Theft Squad, particularly Detective Hector Rodriguez, and the 25th Precinct Detective Squad.

Defendant Information:

NEFERTITI GARNETT, D.O.B. 8/7/77
Roosevelt, NY

Charges:

Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, class C felony, 1 count
Identity Theft in the First Degree, class D felony, 62 counts
Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree, class D felony, 5 counts
Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, class D felony, 25 counts
Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, class E felony, 1 count
Identity Theft in the Second Degree, class E felony, 4 counts
Attempted Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, class E felony, 1 count
Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, class E felony, 7 counts

ZOE WALMSLEY, D.O.B. 7/18/68
New York, NY

Charges:

Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, class C felony, 1 count
Identity Theft in the First Degree, class D felony, 34 counts
Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree, class D felony, 14 counts
Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, class D felony, 25 counts
Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, class E felony, 1 count
Identity Theft in the Second Degree, class E felony, 2 counts
Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, class E felony, 1 count
Attempted Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, class A misdemeanor, 1 count
Petit Larceny, class A misdemeanor, 1 count

A class C felony is punishable by up to 15 years in prison, a class D felony is punishable by up to 7 years in prison, a class E felony is punishable by up to 4 years in prison, and a class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to 1 year in prison.

###

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...